Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) - France (Ratification: 1972)

Further to its observation, the Committee hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the additional observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the further reply provided by the Government. It recalls its previous comments noting observations made by the same Union and the Government's earlier replies. The Union states that the situation continues to worsen, and labour inspectors in agriculture operate in an administrative and financial context which does not assure them of independence from improper external influence. Administratively, the Union is of the view that the changes made by Decrees Nos. 84-1192 and 84-1193 place labour inspection in agriculture under the authority of regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry and not under a central body; that the manpower management and planning methods adopted since 1 January 1992 entrust such tasks exclusively to the same regional and departmental directors even with respect to labour inspection services; that the national central inspection body responsible for the control, evaluation and review of the inspection system is too weak; and that, financially, the allocation of resources for general operations and transportation penalizes the labour inspection services as opposed to the other services. The Union has forwarded observations and petitions to the Government with regard to the refusal by some departmental directors of agriculture to accept the appointment of some high-level labour inspectors in such departments as Tarn and Garonne, Sarthe and Nord. It considers that Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention regarding the independence and central administration of the inspection service; Articles 14 and 15, regarding their numbers and material resources; and Articles 20 and 25, regarding the manner in which they deal with enterprises inspected and complaints received, and make their inspection reports, are not satisfied.

2. The Committee notes the Government's reply that, based on the 1984 Decrees and the regulations on the assignment, evaluation and control of labour inspectors, their independence is ensured in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention. The Government states that vacant inspectors' posts are few, contrary to the Union's allegations, and essentially involve remunerated trainees. Regional and departmental directors of agriculture, even when included in the decision-making process on manpower allocation, do not decide by themselves on the number of labour inspectors, as that is fixed annually in a global way within the context of the Ministry's budget. The Government refers to the Order of 13 March 1987 and the Ministerial Order of 5 May 1989 regarding the national service of labour inspection, which constitutes the central inspection service within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that, in the context of the global assessment of the budgetary resources of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the departmental budgetary conference of all services concerned determines allocations, and that any conflict is resolved jointly by the competent interregional engineer-general in charge of general inspection services and the specialized labour inspection service.

3. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would have further regard to the Convention's requirements as to the organization and composition of the inspection services in agriculture, and describe the practical functioning of the central body and how it proposes to address the complaints contained in the Union's communications.

4. The Committee notes from the Government that there were no further complaints made with regard to earlier comments relating to the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)). It hopes the Government will provide all available information as to the practical application of this provision and any difficulties met with.

5. Articles 26 and 27. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that no annual report on inspection in agriculture has been received since March 1992, relating to 1990. It would be grateful if the Government would provide future annual reports in the time-limits laid down, and include statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g).

Point IV of the report form. Please include in future reports under article 22 of the Constitution, information on any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.