Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) - Republic of Moldova (Ratification: 1997)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)



Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81)

Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129)

A Government representative said that a complex process of reforms was being implemented to bring national legislation, including in the field of labour, into compliance with the instruments referred to in the Association Agreement of 2014 between the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Moldova. During 2016 and 2017, there had been a fundamental reform in the field of state control of entrepreneurial activity, including a reduction from 58 control bodies to 13 authorities and five authorities with regulatory functions. The main purpose of the reform had been to simplify the control procedures, to move to risk-based inspections and to eliminate overlapping competencies among control bodies. As a result of the reform, labour relations had been retained under the competence of the State Labour Inspectorate, while occupational safety and health had been transferred from the State Labour Inspectorate to ten sectoral agencies. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection was the central body of the public administration responsible for promoting occupational safety and health policy. The State Labour Inspectorate monitored and coordinated compliance, reporting to the central authority the action related to monitoring occupational safety and health carried out by the ten sectoral agencies. Under the reformed institutional framework, employers in all areas of economic activity were monitored in the field of occupational safety and health. In agriculture, this was done by labour inspectors from the National Food Safety Agency. With respect to the allocation of resources, each of the authorities with functions in the field of occupational safety and health were responsible for budgetary planning to ensure the proper implementation of their labour inspectors’ activities. The State Labour Inspectorate held training activities for labour inspection, including those with control functions in the field of occupational safety and health, and four inspectors from three agencies had received such training. No interference was permitted in the work of labour inspectors. The Government was in the process of drafting legal acts in order to establish the status of labour inspectors in accordance with ILO Conventions, to be independent of changes of government and of improper external influences. Inspectors in the ten authorities had the right to require and get the support of experts and specialists from other relevant institutions in order to perform occupational safety and health inspections. The State Labour Inspectorate, as a national coordinating body, had the duty to elaborate the labour inspection report, with the participation of the ten competent agencies.

She indicated that labour inspectors with control responsibilities in the field of occupational safety and health had the status of civil servants, except for those who were employees of the National Energy Regulation Agency and the National Regulatory Agency for Electronic Communications and Information Technology. The Government intended to modify the national legislation to include those two agencies. With regard to ensuring a sufficient number of inspectors, 36 personnel out of 43 labour inspectors of the State Labour Inspectorate had been transferred to six newly established authorities with control functions in the field of occupational safety and health, including the budgets for their salaries. There were a sufficient number of inspectors, and inspectors also had competences in the field of activity of the respective agencies. The majority of agencies with occupational safety and health responsibilities had territorial offices. While the Law No. 131 on state control of entrepreneurial activity stated that a planned control could only be carried out in an enterprise no more than once a year, that did not prevent unannounced controls whenever necessary in order to ensure the application of labour legislation and occupational safety and health standards. Law No. 131 had been amended by Law No. 185 of 21 September 2017, to remove the requirement for prior notification of inspections. The number of infringement reports for violations of labour legislation had decreased following the implementation of Law No. 131 in 2013. A six month moratorium on labour inspection had been declared in 2016. Law No. 185 of 2017 amended the Contravention Code to introduce new fines for employers who were not meeting their occupational safety and health obligations under national legislation. Pursuant to Law No. 140 on state labour inspection of 2001 and the Law on safety and health at work, labour inspectors were required to keep confidential the source of any complaint. The modification of the provisions of Law No. 131 removing the requirement for prior notification would ensure that the fact that a control was carried out following a complaint would not be disclosed. The ILO mission undertaken in December 2017 had assisted in focusing on the main issues requiring improvement in the occupational safety and health system. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection had already undertaken certain administrative and organizational measures in order to implement the mission’s recommendations and accelerate the control process in the area of occupational safety and health.

The Employer members recalled that, following a representation made in 2013 by the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Moldova (CNSM), the Governing Body had set up a tripartite committee, the report of which had been published in March 2015, and that the decision to close the representation at that time had been related to the adoption of national measures to give effect, in particular, to Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81. ILO technical assistance, proposed in 2015, had finally been requested by the Government and had been able to begin in February 2017. The national authorities had wished to verify whether their draft reforms of the labour inspection services were in conformity with ILO standards. Despite the efforts made within the framework of the technical assistance, the Committee of Experts, by proposing to include this national situation on the list of cases of serious failure on the occasion of the present session of the Conference, had given a clear indication of non-conformity. The Employer members expressed concern at the issues raised by the Committee of Experts, namely: the existence of a central authority that was still effective and functional to coordinate the various inspection services in the field of occupational safety and health; the reasons for the significant decline in the number of infringement reports referred to the courts between 2012 and 2016; the restrictions on the power of inspectors to carry out inspections without previous notice; guarantees of confidentiality; the need to take measures to ensure that inspections were possible as often as necessary; the real discretion of inspectors to decide whether or not to initiate immediate legal proceedings; and, finally, the issue of the adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. Only inspection services which fulfilled the criteria of independence, quality and equality of treatment for all economic actors made it possible to ensure good governance in the world of work and were indispensable for effective administration. In a State which respected the rule of law, through labour inspection and an appropriate regulatory framework, the business climate would stabilize, legal and economic security would increase and the social risks for investors would be more limited. A sound labour inspection service, which acted principally on a preventive and advisory basis, was essential to guarantee fair and ethical competition, which encouraged investment, economic growth and the resulting creation of employment. Although labour inspection services, as required by Conventions Nos 81 and 98, needed to function independently and without restriction in order to ensure the effective enforcement of labour regulation, it was also important for them to be impartial and to operate in accordance with the rule of law. For example, labour inspectors should not be dissuaded from imposing fines and effective measures needed to be adopted to ensure the absence of corruption. The independent and unrestricted functioning of labour inspection services was related to guarantees in terms of good governance, transparency and responsibility.

In view of the increasing complexity of labour legislation in many countries, employers were not always in a position to be able to bring themselves immediately into conformity with the whole corpus of social rules. The inspection services therefore needed to endeavour to provide support to enterprises, on a preventive basis, through the provision of information and technical advice on the most effective means of giving effect to the legislation. In addition to their advisory and preventive functions, the second priority in the action of labour inspection services needed to be to combat social fraud. Sufficient human and material resources should be provided to the inspection services for that purpose, as well as the judicious provision of resources to combat economic and social actors which intentionally failed to respect the rules of the game. Moreover, inspectors needed to have the necessary qualifications, as well as the required independence and ethics, to be able to fulfil their role in an effective and appropriate manner. The Employer members added that the criticisms contained in the observations needed to refer to, and be confined to, the specific rights and obligations set out in the respective Conventions. For example, with reference to paragraph 237 of the General Survey of 2006 of the Committee of Experts, they considered that it did not appear to be appropriate to ensure that a larger number of non-routine inspections were undertaken with a view to ensuring the confidentiality of the identity of the complainants. Similarly, with reference to the issue of immediate legal proceedings, they considered, in light of Article 17(1) of Convention No. 81, that the labour inspection services did not necessarily have absolute discretion to initiate legal proceedings against offenders and that, in light of the national legislation, they should give priority to incentive measures, which were generally very effective. Finally, inspections without prior warning had admittedly demonstrated their effectiveness, but they needed to be surrounded by specific rules and should be carried out in compliance with fundamental freedoms and the principle of proportionality. Nevertheless, the Employer members reaffirmed that the legislative framework in the Republic of Moldova did not yet appear to offer all the necessary guarantees. They therefore encouraged the national authorities to provide the information requested, and to carry out the necessary reforms to make their labour inspection services more effective and in compliance with the principles of the Conventions.

The Worker members, in the same way as the Employer members, recalled that in June 2013 the CNSM had made a representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by the Republic of Moldova of Convention No. 81. The representation indicated that, following the adoption of Law No. 131, it was no longer possible for the labour inspection services to carry out inspections without prior warning as a notice period of five days was required. The tripartite committee set up to examine the representation had found, in its report approved by the Governing Body in 2015, that Law No. 131 was incompatible with the aforementioned Convention. Since then, the situation had not improved, and indeed had deteriorated. According to the Committee of Experts, although the Government had taken some measures to adapt the national legislation, it still contained provisions that were incompatible with the Conventions. While the Government planned to introduce some exceptions to the obligation to give five days’ notice prior to an inspection, the establishment of exceptions was not in itself sufficient to meet the requirements of the Conventions. It should be noted that Law No. 131 withdrew some supervisory competences and functions in the area of occupational safety and health from the state labour inspectorate and transferred them to ten supervisory bodies, including the National Food Safety Agency, the Consumer Protection Agency and the National Centre of Public Health. The division of supervisory functions relating to occupational safety and health diluted labour inspection into a larger framework and led to the eradication of specific features. While the Conventions did not prevent certain responsibilities regarding labour inspection from being assigned to different departments, that was subject to the condition that the competent authority took measures to ensure that adequate budgetary resources were made available and encouraged cooperation between the different departments. It was therefore the responsibility of the Government to provide detailed responses to the observations of the Committee of Experts in that regard. It was particularly important to ensure: the stability of employment and independence of labour inspection personnel; the collaboration of appropriately qualified experts and technicians; a sufficient number of inspectors to allow for the effective fulfilment of inspection duties; the provision of the necessary resources, such as offices and transport; and the conduct of inspections that were as thorough as necessary to ensure the effective application of existing legal provisions. With regard to the number of infringements referred to the courts between 2012 and 2016, which had decreased significantly from 891 to 165, the Government was requested to provide explanations of the decrease and information on the specific results of the reports referred to the courts.

The reason for the confidentiality of the complaints received by the labour inspection services was to protect victims and ensure that they were not subject to reprisals. As the national legislation provided that enterprises had to be informed of inspections five days in advance, non-routine inspections always followed a complaint, which jeopardized the right to confidentiality. With regard to the frequency of inspections, they recalled that article 15 of Law No. 131 provided that each authority exercising supervisory duties must develop an annual inspection plan which could not be modified and which specified the inspections scheduled for each quarter, without it being possible to conduct inspections that were not scheduled. Although the Government claimed that the Law provided for a maximum of one inspection a year unless, according to the risk-based methodology, a greater frequency was required and that there was no limit on non-routine inspections, it had to be noted, in the same way as the Committee of Experts, that non-routine inspections were only authorized under certain specific conditions. They finally referred to article 4 of Law No. 131 (which provided that inspections carried out during the first three years of operation of an enterprise must be advisory) and article 5 (under which, in the case of minor offences, the penalties established by the legislation on administrative and other offences could not be applied). The Worker members considered that such provisions were tantamount to handing enterprises a blank cheque, which allowed them to break the law as they wished, as they were sure that they would not suffer any consequences. It was regrettable that, rather than encouraging the establishment of sound enterprises, which ensured decent jobs in compliance with health and safety standards, the Government preferred in practice to promote means of circumventing laws. It was also clear that such provisions were contrary to the Conventions in question, which provided, subject to certain exceptions, that the violation of legal provisions, which inspectors were responsible for monitoring, gave rise to immediate legal action, without prior notice, and that it was at the discretion of inspectors to assess whether it was necessary to give a warning or advice, or to introduce or recommend prosecution. In conclusion, the Worker members indicated that the legislation on inspection, which had been adopted in 2012, had been strongly influenced by the desire to create an environment conducive to business, which evaded compliance with labour standards. Recalling the purpose of the ILO, they referred to the Preamble of the ILO Constitution, which recalled that “conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled”. There was therefore a link between, on the one hand, poor working conditions – those that were subject to monitoring through inspections – and, on the other, the development of injustice and hardship. The second lesson arising from the Preamble was that poor working conditions prevented any social justice and sustained development for all individuals. That could only be achieved if the right of workers to decent working conditions was respected and monitored through effective inspection. The attainment of those objectives was also conditional on the observance of fundamental labour rights and principles, and first and foremost, freedom of association. Therefore, the dismantling of the labour inspectorate under the pretext of creating a conducive environment for business was a short-term calculation that ran the risk of seriously damaging cohesion and social stability.

The Employer member of the Republic of Moldova indicated that in November 2013 the National Confederation of the Employers of the Republic of Moldova (CNPM) had organized a business forum to examine the main obstacles for the business environment in the country and had made a number of recommendations. The information collected had served as a basis for the development of the business environment improvement programme and a memorandum had been signed with the Government which had served as the basis for reforms. Efforts had been made to eliminate business restrictions. In the field of business regulation, there had been a three-fold reduction in the number of approval documents and the process of financial and statistical reporting had been simplified. An institutional reform had been carried out, optimizing the number of institutions with supervisory powers. The goal of the reform was to reduce the burden on economic agents and significantly reduce the number of controls of enterprises with a view to increasing transparency and predictability in the control process. This included a reduction of institutions with supervisory powers; a reduction in the number of approval documents; a simplification of labour relations through the amendment to the Labour Code; and a simplification of financial reporting. With regard to labour inspections, the CNPM had, in consultation with the social partners and the ILO, found that Law No. 131 was not in compliance with Convention No. 81. Certain amendments had to be made. However, for these governmental initiatives to support the business environment by optimizing the number of institutions, it had been necessary to include the State Labour Inspectorate in the reforms. He referred to a proposal that had been made by the CNPM to create an integrated inspection system comprised of the State Labour Inspectorate and the National Centre of Public Health, as was the case in several other countries, but underlined that the proposal had not been supported. Currently, the Republic of Moldova was going through a number of transformations. In this regard, he eagerly awaited the end of the transitional period in order to assess the outcome of the reforms.

The Worker member of the Republic of Moldova emphasized that compliance with Conventions Nos 81 and 129 contributed to saving lives. Limitations on labour inspection functions were unacceptable. Referring to the representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the CNSM in 2013 and closed in 2015, he recalled the length of time that it had taken for the representation to be examined. Occupational accidents, including fatal accidents, had occurred after the adoption of Law No. 131 which had been related to the absence of labour inspections. The regulation of occupational safety and health by Law No. 131 was in contradiction with the Conventions. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection had always supported the position of the CNSM and defended compliance with ILO standards. However, the Ministry had not been supported by the Ministry of the Economy or other parts of the Government. The CNSM had been told that the reform had required change and that, following the signing of the Association Agreement of 2014, the country would have to respect international standards. The tripartite committee set up to examine the article 24 representation had found that Law No. 131 was not in compliance with the provisions of Convention No. 81, and had requested measures be taken to ensure the effective implementation of Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention. While the Government had undertaken to bring the national legislation into line with the provisions of Convention No. 81, through the adoption of the Decent Work Country Programme 2013–16, Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention were not implemented in national legislation. Further, the Ministry of Economy had stated that Law No. 131 was in conformity with international standards and further measures were not needed. The absence of appropriate labour inspection had led to the death of three minors in occupational accidents. Moreover, in April 2016, a moratorium on labour inspection had been introduced. The Committee of Experts had stated that such a limitation was a severe violation of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. Moreover, the functions of the state labour inspection had been transferred to other agencies. He welcomed the fact that, very recently, Parliament had amended the national legislation and given back to the labour inspectorate functions relating to the investigation of severe occupational accidents. An ILO technical assistance mission had led to a number of recommendations on compliance with the Conventions, including with respect to the decentralization of the labour inspection system. Further technical assistance should be provided to improve the national legislation and bring it into compliance with the Conventions.

The Government member of Bulgaria speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Norway, emphasized the fundamental importance of labour inspection for promoting decent work. She confirmed the commitment to political association and economic integration in the framework of the EU–Moldova Association Agreement with its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), which was based on core values, notably respect for democratic principles, the rule of law, good governance, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and she welcomed the results of the EU–Moldova Association Council held in May 2018. The issue of labour inspection in the Republic of Moldova had been examined several times by the Committee of Experts, and certain parts of the legislation, particularly Law No. 131, had been found to be in contradiction with Conventions Nos 81 and 129. The reform enacted in 2017, removing occupational safety and health from the mandate of the State Labour Inspectorate, established a complex system that raised many concerns regarding compliance with the Conventions, notably with respect to the overall supervision and coordination of occupational safety and health inspections, the allocation of sufficient budgetary and human resources and the professional qualifications of inspectors, as well as their stability and independence. She expressed concern that the new system would not deliver equal prevention of occupational risks and the protection of health and safety at work to all workers in the country. She also further expressed strong concern at the restrictions on labour inspection contained in Law No. 131, which limited the undertaking of unannounced inspections, as well as the number of inspection visits per year. The Law also weakened the system of penalties and jeopardized the confidentiality of complaints. The number of infringement reports resulting from inspections had also dropped significantly in recent years. The Government was expected to take the necessary steps to bring the national law and practice related to labour inspection, including in agriculture, into conformity with the Conventions, and to avail itself of ILO expertise. The lack of an effective system for the enforcement of labour rights and standards could result in a breach of commitments undertaken by the Republic of Moldova under its Association Agreement (including the DCFTA) with the EU. That included commitments to effectively implement in national law and practice the core labour standards embodied in the ILO fundamental Conventions and to approximate its national legislation to EU law on labour and health and safety at work issues (Article 37 of the Association Agreement). The Republic of Moldova had also undertaken to implement effectively Conventions Nos 81 and 129 in national law and practice pursuant to Article 365 of the Association Agreement. The Republic of Moldova had further committed not to lower levels of protection or to fail to enforce effectively labour law, as an encouragement for trade or investment, pursuant to Article 371 of the Association Agreement. She emphasized the need for the Government, as well as the ILO, to coordinate closely with all relevant international and regional organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to ensure that the measures taken with regard to labour inspection were in accordance with ILO Conventions.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom, emphasized that in accordance with Convention No. 81, the existence of adequately funded labour inspectorates was a vital component in the effective supervision and enforcement of the labour legislation, including occupational safety and health standards. Referring to the discussion on the case of the application of Conventions Nos 81 and 129 by Ukraine, she highlighted that governments were increasingly restricting the powers and resources of labour inspectorates, under the pretext that it would improve the business environment and regularize the informal economy. In the Republic of Moldova, the capacity of labour inspectorates had never been strong and the number of labour inspectors was limited. Recent legislative reform had further undermined the effectiveness of the system. The adoption of Law No. 131 substantially reduced the capacity of labour inspectorates by limiting the frequency of inspections in individual firms, requiring the provision of prior notice and imposing limits on unannounced inspections. These changes had led to a marked increase in workers’ complaints of labour violations and accidents in the workplace, by 50 per cent between 2012 and 2013. Ten work-related deaths had been reported in 2013 and there had been a significant increase in serious occupational accidents. The Committee of Experts had concluded that Law No. 131 did not comply with the requirements of Convention No. 81 and had made clear recommendations in that respect, but no amendments had been introduced. Further, in 2016, responsibility for the enforcement of labour law and occupational safety and health had been separated, leading to a fragmentation of occupational safety and health-related enforcement and contributing to the growth in occupational accidents and fatalities. The moratorium imposed in 2016 had also paralyzed the work of the labour inspectorate. Such moratoriums were a clear violation of Convention No. 81. In conclusion, she called on the ILO to provide technical assistance, and for the Government to reform its national legislation to comply with Convention No. 81.

The Worker member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of trade unions from the Nordic countries and Germany, stated that they expected countries engaged in close cooperation with the EU and the European Economic Area to comply with international labour standards. Providing for labour inspection was a requirement of Convention No. 81 that had to be respected by all ratifying member States. Legislation designed to protect decent working conditions had to be applied in practice and labour inspection played a vital role in that respect. The application of Convention No. 81 was therefore both important in itself and an important means of ensuring the correct implementation of other labour standards. The Republic of Moldova and the EU had signed the Association Agreement in June 2014 which contained provisions for the creation of a DCFTA over a ten-year transition period. The DCFTA included a number of commitments relating to both labour standards and environmental matters. A weakened State Labour Inspectorate would not enable the country to comply with its obligations to implement ILO Conventions and those created by the Association Agreement with the EU. The Republic of Moldova risked moving away from its commitment to the enforcement of labour standards at the international and European levels, which had also been confirmed through the institutional mechanisms for the implementation of the trade and sustainable development chapter of the DCFTA. The report of the second joint meeting of the Republic of Moldova – European Union Domestic Advisory Group under the DCFTA had expressed growing concern regarding the situation of the State Labour Inspectorate, which raised problems in view of the ILO’s standards on labour inspection as well as under EU law. Labour inspection was under threat in many countries. It was a core function that any responsible state needed to carry out. Weakening labour inspection was harmful to a decent societal climate and detrimental to a fair market for goods and services. Therefore, legislation needed to be introduced to ensure compliance with Convention No. 81 and appropriate resources must be provided for the labour inspectorate to enable it to be effective.

A Government representative recalled that reform in the field of safety and health at work was a challenge, but that, with the support of the ILO and the social partners, the Government would manage to ensure a functional system in line with ILO standards. As the central authority, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection would update the national occupational safety and health profile with ILO support. A round-table discussion with the participation of high-level officials from relevant institutions would be organized to discuss and share EU best practices. She expressed appreciation for ILO support offered in adjusting the national framework to achieve compliance with ILO standards. With ILO expertise and technical support, it would be possible to improve the national occupational safety and health system. It was important to have an efficient occupational safety and health system in accordance with ILO Conventions, and in this respect, the Government would build an effective labour administration and labour inspection systems through strong tripartite social dialogue. The changes of Law No. 131 did not automatically imply that the budget for inspections would be reduced. The Law did not limit the number of unannounced visits of inspectors as the limitations referred only to planned visits. The penalties for violations had also not been weakened. The reason for the reduced number of infringement reports filed in 2016 was the moratorium put in place that year. While the Government had taken many steps to implement the ILO standards, there were still areas for improvement. She said her Government was ready to continue the constructive engagement with its partners, especially the ILO and the EU, in order to address the issues raised.

The Worker members thanked the Government and encouraged it to act swiftly to bring the legislation into conformity with the Conventions. Certain problems dated back several years and had already been raised by other supervisory mechanisms, including the provisions which prohibited inspections from being carried out without prior notice. In the context of the reform of the inspection services, they called on the Government to ensure: the stability of employment and independence of inspection personnel; the collaboration of experts and duly qualified technicians; a sufficient number of inspectors for the effective exercise of their inspection functions; and the resources necessary for inspectors to perform their duties, including offices and transport facilities. They also called on the Government to ensure that inspectors had the right to conduct inspections as often as necessary and to guarantee the confidentiality of the complaints. The legislation should also be brought into conformity with the Conventions to allow inspectors the discretion to initiate legal proceedings or simply to issue warnings. Finally, they encouraged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to give effect to the recommendations.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information and views provided. They recommended the national authorities to take the necessary measures, and engage in appropriate reforms to bring the labour inspection services into conformity with the principles of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, with particular reference to the authority of inspectors to inspect enterprises without prior warning and the need to carry out inspections as often as necessary. They also called on the Government to provide the Committee of Experts with detailed and precise written responses to all the questions raised in its observation by 1 September 2018. They called on the Government to continue availing itself of ILO technical assistance. They also recalled that, in addition to being provided with the resources necessary to function effectively, the labour inspection services required the necessary legal framework to prevent any abuse. All labour inspection services needed to be independent to ensure their credibility and professionalism. Labour inspection services should engage in open dialogue with the enterprises and persons inspected. Inspections should be legitimate and proportionate to their purpose, and should ensure equality of treatment and respect the need for confidentiality so as not to prejudice the interests of enterprises and persons liable to inspection, and the complainants. They also recalled that the priority of the labour inspection services should be prevention and the provision of advice to companies in good faith, and in particular, that they needed to intensify their efforts to combat social fraud in other enterprises. Fraudulent practices were a scourge for the whole of society, for social security, and also for honest enterprises confronted with grossly unfair economic and social competition.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted that the labour inspectorate must be given the necessary means to function effectively and independently, and it shall also be placed under the supervision and control of a central authority.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion that followed, the Committee recommends the Government to:

- take the necessary measures and appropriate reforms to bring their labour inspection services into line with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129;

- bring national legislation and practice into line with Conventions Nos 81 and 129 to enable labour inspectors to carry out visits to workplaces liable to inspection without prior notice in order to guarantee adequate and effective supervision;

- ensure that inspections are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and are possible as often as necessary;

- provide to the Committee of Experts in writing before 1 September 2018, detailed and precise information on:

• - the decentralization of labour inspection services since 2012 in the field of occupational safety and health and on the guarantees of effective operation of labour inspectors throughout the national territory;
• - the reasons for the decrease in the number of inspection reports submitted to the courts between 2012 and 2016;
• - the guarantees of confidentiality of the identity of complainants;
• - the measures taken to ensure that labour inspectors can freely initiate or recommend legal proceedings; and
• - the training provided to inspectors in agriculture, including the level of participation.

The Committee invites the Government to continue to avail itself of technical assistance in relation to these recommendations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Moldova (CNSM), received on 20 August 2021.

Article 4 of Convention No. 81 and Article 7 of Convention No. 129. Supervision and control by a central authority. Occupational safety and health (OSH). The Committee previously noted that Law No. 131 of 2012 on State Control of Entrepreneurial Activities withdrew supervisory duties in the area of OSH from the State Labour Inspectorate (SLI) and transferred it to ten other sectoral agencies. The observations of the CNSM indicated that the dispersion of inspection duties diminished the efficiency of state control, especially in the field of OSH. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the normative framework for regulating the activity of the SLI was consolidated by Law No. 191 of 2020, which amended a number of labour legislations, including the Law on the SLI, the Law on State Control of Entrepreneurial Activities, the Labour Code and the Law on OSH. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, consequently, on 1 January 2021, the supervision in the field of OSH, including the investigation of occupational accidents, was transferred back from the ten sectoral agencies to the SLI.

Articles 5(a), 17 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 12(1), 23 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation with the justice system and adequate penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. The Committee previously noted the Government’s information concerning the number of infringement reports submitted to the Court from 2016 to 2018. The Committee also noted the observations of the CNSM that, despite the fact that the Government report contained information on the number of infringements reported, there was no information on their outcome following their referral to the Court. The Committee notes the statistical information included in the annual reports and monthly reports of the SLI published on its website, according to which 229 and 151 minutes of contravention were submitted to the Court in 2019 and in 2020, respectively. From January to August 2021, 88 minutes of contravention were submitted to the Court and the Court issued 23 decisions sanctioning the employers with a fine and 7 decisions terminating the case. The other 58 cases are still under examination. The Committee also notes the reference to the 2020 annual report in the CNSM’s observation, indicating that, in the field of OSH, 151 reports of infringements were filed, imposing fines of 1,706,700 Moldovan lei (approximately US$98,724). The CNSM states that, however, there is no information on the actual amount of fines collected following the detection of infringements. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of infringement reports submitted to the Court and their specific outcome, indicating any fine or other penalty applied and the amounts collected. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the statistics for infringements and penalties in the field of labour relations and OSH.

Article 5(b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 13 of Convention No. 129. Collaboration of the labour inspection services with employers and workers or their representatives. The Committee previously noted the observations of the CNSM in which the union raised, in the context of the National Commission for Collective Consultations and Negotiations, the issue of monitoring in the field of OSH, and the need to eliminate the contradictions between national legislation and the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. The Committee notes the indication in the CNSM’s observations that the proposals made by the CNSM in the process of adoption of Law No. 191 of 2020, regarding non-compliance with the provisions of the Convention, were not taken into account. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote effective dialogue with employers’ and workers’ organizations concerning labour inspection matters. It also requests the Government to provide information on the consultations undertaken in this respect in the National Commission for Collective Consultations and Negotiations, as well as the measures taken following such consultations.

Articles 10 and 11 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14 and 15 of Convention No. 129. Human resources and material means for labour inspection. The Committee previously noted a significant decrease in both the budget allocated for the SLI and the number of inspectors from 2017 to 2018. The Committee notes that, according to the annual inspection reports, in 2019, there were 61 employees at the SLI, including 19 at the central apparatus and 42 in territorial offices, with 37 OSH inspectors within the ten sectoral agencies. The number of inspectors remained substantially unchanged in 2020. As of March 2021, after the transfer of the OSH competences to the SLI, there were 109 employees working for the SLI, with 28 in the central apparatus and 81 in territorial offices. The Committee also notes that in the 2020 annual labour inspection report, the Government observes a shortage of staff with professional skills in the field. Noting the transfer of supervisory competence on OSH to the SLI in 2021, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the labour inspectors previously working for the sectoral agencies have now been transferred to the SLI. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of inspectors under the SLI performing OSH inspections, and those performing inspections in the field of labour relations. Noting the absence of information on the budget allocated to the SLI, the Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information in this regard.

Article 12 of Convention No. 81 and Article 16 of Convention No. 129. Unannounced inspection visits. The Committee previously noted that section 19 of the Law on State Control of Entrepreneurial Activities provides for restrictive conditions for unscheduled inspections. The CNSM reiterates in its observations that this provision has in fact made unannounced inspections impossible in practice. It also indicates that there is no information on the results of the unscheduled inspections in the annual inspection reports. The Committee notes with regret that section 19 of the Law on State Control of Entrepreneurial Activities has not been revised in the context of the 2020 amendments to labour legislations. It also notes the statistical information in this regard in the annual and monthly inspection reports, according to which, in 2019, the SLI carried out 1,963 inspection controls, of which 1,399 were planned and 564 were unscheduled. There were also 1,116 controls carried out in OSH by sectoral agencies, of which 1,005 were planned inspections and 111 unplanned visits. In 2020, the SLI carried out 1,701 inspection controls, of which 1,172 were planned and 529 unscheduled. There were also 815 OSH inspections performed by sectoral agencies, with 728 planned and 87 unscheduled. From January to August 2021, the SLI carried out 1,610 controls in both labour relations and OSH areas, with 1,245 planned and 365 unscheduled. The Committee also notes, however, that the labour inspection reports do not include broken down information on the statistics of violations detected and sanctions imposed for planned and unplanned visits, respectively. Noting a downward trend of unscheduled inspections, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered in line with Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 16(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 129, to make visits without previous notice. It requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of announced and unannounced inspections carried out by the SLI, and to indicate in detail the number of violations detected and the specific sanctions imposed through both announced and unannounced inspections.

Articles 15(c) and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 20(c) and 21 of Convention No. 129. Confidentiality concerning the fact that an inspection visit was made in consequence of the receipt of a complaint. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken in order to ensure confidentiality of the fact of the complaints and the identity of the complainants, in cases of unannounced inspections resulting from a complaint, in accordance with section 19 of the Law on State Control of Entrepreneurial Activities. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 9 of Law No. 140/2001 on the State Labour Inspectorate obliges labour inspectors to maintain the confidentiality of the source of any complaint alleging breach of the provisions of legislation and other regulations in the field of work and OSH. In addition, labour inspectors have the duty not to disclose to the employer that controls have been carried out following a complaint. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, a motivation note shall be prepared in case of inspections without prior notice. The Government indicates that this motivation note shall include information on the need for intervention, by setting out in detail the circumstances and information underlying the conclusions and actions of the control body, possible violations suspected on the basis of information and evidence held until the initiation of control measures, and a reasonable assessment of danger and possible consequences in case of non-intervention of the control body. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government’s indication, the entity to be inspected is informed about the motivation note. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted in order to ensure that no intimation is given to the employer or their representative, in the motivation note or otherwise, that a visit of inspection was made in consequence of the receipt of a complaint, in accordance with Article 15(c) of Convention No. 81 and Article 20(c) of Convention No. 129. In addition, noting the absence of information on this matter, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the number of unannounced inspections that resulted from a complaint, the number that resulted from an accident, and the number that were not the result of a complaint or an accident.

Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129. Undertaking of inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Committee previously noted that a number of provisions of the Law on State Control of Entrepreneurial Activities limits the circumstances in which an inspection can be undertaken. This refers in particular to the conditions set out in section 3 (inspection can be carried out only if other means are exhausted), section 4 (inspectors shall request to check documentation first before inspection visits), section 14 (control bodies are not entitled to perform a control of the same entity more than once in a calendar year, with the exception of unannounced inspections) and section 19 (conditions for unscheduled inspections).

The Committee notes with regret that the abovementioned provisions have not been revised in the context of the amendments to labour legislations in 2020, in order to make them less restrictive. Moreover, the Committee notes with deep concern that, according to the 2019 and 2020 annual inspection reports, the number of inspections carried out by the SLI has been decreasing, with 1,963 in 2019 and 1,701 in 2020. Similarly, the number of workers covered by inspection controls has also decreased, with 103,794 in 2019 and 81,897 in 2020. Moreover, a large number of inspection controls were merely requests for documentation (1,112 in 2019 and 1,044 in 2020), with only 851 on-site inspection visits performed in 2019 and 657 in 2020. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the national legislation is amended in the near future to allow for the undertaking of labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in conformity with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further information on the impact of the transfer of the competences on OSH to the SLI, including information on the number, type and results of inspection controls carried out, in the fields of both labour relations and OSH.

Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129. Prompt legal or administrative proceedings. The Committee previously noted that section 4(10) of the Law on State Control of Entrepreneurial Activities provides that inspections during the first three years of a business operation shall be of a consultative nature. Section 5(4) provides that, in such cases, in the event of minor violations, the sanctions provided for in the Administrative Offences Law or other laws may not be applied, and section 5(5) provides that “restrictive measures” may not be applied in the event of severe violations.

Noting that these provisions are still in force, the Committee notes with deep concern the absence of a reply to its three previous requests on this matter. The Committee is bound to recall once again that Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129 provide that, with certain exceptions (which are not directed at new operations), persons who violate or neglect to observe legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors shall be liable to prompt legal proceedings without previous warning, and that it must be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give a warning or advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings.  The Committee once again urges the Government to take prompt measures to ensure that labour inspectors are able to initiate or recommend immediate legal proceedings for both severe and minor violations during the first three years of a business’s operation, and to provide information on steps taken in this regard. It urges the Government to provide information on the meaning of “restrictive measures” that are prohibited from being imposed under the Law on State Control of Entrepreneurial Activities, on the number and nature of severe and minor violations detected by inspectors in the course of inspections in enterprises in the first three years of operation, on the sanctions proposed by inspectors for severe violations, and on the penalties ultimately applied.

Issues specifically concerning labour inspection in agriculture

Articles 9(3) and 21 of Convention No. 129. Sufficient number of inspections in agriculture and adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee previously noted that no OSH inspections were carried out in agriculture in 2018 by the National Agency for Food Safety (ANSA), which was the competent authority in this regard. It also noted that there was a decrease in the number of inspections by the SLI on non-OSH issues in agriculture from 2017 (458) to 2018 (363). The Committee notes that, according to the 2019 and 2020 annual inspection reports, the number of inspections on labour relations issues in agriculture continued to decrease, with 300 in 2019 and 245 controls in 2020. Regarding compliance with OSH provisions, the ANSA carried out 315 inspections in 2019 and 215 in 2020. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that agricultural undertakings are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, and to provide information on the number of inspections undertaken in agriculture by the SLI. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the training provided to labour inspectors that relates specifically to their duties in the agricultural sector, particularly in the context of the transfer of competence from the ANSA to the SLI in 2021, including the number and duration of training programmes organized, the subjects covered in those programmes and the number of inspectors who participated in those programmes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

The Committee notes the observations made by the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Moldova (CNSM), received on 30 August 2019.

Article 4 of Convention No. 81 and Article 7 of Convention No. 129. Supervision and control of a central authority. Occupational safety and health (OSH). The Committee previously noted that Law No. 131 of 2012 on state control of entrepreneurial activities withdraws supervisory duties in the area of OSH from the State Labour Inspectorate (SLI) and transfers it to ten other sectoral agencies. In this respect, the Government indicated that a methodology on state control over entrepreneurial activities was being finalized. This methodology would be monitored and coordinated by the SLI and would ensure the application of standard rules in the planning and implementation of OSH inspections for the ten sectoral agencies. The Government also indicated that an e-learning training system would be developed and that the agencies were provided with forms for monthly reporting to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection. The Government further stated that most of these sectoral agencies had territorial offices and that inspectors with OSH responsibilities within the agencies would be provided with the status of civil servants. The Committee also noted that, according to the report of the ILO mission undertaken in 2017, the reform in the area of OSH had adversely impacted staff retention and the conditions of service of inspectors and that not all of the sectoral agencies with OSH responsibilities had yet been established, nor did they all have territorial or local units.

The Committee notes the observations of the CNSM that the labour inspection system does not meet the requirements of Article 4 of Convention No. 81 and Article 7 of Convention No. 129. Of the sectoral agencies, five are under the Ministry of the Economy, one is under the Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Development and the Environment, one is under the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection, and two are independent bodies. The union states that the dispersion of inspection duties has diminished the efficiency of state control, especially in the field of OSH. In this respect, the CNSM indicates that the number of fatal work accidents rose from 33 in 2017 to 38 in 2018. The union also indicates that, due to failures in the field of OSH, it has repeatedly urged the Government to return to an integrated system of labour inspection, covering both labour relations and OSH. The union further states that there is a lack of qualified personnel within the sectoral agencies (with 31 inspectors across ten agencies) and that the lack of territorial coverage by some agencies leads to a lack of protection and in practice exempts certain workplaces from state supervision related to OSH.

The Committee notes the indication in the annual labour inspection report of 2018 that inspectors in the sectoral agencies responsible for OSH inspections provide reports to the SLI on inspections undertaken. The Committee recalls, however, that both the report of the ILO mission which visited the country in December 2017 and the Observation of this Committee published in 2019 emphasized the necessity for the Government to ensure coordination among the various sectoral agencies so as to ensure the implementation and monitoring of OSH inspection visits. In this respect, the Committee notes with deep concern that, according to the information in the 2018 report, only two of the ten sectoral agencies had conducted any OSH inspections (with 21 inspections carried out in the fourth quarter of 2018, detecting 26 violations). The number of inspectors in those agencies decreased form 36 in 2017 to 31 in 2018. The Committee further notes, once again, with concern an increase in the number of injured persons registered (503 in 2018, compared with 448 in 2017 and 371 in 2016 according to the annual labour inspection reports). Lastly, it notes an absence of information, in response to the Committee’s previous request, concerning the development of a methodology for OSH inspections for the sectoral agencies or a training system for inspectors at these agencies. The Committee once again recalls the importance of ensuring that organizational changes to the labour inspection system are carried out in conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, including Articles 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 7, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Recalling prior concern expressed in this regard, the Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure coordination among the various sectoral agencies, as well as between these agencies and the SLI, including steps taken to ensure monitoring by the SLI of the implementation of OSH inspection visits. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of inspectors appointed in the sectoral agencies as well as the number of inspections undertaken by them, and to indicate the reasons why inspections were only carried out by two of the ten agencies in 2018. It once again requests the Government to provide information as to how the independence and impartiality of inspectors appointed in the sectoral agencies is ensured in light of their reporting to the management of the sectoral agencies, and as to specific measurable progress in providing all inspectors the status of civil servants. It urges the Government to take measures to ensure that inspectors are adequately trained, and to provide information on the measures taken in that respect, including the number of trainings held, the subjects covered, and the number of participants. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which technical occupational safety and health experts and specialists are associated in the work of inspection and the measures taken to provide such inspectors with suitably equipped local offices (including in sectors covered by agencies currently without local offices) as well as the transport facilities necessary for the performance of their duties. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the information on the activities of OSH inspectors in the sectoral agencies, reflected in the annual report on labour inspection, addresses all subjects covered in Article 21 of Convention No. 81 and Article 27 of Convention No. 129.

Articles 5(a), 17 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 12(1), 23 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation with the justice system and adequate penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. The Committee previously noted a significant decline between 2012 and 2017 in the number of infringement reports submitted to courts (from 891 to 197 such reports). The Government indicated that this was due to a decrease in the number of entities subjected to inspection visits since the adoption of Law No. 131 in 2012. It indicated that in 2017, the Contravention Code was amended to introduce a section on violations of OSH provisions, and that it therefore expected the number of infringement reports produced by inspectors to increase in the future.

In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the information in the Government’s report concerning the number of infringement reports submitted to court in 2018 (270 in 2018, rising from 197 in 2017 and 165 in 2016). The Government also provides information related to the payment of salary arrears paid following inspections. The Committee also notes the observations of the CNSM that although the Government’s report contains information on the number of infringement reports, there is no information on their outcome following their referral to court. The CNSM also indicates that although 26 violations related to OSH were detected by inspectors at the sectoral agencies, infringement reports were not prepared. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of infringement reports submitted to courts, and to indicate the number, if any, of infringement reports related to OSH violations following inspections by OSH inspectors in the sectoral agencies. In addition, and noting an absence of information in response to the Committee’s previous request, it urges the Government to provide information on the specific outcome of the infringement reports submitted to the courts, indicating the decision rendered and if any fine or other penalty was applied.

Article 5(b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 13 of Convention No. 129. Collaboration of the labour inspection services with employers and workers or their representatives. The Committee notes the observations of the CNSM that the union has, in the context of the National Commission for Collective Consultations and Negotiations, systematically raised the issue of monitoring in the field of OSH, and the need to eliminate the contradictions between national legislation and the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote effective dialogue with employers’ and workers’ organizations concerning labour inspection matters. It also requests the Government to provide information on the consultations undertaken in this respect in the National Commission for Collective Consultations and Negotiations, as well as the measures taken following such consultations.

Articles 10 and 11 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14 and 15 of Convention No. 129. Human resources and material means for labour inspection. The Committee notes the information from the annual labour inspection reports for 2017 and 2018 that the budget for the SLI decreased substantially from 15,820,100 Moldovan lei (MDL) in 2017 to MDL9,475,800 in 2018. It also notes with concern a significant decrease in the number of inspectors, particularly in the territorial offices: from 109 inspectors in 2017 (22 in the central office and 87 in territorial offices) to 59 inspectors in 2018 (16 in the central office and 43 in territorial offices), and that the number of inspectors in the sectoral agencies decreased from 38 to 31 over the same period. Recalling that the number of labour inspectors shall be sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure an adequate number of labour inspectors, as well as information on the reasons for the significant decrease in the number of inspectors. It also requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are allocated for the labour inspectorate.

Article 12 of Convention No. 81 and Article 16 of Convention No. 129. Unannounced inspection visits. The Committee previously noted that, prior to its amendment in 2017, Law No. 131 required that notice of a scheduled inspection visit be sent at least five working days in advance (section 18(1) and (2)), but that there were specific limited circumstances under which an unannounced inspection could be undertaken irrespective of the established schedule (section 19). Particularly, pursuant to section 19(1) of the Law, unannounced controls were permitted in the following cases: (i) follow-up inspections (to verify that recommendations of a previous scheduled inspection had been implemented); and (ii) if reliable information (supported by evidence) was available indicating that there has been a violation of the legislation or a situation of emergency which represents an imminent danger to life and/or property or damage to the environment exceeding a specific monetary value. The Committee subsequently noted that Law No. 131 was amended in 2017 (by virtue of Law No. 185) to specifically exclude inspections undertaken in the area of labour relations and OSH from the requirements in section 18 to provide five days’ notice. It requested information on the impact of these amendments.

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report that, in 2018, the number of unannounced inspections undertaken was 571, indicating a slight increase from 2017, when 545 such inspections were undertaken (compared with 1,317 unscheduled inspections undertaken in 2015 and 610 such inspections in 2016). The Committee also notes, however, that pursuant to Law No. 179 of 2018, section 19 of Law No. 131 has been amended to specify that complaints and petitions, including notifications or requests from other state inspection bodies, may only serve as grounds for an unannounced inspection if the circumstances or information provided reasonably indicates a possible infringement which will imminently cause damage and only if these circumstances and information are supported by proof. Complaints, petitions or other claims that do not require the immediate initiation of an unannounced control, may be taken into account in the next annual planning of controls.

The Committee notes the statement of the CNSM that the amendment of Law No. 131, by Law No. 179/2018, has made the carrying out of unannounced inspections impossible in practice. The union states that violations of labour law have therefore become very difficult to detect and combat. With reference to its comments below on the application of Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered in line with Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 16(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 129, to make visits without previous notice. It requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the amendments to section 19 of Law No. 131 on the activities of the labour inspectorate, including its capacity to make unannounced visits as required under both Conventions and its capacity to respond to complaints received. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of announced and unannounced inspections carried out by the SLI, and it urges the Government to provide the same information on announced and unannounced inspections for OSH inspections carried out by sectoral agencies. With respect to inspections carried out by both the SLI and the sectoral agencies, it once again requests the Government to indicate in detail the number of violations detected and specific sanctions imposed for both announced and unannounced inspections.

Articles 15(c) and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 20(c) and 21 of Convention No. 129. Confidentiality concerning the fact that an inspection visit was made in consequence of the receipt of a complaint. The Committee previously noted that, prior to the 2017 amendments to Law No. 131, unscheduled inspections were only undertaken as a result of a complaint or to conduct an investigation following an accident. Following the 2017 amendments, unscheduled inspections could be undertaken in the field of labour relations and OSH. Noting the further restrictions on unscheduled inspections introduced by Law No. 179/2018, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken to ensure that a sufficient number of inspections without prior notice are undertaken and to ensure that when inspections are conducted as a result of a complaint, the fact of the complaint as well as the identity of the complainant(s) is kept confidential. It requests the Government to indicate the number of inspections carried out without prior notice that were not undertaken as a result of a complaint or following the occurrence of an accident.

Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129. Undertaking of inspections as often as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Committee previously noted that certain provisions of Law No. 131 were not compatible with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129 on the carrying out of inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. Section 3(g) of Law No. 131 provides that inspections can only be carried out when other means to verify compliance with the law have been exhausted. Pursuant to section 14, control bodies are not entitled to perform a control of the same entity more than once in a calendar year, with the exception of unannounced inspections. Pursuant to sections 7 and 19, Law No. 131 permits unscheduled inspections only under certain specific conditions: they are subject to a delegation of control signed by the head authority vested with control functions; they cannot be carried out on the basis of unverified information and information received from anonymous sources; and they cannot be conducted when there are any other direct or indirect ways to obtain the information needed. In this respect, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that, following the adoption of Law No. 131, the number of entities subjected to inspection visits decreased annually.

The Committee notes the new amendments to Law No. 131 by virtue of Law No. 179/2018 limiting the circumstances in which an inspection can be undertaken in response to a complaint (examined above). It also notes new requirements that consideration be given to carrying out monitoring through a documentation check only. Pursuant to section 4 of Law No. 131 in 2018 (as amended by section 9 of Law No. 179/2018), inspection bodies must consider, when carrying out scheduled or unscheduled inspections, the possibility of carrying out the monitoring by a direct request to the enterprise for documentation. Only in the case of insufficient documentation and information, or based on the type of inspection and risk analysis, will the inspection body carry out an inspection visit. Section 4 was further amended to state that an inspection visit may be carried out if an enterprise does not reply to the request for documentation within ten working days. If an inspection visit is undertaken, the inspector does not have the right to request documentation that has previously been presented. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the SLI (including its territorial subdivisions) carried out 2,317 inspection visits in 2018 covering 108,703 workers (compared with 3,135 inspections covering 111,500 workers in 2017 and 4,458 visits covering 146,900 workers in 2016), and that 21 OSH inspections were carried out. The Government further indicates that 233 controls based on documentation were undertaken in 2018 following the procedure introduced in Law No. 179/2018.

The Committee notes the observations of the CNSM that with the new restrictions, introduced by Law No. 179/2018, the control authority will automatically request documentation instead of carrying out an inspection. The union states that the Government did not indicate how many of the 233 documentation checks carried out in 2018 detected violations or if any infringement reports were subsequently prepared. Noting with grave concern the new restrictions on the undertaking of labour inspections, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the national legislation is amended in the near future to allow for the undertaking of labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in conformity with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that labour inspectors with proper credentials shall be empowered to require the production of any documents which are required to be kept by law, in accordance with Article 12(c)(ii) of Convention No. 81 and Article 16(c)(ii) of Convention No. 129.

Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129. Prompt legal or administrative proceedings. The Committee previously noted that section 4(1) of Law No. 131 provides that inspections during the first three years of a business’ operation shall be of a consultative nature. Section 5(4) provides that, in such cases, in the event of minor violations, the sanctions provided for in the Administrative Offence Law or other laws may not be applied, and section 5(5) provides that “restrictive measures” may not be applied in the event of severe violations. It noted the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation that these restrictions constituted a free pass for companies in the first three years of their operation by stipulating that sanctions cannot be applied in the case of minor offences for this period.

The Committee notes the statement of the CNSM that the prohibition on the application of restrictive measures is still in force, and that this is not in compliance with Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129.

Noting with deep regret the absence of a reply to its two previous requests on this matter, the Committee once again recalls that Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129 provide that, with certain exceptions (which are not directed at new operations), persons who violate or neglect to observe legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors shall be liable to prompt legal proceedings without previous warning, and that it must be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give a warning or advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings. The Committee urges the Government to take prompt measures to ensure that labour inspectors are able to initiate or recommend immediate legal proceedings for both severe and minor violations during the first three years of a business’s operation, and to provide information on steps taken in this regard. It once again requests the Government to provide information on the meaning of “restrictive measures” that are prohibited from being imposed under Law No. 131, the number and nature of severe and minor violations detected by inspectors in the course of inspections in enterprises in the first three years of operation, the sanctions proposed by inspectors for severe violations, and the penalties ultimately applied.

Issues specifically concerning labour inspection in agriculture

Articles 9(3) and 21 of Convention No. 129. Sufficient number of inspections in agriculture and adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee previously noted that the National Agency for Food Safety is in charge of OSH inspections in agriculture, and that labour inspectors at the Agency would carry out inspections in cooperation with other field inspectors of the Agency.

In this respect, the Committee notes with concern the indication in the 2018 annual labour inspection report that no OSH inspections were carried out by the National Agency for Food Safety in 2018. The Committee further notes the information in the 2018 report indicating a decrease in the number of inspections by the SLI (covering non-OSH issues): 363 inspections were conducted in agriculture, forestry and fisheries by the SLI in 2018 compared with 458 in 2017. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that agricultural undertakings are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in conformity with Article 21 of Convention No. 129. It requests the Government to provide information on why the National Agency for Food Safety did not undertake any OSH inspections in 2018, and to provide information on the number of inspections undertaken in subsequent years. In addition, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the training provided to labour inspectors that relates specifically to their duties in the agricultural sector, including the number of training programmes organized for inspectors of the National Agency for Food Safety with OSH functions, the subjects covered in these programmes and the number of inspectors who participated in these programmes.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

The Committee notes the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received 1 September 2018 as well as the observations made by the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Moldova (CNSM) in its communications received on 4 January and 4 September 2018. In its observations of 4 September, the CNSM indicates that the report of the Government had not been submitted to it. The CNSM states that it is regrettable that no effective measures have so far been taken to adapt national legislation to the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, nor to give due consideration to the recommendations of the report of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation alleging non observance by the Republic of Moldova of Convention No. 81 submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, adopted by the Governing Body in March 2015 (GB.323/INS/11/6). The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in response to the observations of the CNSM.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 107th Session, May–June 2018)

The Committee notes that in June 2018, the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) recommended that the Government take the necessary measures and appropriate reforms to bring their labour inspection services into line with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129 in law and practice, including enabling inspectors to carry out visits to workplaces liable to inspection without prior notice in order to guarantee adequate and effective supervision; ensure that inspections are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and are possible as often as necessary; and provide to this Committee, in writing, detailed and precise information related to a range of provisions and requirements under the two Conventions.

Article 4 of Convention No. 81 and Article 7 of Convention No. 129. Supervision and control of a central authority. Occupational safety and health. The Committee previously noted that Law No. 131 of 2012 on state control of entrepreneurial activities withdraws supervisory duties in the area of occupational safety and health (OSH) from the State Labour Inspectorate (SLI) and transfers it to ten other agencies. The Government indicated that OSH inspectors would be appointed in the respective agencies reporting both to their respective sectoral agencies as well as to the SLI.

The Committee notes that the CAS, in 2018, recalled that the labour inspectorate shall be placed under the supervision and control of a central authority.

The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC expressing concern about the fragmentation and weakening of the labour inspectorate by the introduction of Law No. 131, including the transfer of competencies in the area of OSH to ten different sectoral agencies. The ITUC states that the limitations introduced in Law No. 131 have weakened labour inspections, in contradiction with Conventions Nos 81 and 129, and have resulted in occupational accidents, including fatal ones. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the reform aims to ensure that a single enterprise is not inspected for the same type of activity or production process by different control bodies, thereby avoid the duplication of inspections. The Government indicates that the methodology on state control over entrepreneurial activities, based on risk analysis, is in the process of finalization, which will ensure the application of standard rules in the planning and implementation of OSH inspections for the ten sectoral agencies. This methodology will be monitored and coordinated by the SLI. The Government further refers to separate consultations held with the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation on the development of a regulatory framework on OSH. It states that an e-learning training system will be developed in 2019 to provide training to staff in the field of OSH, but that the system still requires financial means. The Government further indicates that until 23 May 2019, responsibility for the investigation of severe and fatal work-related accidents will remain with the SLI (by virtue of Law No. 79/2018). In addition, the Government indicates that most, but not all, of the sectoral agencies have territorial offices, and that inspectors with OSH responsibilities within the agencies will be provided with the status of civil servants. Further, the Government states that the ten sectoral agencies have been provided with forms for monthly reporting and that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection has requested that the agencies submit information on a weekly basis on the OSH activities carried out. The Committee observes, in this respect, that the annual labour inspection report of 2017, submitted by the Government, appears to only reflect the activities of the SLI and not the OSH activities of the sectoral agencies.

The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the ILO mission which visited the country in December 2017, and notes the report of the mission subsequently transmitted to the Government. The Committee notes that according to the report of the ILO mission, the reform in the area of OSH has adversely impacted staff retention and the conditions of service of inspectors. The staff of some of the sectoral agencies do not have the status of civil servants and the transfer of 36 labour inspectors from the SLI to the agencies resulted in half of the transferred inspectors resigning. The report further indicated that not all of the sectoral agencies with OSH responsibilities had yet been established, and they did not all have territorial or local units, which risked certain sectors and workers not being covered, or the offices not being easily accessible to concerned parties. Recalling the importance of ensuring that organizational changes are carried out in conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, including Articles 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 7, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 21 of Convention No. 129, the Committee once again urges the Government to take all necessary measures in that respect. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide specific information on the concrete measures taken to ensure coordination among the various sectoral agencies, as well as between these agencies and the SLI, including further steps taken to ensure monitoring by the SLI of the implementation of OSH inspection visits. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (1) the number of inspectors appointed in the sectoral agencies as well as the number of inspections undertaken by them (Articles 10 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14 and 21 of Convention No. 129); (2) how the independence and impartiality of inspectors appointed in the sectoral agencies is ensured in light of their reporting to the management of the sectoral agencies, and progress in providing all inspectors the status of civil servants (Article 6 of Convention No. 81 and Article 8 of Convention No. 129); (3) further steps taken to ensure that inspectors are adequately trained, including the establishment of an e learning system; (4) the manner in which technical occupational safety and health experts and specialists are associated in the work of inspection (Article 9 of Convention No. 81 and Article 11 of Convention No. 129); and (5) the measures taken to provide such inspectors with suitably equipped local offices (including in sectors covered by agencies currently without local offices) as well as the transport facilities necessary for the performance of their duties (Article 11 of Convention No. 81 and Article 15 of Convention No. 129). It also requests the Government to indicate if all of the sectoral agencies to which inspection functions have been assigned have now been established, and to provide information on the monitoring of enterprises not covered by the respective sectoral agencies. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the activities of OSH inspectors in the sectoral agencies are separately reflected in the annual report on labour inspection, with respect to all subjects covered in Article 21 of Convention No. 81 and Article 27 of Convention No. 129.

Articles 5(a), 17 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 12(1), 23 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation with the justice system and adequate penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. The Committee notes the Government’s reference, in response to the Committee’s request concerning the significant decline between 2012 and 2016 in the number of infringement reports submitted to courts (from 891 to 165 such reports), to the decrease in the number of entities subjected to inspection visits since the adoption of Law No. 131 in 2012. The Government also refers to the six-month moratorium on state inspection that took place in 2016. The Government indicates that in 2017, the Contravention Code was amended to introduce a section on violations of OSH provisions by the employer, and that it therefore expects the number of infringement reports produced by inspectors to increase in the future. In this respect, the Committee notes the information in the 2017 annual labour inspection report that there was a slight increase in the number of reports submitted to courts by inspectors, rising from 165 in 2016 to 197 in 2017. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of infringement reports submitted to courts, indicating the number of such reports submitted by SLI inspectors and, separately, by OSH inspectors in the sectoral agencies. In addition, and noting an absence of information in response to the Committee’s previous request, it once again requests the Government to provide information on the specific outcome of the infringement reports submitted to the courts, indicating the decision rendered and if any fine or other penalty was applied.

Article 5(b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 13 of Convention No. 129. Collaboration of the labour inspection services with employers and workers or their representatives. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the functioning of the OSH system was subject to discussions within the National Commission for Collective Consultations and Negotiations. In this respect, the Committee notes the statement of the CNSM that in April 2018, the National Commission for Collective Consultations and Negotiations requested that the Ministry of Economy and Infrastructure create a working group with the participation of the competent institutions in the field of OSH and representatives of employers and the trade unions, with a view to identifying solutions for the existing issues relating to the functioning of the authorities in the field of OSH. The CNSM indicates that subsequently, no working group was established. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken to promote effective dialogue with employers’ and workers’ organisations concerning labour inspection matters, including in particular dialogue on OSH concerns. It also requests the Government to provide information on the consultations undertaken in this respect in the National Commission for Collective Consultations and Negotiations, as well as the measures taken following such consultations.

Article 12 of Convention No. 81 and Article 16 of Convention No. 129. Unannounced inspection visits. The Committee previously noted the application of Law No. 131 to the SLI (pursuant to paragraph 27 of its annex) and that section 18(1) of the Law provides that notice of a decision to carry out a control shall be sent to an enterprise at least five working days prior to the carrying out of the control. Section 18(2) provides that this notice is not provided in the case of an unannounced control, and section 19 outlines the specific limited circumstances under which an unannounced control can be undertaken irrespective of the established schedule of control. In this respect, the Committee noted the statement of the Government that there was a contradiction between the general rules for initiating an inspection (sections 14 and 20–23 of Law No. 131) and Article 12 of Convention No. 81, which would be removed as part of a proposed legislative package.

The Committee notes that the CAS recommended that the Government bring national legislation and practice into line with Conventions Nos 81 and 129 to enable labour inspectors to carry out visits to workplaces liable to inspection without prior notice in order to guarantee adequate and effective supervision. The Committee notes with interest that by virtue of Law No. 185 of 2017, section LXXXV, section 1(6) of Law No. 131 was amended to specifically exclude the application of section 18 of the Law to inspections undertaken in the area of labour relations and OSH. It further notes that section LXVII of Law No. 185 amends section 237 of the OSH Law (No. 186/2008) to provide that labour inspectors in the field of OSH shall have the power to enter workplaces freely at any time of the day or night, without prior notification of the employer. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact of these amendments on the undertaking of inspections without prior notice in practice, including information on the number of labour inspections undertaken with and without the provision of prior notice by inspectors identified separately for the SLI and the sectoral agencies as well as the violations found and sanctions imposed for both announced and unannounced inspections, again identified separately for the SLI and the sectoral agencies.

Articles 15(c) and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 20(c) and 21 of Convention No. 129. Confidentiality concerning the fact that an inspection visit was made in response to the receipt of a complaint. The Committee previously noted information from the Government which indicated that unscheduled inspections (which had been the only inspections undertaken without prior notice, by virtue of Law No. 131) were only undertaken as a result of a complaint or to conduct an investigation following an accident.

The Committee notes that the annual labour inspection report of 2017 once again refers to unscheduled inspections as those relating to complaints received or following an accident. The Committee notes, however, the Government’s indication that the OSH Law (No. 186/2008) was amended in 2017 to provide for the obligation of labour inspectors to keep the confidentiality of any complaint received relating to OSH, as well as to not disclose to the employer the fact that an inspection was carried out as a result of a complaint. Noting the removal of the requirement to provide prior notice for regular inspections and referring to its comments above under Article 12, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on any additional measures taken to ensure that a sufficient number of inspections without prior notice are undertaken to ensure that when inspections are conducted as a result of a complaint, the fact of the complaint as well as the identity of the complainant(s) is kept confidential. It requests the Government to indicate the number of inspections carried out without prior notice that were not undertaken as a result of a complaint or following the occurrence of an accident.

Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129. Undertaking of inspections as often as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Committee previously noted that certain provisions of Law No. 131 were not compatible with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129 on the carrying out of inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. Section 3(g) of Law No. 131 provides that inspections can only be carried out when other means to verify compliance with the law have been exhausted. Pursuant to section 14, control bodies are not entitled to perform a control of the same entity more than once in a calendar year, with the exception of unannounced inspections. Pursuant to sections 7 and 19, Law No. 131 permits unscheduled inspections only under certain specific conditions: they are subject to a delegation of control signed by the head authority vested with control functions; they cannot be carried out on the basis of unverified information and information received from anonymous sources; and they cannot be conducted when there are any other direct or indirect ways to obtain the information needed.

The Committee recalls that the CAS requested the Government, in June 2018, to ensure that inspections are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and are possible as often as necessary.

The Committee notes the observations by the ITUC that Law No. 131 substantially reduced the capacity of labour inspectorates by limiting the frequency of inspections in individual firms. The Committee also notes with concern the Government’s statement in its report that following the adoption of Law No. 131, the number of entities subjected to inspection visits decreased annually. The Committee further notes the information in the 2017 annual labour inspection report that the number of unscheduled inspections (based on complaints or following an accident) was 545 in 2017, indicating a further decrease from the 1,317 unscheduled inspections undertaken in 2015 and 610 such inspections in 2016. Only ten follow-up inspections were undertaken in 2017, in comparison to 117 such inspections in 2015 and 42 in 2016. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the national legislation is amended in the near future to allow for the undertaking of labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in conformity with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129.

Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129. Prompt legal or administrative proceedings. The Committee previously noted that section 4(1) of Law No. 131 provides that inspections during the first three years of the operation of a company/employer shall be of a consultative nature. Section 5(4) provides that, in such cases, in the event of minor violations, the sanctions provided for in the Administrative Offence Law or other laws may not be applied and section 5(5) provides that “restrictive measures” may not be applied in the event of severe violations.

The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC that Law No. 131 introduces a free pass for companies in the first three years of their operation by stipulating that sanctions cannot be applied in the case of minor offences for this period. The Committee once again recalls that Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129 provide that, with certain exceptions (not directed at new operations), legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors shall be liable to prompt legal proceedings without previous warning, and that it must be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give a warning or advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings. Noting with regret the absence of a reply to its previous request, the Committee urges the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that labour inspectors are able to initiate or recommend immediate legal proceedings. It once again requests the Government to provide information on the meaning of “restrictive measures” that are prohibited from being imposed under Law No. 131, the number and nature of severe violations detected by inspectors, the sanctions proposed by inspectors, and the penalties ultimately applied.

Issues specifically concerning labour inspection in agriculture

Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129. Adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in response to the Committee’s previous request, that the National Agency for Food Safety is in charge of OSH inspections in agriculture. The Government indicates that labour inspectors at the Agency shall carry out inspections in cooperation with other field inspectors of the Agency. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government on the measures planned to provide general OSH training to inspectors of the sectoral agencies. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the training provided to labour inspectors that relates specifically to their duties in the agricultural sector, including the number of training programmes organized for inspectors of the National Agency for Food Safety with OSH functions, the subjects covered in these programmes and the number of inspectors who participated in these programmes.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2019.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 and 129 together.

The Committee notes the observations made by the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Moldova (CNSM) in its communication received on 21 August 2017.

Article 4 of Convention No. 81 and Article 7 of Convention No. 129. Supervision and control of a central authority. Occupational safety and health. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that Law No. 131 on state control of entrepreneurial activities of 2012 withdraws some competencies and supervisory duties in the area of occupational safety and health from the State Labour Inspectorate and transfers them to ten supervision entities, including the National Agency for Food Safety, the Agency for Consumer Protection and Market Supervision, the National Agency for Public Health, the Environmental Protection Inspectorate, the National Agency for Motor Transportation, the National Agency for Energy Regulation, and the National Agency for Electronic Communications and Information Technology. These agencies will monitor occupational safety and health issues for those enterprises regulated by legislation under their purview. With respect to other areas of activity, the Agency for Technical Supervision is responsible for supervising occupational safety and health issues. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government indicating that labour inspectors responsible for checking occupational safety and health will be appointed in sectoral agencies. These inspectors will report to their respective agencies as well as to the State Labour Inspectorate. The Government further indicates that the State Labour Inspectorate will develop procedural guidelines and checklists for inspectors as well as a platform for their training.

In this respect, the Committee notes the observations of the CNSM that the scattering of control duties in the field of occupational safety and health results in a lack of an institutional framework for the inspection of such issues.

The Committee recalls that Article 4 of Convention No. 81 and Article 7 of Convention No. 129 provides for the placing of the labour inspection system under the supervision and control of a central authority in so far as is compatible with the administrative practice of the Member. It recalls in this respect, that it indicated in its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection that should certain labour inspection responsibilities be attributed to different departments, the competent authority must take steps to ensure adequate budgetary resources and to encourage cooperation between these different departments (paragraphs 140, 141 and 152). Recalling the importance of ensuring that organizational changes are carried out in conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, including Articles 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 7, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 21 of Convention No. 129 (concerning supervision and control by a central authority; stability of employment and independence; the association of duly qualified technical occupational safety and health experts and specialists; ensuring a sufficient number of inspectors to secure the effective discharge of their duties; the provision of suitably equipped local offices and transport facilities; and the undertaking of inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions), the Committee urges the Government to take all necessary measures in that respect.

With reference to its comments on the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), the Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken to ensure coordination among the various sectoral authorities with respect to inspections related to occupational safety and health issues, as well as between these authorities and the State Labour Inspectorate. It requests additional information on the monitoring of enterprises not covered by the respective sectoral agencies and, in particular, of coverage of the agricultural sector. It requests the Government to provide information on: (1) the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the allocation of sufficient budgetary and human resources with a view to securing the enforcement of the legal provisions relating to occupational safety and health; and (2) the number of inspectors appointed in the sectoral bodies as well as the number of inspections undertaken by them (Articles 10 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14 and 21 of Convention No. 129). It requests the Government to indicate how the independence and impartiality of labour inspectors appointed in the sectoral bodies is ensured in light of their reporting to the management of the sectoral bodies (Article 6 of Convention No. 81 and Article 8 of Convention No. 129). It requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which technical occupational safety and health experts and specialists are associated in the work of inspection (Article 9 of Convention No. 81 and Article 11 of Convention No. 129), the measures taken to provide such inspectors with suitably equipped local offices as well as the transport facilities necessary for the performance of their duties (Article 11 of Convention No. 81 and Article 15 of Convention No. 129), and on the manner in which it ensures that the activities undertaken by these inspectors are reflected in the annual report on labour inspection (Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 25–27 of Convention No. 129).

Articles 5(a), 17 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 12(1), 23 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation with the justice system and adequate penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. The Committee previously noted the information in the Government’s annual labour inspection reports that the State Labour Inspectorate drew up 891 infringement reports in 2012 for submission to court, 514 such reports in 2013 and 434 in 2014. It notes in this respect the information in the Government’s report that, in 2016, labour inspectors drew up and filed 165 infringement reports. Noting the significant decline between 2012 and 2016 in the number of infringement reports submitted to courts, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the reasons for this trend. It also requests the Government to provide information on the specific outcome of the infringement reports submitted to the courts, indicating the decision rendered and if any fine or other penalty was applied.

Article 12 of Convention No. 81 and Article 16 of Convention No. 129. Unannounced inspection visits. The Committee previously noted that the report of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation alleging non observance by the Republic of Moldova of Convention No. 81 submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, adopted by the Governing Body in March 2015 (GB.323/INS/11/6), found that the application of Law No. 131 to the State Labour Inspectorate (pursuant to paragraph 27 of its annex) raised issues of compatibility with Article 12 of Convention No. 81, in restricting the free access of labour inspectors to undertake inspections. In particular, the report of the tripartite committee noted that section 18(1) of Law No. 131 provides that notice of the decision to carry out a control shall be sent to the entity subject to control at least five working days prior to the carrying out of the control. Section 18(2) provides that this notice is not provided in the case of an unannounced control, and section 19 outlines the specific limited circumstances under which an unannounced control can be undertaken irrespective of the established schedule of control. In this regard, the tripartite committee’s report stated that the restrictions on the undertaking of unannounced inspections contained in sections 18 and 19 of Law No. 131 were incompatible with the requirements in Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 81. These restrictions are similarly incompatible with the requirements of Article 16(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 129.

The Committee notes the observations of the CNSM that although the Government has taken some measures to adapt the national legislation to the provisions of Article 12 of Convention No. 81, it still contains serious limitations on labour inspection activity. It notes the statement of the Government that with respect to planned controls, there is an awareness of the existing contradiction between the general rules for initiating an inspection (sections 14 and 20–23 of Law No. 131) and the provisions of Article 12. The Government indicates that this inconsistency will be removed as part of a legislative package to be adopted by Parliament, as a second phase in the reform of inspections. In particular, it indicates that it plans to provide for certain exemptions in respect of the obligation to provide prior notification five days before an inspection. Recalling the importance of fully empowering labour inspectors to make visits without previous notice in order to guarantee effective supervision, the Committee urges the Government to pursue its efforts to amend Law No. 131 to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered in line with Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 16(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 129 to make visits without previous notice. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken and to provide a copy of any legislative texts adopted in this regard.

Articles 15(c) and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 20(c) and 21 of Convention No. 129. Confidentiality concerning the fact that an inspection visit was made in response to the receipt of a complaint. The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report concerning the number of unscheduled inspections undertaken in 2015 and 2016, which indicates that such inspections were undertaken as a result of a complaint or to conduct an investigation following an accident. The Committee recalls that pursuant to Law No. 131, enterprises receive notice of inspections five days in advance for all inspections except unscheduled inspections. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in order to better guarantee confidentiality regarding any connection between a complaint and an inspection visit, it is important to ensure that a sufficient number of unannounced inspection visits are conducted independent of complaints or accidents. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a sufficient number of unscheduled inspections are undertaken to ensure that when inspections are conducted as a result of a complaint, the fact of the complaint as well as the identity of the complainant(s) is kept confidential.

Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129. Undertaking of inspections as often as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Committee previously noted, in light of the report of the tripartite committee, that certain provisions of Law No. 131 were not compatible with the principle contained in Article 16 of Convention No. 81. In particular, pursuant to section 14 of Law No. 131, control bodies are not entitled to perform a control of the same entity more than once in a calendar year, with the exception of unannounced inspections. Section 15 provides that each authority with supervisory functions shall develop a yearly plan for inspections which cannot be altered that indicates by quarter when an inspection is foreseen, and that it is not possible to perform an inspection not foreseen in the schedule. The Committee noted that the undertaking of inspection visits according to a schedule is not incompatible with Convention No. 81 to the extent that this schedule does not preclude the undertaking of a sufficient number of unscheduled visits, but that the particular limitations on the carrying out of unscheduled inspections contained in section 19 of Law No. 131 constituted an impediment to the carrying out of inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. It further noted that the limitations contained in section 3(g) of Law No. 131, that inspections can only be carried out when other means to verify compliance with the law have been exhausted, was not in conformity with Article 16 of Convention No. 81. The Committee subsequently noted the observations of the CNSM that Law No. 18, adopted on 4 March 2016, introduced a moratorium on, among other things, labour inspection for the period 1 April to 31 July 2016.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the existing framework does not expressly or implicitly limit the number of inspections which can be carried out in respect of an economic agent. Section 14 of Law No. 131 states that the inspection body must plan a maximum of one inspection per year unless the applied risk-based methodology requires a higher frequency, and for unscheduled inspections there is no limit at all. In addition, any follow-up inspection concerning violations will not be considered as a separate inspection. The Committee notes in this respect the information provided by the Government that, in 2015, 4,883 scheduled inspections were undertaken and 1,317 unscheduled inspections (arising from the investigation of complaints or accidents), as well as 117 follow up inspections. In 2016, this fell to 3,665 scheduled inspections, 610 unscheduled inspections and 42 follow-up inspections.

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s explanations concerning the use of a risk-based methodology as well as the number of unscheduled inspections undertaken. However, it notes that Law No. 131 permits unscheduled inspections only under certain specific conditions: they are subject to a delegation of control signed by the head authority vested with control functions; they cannot be carried out on the basis of unverified information and information received from anonymous sources; and they cannot be conducted when there are any other direct or indirect ways to obtain the information needed (sections 7 and 19). The Committee also notes that Law No. 230 amending and supplementing certain legislative acts of 2016 further amended Law No. 141 on labour inspection to remove the possibility of undertaking inspections as often as necessary to ensure compliance with the legislative provisions concerning occupational safety and health. Recalling with regret that it has been requesting action in this respect since 2015, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the national legislation is amended in the near future to allow for the undertaking of labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in conformity with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129. Further, recalling that any moratorium placed on labour inspection is a serious violation of these Conventions, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that no further restrictions of this nature are placed on labour inspection in the future.

Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129. Prompt legal or administrative proceedings The Committee notes that section 4(1) of Law No. 131 provides that inspections during the first three years of the operation of a company/employer shall be of a consultative nature. The Committee notes with concern that section 5(4) provides that in the event of minor violations, the sanctions provided for in the Administrative Offence Law or other laws may not be applied and, moreover, that section 5(5) provides that restrictive measures may not be applied in the event of severe violations. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129 provides that, with certain exceptions, legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors shall be liable to prompt legal proceedings without previous warning, and that it must be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give a warning or advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that labour inspectors are able to initiate or recommend immediate legal proceedings. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the meaning of “restrictive measures” that are prohibited from being imposed under Law No. 131, the number and nature of severe violations detected by inspectors, the sanctions proposed by inspectors, and the penalties ultimately applied.

Issues specifically concerning labour inspection in agriculture

Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129. Adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the training provided to labour inspectors that relates specifically to their duties in the agricultural sector, including the number of training programmes organized and the number of inspectors who participated in these programmes.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 107th Session and to reply in full to the present comments in 2018.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified governance Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Convention No. 81 and Convention No. 129 in a single comment.

The Committee notes the observations made by the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Moldova (CNSM) in its communications received on 25 May and 26 July 2016 concerning the lack of follow-up given to the recommendations in the report of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by the Republic of Moldova of Convention No. 81 submitted under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the CNSM and adopted by the Governing Body in March 2015 (GB.323/INS/11/6).

The CNSM emphasizes that, pursuant to the recommendations of the tripartite committee, the Republic of Moldova was requested to take, without further delay, the necessary steps to ensure effective implementation of Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 including the review of Laws Nos 131 and 140 in light of the conclusions of the report adopted by the Governing Body. The CNSM expresses concern that Law No. 131 on state control over business activity still provides for serious limitations to labour inspection activity, and that Law No. 18, adopted on 4 March 2016, introduced a moratorium on, among other things, labour inspection for the period 1 April to 31 July 2016. The Committee also notes the CNSM’s indications that the Government has submitted a draft law to Parliament to amend Law No. 131 on state control over business activity which could result, if adopted, in the abolition of the State Labour Inspectorate. The CNSM indicates that, pursuant to this draft law, the State Tax Inspectorate would be entrusted with “monitoring of labour discipline and the rights guaranteed by the labour legislation”. According to CNSM, the State Labour Inspectorate is no longer mentioned in the list of monitoring bodies and no provisions specify the body responsible for the control of the other aspects of labour law.

The Committee notes from information available at the ILO that both Law No. 131 on state control over business activity and Law No. 140 on state labour inspection were amended on 23 September 2016 by Law No. 293, which appears to introduce further restrictions and limitations on labour inspection.

The Committee requests that the Government provide its comments on the observations of the CNSM. It also requests that the Government provide a copy of Law No. 293 and indicate its impact on the application of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. In this respect, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation and practice into conformity with Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129 in light of the conclusions adopted by the Governing Body in 2015 and the observations of this Committee published in 2016. Moreover, the Committee recalls that any moratorium placed on labour inspection is a serious violation of these Conventions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous requests concerning Articles 19 and 27(f)–(g) on notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease in agriculture.

Article 9(3) of the Convention. Adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in reply to its previous query, about the two-stage induction training provided to labour inspectors, as well as other training opportunities for inspectors on specific subjects. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the training provided to labour inspectors that relates specifically to their duties in the agricultural sector, including the number of training programmes organized and the number of inspectors who participated in these programmes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes that the Government has only partially replied to the matters raised in its previous direct request. It is therefore bound to repeat most of its previous comments which read as follows:

Repetition

With reference to its comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Committee would be grateful if the Government would communicate the requested information in so far as labour inspection in agriculture is specifically concerned. The Committee also draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 9(3) of the Convention. Adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. According to the Government, article 37 of the Public Position and Public Civil Service Law provides for the organization of systematic and planned process of continuous professional development of all public servants. In that context, labour inspectors improve their skills through training courses and workshops in accordance with the programmes approved by the General Public Inspector. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed information on the content and frequency of training courses and workshops specifically geared to the exercise of the functions of labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would forward a copy of the aforementioned law and keep the ILO informed of measures taken to this end.

Articles 8(2) and 13. Involvement and collaboration of employers, workers and their organizations in inspection activities. According to the Government, the labour inspectorates have conducted meetings with the heads of local public administrations, devoted to the issues of efficient implementation of labour legislation in agriculture, as well as the health and safety rules applied to the works of this sector. Moreover, labour inspectors have visited agricultural enterprises together with the representatives of trade unions, sanitary and epidemiological centres, energy consumption boards and technical control agencies. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply as detailed information as possible on the specific activities of collaboration undertaken in relation to agricultural undertakings and their results.

Articles 19 and 27(f) and (g). Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease in agriculture and association of inspectors with on the spot inquiry into the cause thereof. Relevant statistics. According to the Government, in accordance with article 225, paragraph (u) of the Labour Code and article 13 of the Safety and Health Law No. 186-XVI of 10 July 2008, the employer is obliged to provide “correct and duly informing, investigation, account and reporting about accidents on manufacture and occupational diseases …”. The procedure related to this article has been established by the rules related to investigation of accidents approved by the Government’s Decision No. 1361 of 22 December 2005, under which the employer is obliged in case of an accident to inform immediately the labour inspection. With reference to its previous request, the Committee asks the Government once again to take necessary measures so that the labour inspectorate is also informed of work accidents and cases of occupational disease occurring in agriculture and that as far as possible labour inspectors are associated with any on the spot inquiry into the causes of such accidents or diseases.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would also provide a copy of the aforementioned Law and Government Decision.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

With reference to its comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Committee would be grateful if the Government would communicate the requested information in so far as labour inspection in agriculture is specifically concerned. The Committee also draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. According to the Government, article 37 of the Public Position and Public Civil Service Law provides for the organization of systematic and planned process of continuous professional development of all public servants. In that context, labour inspectors improve their skills through training courses and workshops in accordance with the programmes approved by the General Public Inspector. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed information on the content and frequency of training courses and workshops specifically geared to the exercise of the functions of labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would forward a copy of the aforementioned law and keep the ILO informed of measures taken to this end.

Article 8, paragraph 2, and Article 13. Involvement and collaboration of employers, workers and their organizations in inspection activities. According to the Government, the labour inspectorates have conducted meetings with the heads of local public administrations, devoted to the issues of efficient implementation of labour legislation in agriculture, as well as the health and safety rules applied to the works of this sector. Moreover, labour inspectors have visited agricultural enterprises together with the representatives of trade unions, sanitary and epidemiological centres, energy consumption boards and technical control agencies. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply as detailed information as possible on the specific activities of collaboration undertaken in relation to agricultural undertakings and their results.

Articles 19 and 27, paragraphs (f) and (g). Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease in agriculture and association of inspectors with on the spot inquiry into the cause thereof. Relevant statistics. According to the Government, in accordance with article 225, paragraph (u) of the Labour Code and article 13 of the Safety and Health Law No. 186-XVI of 10 July 2008, the employer is obliged to provide “correct and duly informing, investigation, account and reporting about accidents on manufacture and occupational diseases …”. The procedure related to this article has been established by the rules related to investigation of accidents approved by the Government’s Decision No. 1361 of 22 December 2005, under which the employer is obliged in case of an accident to inform immediately the labour inspection. With reference to its previous request, the Committee asks the Government once again to take necessary measures so that the labour inspectorate is also informed of work accidents and cases of occupational disease occurring in agriculture and that as far as possible labour inspectors are associated with any on the spot inquiry into the causes of such accidents or diseases. It asks the Government to ensure that relevant statistics will be included in the annual labour inspection report.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would also provide a copy of the aforementioned Law and Government Decision.

Articles 26 and 27. Publication of the annual report on labour inspection activities in the agricultural sector. While noting with interest the detailed information contained in the annual report on labour inspection activities, the Committee recalls that under Article 26(2) of the Convention the annual report of the central inspection authority should be published and would be grateful if the Government would clarify if such report for 2008 has been published. In the negative, the Committee requests it to take necessary measures to this end and to provide the ILO with relevant information.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report for the 2006–07 period. As labour inspection covers all areas of the economy, the Committee requests the Government to refer to its request under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), as regards the subjects common to both Conventions and draws its attention to the following points regarding labour inspection activities in agriculture.

Articles 8, paragraph 2, and 13 of the Convention. Involvement and collaboration of employers, workers and their organizations in inspection activities. The Committee notes with interest the implementation by the Government of collaboration between labour inspectors and employers’ and workers’ organizations under agreements concluded between the inspectorate and a number of occupational organizations in 2002 and 2003, namely the National Confederation of Employers, the “Solidarity” Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the Confederation of Trade Unions. This collaboration takes the form of consultations on the observance of labour legislation, exchanges of information, the joint examination of workers’ complaints by an inspector and a trade union leader, joint investigations of occupational accidents and also joint inspections. The Committee requests the Government to supply as detailed information as possible on the specific activities undertaken during the reporting period in relation to agricultural undertakings (for example, consultations, joint inspections, investigations) and their results.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee notes the Government’s information to the effect that labour inspectors follow various courses and seminars in the context of programmes approved by the Labour Inspector-General and that agricultural engineers and persons holding higher qualifications in technical areas may become labour inspectors. However, it notes that the Government does not state whether, among inspectors currently in service, some possess such qualifications, and notes that it is unclear from the programmes of further training seminars in the first and third quarters of 2006 communicated by the Government whether the training given to inspectors in this context is specifically geared to the exercise of their functions in agriculture. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the need to give specific training to labour inspectors working in agriculture, whether upon their entry into service or in the course of their employment, in order to improve the particular skills necessary for the inspection of conditions of work in agriculture relating to the specific hazards to which workers and their family members and also the environment are exposed, in particular those connected with the use of machinery and certain toxic products and substances. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to ensure that labour inspectors performing their duties in agriculture are given initial and further training enabling them to fully discharge their responsibility to afford protection to agricultural workers and their family members who live on agricultural undertakings. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the Office informed of measures taken to this end and supply information on the content and frequency of the training in question.

Articles 19 and 27. Notification of cases of occupational disease. Content of the annual report on the work of the inspection services in agriculture. With reference also to its request on this subject under Convention No. 81 and underlining the specific risks inherent in agricultural work, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the labour inspectorate is informed of cases of occupational disease occurring in agriculture (Article 19(1)) and that, as far as possible, inspectors are associated with any inquiry into the causes of occupational diseases which affect a number of workers or have fatal consequences (Article 19(2)). It also requests the Government to ensure that statistics of occupational diseases in agriculture and their causes are included in the annual report published by the central authority.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the information required for the report on the application of this Convention forms part of the report on the application of Convention No. 81. The Committee reminds the Government that article 22 of the ILO Constitution requires it to report on every instrument ratified. It points out that the work of the labour inspection system needs to be broken down by sector covered in order to ascertain its effectiveness and determine what needs to be done to improve it. The Government is therefore asked to provide in its next report the information required in respect of each part of the report form for this Convention, together with additional information on the following matters.

1. Articles 8, paragraph 2, 12, paragraph 1, and 13 of the Convention. Inclusion in the labour inspection system of occupational organizations and collaboration between the latter and the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes that according to section 371 of Labour Code No. 154-XV of 28 March 2003, trade unions, like the labour inspectorate, supervise application of the labour law and other relevant legal provisions. The rights and guarantees deriving from the performance of these duties are governed by sections 386 to 390 of the Labour Code. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how the supervisory activities referred to in the legal provisions are distributed in agricultural undertakings between the inspection services and the trade unions, and the practical arrangements for any cooperation between the two.

2. Article 9, paragraph 3. Appropriate training for inspection staff. Please indicate whether there is any plan for labour inspectors to receive appropriate training, in the course of their employment, for the duties they perform in agricultural undertakings. If not, the Committee hopes that measures will be taken to this end and that the Government will provide relevant information in its next report.

3. Article 15, paragraph 1(b). Transport facilities and refund of expenses. In view of the remote location of agricultural undertakings and the distance between them, the Government is asked to indicate how it ensures that labour inspectors have the necessary transport facilities to perform their duties.

4. Article 19. Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease, and association of inspectors with any on-the-spot enquiry into the causes thereof. The Committee notes that the legislation in force does not provide for notification to the inspectorate of industrial accidents in cases of occupational disease, but that such information is available at the Ministry of Health on request. The Committee asks the Government to take steps to ensure, as the Convention prescribes, that there is a requirement for the labour inspectorate to be notified of occupational accidents in cases of occupational disease in such cases and in such manner as the national laws or regulations prescribe, and for inspectors to be associated, as far as possible, with any enquiry on the spot into the causes of such accidents or diseases.

5. Annual inspection report. The Committee notes with interest that most of the information required by Article 27 is to be found in the Government’s report on the application of Convention No. 81. The Government is asked to take steps to ensure that, in future, such information appears separately in the general annual inspection report, in order to facilitate the central authority’s task of analysing and using the data in determining what most needs to be done to improve the working of the inspection system and to enable the Committee to ascertain to what extent the Convention is applied.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report in reply to its previous comments. It will thus examine, also on the basis of the documents requested under Convention No. 81, the way in which effect is given in law and in practice to the provisions of this Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the information provided in reply to its previous comments. Also with reference to its comments on Convention No. 81, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide copies of the texts requested under the above Convention.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Please indicate whether it is provided that labour inspectors shall benefit during the course of their employment from appropriate further training for the performance of their duties. If not, the Committee trusts that measures will be taken for this purpose and that the relevant information will be provided to the ILO.

Article 10. Noting with interest that the staff of the labour inspection service has been strengthened by the presence of 15 women inspectors, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the number of the latter designated to discharge their functions in agriculture and whether special duties have been assigned to them in this respect.

Articles 15 and 16, paragraph 1(c)(iii). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether it is planned, in the context of the reinforcement of resources planned for 2000, to provide inspection services with equipment intended for the removal for purposes of analysis of samples of products, materials and substances used in workplaces liable to inspection, thereby bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

The Government is also requested to provide a copy of any text issued to ensure the reimbursement to labour inspectors in agriculture of any travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties.

Article 19. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the manner in which it is ensured that the labour inspectorate is notified of cases of occupational disease occurring in the agricultural sector.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending 15 June 2000. It also notes the comments made by the Council of the General Federation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (No. 07-03/471, dated 3 August 2000) alleging that the Government’s report has a superficial character and does not fully reflect the points listed in the report form, providing only partial information. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information and clarification on the application of the following provisions of the Convention:

Article 2 of the Convention.  Please indicate whether the state inspectors for labour protection enforce arbitration awards and collective agreements upon which the force of law is conferred.

Article 10.  In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to indicate the percentage of women inspectors and any special duties which might have been assigned to them. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in accordance with section 5 of the Regulations on the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection both men and women can be employed in the capacity of state inspector, but no woman as yet has applied for a position of the state inspector for labour protection. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on any progress in this regard.

Article 12(2).  Please indicate whether recourse was had to the possibility provided for by paragraph 2 and, if so, what are the government services or institutions to which certain inspection duties have been entrusted, the nature of these duties, the manner in which they are carried out, and whether these inspection activities are subject to supervision by the central authority.

Article 15(1) and (2). In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to indicate specific arrangements made to give effect to these provisions of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the economic and financial situation in the Republic of Moldova does not allow to give effect to the provisions of this Article. Recalling the importance of placing material means at the disposal of inspection services for the effective performance of their duties, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to give effect to this Article of the Convention and to report on any progress achieved.

Article 16(1)(c)(iii).  In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether state inspectors had the powers provided for in this provision of the Convention and, if so, indicate the corresponding provisions in national legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s response that the state inspectors for protection of labour are not authorized to take or remove for purposes of analysis samples of products, materials and substances used or handled. Referring also to paragraphs 175-178 of its 1985 General Survey, the Committee wishes to stress the importance of this power of labour inspectors and asks the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged to apply these provisions of the Convention.

Article 18(4).  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in accordance with resolution No. 51 of the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection, dated 6 June 2000, the state inspectors for labour protection are obliged to inform workers and their representatives about the content of the record of proceedings of inspection visits. Recalling that under this Article the defects noted by an inspector when visiting an undertaking and the orders made shall be immediately made known not only to the representative of the workers, but also to the employer, the Committee asks the Government to indicate how effect is given to this provision of the Convention in so far as it concerns the notification to the employer.

Article 19(1) and (2).  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in accordance with section 3 of the Regulations on the procedure of investigation of occupational accidents, approved by resolution No. 380 of 23 April 1998, the administration of the enterprise has the duty to ensure the reporting of occupational accidents. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection shall be notified also of cases of occupational disease.

Article 20(b).  Please indicate the penalties or disciplinary measures which are prescribed if state inspectors (former state inspectors) reveal manufacturing and commercial secrets or other information.

Article 21.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the current number of inspectors as well as the material and technical support of the State Inspectorate for the Labour Protection do not allow to achieve the frequency of inspection visits necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate measures envisaged to improve the situation.

Article 24.  In its previous comments the Committee has asked the Government to indicate what penalties are provided for obstructing state inspectors in the performance of their duties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the existing legislation does not prescribe such penalties. It requests the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged to apply these provisions of the Convention.

Article 26.  The Committee notes a copy of the report on the activities of the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection in 1999. It asks the Government to indicate what is the procedure for access to such report by an interested party.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's first report for the period ending 31 May 1999. It also notes the comments made by the National Confederation of Employers of the Republic of Moldova (No. 03/1-49 of 22 June 1999) and those of the Council of the General Federation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (No. 07/0/377 of 9 June 1999). It requests the Government to provide further information on the application of the following provisions of the Convention.

Article 1, paragraph 1. Please indicate the legal provisions which define the term "agricultural undertaking" for the purpose of the Convention.

Article 1, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether any decisions have been taken pursuant to paragraph 2 and give details of the procedure for consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers.

Article 1, paragraph 3. Please indicate whether any decisions have been taken by the competent authority pursuant to this provision.

Article 2. Please indicate whether arbitration awards and collective agreements upon which have the force of law are enforceable by state inspectors for labour protection.

Article 5, paragraph 3. Please indicate the effect given or envisaged to the provisions of the Convention as regards the categories of persons referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (c) of Article 5 who are not covered by a declaration.

Article 6, paragraph 1(c). Please indicate how effect is given to this provision.

Article 6, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether any functions of the kind referred to in this provision have been assigned to the state inspectors for labour protection and the manner in which they are exercised in practice.

Article 8, paragraph 2. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether and in what manner officials or representatives of occupational organizations have been included in the system of labour inspection and, if so, to describe their status, their conditions of service and the powers granted to them in the exercise of their functions.

Article 9, paragraph 2. Please provide details in respect of the means of ascertaining the qualifications of state inspectors.

Article 10. Please indicate the percentage of women inspectors and any special duties which might have been assigned to them.

Article 12, paragraph 1, and Article 13. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the arrangements made by the competent authority to promote effective cooperation within the meaning of this provision, and the specific forms of such cooperation.

Article 12, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether effect is given to this provision and, if so, to which government services or institutions inspection duties have been entrusted, the nature of these duties, the manner in which they are carried out, and whether these inspection activities are subject to supervision by the central authority.

Article 14. Please indicate the actual number of state inspectors and their different categories, including inspectors to whom special or technical functions may be assigned, and the geographical distribution of the inspection staff.

Article 15, paragraphs 1 and 2. Please indicate specific arrangements made to give effect to these provisions of the Convention.

Article 16, paragraphs 1(c)(i) and 1(c)(iii). Please indicate whether state inspectors have the powers provided for in these provisions of the Convention and, if so, indicate the corresponding provisions in national legislation.

Article 16, paragraph 3. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the legal provisions giving effect to these provisions of the Convention and the manner in which they are applied in practice.

Article 18, paragraph 2(a). Please indicate whether state inspectors for labour protection are authorized to make or to have made orders requiring such alterations to the installation or plant, to be carried out within a specified time limit, as may be necessary to secure compliance with the legal provisions relating to the health or safety of the workers and, if so, please indicate the corresponding provisions in national legislation.

Article 18, paragraph 3. In cases in which paragraph 3 is applicable, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the competent authority within the meaning of this paragraph and the procedure followed in such cases.

Article 18, paragraph 4. Please indicate in what manner effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

Article 19, paragraph 1. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the procedure according to which the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection is notified of occupational accidents and whether the State Inspectorate shall be notified also of cases of occupational disease.

Article 19, paragraph 2. Please indicate how effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

Article 20, paragraph (b). Please indicate the penalties or disciplinary measures which are prescribed if state inspectors (former state inspectors) reveal manufacturing and commercial secrets or other information which may come to their knowledge in the course of their duties.

Article 21. Please indicate the measures taken to ensure adequate frequency and thoroughness of inspection visits.

Article 22, paragraph 1. Please indicate whether persons who violate or neglect to observe legal provisions enforceable by state inspectors for labour protection are liable to legal proceedings without previous warning and whether in certain cases previous notice to carry out remedial or preventive measures is to be given.

Article 22, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether state inspectors for labour protection have the discretion to give warning and advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings.

Article 23. Please describe the procedure followed for the institution of proceedings in case of infringements of the legal provisions.

Article 24. Please indicate what penalties are provided for obstructing state inspectors in the performance of their duties.

Article 26, paragraph 2. Please indicate the time limits established for publication of the annual report.

Part III of the report form. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether courts of law or other tribunals have given decisions involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide copies of the following documents:

-- the most recent annual general report published by the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection;

-- the most recent version of the Code of the Republic of Moldova on administrative offences;

-- the most recent version of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova;

-- Law No. 443-XIII of 4 May 1995 on the public service;

-- Resolution No. 286 of the Government of 24 May 1993 on the unified conditions of remuneration of labour of employees of budgetary institutions on the basis of the unified wage scale;

-- Resolution No. 154 of the Government of 22 April 1994 approving the procedure of formation and utilization of special funds of labour protection of economic units, ministries, departments, other state administration bodies, pri-mayor's offices of cities and regional executive committees;

-- Resolution No. 890 of the Government of 20 December 1995 on the organization of education in the area of labour protection;

-- Resolution No. 835 of the Government of 5 December 1994 (as amended) on streamlining of the use of official cars in the bodies of public administration;

-- Resolution No. 380 of the Government of 23 April 1997 on the approval of regulations on the procedure for investigation of accidents in the industry;

-- Resolution No. 780 of the Government of 13 August 1998 on the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection, attached to the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family;

-- Order No. 341-p of the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family of the Republic of Moldova concerning the structure of the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection, of 30 December 1998.