Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Uruguay (Ratification: 1973)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the comments of 14 November 2012 by the Latin American Confederation of Labour Inspectors (CIIT), and of the Government’s reply of 15 March 2013 to the points raised by the CIIT. The Committee observes that for the most part the CIIT’s observations address issues on which the Committee has already commented.

Article 6 of the Convention. Conditions of service of labour inspectors. The CIIT reiterates that the status of exclusive assignment conferred on labour inspectors by Act No. 18.172 and Ministry of Labour Resolutions Nos 129 and 139 of 2007 have led to a system in which labour inspectors are required to be available at all times but receive no financial compensation in return; overtime worked in the interior of the country is not remunerated and the maximum working day of eight hours established by Act No. 5350 of 1915 is not observed. The Inspector General of Labour recently issued a resolution establishing night duty and weekend duty in the event of occupational accidents or situations presenting an imminent threat to life. Inspectors are paid for such duties only if they have to visit a workplace. The CIIT points out that inspectors’ remuneration includes a loan for the replacement of clothing and shoes, whereas for more than ten years they received a biannual, and subsequently an annual, allowance. The CIIT again deplores that the ministerial authorities have not observed the agreements concluded before the draft legislation was submitted to Parliament and that, on the contrary, they have endorsed the proposed amendments. It again refers to the matter of the disparity between tax inspectors’ wages (between 25 per cent and 40 per cent higher) and the wages of labour inspectors, to the latter’s detriment. It also points out that the improvement in the wages of inspectors due to the status of exclusive assignment is not in line with the increase in working time, which has risen from six to eight hours a day, while the net wage has been significantly reduced with the introduction of the new tax legislation. The CIIT questions the Government’s will to review some aspects of labour inspectors’ remuneration.

The Government, for its part, reiterates that the mechanism for payment of overtime is the one established in the 2007 resolution. It goes on to explain that the resolution for the establishment of night and weekend duties seeks to ensure that the duties are fairly distributed and properly planned. The reason for these stand-by duties is that commercial establishments – and, to a lesser extent, industrial establishments and services – also operate on non-working days and outside working hours, and that inspectors are bound by law to visit work places in the event of occupational accident or serious or imminent danger. The Government indicates that although by law inspectors’ remuneration includes a loan for the replacement of clothing and shoes, the Ministry also provides all labour inspectors with safety footwear. According to the Government, the CIIT’s assertion that maximum daily working hours are not observed is unfounded. As regards the disparity between the pay of tax inspectors and that of labour inspectors to the latter’s detriment, the Government stresses that labour inspectors are better paid than the other ministry employees and that the reasons for the disparity have already been given. The Committee requests the Government to provide the copies of decisions ordering the payment of any overtime worked by labour inspectors during the period covered by the next report, or any other document showing that this entitlement is recognized in practice. It would also be grateful if the Government would supply information on any measures taken or envisaged to review the various aspects of labour inspectors’ remuneration referred to by the CIIT, in accordance with the Government’s statement in its previous report that such a review was to be undertaken by the authorities of the Ministry.

Article 7. Training of labour inspectors. The CIIT stresses the need for ongoing training and retraining enabling labour inspectors to keep pace with technological and administrative changes, and asserts that the training provided was planned without any involvement of the labour inspectors.

The Government submits that, on the contrary, particular attention was paid to the proposals made by inspectors, without any disregard for the prerogatives and statutory obligations that pertain to management. The Committee notes with interest in this connection that, according to the examples given by the Government, training in matters related to social contributions and benefits and to harassment at work was provided following proposals made by labour inspectors. It notes that labour inspectors likewise participated, among others, in: technical workshops on hazards linked to aluminium phosphide and procedures for intervening on the ground; a day course on human trafficking and forced labour; awareness-raising and training days on gender issues; and training in the use of the electronic file. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on how these activities have affected labour inspectors’ performance of their duties, as defined under Article 3(1) of the Convention. It also asks the Government to specify the frequency of the training sessions organized for labour inspectors and to provide a copy of the training programme scheduled for the period covering the next report, specifying the type of activity (seminar, workshop, etc), the length of the training courses, the training entity and the subjects covered.

Article 11. Conditions of work of labour inspectors. According to the CIIT, despite the fact that the introduction of the status of exclusive assignment has led to an increase in labour inspectors’ hours of work and attendance at inspectorate premises, there has been no improvement in the space available to labour inspectors, which was already cramped. Furthermore, the space has not been so appointed as to enable labour inspectors to perform their tasks with a measure of comfort and in an atmosphere conducive to concentration and confidentiality. Overcrowding, the lack of a suitable place for a midday meal, inadequate and insufficient toilets, sparse furniture – to the point where there is not even one desk and one chair per inspector – have caused situations of stress resulting in high blood pressure problems and psychosomatic disorders. These, together with poor posture caused by ill-designed chairs, which are in all likelihood the cause of muscular and bone disorders, have led to an increase in sick leave. In the view of the CIIT, labour inspectors should have permanent access to the legislation, archives and records, through a library and internet access, but there is no method by which to attain these objectives as things now stand. The CIIT believes that implementation of the electronic file will involve extensive and prolonged use of the computer systems, and that given the current scarcity (21 computers for a total of 128 inspectors), this will slow down the pace of work and cause tension among the inspectorate staff. According to the CIIT, the regime established by Decree No. 280/06 has been tacitly repealed by Decree No. 279/12. The latter provides for the granting of a reduced amount of labour inspectors’ travel allowances, resulting in accommodation costs not being covered in certain cases. Furthermore, Decree No. 279/12 has abolished some of the monetary allowances formerly granted to inspectors. The reduction in the amount of the travel allowance, along with other factors, has meant that labour inspectors are no longer able to participate in training committees and tripartite occupational safety and health committees where supervision is not the main task.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the plan to redesign and improve the premises of the inspection services is now in its final stage. Implementation of the plan has involved the rehousing of two divisions of the inspectorate and the entire administrative department, construction work, and the purchase of furniture and equipment. The process has taken some time because the procedures and controls for tendering in the public sector are strict. According to the Government, the inspection divisions now have almost twice as much space as before (510 square metres as compared to 275 square metres formerly), and more furniture has now been made available. As to computer hardware, the Government states that 90 notebooks and 20 PCs will be made available to labour inspectors. The Government also indicates that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has a large library, which is available to inspection staff, and that the legal division of the labour inspectorate also has material that is of use to the inspection services. Furthermore, inspectors have direct and unrestricted online access to the register of enterprise data. With regard to vehicles, the Government again states that four 4x4 vehicles were purchased in 2010 and that a call for bids has been launched to acquire two more such vehicles, which will make a total of ten vehicles for the labour inspectorate. Furthermore, inspectors have access to ministry vehicles should they so need. According to the Government, using the “Apia” application, the electronic file is being implemented gradually to avoid any distortions in the process, but all aspects of the supervisory function are expected to be incorporated by April 2013.

The Government indicates that the system of travel allowances for labour inspectors is the same as the one applying to all employees of the central administration. Although the allowance has been cut by an amount equivalent to US$5, it remains sufficient to cover food and accommodation costs anywhere in the country when inspectors are required to undertake duty travel. Under the old system, the outstanding part of the accommodation allowance was refunded. Under the present system, inspectors are not required to give back any surpluses. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on how the improvements in the office premises and the material resources available to labour inspectors have affected their health and the performance of their duties.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.