Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

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

The Committee notes that the Government has not provided a report for the period 2002-04. However, it notes that the annual inspection report for 2002 for the agricultural sector contains certain of the information requested by the report form under article 22 of the ILO Constitution, as well as the information and statistics required under points (a) to (g) of Article 27 of the Convention.

The Committee also notes a communication of 20 September 2004 from the Association L611-10, which defines itself as grouping together inspection officials of the labour inspectorate with the objective of defending the supervisory mission entrusted to the inspectorate. A copy of this communication received on 29 September 2004 by the ILO was transmitted to the Government on 8 October 2004. It mainly refers to the murder by a farmer, in September 2004, of two labour inspectors who were engaged in performing their duties and describes an increase of the phenomenon of acts of violence by employers against inspectors while carrying out inspections.

The Association expresses concern at the slowness of the reaction by the public authorities to this tragic event. Deploring the indifference of the authorities with regard to matters of safety and the legitimacy of labour inspection, the Association calls for the Government to comply in full with its obligations under the present Convention, particularly as concerns the following provisions:

Article 6 of the Convention (Relation between the principal functions of the labour inspectorate relating to conditions of work and any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors).

Article 12 (Arrangements to promote effective cooperation between the inspection services and other services or institutions engaged in similar activities).

Article 14 (Adequacy of the numbers and qualifications of inspectors to secure the effective discharge of their duties). The Association indicates in this regard that the number of officials assigned exclusively to labour inspection duties (1,500) is insufficient with regard to the number of employees covered by the legislation (15 million).

Article 16 (Prerogatives and powers of investigation of inspectors on the occasion of inspections). The Association deplores the inertia of the public authorities in relation to acts of intimidation, threats or acts targeting the physical integrity of control inspectors.

Article 21 (Number, frequency and thoroughness of inspections).

Article 22 (Prompt proceedings and the discretion of inspectors as to whether to give warning and advice before initiating procedures). The Association indicates that the public authorities tend to undervalue the enforcement functions of labour inspection in favour of an exaggerated emphasis on its advisory functions.

Article 24 (Effective imposition of adequate penalties for violation of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties).

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide in its next report full information, clarifications or comments on the above points.

The Committee notes that the statistics supplied in the 2002 annual report show that the majority of the reports of violations drawn up by labour inspectors concern employment legislation. The number of warnings issued in the same field also appear to indicate that inspection in agricultural enterprises is focused mainly on illegal work to the detriment of conditions of work. The prison sentences imposed by the courts are related in the same proportion to breaches of the legislation relating to employment and that on occupational safety and health conditions (12 each). The reports issued concerning violations of the legal provisions on conditions of work, including occupational safety and health, are in many cases not followed up by legal proceedings, in contrast to those relating to illegal employment.

These figures indicate that the supervisory and prevention activities of labour inspectors in the area of conditions of work and the protection of workers appear to be suffering from the increasing importance given to their investigation and prosecution activities relating to illegal and clandestine work. They also reflect the image of a judicial system that is more concerned with penalizing illegal employment and clandestine work than the protection of workers’ rights (Articles 22 and 24).

The annual inspection report, which indicates that in 2000 the number of inspection staff in agriculture was 361 (204 inspectors and 157 controllers), does not make any assessment of the adequacy of their numbers in relation to the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the workers covered (194,565 and 1,621,012, respectively) (Articles 14 and 16). While taking into account the fluctuating number of workers in agriculture, including permanent, as well as seasonal or occasional workers, the Committee nevertheless requests the Government to indicate the proportion of the working time of labour inspectors and controllers that is devoted to the functions of supervision and the provision of advice and technical information to employers and workers on conditions of work, and the time allocated to the enforcement of legislation relating to illegal employment and clandestine work or to procedures for the settlement of collective disputes (Article 6, paragraph 3).

The function of a "controller of illegal employment" with which inspectors are entrusted by law, by its nature hardly propitious to the establishment and maintenance of the climate of confidence and cooperation necessary in their relation with employers and workers. The Committee nevertheless considers that information relating to situations of illegal employment and clandestine work should be systematically brought to the labour inspectorate’s attention, as these situations generally involve a high likelihood of the violation of legal provisions respecting conditions of work. The intervention of labour inspectors, within the framework of their powers and prerogatives, would allow them to take appropriate measures against the employers concerned.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would examine the possibility, preferably in consultation with the social partners, of a readjustment of the functions of the labour inspectorate and keep the ILO informed in this regard.