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

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Rwanda (Ratification: 1980)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

Repetition

Articles 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20 and 21 of the Convention. Application of the Convention in the context of the decentralization of labour inspection. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed concerns in relation to the decentralization of the labour inspection system, as it appeared to be accompanied by a weakening of human and budgetary resources. The Committee noted that a decentralization of the labour inspection system may only be acceptable under Article 4 if the units at the decentralized level have the resources necessary for the implementation of the labour inspectorate functions within their jurisdiction (General Survey on labour inspection, 2006, paragraph 140). It emphasized that decentralization characterized by a general and chronic inadequacy of resources, bears the intrinsic risk of both the volume and quality of inspection, being negatively affected, in addition to the ability of inspectors to fulfil their reporting obligations to the central authority, as envisaged in Article 19, so as to allow for a general assessment of the labour inspection system through the establishment of annual reports pursuant to Articles 20 and 21. In particular, the budget allocation appears to be managed at the prefectoral level, with the result that decisions on resource allocation at the decentralized level are taken by the local authority, which results in the absence of a single policy in labour inspection throughout the territory in terms of the planning of inspections and communication, recruitment and training, and the allocation of material resources, such as transport and office facilities. The management of resources at the local level in this manner appears to result in the recruitment of labour inspectors at the local level, and in inspectors being placed under the supervision of the prefect or the mayor at the district level, as indicated by the Government in its previous reports. The Committee noted previously that any instruction or policy of a technical nature by the Ministry of Labour with a view to ensuring a single policy throughout the provinces, is likely to remain a dead letter, as the budget allocated to labour inspection depends on the local prefect or mayor. It also noted that the provision of adequate budgetary resources is essential to ensure that labour inspection staff are independent from improper external influences, as required by Article 6.

In this context, the Committee notes the indications made by the Government in response to its comments that an adequate budget is allocated to labour inspectors in the districts, and that budget allocation is coordinated by the central authority in cooperation with local governments. The Government adds that district labour inspectors are required to report to the central authority, namely the Ministry in charge of labour, and that the latter assumes a technical coordination role, providing supervision on ethical questions, giving policy guidance and providing technical support. It also notes from the website of the Ministry of the Public Service and Labour a number of policy documents relating to the Public Administration Reform in Rwanda, such as the Policy Framework for Rwanda’s Civil Service Reform.

The Committee requests the Government to provide more details on the criteria for budget allocation for labour inspection among local governments. It also asks the Government to clarify whether a particular budget line is dedicated to labour inspection only at the district and/or state level. It further asks the Government to specify the manner in which disagreements are resolved on the use of budgetary resources between local governments and the central authority in the field of labour inspection, and whether the central authority is vested with final powers of decision in such cases.

It asks the Government to provide any legal text which serves as a basis and which it deems useful in this regard in order to enlighten the Office on the nature of the cooperation described in budget allocation.

The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the resource situation within the labour inspection system, including the number of staff by district and at the central level, the means of transport and office space available for labour inspectors in each of the districts.

Finally the Committee asks the Government to keep the Office informed of any development in the public administration reform, and to describe its possible impact on the status and conditions of service of labour inspectors, and on the organization of the labour inspection system.

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

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.