Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Brazil (Ratification: 1989)

The Committee notes the observations made by the National Union of Labour Inspectors (SINAIT) in a communication of 27 May 1996 alleging non-compliance with Article 6 of the Convention, as well as the Government's reply to these observations dated 9 October 1996.

In its communication, the SINAIT alleges that the Government allows improper external influences to jeopardize the performance of labour inspection duties by appointing to senior posts in the regional labour offices, to which the inspectors are subordinate persons, clearly connected with the enterprises which must be inspected by these inspectors. This exposes the inspectors to direct or indirect reprisals when they verify that in certain enterprises the methods applied are contrary to the law and regulations, including when working conditions are bad or workers are subject to forced labour.

The SINAIT refers in particular to the appointment as the head of the Regional Labour Office of the State of Piaui the niece and lawyer of the director of an enterprise, federal deputy and owner of an enterprise in which very difficult working conditions have been denounced. Both the deputy-governor of the State and the trade union have drawn the attention of the highest authorities to this situation, but the situation has not changed, rendering it impossible for the inspectorate to exercise supervision over all the enterprises of the State of Piaui, and particularly those which have clearly not complied with the legislation in force. According to the union, the regional delegate harasses inspectors, and even reduces their wages. The union considers that the government authorities are thus rendering vulnerable the fundamental guarantees of workers.

The Committee notes that in its reply, the Government states that the labour inspectors are public servants, recruited by competitive examination, appointed after a period of two years, who can be dismissed only after a disciplinary procedure. They have stability of employment, are independent of any political changes and are not subjected to outside influences. The case mentioned by the union has been studied thoroughly and it has been concluded that there was no political favouritism in the labour inspectorate in regard to this enterprise. The Government adds that appointments to and dismissals from the post of regional labour delegate are free and the holder retains his post for as long as he enjoys the confidence of the higher authorities. In regard to the allegations to the effect that there has been harassment and retention of wages, the Government refers to the case of a public official of the regional delegation, indicating that it has decided to re-establish the wage. The Government considers, in conclusion, that it has not remained unaware of the questions raised by the SINAIT.

The Committee recalls that under Article 6 of the Convention, the inspection staff shall be composed of public officials whose status and conditions of service are such that they are assured of stability of employment and are independent of changes of Government and of improper external influences. The Committee notes that while the inspectors are public officials, they seem to be subject to the hierarchical authority of regional delegates who may be appointed and dismissed at the whim of the higher authority, which is difficult to reconcile with the necessary independence. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the steps taken or contemplated to guarantee labour inspectors true independence, in particular by protecting them from reprisals. As to the particular case mentioned by the SINAIT, it requests to Government to indicate how the application of Article 6 of the Convention is guaranteed in practice in regard to supervision of the enterprises in the area of the regional directorate in question.