Guarding of Machinery Convention, 1963 (No. 119) - Guinea (Ratification: 1966)

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

Legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new Labour Code was adopted through Decree No. D/2014/011/PRG/SGG of 10 January 2014 and that an Order issuing general safety and health protection measures applicable to all workplaces liable to inspection and issuing general measures from the Occupational Safety and Health Committee, was examined and adopted by the Labour and Social Legislation Advisory Committee at its April 2015 session. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the specific provisions of the new legislation that give effect to the provisions of the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of the abovementioned Order, which was adopted in April 2015.

Article 11(1) of the Convention. Prohibition on using machinery without the guards provided being in position. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that section 231.3 of the new Labour Code provides that workers must refrain from removing health and safety devices, even where this is authorized by the employer. In this regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to Article 11(1) of the Convention, which provides that no worker shall “be required to use any machinery without the guards provided being in position”. The Committee notes that the wording of section 231.3 of the Labour Code appears to provide for the case in which the employer authorizes the removal of safety devices, thereby making the worker responsible for observing the prohibition. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or contemplated in law and in practice to ensure that an employer is expressly prohibited from authorizing the removal of safety devices.

Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, extracts from inspection reports and, where such statistics exist, details of the number of accidents recorded in relation to the Convention, the number and nature of infringements reported, etc.

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

The Committee notes the information that no legislative changes have yet been undertaken but that a new Labour Code is being prepared, and that section 231.3 of this Labour Code will resolve the question raised by the Committee previously. The Committee is required to recall that since 1998 it has been asking the Government to make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future to ensure full compliance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to submit a copy of all relevant legislation to the Office once it has been adopted. In the meantime the Committee must repeat its previous comment which read as follows.

Repetition

Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments indicating that it has taken due note that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also notes the Government’s statement that such authorization is only based on prior measures taken by the employer to avoid all exposure to occupational risks, and that in any event it is the responsibility of the employer to promote best safety conditions at workplaces periodically visited by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would nonetheless request the Government to consider including in the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, a specific provision prohibiting such authorization or order to remove safety devices, as required by this Article of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

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

Repetition

Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments indicating that it has taken due note that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also notes the Government’s statement that such authorization is only based on prior measures taken by the employer to avoid all exposure to occupational risks, and that in any event it is the responsibility of the employer to promote best safety conditions at workplaces periodically visited by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would nonetheless request the Government to consider including in the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, a specific provision prohibiting such authorization or order to remove safety devices, as required by this Article of the Convention.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

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

Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments indicating that it has taken due note that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also notes the Government’s statement that such authorization is only based on prior measures taken by the employer to avoid all exposure to occupational risks, and that in any event it is the responsibility of the employer to promote best safety conditions at workplaces periodically visited by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would nonetheless request the Government to consider including in the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, a specific provision prohibiting such authorization or order to remove safety devices, as required by this Article of the Convention.

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

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

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

Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments indicating that it has taken due note that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also notes the Government’s statement that such authorization is only based on prior measures taken by the employer to avoid all exposure to occupational risks, and that in any event it is the responsibility of the employer to promote best safety conditions at workplaces periodically visited by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would nonetheless request the Government to consider including in the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, a specific provision prohibiting such authorization or order to remove safety devices, as required by this Article of the Convention.

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

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

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

Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments indicating that it has taken due note that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also notes the Government’s statement that such authorization is only based on prior measures taken by the employer to avoid all exposure to occupational risks, and that in any event it is the responsibility of the employer to promote best safety conditions at workplaces periodically visited by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would nonetheless request the Government to consider including in the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, a specific provision prohibiting such authorization or order to remove safety devices, as required by this Article of the Convention.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

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

Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments indicating that it has taken due note that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also notes the Government’s statement that such authorization is only based on prior measures taken by the employer to avoid all exposure to occupational risks, and that in any event it is the responsibility of the employer to promote best safety conditions at workplaces periodically visited by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would nonetheless request the Government to consider including in the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, a specific provision prohibiting such authorization or order to remove safety devices, as required by this Article of the Convention.

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

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

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. Despite the comments reiterated for several years, the Committee notes that the report does not reply to its observations and is therefore bound to repeat its previous observation on the following points:

2. Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments indicating that it has taken due note that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also notes the Government’s statement that such authorization is only based on prior measures taken by the employer to avoid all exposure to occupational risks, and that in any event it is the responsibility of the employer to promote best safety conditions at workplaces periodically visited by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would nonetheless request the Government to consider including in the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, a specific provision prohibiting such authorization or order to remove safety devices, as required by this Article of the Convention.

2. The Committee hopes that the Government will do its utmost to take the necessary measures in the very near future.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that Decree No. 5253 GTLS-AOF of 19 July 1954 has not been in force for a long time, but that old colonial texts, including Decree No. 5253, like ILO Recommendations, are taken into account in the drafting of the Labour Code implementing regulations that are in progress. Given the Committee’s previous comments, in which it had pointed out that Decree No. 5253 had given effect to several provisions of the Convention, the Committee hopes that the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, will take up the relevant provisions of Decree No. 5253, and thus ensure the full application of the provisions of the Convention.

2. Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments indicating that it has taken due note that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also notes the Government’s statement that such authorization is only based on prior measures taken by the employer to avoid all exposure to occupational risks, and that in any event it is the responsibility of the employer to promote best safety conditions at workplaces periodically visited by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would nonetheless request the Government to consider including in the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, a specific provision prohibiting such authorization or order to remove safety devices, as required by this Article of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the Government's report that Decree No. 5253 GTLS-AOF of 19 July 1954 has not been in force for a long time, but that old colonial texts, including Decree No. 5253, like ILO Recommendations, are taken into account in the drafting of the Labour Code implementing regulations that are in progress. Given the Committee's previous comments, in which it had pointed out that Decree No. 5253 had given effect to several provisions of the Convention, the Committee hopes that the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, will take up the relevant provisions of Decree No. 5253, and thus ensure the full application of the provisions of the Convention.

2. Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's reply to its previous comments indicating that it has taken due note that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also notes the Government's statement that such authorization is only based on prior measures taken by the employer to avoid all exposure to occupational risks, and that in any event it is the responsibility of the employer to promote best safety conditions at workplaces periodically visited by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would nonetheless request the Government to consider including in the draft Labour Code implementing regulations that are in preparation, a specific provision prohibiting such authorization or order to remove safety devices, as required by this Article of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

1. In its previous direct request, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether Decree No. 5253 GTLS-AOF of 19 July 1954 was still in force.

In its report, the Government indicated that the above-mentioned Decree is still used as a guideline and that it has the intention to proceed with the adaptation of these old texts.

Given that Decree No. 5253 gives effect to several provisions of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to specify whether the Decree No. 5254 is in force and to communicate information on the adoption of the regulations provided in the Labour Code.

2. With respect to its previous comment on section 170 of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government's indication that, by virtue of section 169 of the Labour Code, the employer is required to take all useful measures adapted to the conditions of the enterprise to protect the life and health of workers. The Committee notes, nevertheless, that section 170 of the Labour Code seems to permit employers to authorize or to order workers to remove safety devices, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the employer can, by virtue of section 170, authorize or order workers to remove safety guards from machines.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes Ordinance No. 003/PRG/SGG/88 of 28 January 1988, issuing the Labour Code. It would be grateful if the Government would supply additional information in its next report on the following points:

1. Under section 406 of the Labour Code, the regulations issued under the 1960 Labour Code remain in force for all their provisions which are not contrary to the present Labour Code. Please indicate whether Order No. 5253GTLS-AOF dated 19 July 1954, issued under the Overseas Labour Code, remains in force.

2. Article 11 of the Convention. Section 170 of the Code provides that employees shall use health and safety devices properly and shall refrain from removing them or modifying them without the employer's permission. As this Article of the Convention forbids a worker to be required to use any machinery without the guards provided being in position or to make inoperative the guards provided, please indicate whether section 170 of the Code permits an employer to authorise a worker to remove or modify a guard when this would be contrary to his safety, or to request him to do so.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

Further to its previous observations, the Committee notes with satisfaction that Order No. 003 PRG/SGG/88 of 28 January 1988 issuing the Labour Code, contains provisions on the guarding of machinery that are applicable to all sectors of economic activity, including the maritime and agricultural sectors, in accordance with Article 17 of the Convention. The new Labour Code also gives effect to the provisions of Article 11 of the Convention, forbidding workers to use machinery without the guards provided being in position or to make inoperative the guards provided.

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