Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Honduras (Ratification: 1983)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2015, Publication: 104th ILC session (2015)



A Government representative described the progress made by the Government in relation to the observations of the Committee of Experts. Regarding the function of inspectors in labour disputes, he said that they no longer carried out conciliation or mediation duties, which were now undertaken by a specialized service. On the adequacy of human, financial and material resources, the Government was implementing an action plan to strengthen inspection, which included a strategy, instruments and logistics to reinforce the inspection plan in line with the requirements of the Convention. A further 94 inspectors would be added by 2016 to the current number of 141. Concerning vehicles, although they were not for the exclusive use of the inspectorate, they were utilized on a priority basis to carry out these actions, and the action plan provided for the strengthening of this logistical aspect. With regard to the need to ensure appropriate conditions of service, employment stability and independence of inspectors, the job security of inspectors had been guaranteed, with over 50 per cent having worked for the inspectorate for between ten and 25 years. Moreover, a system was in place which divided inspectors into three categories, new inspectors, senior inspectors and inspection supervisors, and the provisional draft of the new legislation provided for selection criteria including competitive examinations, educational qualifications and seniority. Regarding independence from improper influences, several instruments were applicable, such as inspection protocols and the Civil Service Act. With respect to adequate and effectively enforced penalties, the planned legislative reform provided for the strengthening of enforcement capacities to prevent violations of labour laws. The obstruction of labour inspection was considered very serious, and the offending enterprise was penalized on the basis of the minimum wage and of the number of workers affected. Violations of labour legislation recorded by inspectors had totalled 3,082 in 2014, and exceeded 5,357 in the first quarter of 2015 alone. As labour inspection was an essential component of the Government’s efforts to ensure compliance with labour law, it had requested ILO technical assistance in 2014 to conduct an audit of the performance of the labour inspectorate, and the first meeting had been held with the consultant appointed by the Office in May 2015, which had led to the start of a general planning phase. The audit, which was scheduled to begin in the last week of June 2015 and for which a technical support committee had been established, would be based on the rigorous work of a group of ILO experts. He reiterated the Government’s commitment to reinforce the labour inspectorate through an action plan introduced within the framework of the tripartite monitoring and follow-up commission, within a time frame of 2015–16 and budget already approved by the Office of the President. The action plan, which took into account the observations of the Committee of Experts and the need to strengthen the inspectorate, comprised seven main areas and over 15 activities to be carried out in 12 months. The outcomes and progress achieved would be included in the 2016 report on the application of the Convention.

The Worker members considered that Honduras had failed at all levels to guarantee compliance with the Convention owing to a series of problems in law and practice, which had left workers with no protection and without any effective remedy for the violation of their rights. This had been confirmed in February 2015 by a report of the United States Department of Labor in response to a complaint submitted by 26 Honduran trade unions and civil society organizations. The report revealed that for some years the Government had been failing to enforce labour legislation through labour inspection and the justice system. The Worker members therefore concluded that the Government had little political will to ensure the effective implementation of labour laws. There were several key areas of non-compliance with the Convention. The number of inspectors (119 full-time employees) was insufficient and was concentrated in the capital and the country’s main business centre. Inspectors were frequently prevented from entering factories, they rarely sought the assistance of the police, and the Ministry of Labour did not resort to the tribunals to oblige employers to authorize their entry. Penalties were not adequate (employers who prevented inspectors from carrying out their tasks were subject to a fine of only between US$2.40 and $240), fines were rarely imposed and the penalties had not been reviewed since 1980 (for example, the fine for not paying the minimum wage was between $4.80 and $48, and the figure was not multiplied by the number of workers concerned), and where fines were imposed and paid, the file was closed without investigating whether the cause had been rectified (for example, an agricultural undertaking, due to not paying the minimum wage, owed a total of $129,818, a fine of $240 had been assessed and following payment the file had been closed regardless of the fact that salaries were still being paid below the minimum wage). When inspections were conducted, the follow-up through second inspections was very weak, and there was no review of the violations identified in the initial inspection. Moreover, inspectors did not have the necessary material resources, such as vehicles and petrol, and the performance of inspections even depended on whether workers paid the transport and costs, which constituted a major obstacle to the performance of inspections in a country where 60 per cent of the population lived below the poverty threshold, with the situation in rural areas being even worse. In conclusion, the labour inspection system did not guarantee the fulfilment of the legal provisions relating to working conditions and the protection of workers when carrying out their work. This was not because of a lack of resources, as the Government had benefited from various international cooperation projects, particularly two regional projects financed by the United States, for which several million US dollars had been spent. It appeared that the Government had taken a clear decision not to establish an adequate labour inspection system to protect workers with the aim of creating a favourable climate for trade and investment based on the exploitation of a cheap workforce. The case was particularly serious. Effective measures needed be taken to ensure that Honduras achieved compliance with the Convention as soon as possible.

The Employer members expressed their deep concern at the inadequate application of the Convention in Honduras and emphasized the importance of maintaining an effective system of inspection. They took note of the observations of the Committee of Experts and the Government’s replies concerning in particular: measures taken to ensure that inspectors did not find themselves acting as both judge and interested party; inadequate human and financial resources that limited the capacity for routine inspections or might give rise to improper influence; difficulties regarding the imposition of adequate penalties; and problems relating to transport and the conduct of inspections in commercial and industrial workplaces. The labour inspectorate had been established in 1959, and no changes had been made to it since then. There were deficiencies in the selection and training of inspectors. Inspectors were exposed to acts of corruption and did not act with due independence. Routine inspections were very rare. Since transport for inspectors had to be paid for by the parties concerned, workers who lacked such means had no access to the inspection services. Inspectors’ salaries were the lowest in the public administration, and their categories had not been reviewed for years. The number of inspectors was insufficient for the needs of the country, most of them were located in major cities and there was no thematic specialization. In addition, with regard to occupational safety and health, the function of labour inspection was confused with the work of the officials of the Honduran Social Security Institute. The country’s private sector agreed with the need to reform the Labour Code and modernize labour inspection to make it efficient and adapt it to current needs. Following the example of a recent tripartite meeting in Honduras, the Employer members emphasized the need to make progress in improving labour inspection in consultation with the social partners, including the representative business sectors, with a view to ensuring the relevance of the reform and due compliance with the aims of the Convention. Finally, the Employer members recalled the importance of conducting labour inspection in both the formal and informal sectors, with a view to creating the appropriate conditions for formalizing the latter.

The Worker member of Honduras said that labour inspection was a fundamental means of guaranteeing the free exercise of the rights enshrined in international Conventions and domestic labour law, and that the Government should take the appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the law by employers. With regard to the authority of inspection services to impose penalties, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security was failing to exercise the power to impose administrative penalties for violations of labour legislation provided for in section 625 of the Labour Code. When levied, fines were not commensurate with the offence committed. The maximum fine was 5,000 lempiras, equivalent to US$228. He emphasized that penalties should serve as an example. The total number of inspectors was too low, as there was only one inspector for approximately 24,000 workers. Furthermore, inspection activities focused mainly on complaints, and much less on routine inspection. In general, inspection activities were confined to carrying out poor investigations without imposing penalties on employers. No priority was given to full inspections at workplaces that would give the State a real overview and allow it to address labour violations that workers were usually afraid to report for fear of losing their jobs. For example, in maquila enterprises, export processing zones did not allow labour inspection by threatening to close down and lay off thousands of workers. Notwithstanding section 624 of the Labour Code, which provided that an inspector could not abandon an investigation without higher level authorization, workers were frequently left with their labour disputes unresolved. Moreover, inspectors would request workers to pay inspection costs, including transport, as a condition for dealing with their complaints. Workers were also charged for receiving any official record of the action taken by inspectors in relation to their complaints, in violation of the principle that labour inspection should be free. There were allegations that inspectors encouraged workers to drop their complaints and that they received incentives from employers to be lax in carrying out effective investigations, although such conduct was prohibited by law. Nevertheless, the competent authorities did not bring disciplinary proceedings against inspectors. Employers frequently denied access to workplaces, as had been done in the case of a large sugar enterprise. Inspectors almost never made use of their authority to request the police to provide them with access to the workplace, and in many cases even the police declined to use their powers of enforcement. The Ministry of Labour rarely fined employers who refused inspections, and when attempts were made to bring criminal charges, the Office of the Public Prosecutor did not accept them, as it did not know how to proceed. The Government must comply with the Convention and with domestic law.

The Employer member of Honduras said that national labour legislation dated back to 1959 and there had been no substantial reform of the provisions respecting labour inspection since then, even though the country had ratified the Convention in 1983. However, it was a governance Convention that was being examined by the three social partners in Honduras, which had asked for ILO collaboration for an audit of its labour inspection system. The findings of the audit would be communicated to the social partners through the Economic and Social Council. The employers of Honduras were committed to a complete overhaul of the Labour Code and were in favour of the revision and adoption of a new Labour Inspection Act, that should guarantee the professionalism of labour inspectors, their multi-tasking and their specialization according to the economic areas or activities, as well as the creation of a career in labour inspection. The reform would have to clarify inspection procedures and ensure that the penalties imposed on those who violated the labour legislation were commensurate with the type of infraction committed and were established objectively and with due regard for the right to legal defence and protection for all the parties concerned. Even taking into account Honduras’ economic problems, the number of labour inspectors, of approximately 112 for a population of 8 million, was still low. A graduated budget should therefore be introduced as from 2015 that guaranteed not just the payment of salaries, but also the necessary logistical support for inspectors to travel in official vehicles, instead of private vehicles belonging to those who requested their services. Honduran employers were determined to work with their tripartite partners to bring about a legal instrument that could guarantee their objectives in compliance with the roadmap that had been approved. The new instrument would be adopted in Honduras’ Economic and Social Council, before being submitted to the National Congress.

The Government member of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), noted the technical assistance that Honduras was receiving from the ILO for an audit of the national labour inspectorate, as well as the action plan for the consolidation of the inspectorate, the legislative reforms and the effective cooperation and efforts of all the sectors concerned. The action plan was a joint undertaking by the Government and the social partners, with ILO assistance, with the objective of achieving the targets that had been set for 2016. The action plan had the financial support of the Office of the President for the 2016 budget. GRULAC emphasized its commitment to the consolidation of the labour inspectorate and trusted that the Government would continue creating, improving and implementing policies to improve the effectiveness of labour inspection.

The Worker member of Guatemala said that the proper functioning of labour inspection was key to the enforcement of labour standards. The inspection service was part of the state system of law enforcement and the mode of operation of the inspectorate reflected how much attention was given to labour rights by the State. There were serious problems in the operation of labour inspection in Honduras, as emphasized by the Committee of Experts. Even though it was necessary to strengthen the inspectorate with material resources and an increased number of inspectors, it was not sufficient to improve the service. Other aspects had to be taken into consideration, some of which were covered by the report of the Committee of Experts. For example, it was prejudicial for the functions of mediation and conciliation to be combined with those of supervision and inspection, since that could result in the negotiation of minimum conditions of work for the workers. It was also necessary for the labour inspection system to have adequate powers to impose penalties for non-compliance with labour standards and for such penalties to be applied effectively. Accordingly, it was unacceptable that inspectors asked the workers to pay their expenses for tasks that inspectors were required to perform by law. Moreover, employers frequently denied inspectors entry into workplaces and, even though such conduct was illegal, it was not penalized. Consequently, it was essential for the labour inspection service to be reformed and for effective and dissuasive penalties to be established. For that reason, it was important that the Government take full account of the observations of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Nicaragua endorsed the statement by GRULAC and called on Nicaragua to give high priority to the international standards that it had ratified. For those standards to be properly implemented, account nevertheless needed to be taken, not only of the resources required, but also of specific national circumstances. Honduras’ commitment to respect workers’ rights and the positive steps taken relating to labour inspection, such as the action plan for its consolidation, were encouraging. She also emphasized the technical assistance provided by the ILO for an audit of the functioning of the labour inspectorate, which she hoped would have a positive effect. Although the State was primarily responsible for protecting workers’ rights, the spirit of the Organization was tripartite participation. Honduras should be encouraged to continue its efforts on behalf of the people, and the Conference Committee should take a favourable view of the steps that were being taken to give effect to the Convention.

The Worker member of the United States said that it was not possible to comply with the commitments under a trade agreement to protect workers’ rights without a functioning labour inspectorate. Yet, this was what Honduras and the United States had done since the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) had entered into force in 2006. He recalled that unions in Honduras and the United States had filed a complaint in 2012 concerning the failure of Honduras to enforce its labour laws and ILO commitments under CAFTA. The United States had not formally responded to the complaint for three years, despite ongoing documentation of violations and failures relating to inspection. The Government of the United States had finally responded to the complaint, found “serious concerns” and announced a series of technical cooperation programmes to increase the labour inspectorate’s capacity, but no unions had been consulted in designing the programmes. After years of inaction, the Government of Honduras had made a series of announcements concerning its intentions to comply, with descriptions of programmes and legislative proposals that were being launched. Those announcements were welcome, but had been made before. As in the Guatemalan case, it seemed that three years of complete inaction was acceptable. Meanwhile, mechanisms to defend the interests of investors and multinational corporations adopted decisions that included remedies in dozens of cases each year. The Conference Committee should note with concern the Government’s ineffectiveness in defending workers’ rights through the use of ILO Conventions in trade agreements. He recalled that the Committee had heard the case of Honduras two years ago, and his organization’s remarks at that time had focused on the same employer violations that continued today. The Government had failed to take note of the documented intransigence and had failed to enforce laws or ensure the compliance of the trade agreement with the ILO Conventions that it had ratified. And yet Honduras, and the company in question, continued to enjoy trade benefits. There were also employers in the country which complied with obligations regarding labour inspection and, in the same way as those in violation, such companies should be recognized. Many workplaces in Honduras, especially in the agricultural sector, were privately inspected and certified. That presented a conflict of interest, as the auditor profited by providing services to suppliers, and wanted more business opportunities. In a country such as Honduras, these private compliance initiatives further perpetuated the governance gap.

The Government member of El Salvador endorsed the statement of GRULAC and recognized the Government’s efforts and its momentum in strengthening the labour inspection, including through the action plan. She emphasized that the inspection was one of the fundamental pillars of the State and trusted that the Government of Honduras would continue its efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the inspection system.

The Worker member of Spain said that in Honduras melon production represented 11 per cent of agricultural exports, and this work was carried out mainly by women, representing two-thirds of the workforce in the country. They were mainly young women without family support, with four or five children, and employed in temporary jobs. Women workers were paid 70 per cent less than the national minimum wage, were not paid overtime and had long working hours. Although accidents at work and health problems caused by the intensive use of agrochemicals were common, most workers lacked access to social security protection, including health services, and there was no response to the numerous requests to inspect these violations. The critical situation in the field of labour inspection in Honduras directly affected the human rights of workers and their families. The Government was not responding to the needs of inspecting compliance with labour legislation, particularly in the agricultural sector.

The Government member of the United States said that the Government of the United States had been working closely with the Government of Honduras under the labour chapter of CAFTA to strengthen the protection of internationally recognized workers’ rights in the country. In February 2015, they had jointly pledged to work together to address issues of labour law enforcement, including the establishment and implementation of a monitoring and action plan. Her Government was encouraged by the political will of the Government of Honduras, and encouraged it to fully implement the planned reforms, including through the allocation of sufficient resources to the inspectorate to conduct regular and thorough inspections of workplaces and apply effectively dissuasive penalties for non-compliance with the labour legislation, in accordance with the Convention. Her Government was committed to continued collaboration with the Government of Honduras, particularly for the implementation of the planned reforms on labour law enforcement.

The Worker member of Brazil said that the situation in Honduras was urgent. Although the Convention was technical, its importance was immeasurable and it was closely related to other Conventions. If a country violated the present Convention, there was a danger that it would fail to observe all of the others. The report of the Committee of Experts described the seriousness of the situation: the number of inspectors was insufficient; inspectors lacked the material resources to perform their duties; and penalties were inadequate and inefficiently applied. In addition to a very limited number of inspectors, other obstacles hampered the performance of their functions, as was evident in the report of the Committee of Experts. Workers had to pay for inspectors’ transport in order for them to perform their assigned duties. That illustrated the level of negligence, indifference and fragility of the labour inspection system in Honduras. There were many more complaint-based inspections than routine inspections. That implied that labour inspection was adopting a reactive rather than a preventive approach. Lastly, employers who denied entry to labour inspectors were not effectively penalized.

The Government member of Guatemala endorsed the statement made by GRULAC and recognized that Honduras attached significance to the aim of strengthening labour inspection as a fundamental pillar of the State, to be realized through activities with ILO support, of which the technical assistance was essential. She praised the action plan to strengthen inspection, which had been adopted on a tripartite basis and with ILO assistance and had already received budgetary support for its implementation. She encouraged the Government to continue working on strengthening its labour institutions and, under tripartite leadership, to continue building an effective labour inspection.

An observer representing the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) noted with deep concern the violation of the Convention by Honduras, its inability to cope with the situation and the lack of budgetary resources. He called on the ILO to supervise rigorously the implementation of the Convention and expressed solidarity with Honduran workers.

The Government representative indicated that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had prepared an action plan for inspection which aimed to substantially improve labour inspection. This plan had established priorities, including increased assistance for workers and employers regarding the consultations and requests submitted; powers of the inspectors to enter workplaces; prompt processing of inspection requests, in accordance with procedural protocols by sector relating both to the working conditions and to occupational safety and health; monitoring and conclusion of the inspection administrative procedure with enforcement measures and the imposition of penalties for offences; and monitoring of the safety and confidentiality networks relating to inspectors’ activities. The action plan had the technical and political support of the highest Governmental bodies and a draft budget was being prepared for 2016. The social partners actively participated in the plan by means of a tripartite committee for follow-up and monitoring. Furthermore, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security was finalizing the bill on the General Inspection Act, which proposed substantial changes to inspection procedures and provided, inter alia, for the strengthening of inspectors’ powers, a new penalty system for socio-labour offences and a review of the profile and working conditions for labour inspectors in the civil service. In this context, ILO technical services would conduct an audit of labour inspection to determine and analyse the current situation of inspection in all areas and in different regional offices with a view to identifying priorities and formulating recommendations within an action plan which the Ministry of Labour and Social Security was resolutely determined to implement in the short, medium and long term. The audit would encompass the legislative, procedural and administrative aspects of labour inspection, as well as technological development, administrative organization, organic structure and links with public and private institutions. The focus of the audit was based on the notion of an inspection system in conformity with the Convention which should integrate in a coordinated manner all of its elements, including human resources, and material, legislative, administrative and logistic resources, with the participation of workers and employers in order to provide an effective inspection service. The audit was due to commence at the end of the month, and its detailed results would be provided in a special report and would be included in the detailed report on the Convention for 2016. He thanked the ILO for the technical assistance provided and recognized the efforts of the Worker and Employer members, and their commitment to the action plan to achieve these ambitious objectives, which corresponded with the observations of the Committee of Experts. Lastly, he reiterated his Government’s commitment to continue complying with the Convention by developing, improving and implementing policies to ensure the full effectiveness of labour inspection.

The Worker members welcomed the fact that, in the light of the recent report of the United States Department of Labor, the Government of Honduras had developed an action plan and accepted technical assistance of the United States, which would be overseen by a tripartite committee. They also welcomed the fact that the Government was planning to draft a new general labour inspection act. They hoped that those initiatives would succeed in overhauling the labour inspection services, which had failed to implement labour legislation effectively due to corruption and indifference. While endorsing the need for technical assistance, the Worker members emphasized that it must be supported by political will and that the Government must give the labour inspection services a sense of a mission to be undertaken with professionalism and respect for the rule of law. In order to ensure that workplaces were inspected as regularly and thoroughly as necessary to ensure the effective application of legislation, the Worker members urged the Government to substantially increase the number of labour inspectors, particularly in areas that were currently grossly neglected, and to ensure that they had the material resources needed to carry out their work, including vehicles; to formulate a proactive labour inspection plan targeting sectors where there were serious and systematic labour legislation violations, including the maquila, agricultural and other sectors; to ensure that labour inspectors received the relevant training and take all necessary steps to guarantee their independence; to increase fines for violations of the law immediately and review the method used to calculate them to ensure that they were sufficiently dissuasive; and to introduce procedures for labour inspectors to carry out repeat inspections in order to verify that orders were complied with and enforce their implementation. The ILO should offer, and the Government of Honduras should accept a direct contacts mission to assess the current situation, verify technical capacity needs and help in coordinating the various initiatives.

The Employer members noted that the Government of Honduras was not complying with the Convention principally due to its lack of political will. They recognized that labour inspection was important to ensure compliance with labour legislation and to protect workers’ rights. An adequate inspection system that complied with the Convention would have the additional positive effect of combating informality in Honduras. The reform of the Labour Code was therefore essential, as was the adoption of a new Act on inspection. Any legislative reform on inspection should unfold in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, in line with the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). Further to consultation with those organizations, the draft text should be analysed by the Committee or by the International Labour Standards Department in order to guarantee its conformity with the Convention. The legislative reform should ensure the progressive professionalization, specialization and multi-tasking of the labour inspectorate. The number of inspectors and the frequency of routine inspections should also be increased. These reforms would require budgetary and logistical solutions. Furthermore, penalties should be more dissuasive, progressive and objective in order to ensure the right of defence. The Employer members requested the Government to present detailed information to the Committee of Experts and to accept the technical assistance of the Office.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the oral information provided by the Government representative on the issues raised by the Committee of Experts and the discussion that ensued relating to the strengthening of the labour inspection system, including through: the legal reform; the availability of sufficient financial, human and material resources, including transport facilities; the conduct of a sufficient number of routine inspection visits throughout the country; the establishment of targeted inspection plans; the capacity building and training of labour inspectors; the need to grant labour inspectors adequate conditions of service, including sufficient remuneration to ensure their impartiality and independence from any improper external influences; the need to give effect in practice to the principle of free access of labour inspectors to workplaces; and the need to increase the penalties for labour law violations, including the obstruction of labour inspectors, and ensure their application through effective enforcement mechanisms.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government relating to a plan of action to strengthen the labour inspection system. The plan had been approved in a tripartite forum and included several initiatives, such as increasing the number of labour inspectors to 200 by 2016, and improving the financial and material resources of the regional labour inspection services. The Committee further noted the proposed reform of the Labour Code and the proposed adoption of a new general labour inspection law governing the career structure and recruitment of labour inspectors, and providing for increased fines for labour law violations, including the obstruction of labour inspectors in their duties. The Committee also noted the information on the initiation of ILO technical assistance in late June 2015 in the form of an audit of the functioning of the labour inspection system further to a request by the Government.

The Committee noted the Government’s intention, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, to reform the Labour Code, to enact a general labour inspection law, and to undertake an audit of the labour inspection system which would be carried out by the ILO. Taking into account the discussion, the Committee requested the Government to:

• consider including the following among its planned reforms: professionalizing labour inspection staff; making inspection tasks more specialized; pursuing a multidisciplinary approach; increasing the wage budget and improving logistics; and ensuring that penalties for breaking the law are increased so as to be dissuasive and are determined through pre-established, objective procedures that guarantee all parties the right to a fair hearing;
• substantially increase the number of inspectors, particularly in areas which are underserved at present, and ensure that they are provided with the material resources needed to carry out their work;
• develop a proactive inspection plan to focus on sectors where there are regular violations of labour legislation, including the informal sector, agriculture and maquilas;
• continue receiving technical assistance from the ILO in order to overcome the remaining legal and practical obstacles to applying the Convention; and
• submit a detailed report on the application of the Convention to the next session of the Committee of Experts.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received in 2020, as well as the Government’s reply. The Committee also notes the observations of COHEP, received on 31 August 2021, as well as the Government’s response to these observations, received on 19 November 2021.
Legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a broad discussion and consultation took place between Government representatives, workers, represented by the workers’ confederations, and employers, represented by COHEP, which resulted in the approval of the Regulations Implementing the Labour Inspection Act, through Agreement STSS-350-2019, published in the Official Gazette on 24 February 2020.
Articles 3(1), 5(a), 12(1)(a) and (b), and 18 of the Convention. Obstruction of labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on labour inspections during which the police ensured in practice the integrity and security of labour inspectors and their free access to workplaces. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that in 2019 and part of 2020, police assistance was only required during one labour inspection. In this regard, the Government indicates that, although this situation posed a considerable risk to the labour inspector, the relevant penalty procedure was able to go ahead. In response to the Committee’s request for information on the implementation of the Labour Inspection Act, approved through Decree No. 178-2016 of 23 January 2017, the Government indicates that inspections were carried out in coordination with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Police Investigation Department and auditors with expertise in verifying biosafety protocols and that inspection operations were launched in various areas nationwide, in accordance with Government directives. Regarding the imposition of penalties for obstructing the work of labour inspectors, the Government indicates that in 2019, 55 penalties totalling 13,750,000 Honduran lempiras (approximately US$568,909) were imposed and that during the period from 1 January to 13 March 2020, 10 penalties totalling 2,500,000 lempiras (approximately US$103,429) were imposed. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of inspections during which the police have ensured the integrity and safety of labour inspectors and their free access to workplaces. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of cases of obstruction of inspections, as well as the number of penalties imposed in this respect.
Article 7. Recruitment and training of labour inspectors. Further to its previous comments on the recruitment procedure and training courses for labour inspectors, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) appointments of labour inspectors are made in accordance with job profiles; (ii) candidates’ CVs are sent to the General Directorate of the Civil Service, which ensures the suitability of candidates by means of a pre-appointment assessment, in accordance with sections 63 and 64 of the Regulations Implementing the 2009 Civil Service Act; and (iii) following their appointment, inspectors are trained by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Human Resources Subdivision is the office in charge of recruiting labour inspectors. Noting that section 63 of the Regulations Implementing the Civil Service Act provides that the suitability assessments are determined by the General Directorate of the Civil Service and the Human Resources Subdivision, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the assessment methods used to verify candidates’ skills for the performance of labour inspection duties.
With regard to training courses for labour inspectors, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the various training courses carried out in 2019 and 2020, including the second national training day on the Labour Inspection Act, which included all labour inspectors at the national level, training on labour law provided to 30 labour inspectors from different areas of the country in the framework of the FUNDAPEM project, "Strengthening labour inspection and workers’ organizations to better protect labour rights in Honduras", and the training on labour rights, child labour and occupational safety and health, carried out in coordination with World Vision Honduras, which included an average of 120 inspectors from different regional offices. The Committee further notes COHEP’s observations on the content of this training, the drafting and review process of which involved the participation of employers’ and workers’ representatives. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the training given to labour inspectors for the performance of their duties, indicating the duration of training and education courses, the subjects covered and the number of inspectors involved.
Article 11. Adequate financial and material resources, including transport facilities. Further to its previous comments on the material conditions of the inspection services and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that the labour inspectorate has 20 regional offices that are suitably equipped to provide inspection services. The Government indicates that 7 of the 20 inspection offices have vehicles to carry out regular and advisory inspections. With regard to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties, the Government indicates that no claims were submitted. The Committee notes, in this respect, that only 7 of the 20 labour inspection offices throughout the country have vehicles. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the 20 labour inspection offices in the country have the necessary means of transport for the performance of their duties, in the absence of suitable means of public transport. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the progress achieved in the implementation of these measures.
Article 13. Preventive duties of the labour inspectorate. Further to its previous comments on the requirement for labour inspectors to consult the relevant experts before ordering the adoption of occupational safety and health (OSH) measures, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 12(9) of the Labour Inspection Act, the issuance of reports by qualified experts is a requirement prior to the adoption of any of the safety measures provided for in section 59(2) of the same Act. The Government adds that the restrictive measures contained in section 59(2) of the Labour Inspection Act result in economic prejudice to the workplace and therefore require the labour inspector to have a broad and clear picture before ordering a measure that may unnecessarily and unfairly harm an undertaking. The Committee notes that section 59 of the Labour Inspection Act establishes the requirement to order immediate corrective or preventive measures in the event of danger or imminent risk to safeguard the life, physical integrity and health of workers or the premises of the undertaking. These measures include the total or partial suspension of the workplace’s activities and the restriction of workers’ access to part or all of the workplace until the necessary safety measures have been taken to prevent the occurrence of an accident. In this regard, in its 2006 General Survey, Labour Inspection, paragraph 117, the Committee indicates that measures, such as suspending work, closure of the establishment, or evacuation of premises, are intended principally to ensure protection of workers. Indeed, the requirement of an expert opinion before taking OSH measures, in the event of danger or imminent risk, delays the timely corrective or preventive measures, thereby putting workers’ safety and health at risk. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that labour inspectors are effectively empowered to order measures with immediate executory force to eliminate imminent danger to the safety and health of workers.
Article 14. Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease to the labour inspectorate. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the General Directorate of Labour Inspection (DGIT) has electronic platforms for the notification of industrial accidents in undertakings. The Government adds that, through the implementation of the National Inspection Strategy, it seeks to cover the sectors with the highest potential risk of accidents and to conduct intensive training sessions for employers on the scope and effects of the requirement to notify industrial accidents. With regard to the requirement to notify the labour inspectorate of cases of occupational disease, the Committee notes the Government's indication that the method and time limits established in the Labour Inspection Act are applicable. In relation to the method, the Government refers to the formal notices of summons, in which the identified labour law violations are recorded and, in relation to the time limit, it refers to the time limit granted by the inspector to the employer to compensate for the prejudice caused. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the notification mechanism for occupational diseases established in the law, indicating the relevant sections. Also noting the Government’s indication that the DGIT has electronic platforms for the notification of industrial accidents, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of industrial accidents and occupational diseases duly notified to the labour inspectorate, as well as the number of fatalities.
Article 15(c). Confidentiality of the source of complaints. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the inspection order, required under section 43 of the Labour Inspection Act, had to specify that the objective of the inspection was to investigate a complaint. In this regard, COHEP indicates that the reports prepared by inspectors must contain the requirements established in section 41 of the Labour Inspection Act, their wording must be directly related to the facts that are the subject of the inspection, detailing the documents submitted to the inspectors and that served as the basis for their inspection, and that, in the event that the report contains statements, the names of the persons who gave testimony and their personal details must be mentioned. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not refer to this point in its report. Regarding measures taken to ensure the confidentiality of the source of complaints, the Government indicates that, in the event that a worker does not wish to provide personal information for fear of reprisals, the DGIT has implemented electronic, telephone or face-to-face complaint mechanisms in which it is not necessary to provide the complainant's personal information. The Government adds that the DGIT does not require the complainant’s personal details to institute an investigation process through a scheduled inspection or advisory inspection. However, it indicates that, in the case of an unscheduled inspection, the complainant’s details are essential, as this type of inspection seeks redress for the rights of a specific worker. The Committee notes that, notwithstanding the complaint mechanisms implemented in practice, which do not require the complainant’s personal details to be provided, the Labour Inspection Act does not guarantee the principle of confidentiality regarding the origin of complaints and denunciations and the possible link between the complaint and the inspection visit. Indeed, the Committee notes the failure thus far to amend sections 40(2), 45, 49 and 53 of the Labour Inspection Act, to which the Committee referred in its last comment, which limit the need to treat as absolutely confidential the origin of any complaint and the fact that the inspection visit was made in consequence of the receipt of such a complaint. The Committee recalls that the main purpose of the provisions contained in Article 15(c) of the Convention is to ensure that workers are protected against any risk of reprisals by the employer, should the labour inspectorate take action against employers as a result of their complaint. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to make the necessary legislative amendments to ensure the confidentiality of complaints, and to supply a copy of the legislation adopted in this respect.
Article 17. Prompt legal or administrative proceedings. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to sections 48 (scheduled inspection), 36, 37 and 38 (advisory inspections), 54 (granting of a period of time to remedy the shortcomings or breaches) and 58(1) (definitive archiving of proceedings in case of remedy of violations) of the Labour Inspection Act, which limit the discretionary power of labour inspectors to immediately institute or recommend judicial or administrative proceedings in case of violation of the legal provisions. In response to its previous request, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Inspection Act seeks the voluntary remedy of a labour law violation before the application of an administrative penalty. The Government notes that the granting of periods of time or the provision of technical advice does not limit the inspector’s power to ensure the effective enforcement of labour regulations, as the inspector is given enough leeway to assess the complexity of the case and the prejudice caused and, on that basis, to grant more stringent periods of time to ensure prompt compliance with the law and the redress of workers’ rights. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the power provided for in Article 17(2) of the Convention consists of the possibility of warning and advising, instead of instituting or recommending proceedings, and that such a possibility should be left to the discretion of labour inspectors. The granting of periods of time and the provision of technical advice limit the inspectors’ discretion to immediately institute or recommend judicial or administrative proceedings in cases of violations of legal provisions, thus undermining their role in enforcing labour law. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that it shall be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to institute judicial proceedings immediately, without previous warning, and to limit any exceptions to such discretion, so as not to undermine the effectiveness of the labour inspection’s activities in securing compliance with the legal provisions relating to working conditions and the protection of workers while engaged in their work.
Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services. The Committee has repeatedly requested the Government to publish and communicate to the ILO annual reports on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes with regret that it has not received the annual inspection report. In this respect, the Government indicated that it had informed the Director-General of Inspection that the information required under Article 21 of the Convention would be requested from him by the end of the current year. With regard to its request for information on the implementation of the Simplified National Registration System for Employers (SRNSP), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the system is in a trial period and that its purpose, requirements, procedure and time limits are established in the Labour Inspection Regulations (sections 4, 5 and 6). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on progress in the implementation of the SRNSP. Finally, it requests the Government to make every effort to ensure, without delay, that annual inspection reports are published and submitted to the ILO in accordance with the requirements of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received in 2020, as well as the Government’s reply. The Committee also notes the observations of COHEP, received on 31 August 2021 and the Government’s response to these observations, received on 18 November 2021.
National Labour Inspection Strategy 2018–22. Further to its previous comments on the specific measures taken for the implementation of the National Labour Inspection Strategy, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that it is receiving ILO technical assistance, on which basis the cities of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula have been established as pilot cities to implement the Strategy, in which labour inspectors from the various regional offices will participate. It also notes that the Government indicates that the priority areas of the Strategy target industry, trade, tourism, mining, transport, agriculture, as well as the informal economy. Regarding the progress made, the Committee notes the Government's indications relating to the training and diploma courses for inspectors on the application of labour law, as well as the provision of work equipment. The Committee also notes COHEP’s observations that: (i) the National Labour Inspection Strategy has been integrated into the Annual Operating Plan of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security (STSS); (ii) the implementation of the Strategy has been carried out with all the regional inspectors of the General Directorate of Labour Inspection (DGIT), by introducing information workshops, during which the goals were established in an inclusive manner with all staff, taking into account the available resources; and (iii) to date, COHEP has not received an update from the STSS on the current status of the Strategy’s implementation. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the specific measures taken to implement the National Labour Inspection Strategy, as well as on the progress made in pursuit of the established goals.
Article 6 of the Convention. Adequate conditions of service of labour inspectors, including sufficient remuneration to ensure their impartiality and independence from any improper external influences. Further to its previous comments on the remuneration of labour inspectors and investigations launched against them, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the lowest wage paid to a labour inspector is 11,200 Honduran lempiras (equivalent to US$464). The Government also indicates that labour inspectors receive wages graded according to their classification level, based on seniority, five-year bonuses and increments granted. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that on 4 June 2018, it requested budgetary support from the Secretariat of State to cover the wages, as it does not have its own funds to carry out a wage adjustment at the national level. The Committee also notes that COHEP provides information on the budget allocated to the STSS in the general income and expenditure budget for the financial years 2020 and 2021. Regarding the investigations launched against labour inspectors, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that, in 2018, 2019 and 2020, 74 disciplinary proceedings were undertaken, resulting in 40 complaints being set aside, 24 warnings, 8 suspensions without pay and 2 dismissals. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication regarding the creation of the Technical Inspection Audit, governed by sections 8, 20, 21 and 22 of the Labour Inspection Act. The Government indicates, in this regard, that tripartite efforts are under way to establish the Audit's operating procedure. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information disaggregated by year on the number of complaints received against labour inspectors, indicating the grounds for such complaints, the number of investigations actually launched and their outcomes. It also requests the Government to provide information on the progress made on the functioning of the Technical Inspection Audit. The Committee also requests the Government to step up its efforts and take measures to ensure that the remuneration levels of labour inspectors are in line with those of other public officials carrying out similar functions. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the results achieved by these measures, including wage figures for each of the levels of labour inspectors (levels I, II, and III), relative to the wage levels of public officials carrying out similar duties.
Articles 10 and 16. Number of labour inspectors and the performance of a sufficient number of regular visits throughout the country. Further to its previous comments on the progress achieved in the recruitment of labour inspectors, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, to date, labour inspectors have been recruited on the basis of vacancies left by other inspectors who have retired. The Government reports that the DGIT has 169 labour inspectors nationwide, which allows the Committee to observe that there has been no new recruitment since December 2018. The Committee further notes COHEP's observations that labour inspectors have few financial resources allocated to their activities and that the number of labour inspectors is insufficient to meet the national labour inspection needs. Concerning inspection coverage and priority issues for labour inspection, the Government provides information on controls carried out through the various types of labour inspection, envisaged in the Labour Inspection Act (regular, extraordinary and advisory), in workplaces in prioritized sectors throughout the country. The Government also indicates that priority issues for labour inspection include wages, safety and health, child labour and freedom of association, and that priorities are determined on the basis of the number of complaints received and the violations identified through scheduled and advisory inspections. Finally, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the number of regular and extraordinary inspections disaggregated by year and region according to which, in 2019 and 2020, 3,356 regular inspections and 23,252 extraordinary inspections were carried out. It also notes that there was a fall in both regular and extraordinary inspections in the period 2018–20. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the number of labour inspectors is sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspection service. In this regard, it requests the Government to provide information on the efforts made to recruit new labour inspectors, indicating the updated number of active inspectors. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of regular and extraordinary inspections carried out, including in the informal economy. Furthermore, it requests the Government to indicate the resources of the labour inspectorate allocated to labour dispute mediation and the number of cases mediated by labour inspectors each year.
Article 12(1)(a). Scope of labour inspectors’ free access to workplaces liable to inspection. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 15(I) of the Labour Inspection Act provides that labour inspectors are authorized to freely enter any workplace, establishment or place liable to inspection at any time of day or night, provided that work is in progress in the workplace. In this respect, it requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of this requirement. The Committee notes the Government's indication that section 45 of the Labour Inspection Act ensures the employer’s participation in the inspection to ensure equality between the parties, transparency and fairness of the inspection. The Government adds that conducting an inspection in a workplace where no work is in progress would not safeguard these principles and could result in the invalidity of the proceedings, and thereby the ineffectiveness of the inspection and consequent impunity of labour violations. The Committee also notes COHEP's observations that section 33 of the Regulations Implementing the 2019 Inspection Act allows for days and hours to be designated for any type of inspection and provides that, in the event that the workplace to be inspected is not operating on the designated days and times, the labour authority will reschedule the inspection. The Committee notes that the designation of days and times for inspections restricts inspectors' free initiative to enter workplaces. The rescheduling of inspection in the event that the workplace is not operating on the designated days and times also leaves open the possibility that workplaces may close to prevent labour inspectors from verifying compliance with the legal provisions. The Committee recalls that the different restrictions placed in law on inspectors’ right of entry into workplaces can only stand in the way of achieving the objectives of labour inspection as set out in the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures, without delay, to remove these restrictions to ensure that labour inspectors may enter freely and without previous notice, at any hour of the day or night, any workplace subject to inspection, as provided for in Article 12(1)(a) of the Convention.
Article 12(1)(c)(i). Scope of interviews as an investigation method. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 49 of the Labour Inspection Act, which establishes that, during the inspection, the labour inspector shall question the workers and the employer or their representatives separately and the questions shall only relate to the subject matter of the inspection, in order to avoid possible influence on the replies. The Committee observes that, to date, the provisions of section 49 of the Labour Inspection Act have not been amended. It also notes the Government's indications relating to the mechanism for interviewing the parties, that the questions should be directly related to the inspection and not to matters that do not fall within the labour inspector’s competence, or even less within the labour sphere. The Government adds that, while during extraordinary inspections, the labour inspector only addresses the content of the complaint lodged by the worker or their representative, in regular inspections the inspector has greater freedom in the questions they may ask, provided they stay within their labour-related area of competence. The Committee recalls that, under Article 12(1)(c)(i) of the Convention, labour inspectors shall be empowered to interrogate, alone or in the presence of witnesses, the employer or the staff of the undertaking on any matters concerning the application of the legal provisions. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 49 of the Labour Inspection Act to ensure the conformity of national legislation with the provisions of Article 12(1)(c)(i) of the Convention.
Article 18. Adequate penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government according to which, in 2019, penalties were imposed on 207 companies for a total of 39,359,143 lempiras (equivalent to US$1,629,599), and in 2020, penalties were imposed on 75 companies for a total of 344,220 lempiras (equivalent to US$14,251). The Committee notes that the Government does not refer to the number of violations detected relative to the penalties imposed, or to the nature of the penalties imposed. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information, disaggregated by year, indicating the number of labour law violations identified, the nature of such violations (wages, working time, occupational safety and health, child labour, and others), as well as the number of penalties imposed and the amount of fines paid.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 31 August 2016 and 22 August 2017, as well as the Government’s replies in this regard, of 23 November 2016 and 31 October 2017, respectively.
Article 3(1), 5(a), 12(1)(a) and (b), and 18 of the Convention. Obstruction of labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. In relation to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the new Labour Inspection Act, approved through Decree No. 178-2016 of 23 January 2017: (i) defines, in section 84, the act of obstruction; (ii) establishes, in section 90(3), a fine of 250,000 Honduran lempiras (HNL) (approximately US$10,440) for the obstruction of inspection work; and (iii) authorizes inspectors, in section 15(5), to request police backup without a court order. In this respect, the Committee duly notes that the new Act replaces the provisions of the Labour Code in relation to the obstruction of labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, since the entry into force of the new Labour Inspection Act, five cases of obstruction have been penalized, with fines amounting to HNL1,250,000 (approximately US$51,107). The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on labour inspections during which the police ensured in practice the integrity and security of labour inspectors and their free access to workplaces. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on this matter. The Government is also requested to provide information on the application of the new Labour Inspection Act, including the number of cases of obstruction of labour inspectors in the performance of their duties, with updated information on the number of penalties imposed on employers under section 90(3) of the Act.
Article 7. Recruitment and training of labour inspectors. With regard to its previous comments on the procedures for recruiting labour inspectors and their training courses, the Committee notes Government’s indication that inspectors are recruited by means of an analysis of curricula vitae, tests (psychometric, inspection, knowledge and reliability) and assessments. The Committee notes that section 7 of the Labour Inspection Act establishes that the regulations of the Act shall determine the minimum requirements to join the inspection service in terms of professional training, experience, functions and profiles. The Committee also notes the information from the Government indicating that it plans to extend the training of the labour inspectorate in the future. In this respect, the Committee notes that the National Labour Inspection Strategy 2018–2022 includes information on a plan to strengthen the capacities of the General Directorate of Labour Inspection, with a curriculum covering a wide range of issues related to labour inspection, from its principles, policies and strategies, to practical tools and methods for dealing with issues and specific economic activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress achieved in this respect, indicating the duration of the training courses for labour inspectors, the number of participants and the topics covered. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further information on the procedures for recruiting labour inspectors, including the testing methods used.
Article 12(1)(a) and (c) and (2). Scope of the principle of free access for labour inspectors to workplaces liable to inspection. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government, in the context of the ongoing legislative reforms, to bring the law into line with the provisions of Article 12(1)(a) and (2) the Convention, in order to guarantee the right of labour inspectors to freely enter workplaces liable to inspection. The Committee notes that section 15(I) of the new Labour Inspection Act establishes that labour inspectors are authorized to freely access any workplace, establishment or location liable to inspection at any time of the day or night, provided that work is in progress in the work centre. The Committee also observes that section 49 establishes that, during the inspection, the labour inspector shall question the workers and the employer or his or her representatives separately and the questions shall only relate to the subject matter of the inspection, in order to avoid possible influence on the replies. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the requirement that labour inspectors may only enter establishments liable to inspection provided that work is in progress in the work centre is applied in practice. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 49 of the Labour Inspection Act to ensure that labour inspectors are authorized to interrogate, alone or in the presence of witnesses, the employer or the staff of the undertaking on any matters concerning the application of the legal provisions, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(i) of the Convention.
Article 13. Preventive duties of the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes that section 11(19) of the new Labour Inspection Act establishes the obligation for labour inspectors to mandate the adoption of occupational safety and health measures (OSH) when, on the basis of the relevant visits to the work centres and having sought the opinion of the relevant experts, they identify unsafe actions or conditions. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the requirement for labour inspectors to consult the relevant experts before ordering the adoption of OSH measures.
Article 15(c). Confidentiality of the source of complaints. With regard to the new Labour Inspection Act, the Committee notes with regret that this Act includes several provisions that could limit the requirement to treat as absolutely confidential the source of any complaint and the fact that a visit of inspection was made in consequence of the receipt of such a complaint, in accordance with Article 15(c) of the Convention, such as: (i) section 40(2) providing for the practice of extraordinary inspections carried out on the basis of complaints or reports, which establishes that, in the event that the complaint or report is lodged by a worker, information revealing the worker’s name or identity shall only be declared confidential by the labour authority at the request of the complainant; (ii) section 43, which establishes that, at the start of regular or extraordinary inspections, the labour inspector shall provide to the employer or worker or their representatives, as applicable, an inspection order setting out, inter alia, the objective and scope; (iii) section 45, which establishes that a written record shall be prepared for all inspections, including the statements of the employer and the workers who made or were subject to a complaint; (iv) section 49 establishes that, during the inspection, the labour inspector shall only ask questions that relate to the subject matter of the inspection and these questions and their replies shall be included in a special annex to the inspection report; (v) the final part of section 49, which provides that, in the event that the employer makes a written request to the labour authority to find out the names and personal details of the workers interviewed during the inspection, this information shall be provided to the employer, who, upon receipt of the information, shall sign under oath that he or she will not take any action to violate the rights of the workers or against the interviewees; and (vi) section 53, which establishes that the labour inspector shall require the persons who have taken part in the process to sign the inspection report, and then provide a copy of that report to the parties. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee that labour inspectors treat as absolutely confidential the source of any complaint and give no intimation to the employer or his representative that a visit of inspection was made in consequence of the receipt of such a complaint. The Government is requested to provide information on the measures adopted in this respect, including the amendment of sections 40(2), 45, 49 and 53 of the Labour Inspection Act. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further information on the content of the inspection order required under section 43, indicating whether this order must specify that the objective of the inspection is to investigate a complaint.
Article 14. Notification of cases of occupational disease to the labour inspectorate. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to ensure the establishment of a mechanism for the notification of cases of occupational diseases to the labour inspection services. Recalling that in its previous report the Government indicated that the new Labour Inspection Act, the draft of which was being discussed by the social partners, presented a favourable opportunity for the codification of such a mechanism, the Committee notes with regret that the new Labour Inspection Act does not establish such a mechanism. However, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the notification process for industrial accidents and/or cases of occupational disease that occur in work centres is being examined by the General Directorate of Labour Inspection. The Committee urges the Government to adopt all the necessary measures to establish a mechanism for the notification of cases of occupational diseases to the labour inspection services.
Article 17. Prompt legal or administrative proceedings. With reference to the new Labour Inspection Act, the Committee notes with regret that the Act contains several provisions that limit the discretionary power of labour inspectors to initiate or recommend prompt legal or administrative proceedings in the event of violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. In this regard, the Committee notes that section 54 establishes that when a labour inspector detects violations of labour regulations during an inspection, he or she shall grant the employers a period of time to remedy the shortcomings or breaches identified in the view of the inspector (in cases of imminent danger or risk, the remedy shall be immediate) and, once the time period granted has elapsed, an inspection shall be conducted to verify that the measures mandated have been implemented. The Committee also notes that section 58(1) establishes that, in the event that the employer remedies the violations, the proceedings shall be immediately and definitively archived. The Committee further notes that Chapter II of Title III on technical guidance inspections (sections 36, 37 and 38) establishes that, if follow-up visits to guidance inspections uncover failures to comply with labour legislation, an extraordinary inspection shall be scheduled or, otherwise, administrative disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated. This shall also apply in the case that, during the technical guidance inspection, the employer refuses to receive the visit or implement or adopt the necessary measures to regularize their legal situation or prevent or reduce the imminent risks detected. The Committee also notes that section 48 establishes that, if during a regular inspection it is established that the work centre employs ten workers or fewer and the enterprise as a whole has no additional establishments or branches to the location visited, the labour inspector shall conduct the visit in the manner established in Chapter II of Title III. The Committee recalls that, under the Convention, it shall be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give warning and advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that labour inspectors have the discretionary power to initiate prompt legal proceedings without previous warning, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Convention, and limit any exception to this power, in such a way as not to impair the effectiveness of labour inspection actions for the effective implementation of legal provisions relating to working conditions and the protection of workers.
Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to publish and communicate to the ILO annual reports on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes with regret that it has not received any annual inspection reports. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that section 4 of the new Labour Inspection Act establishes the Simplified National Registration System for Employers (SRNSP) with which any natural or legal person employing persons in any of the forms provided for in national legislation must be registered, and that the analysis of this system of registration of employers is ongoing. In this respect, the COHEP reports that, with a view to operationalizing the SRNSP, the private sector requested the Government to convene the Tripartite Committee to draft the implementing regulations of the new Labour Inspection Act. The Committee requests the Government to communicate information on any developments in the implementation of the SRNSP, and to provide its comments in relation to the observations of the COHEP. The Committee also requests the Government once again to publish and communicate to the ILO, annual reports on the work of the labour inspection services, containing information on all the subjects covered by Article 21(a) to (g).

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

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received in 2016 and in 2017, respectively, as well as the Government’s reply received in 2016 and 2017 in this regard. The Committee also notes the observations of the COHEP and the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), communicated with the Government’s report.
National Labour Inspection Strategy, 2018–22. With regard to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government formulated, with the assistance of the ILO, the National Labour Inspection Strategy, 2018–22. The Committee further notes that the Government reports: (i) the approval of a specific budget of 20,000,000 lempiras (approximately US$820,000), allocated for the operations of the General Directorate of Labour Inspection (DGIT); (ii) that labour inspectors have received training; and (iii) the submission to the Advisory Committee of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security of a technical audit of the labour inspection system, produced by the ILO using information from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The Committee also notes the adoption of the Labour Inspection Act, approved through Decree No. 178-2016 of 23 January 2017. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific steps taken to implement the National Labour Inspection Strategy, and to report the progress made in achieving the established targets.
Article 6 of the Convention. Adequate conditions of service of labour inspectors, including sufficient remuneration to ensure their impartiality and independence from any improper external influences. With regard to its previous comments on the remuneration of labour inspectors and a proposed system to investigate complaints made against them, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the lowest wage paid to a labour inspector is 7,599 lempiras – approximately US$310 (Labour Inspector I, group 2, grade 6), while the lowest wage paid to a tax inspector is 12,698 lempiras – approximately US$512. The Government also reports that the new inspection body has wages different to those earned by the more senior inspectors. In this respect, the Committee notes the CGT’s allegation that the wages of inspectors need to be brought to the same level. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, in the event of a complaint against a labour inspector, a hearing is held, after which the Legal Department issues a decision, which may result in the dismissal of the proceedings, a reprimand, suspension of work without pay or dismissal of the accused. In order to ensure the impartiality and independence of labour inspectors from improper external influences, the Committee requests the Government to adopt measures to guarantee that the remuneration of labour inspectors is similar to that of other public officials who assume responsibilities of similar category and complexity (for example, tax inspectors), and to provide details on these measures and illustrative figures in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on any investigations launched against labour inspectors (including those provided for in section 22 of the new Labour Inspection Act) and their outcomes, as well as the number of complaints received and investigations conducted.
Articles 10 and 16. Number of labour inspectors and the performance of a sufficient number of routine visits throughout the country. In relation to its previous comments on hiring labour inspectors, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is planned in the budget to hire a further 39 labour inspectors, distributed throughout the various regional offices in the country. In this respect, the Committee notes that, according to information in a DGIT document entitled “The Labour Inspection Context in Honduras, 2018”, in December 2018, there were 169 labour inspectors in total. The Committee also notes the COHEP’s allegations that there are many areas in which no labour inspections of any kind are conducted due to a lack of organization and inspectors, particularly in the informal economy. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in hiring labour inspectors, indicating the current number of active inspectors. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to improve inspection coverage of workplaces (including in the informal economy). The Committee further requests the Government to provide additional information on the priority issues for labour inspection and how these priorities are determined. Lastly, in accordance with sections 41 and 42 of the new Labour Inspection Act, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of regular and extraordinary inspections and, if possible, to disaggregate the statistics by region and sector.
Article 11. Adequate financial and material means, including transport facilities. In relation to its previous comments on the material conditions of the inspection services and the reimbursement of the costs incurred by inspectors in the performance of their functions, the Committee notes that the Government reports: (i) the acquisition of four vehicles, furniture and computers with internet connection, as well as uniforms, the renovation of offices and the renting of new offices for the labour inspectorate; and (ii) the budgeted costs of the DGIT for the 2017 financial year. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not contain information on the reimbursement of the costs incurred by inspectors in the performance of their functions. In this regard, the Committee notes the allegations of the CGT and the COHEP that it is common practice for labour inspectors to cover the transport costs to deal with complaints from workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the material conditions of the inspection services throughout the territory, including the transport facilities available to the various inspection services. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that adequate material means are provided to inspectors for the performance of their functions, and that any costs incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties are reimbursed. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the fulfilment of this obligation in practice, including the number of cases in which these costs have been reimbursed and the amount paid to labour inspectors for this reason, as well as the number of cases where requests for reimbursement have been denied and the reasons given.
Article 18. Adequate penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to ensure that the penalties for violating the legislation were sufficiently dissuasive. The Committee notes with interest that the new Labour Inspection Act establishes increased financial fines. The Committee also notes that the Government: (i) reports that the discrepancy between the number of violations detected and cases that were subject to penalties can be explained by the fact that most enterprises were able to remedy the irregularities in the application of the legislation; and (ii) provides information on the violations detected and the fines imposed since the entry into force of the new Labour Inspection Act (in total, 17 violations and 1,700,000 lempiras – approximately US$69,000). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of violations detected, the penalties imposed, indicating the amount of the fines levied and paid, as well as any sentences of imprisonment, if applicable, specifying the areas to which they refer (occupational safety and health, child labour, non-payment of wages, termination of employment, etc.).
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the joint observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 28 August 2015. It also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2015.
The Committee notes the Government’s indications in response to its previous request concerning the legal basis in relation to the powers of labour inspectors to order or have ordered measures with immediate executive force in the event of a threat to the safety or health of workers (Article 13).
Article 3(1), 5(a), 12(1)(a) and (b), and 18 of the Convention. Obstruction of labour inspectors in their duties. The Committee notes from the observations made by the ITUC that labour inspectors are frequently prevented from entering factories, that they rarely seek the assistance of the police, and that the Ministry of Labour does not resort to the tribunals to oblige employers to authorize their entry. The ITUC indicates that in most cases, inspectors are rejected multiple times and finally abandon any attempt to undertake an inspection. The Committee recalls that it previously noted the Government’s indications that while it is true that certain employers do not allow labour inspectors to enter enterprises, section 625 of the Labour Code provides for penalties in this regard. The Committee also previously noted the Government’s indications that under section 617(b) of the Labour Code, inspectors may request police assistance in special cases to avoid the obstruction in their duties.
In this context, the Committee notes the observations made by the IOE and the COHEP, according to which no cases are known where labour inspectors are accompanied by the police to private workplaces. The Committee also notes that the Government provides copies of two inspection records, in which labour inspectors were assisted by members of the police to detect instances of child labour, but that it does not provide the information requested concerning cases in which labour inspectors were assisted by the police in order to guarantee their safety and free access to workplaces.
It also notes the Government’s reference in its report to a recent meeting with the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (MTSS) and representatives of the justice to seek solutions with regard the obstruction of labour inspectors. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that a further meeting is planned to discuss the implementation of section 617(b) of the Labour Code through the possibility of labour inspectors to ask for judicial orders on an expedite basis. The Committee also notes that the Government attached copies of infraction reports imposing fines for the obstruction of labour inspectors of up to 5,000 Honduran Lempira (approximately US$226). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on labour inspections in which inspectors were assisted by members of the police in order to ensure the integrity, safety and free access of labour inspectors to workplaces. Please also continue to provide information on number of cases in which penalties were imposed on employers in the case of obstruction of labour inspectors in their duties.
Articles 12(1)(a) and (2). Free access for labour inspectors to workplaces liable to inspection. In its comments that it has reiterated since 2006, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that the law be brought into line with the requirements of Articles 12(1)(a) and (2) of the Convention. Noting the Government’s reiterated reference to section 618 of the Labour Code as well as its indications that labour inspectors may enter upon the production of their credentials, the Committee notes, however, that the legislation mentioned does not explicitly provide for the right to enter workplaces freely and without prior notification. In this regard, it also recalls that Article 12(2) provides that on the occasion of an inspection visit, labour inspectors shall notify the employer or his representative, unless they consider that such a notification may be prejudicial to the performance of their duties. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that, in the current legislative reforms, the law is brought into line with the requirements of the Convention, so that the right of labour inspectors to freely enter workplaces liable to inspection is guaranteed in law.
Article 14. Notification of occupational diseases to the labour inspectorate. In the comments that the Committee has reiterated for a number of years, it requested the Government to ensure the establishment of a mechanism for the communication to the labour inspection services of cases of occupational diseases.
In this regard, it notes the Government’s indications that such a mechanism still does not exist but that the new Labour Inspection Act, the draft of which is currently being discussed with the social partners, provides a favourable occasion for its codification. It also notes the observations made by the IOE and the COHEP, according to which there is no adequate register of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases at the MTSS or the Honduran Institute of Social Security, and that a new law on the insurance of accidents, which is supposed to be implemented within the next 18 months, would also govern occupational accidents. The Committee requests the Government to describe the measures taken for the establishment of a mechanism for the notification of cases of occupational diseases to the labour inspection services, including in the current legislative reform. The Committee also requests the Government to provide its comments in relation to the observations of the IOE and COHEP.
Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government, which contains information on most of the subjects listed in Article 21 of the Convention, that is, the number of labour inspectors (Article 21(b)), the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the number of workers employed therein (Article 21(c)), statistics of inspection visits (Article 21(d)), statistics of penalties imposed (Article 21(e)), statistics of industrial accidents (Article 21(f)) and statistics of occupational diseases (Article 21(f)). It understands from the information provided by the Government that it is envisaged to develop a new information system that would enable the collection of data and facilitate the establishment of an annual report with detailed information. In this regard, it also notes the Government’s indications that it is working on systematizing the labour inspection data, and that data on the workplaces liable to inspection and the workers employed therein is being actualized through the coordination with other public entities.
It also notes the Government’s reference to progress made with the establishment of a register of enterprises in five municipalities. In this regard, it notes that the Government requests ILO technical assistance for the establishment of a national register of enterprises, as well as for the establishment of the annual report on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee hopes that the Office will provide the technical assistance requested for the establishment of a national register of enterprises and the establishment of the annual report on the work of the labour inspection services. It requests the Government to publish and communicate to the ILO annual reports on the work of the labour inspection services, containing information on all the subjects covered by Article 21(a)–(g).

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

Follow-up to the conclusions in the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 104th Session, June 2015)

The Committee notes the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) on the application of this Convention by Honduras.

The Committee notes the joint observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 28 August 2015. It also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2015.

The Committee notes that the discussion in the CAS concerned the need to strengthen the labour inspection system, including through: legislative reforms, the availability of sufficient financial, human and material resources, including transport facilities; the conduct of a sufficient number of routine inspection visits throughout the country; the establishment of targeted inspection plans; the capacity building and training of labour inspectors; the need to grant labour inspectors adequate conditions of service, including sufficient remuneration to ensure their impartiality and independence from any improper external influences; the need to give effect in practice to the principle of free access of labour inspectors to workplaces; and the need to increase the penalties for labour law violations, including the obstruction of labour inspectors, and ensure their application through effective enforcement mechanisms.

Plan of action to strengthen the labour inspection system. The CAS noted the information provided by the Government relating to a national plan of action to strengthen the labour inspection system. The CAS noted that this plan includes several initiatives, such as increasing the number of labour inspectors to 200 by 2016, and improving the financial and material resources of the labour inspection services. Taking into account the discussion, the CAS requested the Government to consider including the following among its planned reforms: professionalizing labour inspection staff; making inspection tasks more specialized; pursuing a multidisciplinary approach; increasing the wage budget and improving logistics; and ensuring that penalties for breaking the law are increased so as to be dissuasive and are determined through pre-established, objective procedures that guarantee all parties the right to a fair hearing; substantially increase the number of inspectors, particularly in areas which are underserved at present, and ensure that they are provided with the material resources needed to carry out their work; develop a proactive inspection plan to focus on sectors where there are regular violations of labour legislation, including the informal sector, agriculture and maquilas; continue receiving technical assistance from the ILO in order to overcome the remaining legal and practical obstacles to applying the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on how the abovementioned issues have been included in the plan of action to strengthen the labour inspection system. It also requests the Government to provide information on the progress made with the implementation of the objectives in this plan.

Legislative reform. The Committee notes from the discussions in the CAS that the Government intends, in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, to reform the Labour Code, and to enact a labour inspection act. It notes from the observations made by the IOE and the COHEP that the relevant consultation procedure is under way, and that the Government intends to seek ILO technical assistance with regard to the final version of the draft Labour Inspection Act. The Committee welcomes these developments and requests the Government to keep it informed of progress made in this regard.

Article 6. Adequate conditions of service of labour inspectors, including sufficient remuneration to ensure their impartiality and independence from any improper external influences. The Committee notes that the discussions in the CAS concerned the need to grant labour inspectors adequate conditions of service, including sufficient remuneration to ensure their impartiality and independence from any improper external influences and that the CAS requested the Government to consider the increase of the wage budget of labour inspectors.

In this regard, it notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the professional profile, salary scale and categorization of labour inspections posts (that is, junior inspectors, senior inspectors and chief inspectors) has been established; (ii) the draft Labour Inspection Act provides for selection criteria for labour inspectors in competitive exams and promotion, including academic qualifications and seniority; and (iii) improvements in the remuneration of labour inspectors in the budget of the labour inspectorate for 2016 are already provided for. The Committee also notes the Government's indications concerning the creation of new positions (so-called technical auditors in charge of performance management) which shall be responsible to evaluate the performance of labour inspectors, which includes the investigation of complaints made against them. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the remuneration of labour inspectors in the different categories. It also requests the Government to provide information on the level of remuneration of labour inspectors in relation to other public servants exercising similar functions, such as tax inspectors. With regard to the recruitment of staff responsible for the evaluation of the performance of labour inspectors, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the proposed system for investigating complaints made against labour inspectors (legal basis, cases in which a complaint may be received, methods used, scope of investigations, right of labour inspectors to be heard, etc.). Please also provide information on the consequences for labour inspectors if a complaint is found to be justified.

Article 7. Recruitment and training of labour inspectors. The Committee notes that the discussion in the CAS concerned the selection and training of labour inspectors, and their qualifications and functions in relation to occupational safety and health (OSH). It recalls that the CAS requested the Government to consider the professionalization and specialization of labour inspection staff, and the introduction of a multidisciplinary approach. The Committee requests the Government to describe the recruitment procedure of labour inspectors (the body responsible for their recruitment, the qualifications and skills that are being tested, and the methods used (such as written examinations, job interviews, etc.). Please also provide information on the training provided to labour inspectors (number of participants and subjects covered, such as OSH, ethics in the inspection profession, establishment of non-compliance reports, etc.).

Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention. Number of labour inspectors and the conduct of a sufficient number of routine visits throughout the country. The Committee recalls that the CAS requested the Government to substantially increase the number of labour inspectors, particularly in areas which are underserved at present, and noted the Government’s commitment to increase the number of labour inspectors to 200 by 2016. In this regard, the Committee notes the observations made by the ITUC, according to which the number of labour inspectors is insufficient and concentrated in the capital area and main business centre, as well as the observations made by the IOE and the COHEP, that there is a lack of labour inspectors specializing in OSH. The Committee also notes the different indications made by the Government and the ITUC in relation to the number of labour inspectors (141 and 119 labour inspectors, respectively). In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that the budget for the recruitment of additional staff (including 38 labour inspectors, four chief inspectors, two assistants to the chief inspectors, six technical auditors in charge of performance management and one chief technical inspector) has been approved and that efforts are being undertaken to provide for a geographic distribution that would enable the conduct of labour inspections with the necessary frequency and thoroughness throughout the country.

With regard to a sufficient number of labour inspection visits, the Committee recalls its previous comments in which it noted with regret that between 2005 and 2013, the great majority of inspection activities had focused on inspections as a result of complaints. In this regard, the Committee notes from the statistical information provided by the Government that this trend continued in 2014, with 12,193 labour inspections carried out as a result of a complaint and only 7,103 regular inspection visits carried out in that year. The Committee recalls that the CAS requested the Government to consider the development of a proactive inspection plan to focus on sectors where there are regular violations of labour legislation, including the informal sector, agriculture and maquilas. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government's indications that a strategic plan for labour inspection in 2016 is in the process of being established, and that a series of inspections in the maquila sector will be initiated in October 2015. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made with the recruitment of labour inspectors that the Government has committed to undertake. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide clarification with regard to the number of labour inspectors currently working within the labour inspection services (including information on their job title, professional grade, geographical distribution, etc.).

In addition, the Committee requests the Government to communicate a copy of the 2016 strategic plan once it has been approved, and provide information on the priority areas for inspection. It requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the number of routine labour inspections and the inspections carried out as a result of a complaint. If possible, these statistics should be aggregated by region and sector concerned.

Article 11. Adequate financial and material means, including transport facilities. The Committee notes that the CAS requested the Government to take measures to ensure the allocation of adequate material resources, including transport facilities to the labour inspection services. It notes that issues that were discussed in the CAS included those previously raised by this Committee, such as the need of the parties to pay for the transport of inspectors, depriving workers who lack such means from access to inspection services.

In this respect, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report that the budget has been approved for the purchase of four vehicles for the exclusive use of the labour inspectorate (which will be distributed among the four principal cities). While the Committee notes the Government’s reference to a lack of resources, it also notes the observations made by the ITUC that the lack of resources was no acceptable excuse, as the Government had benefited from various international cooperation projects. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to improve the transport facilities of the labour inspectorate. It further requests the Government to provide information on the percentage of the national budget allocated to the labour inspection services, and to describe the material conditions throughout the territorial inspections services, including the transport facilities available to the different labour inspection services throughout the territory.

In addition, it requests the Government to ensure that the costs incurred during labour inspections are reimbursed, and requests the Government to provide detailed information on the fulfilment of this obligation in practice, including on the number of cases in which costs were reimbursed, and the relevant amount paid to labour inspectors.

Articles 17 and 18. Need to increase the level of penalties for labour law violations, including the obstruction of labour inspectors, and ensure their application through effective enforcement mechanisms. The Committee notes the discussions in the CAS on the need to increase the level of penalties for labour law violations, including the obstruction of labour inspectors, and to ensure their application through effective enforcement mechanisms. It notes from the observations made by the ITUC that the level of penalties for labour law violations has not been updated since 1980, and that the penalties in force are negligible (for example, a fine for OSH violations ranges from US$2.40 to a maximum of $24, and a fine for not paying the minimum wage ranges from $4.80 to $48). Moreover, according to the trade union, in most cases, the labour inspectorate will close a case when a fine is paid in complete disregard as to whether the labour violations that gave rise to the fine were corrected or the workers provided with an effective remedy.

Concerning the enforcement of penalties for labour law violations, the Committee notes the observations made by the ITUC that the Government had repeatedly failed to enforce its labour law through its labour inspection and judicial system. In this regard, it notes the Government’s indications that the draft Labour Inspection Act provides for penalties that are more dissuasive, including with regard to the obstruction of labour inspectors. The Committee also notes the statistics provided by the Government on the sanctions imposed in 2014 (3,082 violations detected, and 306 sanctions imposed (without indicating the legal provisions to which they relate) in the amount of 935,000 Honduran Lempira (HNL) (approximately $42,340). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that penalties for breaking the law are sufficiently dissuasive, and provide a copy of the amended legislative provisions once they have been adopted. The Committee also requests the Government to provide an explanation for the discrepancy in the number of violations detected (3,082) and the number of cases in which a violation was imposed (306). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of penalties detected, the sanctions imposed and the amount of the fines collected, specifying the areas to which they relate (OSH, child labour, non-payment of wages, termination of employment, etc.).

Technical assistance for the establishment of an audit on the functioning of the labour inspection system. The Committee notes that the ILO technical assistance requested by the Government to conduct an audit of the performance of the labour inspectorate is scheduled to be conducted shortly. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of this audit, and any measures taken to follow-up on the recommendations made therein.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Referring to its observation, the Committee wishes to raise the following additional points.
International cooperation. The Committee notes with interest that the pilot programme launched in the regional offices of Chuloteca, San Pedro Sula and Ceiba, within the framework of international cooperation and the Decent Work Country Programme, contributed to strengthening the competence of the inspectors in areas relating to the application of labour legislation and social dialogue.
Article 5(a) of the Convention. Effective cooperation between the inspection services and other government department and public or private institutions. With reference to its previous comments regarding joint inspections with the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and certain other public institutions, the Government specifies that section 117(b) of the Labour Code provides that in special cases inspectors may request police assistance so that the performance of their duties is not impeded. The Minister for Security, through the police and at the request of the inspectors or the Office of the Attorney-General, helps to ensure the integrity, safety and free access of labour inspectors to workplaces. The Government maintains that the intention of the joint inspections with the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic is to enforce penalties through court orders or warnings. The Committee requests that the Government provide a copy of the records of inspections in which the inspectors were assisted by members of the police in order to ensure the integrity, safety and free access of labour inspectors to workplaces.
Articles 12(1)(a) and (2). Free access for labour inspectors to workplaces liable to inspection and effective application of adequate penalties in cases of obstruction. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out that it would seem that the situation relating to granting the right of entry to safety and health inspectors to workplaces had not made progress since 2006. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that both law and practice are brought into line with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information in this regard. The Committee hopes that the Government will ensure that both law and practice are brought into line with the requirements of the Convention under which labour inspectors provided with proper credentials must be empowered to enter freely and without previous notice at any hour of the day or night any workplace liable to inspection (Article 12(1)(a)) and on the occasion of an inspection visit, inspectors shall notify the employer or his or her representative of their presence, unless they consider that such a notification may be prejudicial to the performance of their duties (Article 12(2)).
Article 13. Right of labour inspectors to issue orders. In its previous comments, the Committee requested that the Government specify the division of work between the occupational safety and health technical experts and labour inspectors set forth in section 617(c) of the Labour Code, and to indicate the practical arrangements for their collaboration, and the authority to which reports are addressed on occupational safety and health and on industrial accidents. It also asked the Government to specify the legal provisions in force applying the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention. The Government considers that the officials responsible for supervising occupational safety and health are the safety and health technical experts, who are under the General Directorate of Social Security. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether Decree No. 49-84 remains in force and to specify the procedure that labour inspectors should follow when, during an inspection in a workplace, they notice conditions that in their judgement can endanger the workers’ safety and health, and how they should proceed when during an inspection they notice an imminent danger.
Article 14. Obligation to notify industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease to the labour inspectorate. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate steps taken or envisaged to ensure that national legislation provides for the conditions and the manner in which cases of occupational disease should be notified to the labour inspectorate. The Government states that the cases of occupational disease are notified to the General Directorate for Social Security, through the office responsible for occupational diseases and hazards of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, in line with the general regulations on prevention of industrial accidents and occupational diseases. Emphasizing, as in paragraph 118 of the 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, the importance of the preventive mandate of the labour inspectorate and the requirement under Article 14 of the Convention, in accordance with which the labour inspectorate shall be notified of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease, in such cases and in such manner as may be prescribed by national legislation, the Committee requests the Government to ensure the establishment of a mechanism for the communication to the labour inspection services of cases of occupational diseases.
Articles 19, 20 and 21. Periodical reports and an annual inspection report. In its previous comments, the Committee requested that the Government provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that the local inspection units produce periodical reports on the results of their activities, as stipulated in Article 19, and that these reports enable the central inspection authority to produce an annual report in accordance with Articles 20 and 21. The Government has transmitted the periodic reports produced by the regional offices. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 316–319 of the 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, which stresses the importance of the reports which the inspectors and the local and regional labour inspection services must periodically present to the central authority in the manner and on such subjects as prescribed by that authority for the preparation of the annual reports on labour inspection activities. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to ensure the publication and transmission to the ILO, in conformity with Article 20 of the Convention, of an annual report on the labour inspection services, containing all the information required under Article 21(a)–(g). The Committee also invites the Government to consider the possibility of availing itself, if necessary, of technical assistance from the Office to that end.
[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2016.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the observations made by the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), received on 1 September 2014, and the Government’s reply to those received on 27 October 2014.
Article 3(2) of the Convention. Functions of labour inspectors in the area of labour disputes. With reference to its previous comments on measures taken to guarantee that the conciliation or mediation duties undertaken by the labour inspectors do not interfere with the discharge of their primary duties, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s information that labour inspectors no longer participate in these duties. These now fall under the ambit of the Department for individual and collective conciliation and mediation of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.
Articles 3(1), 7, 10, 11, 16 and 24. Adequate human, financial and material resources for the needs of inspection. In reply to its previous comments on measures taken to carry out a needs assessment of the labour inspection services in the areas of human resources and training, and financial and material resources, the Government indicates that the Civil Service Act regulates the selection and recruitment for public administration staff, the training for labour inspectors, and the budget earmarked by the central administration for labour inspection. It also states that the four vehicles allocated to the regional units are for the exclusive use of carrying out routine inspections. In its observations, the CGT emphasizes that the labour inspectorate is under-resourced, the number of inspectors is very low (120), and that the labour inspection services have little logistical support. In its reply to these observations, the Government considers that, while the General Labour Inspectorate may have little logistical support, this has not impeded its work, as shown by the statistics on inspections carried out between 2005 and 2013. The Government also denies that there are 120 inspectors as indicated by the CGT, specifying that there are currently 141 inspectors at the national level, 137 of whom have permanent positions and four are contracted as consultants. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government relating to the geographical distribution of the inspectors, and the statistics on inspections carried out between 2005 and 2013. The Committee regrets that since 2005, inspection activity has been focused on special inspections or on inspections as a result of complaints (in 2009, for example, there were 12,759 inspections based on complaints received and 2,033 routine inspections; in 2013, there were 11,506 inspections based on complaints received and 6,037 routine inspections). The Committee requests that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure that the workplaces liable to inspection under the Convention are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provision, in conformity with Article 16 of the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number and geographical distribution of the workplaces liable to inspection and of the workers employed therein, that it specifies the number of vehicles available to labour inspectors or the transport available to them for the performance of their duties and their geographical distribution, as well as any other useful information for the assessment, by the competent authority, of the needs of the labour inspectorate relating to human resources (inspectors and administrative staff), material resources, facilities and means of transport.
Articles 6 and 15(a). The need to ensure conditions of service which guarantee that labour inspectors have stability of employment and are independent of changes of government and of improper external influences. In its previous comments, the Committee once again requested the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to complement national legislation by including specific legal provisions to guarantee inspection staff job security and independence in the event of any changes in government and of any other improper external influences. The Government refers firstly to the constitutional provisions stipulating that the civil service regime regulates employment and public services relations of public servants based on the principles of competence, efficiency and honesty, the administration of which is subject to the Civil Service Act. It also indicates that the Act regulates the conditions for entering public administration, promotions and advancement based on merit and qualifications, job security, transfers, suspensions and guarantees, remedies against decisions that affect them, and also establishes the independence of the public servants relating to changes in government. The Government also reports that at the end of 2013, structure of posts within the Integrated System for Human Resource Management (SIARH) was reviewed and updated, to assess their budgetary impact and create new categories (labour inspector, chief labour inspector and regional labour coordinator), which are currently being developed. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 201–216 of the 2006 General Survey on labour inspection where it states that it is vital that levels of remuneration and career prospects of inspectors are such that high-quality staff are attracted, retained, and protected from any improper influence. The Committee requests the Government to specify the measures adopted to ensure that all inspectors enjoy job stability, and guarantee that they have the necessary independence to perform inspection duties, and protect them from all improper influences (such as improvements in the levels of remuneration and career prospects). The Committee also requests that the Government report on the development of new categories of inspection staff positions and, where necessary, its impact on the independence of labour inspectors and the assurance that they are free from improper external influence.
Articles 18 and 21(e). Appropriate penalties and effective application. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that no agreement has been reached between the Government and the social partners on the draft review of the Labour Code, which includes a reform of section 625 setting out sanctions against the obstruction of the fulfilment of labour inspectors’ duties and the violation of the legal provisions that are not subject to any special penalty. In its observations, the CGT also states that workers have to pay for the intervention of an inspector if they are unfairly dismissed, but that most workers do not have the means to do so and offences go unpunished. In its reply, the Government does not refer to this question. In its observations, the CGT also states that there are managers who do not allow labour inspectors to enter enterprises, such as in the maquila industry, fast food outlets, security companies, restaurants, and sanitation companies. The Government states in its reply that while it is true that certain managers do not allow labour inspectors to enter enterprises, section 625 of the Labour Code provides for a fine for obstructing the fulfilment of labour inspectors’ duties without prejudice to any other corresponding criminal, civil or labour procedure. Labour inspectors must highlight this situation in their report so that the relevant procedure may be initiated and the penalty applied. In this respect, the Committee notes the decision issued by the General Labour Inspectorate, imposing a fine on a private security company, whose manager did not take action in time to present evidence or documents. The Committee emphasizes that, according to statistics provided by the Government, the number of cases in which a sanction was applied between 2005 and 2013 is negligible in relation to the number of cases not sanctioned, and that there was a significant drop between 2005 and 2013. The Committee points out, as it did in paragraph 295 of the abovementioned General Survey, the importance of having sufficiently dissuasive fines, adjusted to take account of inflation. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to establish a suitable method to revise penalties provided for in the case of obstructing the fulfilment of labour inspectors’ duties and for non-compliance with labour legislation. It also requests the Government to ensure that those penalties are effectively applied and to provide in its next report statistics on violations of labour legislation reported by labour inspectors (indicating the legal provisions in question) and the penalties imposed.
Technical assistance. The Committee notes that the Government has requested ILO technical assistance for an audit on the functioning of the labour inspection system in Honduras. The Committee hopes that the requested technical assistance will be provided in the near future and requests the Government to inform it on any activities undertaken in this context.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2016.]

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

Referring to its observation, the Committee asks the Government in addition to reply to its 2011 direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

International cooperation. The Committee notes the information available in the ILO on the launch on 1 April 2011 of a pilot project under the framework of international cooperation and the Decent Work Country Programme focusing on strengthening labour inspection and which will be extended until 30 September 2012. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the development of the pilot project and its impact.

Article 3 of the Convention. Main functions of the system of labour inspection and duties in the area of labour relations. The Committee refers to its comments of 2008 in which it had noted that from the tables showing the activities carried out in 2005 by the regional labour inspection services, these mainly concerned interventions to settle labour disputes and various operations involving the calculation of social benefits due to the workers. From reading the Labour Inspection Handbook, it can be deduced that the situation has not progressed significantly in this respect. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to guarantee that the conciliation or mediation duties undertaken by the labour inspectors in the event of labour disputes do not interfere with the discharge of their primary duties and to provide information on any progress made in that regard, as well as any relevant documents.

Article 8. Gender mix of inspection personnel. The Committee asks the Government once again to indicate how the distribution of duties between men and women labour inspectors is organized in practice when the personnel of a workplace comprises men, women and young workers.

Article 13. Exercise of the right to issue orders on matters relating to occupational safety and health. The Committee had noted in its comments of 2008 that, pursuant to section 617(c) of the Labour Code, labour inspectors may examine the health and safety conditions of workplaces and must ensure that the legislation in force on the prevention of industrial accidents and occupational diseases is applied. The Committee requests the Government once again to specify the division of work between the occupational safety and health technical experts and labour inspectors covered by this provision. It would be grateful if it would also indicate the practical arrangements of their collaboration, as well as the authority to which reports on occupational safety and health and occupational accidents are addressed.

The Committee asks the Government once again to specify the legal provisions in force applying the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention concerning the right to issue orders to employers, with or without a specified time limit, in the event of danger to the health and safety of workers, and to provide the Office with a copy of the Decree No. 49-84 in force.

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

The Committee notes the observations received in August 2011 from the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH), and the Government’s reply to them. The CUTH refers to the conditions in which Miskito workers carry out dive-fishing for lobster and shrimp. These observations are addressed in the Committee’s comments on the application of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169).
The Committee requests the Government to reply to the comments the Committee made in 2011, which read as follows:
The Committee notes the comments of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) 6 October 2010, as well as the Government’s reply. It also notes the comments of the Honduran United Confederation of Workers (CUTH), dated 31 August and received by the Office on 19 September 2011 respectively, as well as the Government’s reply dated 9 November 2011.
Legislation. In its comments of 2008, the Committee had noted that the draft revision of the Labour Code was being discussed by the Government and the social partners. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on progress made in the aforementioned revision process.
Articles 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 16 of the Convention. Functioning of the Labour inspection system. The COHEP notes that: (i) the staff of the Labour Ministry is insufficient and does not have the qualifications necessary for the carrying out of labour inspection visits in workplaces; (ii) the budget allocated to the labour inspection is insufficient; (iii) the inspection services do not have access to vehicles or petty cash; (iv) according to the data provided by the General Labour Inspectorate, its activity has been focused on special inspections or on complaints received, which represent between 80 and 90 per cent of the inspections carried out in the last few years; (v) the inspection has salary limitations due to the low ranking of inspectors within the civil service and the fact that anyone who can read and write is hired; (vi) inspectors have a biased attitude towards the worker and the General Labour Inspectorate does not always respond to requests by employers to check worker wrongdoings; (vii) although section 629 of the Labour Code stipulates that labour inspectors will have the assistance of technical experts during inspections, in practice multi-purpose or multidisciplined inspections are not carried out.
The Government states that: (i) the General Labour Inspection currently has 108 inspectors at the national level, 22 of which are lawyers, ten are interns and 76 have a title of secondary education; (ii) all the organs of the State, including the ministries, must comply with the provisions of the national budget and do not have the right to exceed the limits set in the budget; (iii) the central headquarters of the General Labour Inspectorate has sufficiently equipped units and four vehicles are distributed among the different regional units, even though there is no budgetary allocation to cover travel expenses for labour inspectors, and in the regional units in the rest of the country there is a lack of logistical support and budget to cover transportation costs; (iv) regular general inspections are carried out, at six month intervals; (v) General Labour Inspection officials are governed by the Civil Service Act and its regulations and, although they do not have their own statute, they enjoy job security, as it is unusual for them to be dismissed when governments change; (vi) recruitment of labour inspectors is carried out once candidates have passed the examination provided for in the aforementioned legislation; (vii) the project aimed at strengthening public administration systems to ensure the inspection service is professional, unified and polyvalent, undertaken by the ILO with the financial cooperation of USDOL, conducted a study into posts and salaries and standardized the posts of inspectors I, II and III into two categories of inspectors and supervisors; (viii) the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has occupational doctors and safety and health technical experts, who have responsibility for monitoring compliance with legal provisions in the area of occupational health and safety through visits to workplaces.
The Committee highlights that the issue of establishing the budget share allocation for the functioning of the labour inspection system, so as to take into account the clearly specified needs and requirements of the Convention, has been raised in its comments since 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the actions and measures taken, with ILO technical assistance, to carry out a needs assessment of the labour inspection services in the areas of human resources and training, and financial and material resources, and to ensure that the budget share allocation for labour inspection within the national budget is set in proportion to the priority that must be accorded to labour inspection. It also requests the Government once again to provide precise information on the arrangements for the use of the vehicles (four) allocated to the different regional units for labour inspectors while performing their professional duties.
The Committee also points out that for a number of years it has been asking the Government to ensure that legal provisions are adopted rapidly to guarantee that the conditions of service of inspection staff are such as to ensure they have job security and that they are independent of any changes in government and of any improper external influences. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to complement national legislation with the inclusion of specific legal provisions to guarantee inspection staff job security and independence of any changes in government and of any improper external influences.
Articles 12(1)(a) and (2), and 18. Free access for labour inspectors to workplaces liable to inspection. In its comments of 2006, the Committee had noted that, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had taken firm measures to extend the right of health and safety inspectors to enter workplaces. In the Inspection Protocols and Labour Inspection Handbook of Procedures, attached to the Government’s report form, the Committee finds, however, that the situation has failed to progress sufficiently in practice in that regard. It therefore draws the attention of the Government to the provisions of the Convention pursuant to which the labour inspectors who are provided with proper credentials must be empowered to enter freely and without previous notice, at any hour of day or night, any workplace liable to inspection (Article 12(1)(a)) and, on the occasion of an inspection visit, they must notify the employer or his representative of their presence, unless they consider that such a notification may be prejudicial to the performance of their duties (Article 12(2)). The Committee also highlights that pursuant to Article 18, national legislation must set forth appropriate penalties, which must be effectively applied in cases where labour inspectors are obstructed in the performance of their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that both law and practice are brought into line with the requirements of the Convention in that regard.
Furthermore, noting that the Government has not responded to its previous comments on the number of joint visits carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Minister for Security and the Procurator General, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify the purpose of, and nature of, the participation of each of the above authorities in these inspections.
Article 14. Notification of occupational diseases to the labour inspectorate. The Committee recalls that, the need to complement legislation through a provision stipulating the obligation to notify cases of occupational disease to the labour inspection services has been addressed since the 1990s, and draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 118 of its Labour Inspectorate General Study of 2006, in which the importance of establishing a systematic information mechanism to enable the labour inspectorate to have access to the data necessary to determine which activities present a risk and the categories of workers most at risk, and to investigate the causes of occupational accidents and diseases in workplaces and companies under its control. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the steps taken or envisaged to ensure that national legislation provides for the conditions and the manner in which cases of occupational disease should be notified to the labour inspectorate.
Article 15. Obligations and limits to be respected by labour inspectors. The Committee notes with the ministerial decision attached to the Government’s report which contained the Labour Inspectorate’s Code of Ethics and was signed on 28 June 2011. It notes that the text includes the expression of values and commitments to which all members of the labour inspectorate must adhere and in particular those prohibiting them from accepting any gifts, presents, subscriptions, favours, gratuities, promises or special advantage and rejecting any kind of direct or indirect offering of bribery, sale or financial profit from workers or employers that might interfere with the fulfilment of their duties. The Committee notes, however, that this text does not take on board the comments that the Committee has been raising since the 1990s concerning the need to specifically prohibit labour inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in undertakings under their supervision. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that specific provisions are adopted without delay establishing the prohibition of labour inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in undertakings under their supervision, pursuant to Article 15(a) of the Convention.
Articles 17 and 18. Appropriate penalties. COHEP considers that the penalties provided for in article 625 of the Labour Code are obsolete, hence they have not been amended since its entry into force. According to the Government, the aforementioned article of the revised Code sanctions the offences listed below with fines varying between 50 and 5,000 lempiras, depending on the individual circumstances of each case, its recurrent character and the capacity of the offending company to pay: (i) non-respect of the orders issued by labour inspectors, within the limit of their legal authority; (ii) obstructing the fulfilment of the duties that labour inspectors are legally entitled to carry out; (iii) physical and psychological aggression towards labour inspectors; (iv) violation by employers of the legal provisions that are not subject to any special penalty. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the revised text of article 625 of the Labour Code referred to by the Government in its report form.
Articles 19, 20 and 21. Periodical reports and drawing up and publication of an annual inspection report. The Committee notes with regret that since the ratification of the Convention in 1983, no annual report on the activities of the inspection services has been communicated, as stipulated in Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that the local inspection units produce periodical reports on the results of their activities, as stipulated in Article 19, and that these reports enable the central inspection authority to produce an annual report in accordance with Articles 20 and 21. In that regard, the Committee reminds the Government of the guidance provided in Part IV of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81), on how the information required under Article 21 may be broken down.
Labour inspection and child labour. In its comments of 2006, the Committee had noted that inspectors specializing in child labour were operating in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro de Sula and had requested the Government to specify why it had decided to appoint child labour inspectors to carry out duties in these locations, and to provide information on the results of their activities. As the Government has not made this information available, the Committee requests it once again to communicate it and to provide statistical information on the number of visits carried out by labour inspectors, in particular in these regions, the offences found and penalties imposed, and on the advice and information that may have been provided on the matter to employers and workers.
The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.
The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

The Committee also refers to its observation and requests the Government to provide more information on the following points.
International cooperation. The Committee notes the information available in the ILO on the launch on 1 April 2011 of a pilot project under the framework of international cooperation and the Decent Work Country Programme focusing on strengthening labour inspection and which will be extended until 30 September 2012. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the development of the pilot project and its impact.
Article 3 of the Convention. Main functions of the system of labour inspection and duties in the area of labour relations. The Committee refers to its comments of 2008 in which it had noted that from the tables showing the activities carried out in 2005 by the regional labour inspection services, these mainly concerned interventions to settle labour disputes and various operations involving the calculation of social benefits due to the workers. From reading the Labour Inspection Handbook, it can be deduced that the situation has not progressed significantly in this respect. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to guarantee that the conciliation or mediation duties undertaken by the labour inspectors in the event of labour disputes do not interfere with the discharge of their primary duties and to provide information on any progress made in that regard, as well as any relevant documents.
Article 8. Gender mix of inspection personnel. The Committee asks the Government once again to indicate how the distribution of duties between men and women labour inspectors is organized in practice when the personnel of a workplace comprises men, women and young workers.
Article 13. Exercise of the right to issue orders on matters relating to occupational safety and health. The Committee had noted in its comments of 2008 that, pursuant to section 617(c) of the Labour Code, labour inspectors may examine the health and safety conditions of workplaces and must ensure that the legislation in force on the prevention of industrial accidents and occupational diseases is applied. The Committee requests the Government once again to specify the division of work between the occupational safety and health technical experts and labour inspectors covered by this provision. It would be grateful if it would also indicate the practical arrangements of their collaboration, as well as the authority to which reports on occupational safety and health and occupational accidents are addressed.
The Committee asks the Government once again to specify the legal provisions in force applying the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention concerning the right to issue orders to employers, with or without a specified time limit, in the event of danger to the health and safety of workers, and to provide the Office with a copy of the Decree No. 49-84 in force.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) 6 October 2010, as well as the Government’s reply. It also notes the comments of the Honduran United Confederation of Workers (CUTH), dated 31 August and received by the Office on 19 September 2011 respectively, as well as the Government’s reply dated 9 November 2011.
Legislation. In its comments of 2008, the Committee had noted that the draft revision of the Labour Code was being discussed by the Government and the social partners. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on progress made in the aforementioned revision process.
Articles 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 16 of the Convention. Functioning of the Labour inspection system. The COHEP notes that: (i) the staff of the Labour Ministry is insufficient and does not have the qualifications necessary for the carrying out of labour inspection visits in workplaces; (ii) the budget allocated to the labour inspection is insufficient; (iii) the inspection services do not have access to vehicles or petty cash; (iv) according to the data provided by the General Labour Inspectorate, its activity has been focused on special inspections or on complaints received, which represent between 80 and 90 per cent of the inspections carried out in the last few years; (v) the inspection has salary limitations due to the low ranking of inspectors within the civil service and the fact that anyone who can read and write is hired; (vi) inspectors have a biased attitude towards the worker and the General Labour Inspectorate does not always respond to requests by employers to check worker wrongdoings; (vii) although section 629 of the Labour Code stipulates that labour inspectors will have the assistance of technical experts during inspections, in practice multi-purpose or multidisciplined inspections are not carried out.
The Government states that: (i) the General Labour Inspection currently has 108 inspectors at the national level, 22 of which are lawyers, ten are interns and 76 have a title of secondary education; (ii) all the organs of the State, including the ministries, must comply with the provisions of the national budget and do not have the right to exceed the limits set in the budget; (iii) the central headquarters of the General Labour Inspectorate has sufficiently equipped units and four vehicles are distributed among the different regional units, even though there is no budgetary allocation to cover travel expenses for labour inspectors, and in the regional units in the rest of the country there is a lack of logistical support and budget to cover transportation costs; (iv) regular general inspections are carried out, at six month intervals; (v) General Labour Inspection officials are governed by the Civil Service Act and its regulations and, although they do not have their own statute, they enjoy job security, as it is unusual for them to be dismissed when governments change; (vi) recruitment of labour inspectors is carried out once candidates have passed the examination provided for in the aforementioned legislation; (vii) the project aimed at strengthening public administration systems to ensure the inspection service is professional, unified and polyvalent, undertaken by the ILO with the financial cooperation of USDOL, conducted a study into posts and salaries and standardized the posts of inspectors I, II and III into two categories of inspectors and supervisors; (viii) the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has occupational doctors and safety and health technical experts, who have responsibility for monitoring compliance with legal provisions in the area of occupational health and safety through visits to workplaces.
The Committee highlights that the issue of establishing the budget share allocation for the functioning of the labour inspection system, so as to take into account the clearly specified needs and requirements of the Convention, has been raised in its comments since 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the actions and measures taken, with ILO technical assistance, to carry out a needs assessment of the labour inspection services in the areas of human resources and training, and financial and material resources, and to ensure that the budget share allocation for labour inspection within the national budget is set in proportion to the priority that must be accorded to labour inspection. It also requests the Government once again to provide precise information on the arrangements for the use of the vehicles (four) allocated to the different regional units for labour inspectors while performing their professional duties.
The Committee also points out that for a number of years it has been asking the Government to ensure that legal provisions are adopted rapidly to guarantee that the conditions of service of inspection staff are such as to ensure they have job security and that they are independent of any changes in government and of any improper external influences. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to complement national legislation with the inclusion of specific legal provisions to guarantee inspection staff job security and independence of any changes in government and of any improper external influences.
Articles 12(1)(a) and (2) and 18. Free access for labour inspectors to workplaces liable to inspection. In its comments of 2006, the Committee had noted that, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had taken firm measures to extend the right of health and safety inspectors to enter workplaces. In the Inspection Protocols and Labour Inspection Handbook of Procedures, attached to the Government’s report form, the Committee finds, however, that the situation has failed to progress sufficiently in practice in that regard. It therefore draws the attention of the Government to the provisions of the Convention pursuant to which the labour inspectors who are provided with proper credentials must be empowered to enter freely and without previous notice, at any hour of day or night, any workplace liable to inspection (Article 12(1)(a)) and, on the occasion of an inspection visit, they must notify the employer or his representative of their presence, unless they consider that such a notification may be prejudicial to the performance of their duties (Article 12(2)). The Committee also highlights that pursuant to Article 18, national legislation must set forth appropriate penalties, which must be effectively applied in cases where labour inspectors are obstructed in the performance of their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that both law and practice are brought into line with the requirements of the Convention in that regard.
Furthermore, noting that the Government has not responded to its previous comments on the number of joint visits carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Minister for Security and the Procurator General, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify the purpose of, and nature of, the participation of each of the above authorities in these inspections.
Article 14. Notification of occupational diseases to the labour inspectorate. The Committee recalls that, the need to complement legislation through a provision stipulating the obligation to notify cases of occupational disease to the labour inspection services has been addressed since the 1990s, and draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 118 of its Labour Inspectorate General Study of 2006, in which the importance of establishing a systematic information mechanism to enable the labour inspectorate to have access to the data necessary to determine which activities present a risk and the categories of workers most at risk, and to investigate the causes of occupational accidents and diseases in workplaces and companies under its control. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the steps taken or envisaged to ensure that national legislation provides for the conditions and the manner in which cases of occupational disease should be notified to the labour inspectorate.
Article 15. Obligations and limits to be respected by labour inspectors. The Committee notes with interest the ministerial decision attached to the Government’s report which contained the Labour Inspectorate’s Code of Ethics and was signed on 28 June 2011. It notes that the text includes the expression of values and commitments to which all members of the labour inspectorate must adhere and in particular those prohibiting them from accepting any gifts, presents, subscriptions, favours, gratuities, promises or special advantage and rejecting any kind of direct or indirect offering of bribery, sale or financial profit from workers or employers that might interfere with the fulfilment of their duties. The Committee notes, however, that this text does not take on board the comments that the Committee has been raising since the 1990s concerning the need to specifically prohibit labour inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in undertakings under their supervision. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that specific provisions are adopted without delay establishing the prohibition of labour inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in undertakings under their supervision, pursuant to Article 15(a) of the Convention.
Articles 17 and 18. Appropriate penalties. COHEP considers that the penalties provided for in article 625 of the Labour Code are obsolete, hence they have not been amended since its entry into force. According to the Government, the aforementioned article of the revised Code sanctions the offences listed below with fines varying between 50 and 5,000 lempiras, depending on the individual circumstances of each case, its recurrent character and the capacity of the offending company to pay: (i) non-respect of the orders issued by labour inspectors, within the limit of their legal authority; (ii) obstructing the fulfilment of the duties that labour inspectors are legally entitled to carry out; (iii) physical and psychological aggression towards labour inspectors; (iv) violation by employers of the legal provisions that are not subject to any special penalty. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the revised text of article 625 of the Labour Code referred to by the Government in its report form.
Articles 19, 20 and 21. Periodical reports and drawing up and publication of an annual inspection report. The Committee notes with regret that since the ratification of the Convention in 1983, no annual report on the activities of the inspection services has been communicated, as stipulated in Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that the local inspection units produce periodical reports on the results of their activities, as stipulated in Article 19, and that these reports enable the central inspection authority to produce an annual report in accordance with Articles 20 and 21. In that regard, the Committee reminds the Government of the guidance provided in Part IV of Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81), on how the information required under Article 21 may be broken down.
Labour inspection and child labour. In its comments of 2006, the Committee had noted that inspectors specializing in child labour were operating in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro de Sula and had requested the Government to specify why it had decided to appoint child labour inspectors to carry out duties in these locations, and to provide information on the results of their activities. As the Government has not made this information available, the Committee requests it once again to communicate it and to provide statistical information on the number of visits carried out by labour inspectors, in particular in these regions, the offences found and penalties imposed, and on the advice and information that may have been provided on the matter to employers and workers.
The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes that the information supplied by the Government in its report is much the same as that in the report covering the previous period. The Committee nonetheless notes with interest the document published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security on the system for electronic follow-up of inspection visits implemented in the context of the Centroamérica Cumple y Gana cooperation project, and the operational inspection plan for 2009.

The Committee notes that on 4 October 2010 the Office received a communication from the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) on the application of the Convention and that the communication was forwarded to the Government on 18 October 2010.

The Committee notes with regret that, contrary to the intention stated in its report, the Government has provided neither the copies of periodical reports by the regional inspection units (Article 19 of the Convention), nor the annual inspection report for 2009 (Articles 20 and 21). The Committee points out that information on the practical application of the Convention is essential to an assessment of the running of the inspection system and hence the extent to which the Convention is applied, and requests the Government to ensure that the abovementioned reports are sent as soon as possible so that they can be examined together with the report received on 27 August 2010, the points raised by COHEP in its comments on the application of the Convention, and any observations the Government may wish to submit in reply.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2011.]

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

Referring also to its observation, the Committee notes that the Government has still not replied to its previous direct request under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. It therefore feels bound to reiterate the corresponding paragraphs in the request, on the following points:

Article 3. Main functions of the labour inspection system, duties in the area of labour relations and incidental administrative tasks. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the tables showing the activities carried out in 2005 by the regional labour inspection services, that most of the inspectors’ work concerned the settlement of labour disputes and various operations involving the calculation of social benefits due to workers. It notes that there are plans for 2007 to strengthen the inspectorate staff by further recruitment and training, depending on available budgetary resources. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would shortly take measures to ensure that the labour inspectors’ main duties consist of supervision and the provision of information and advice, as prescribed by Article 3, paragraph 1, and to ensure the enforcement of legal provisions and working conditions and the protection of workers. It requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect and in respect of the strengthening of the labour inspectorate’s human resources.

Article 8. Eligibility of both men and women for appointment to the inspection staff; special duties assigned to men and women inspectors. According to the Government, from preference, women labour inspectors are placed in charge of matters pertaining to the working conditions of women and children, male inspectors responsible for the supervision of occupational safety and health and minimum wages. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how the distribution of duties between men and women labour inspectors is organized in practice when the personnel of a workplace comprises men, women and young workers.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the following point.

Articles 9 and 13. Collaboration between technical experts and specialists in the work of the labour inspection services and the exercise of the right to issue orders on matters relating to occupational safety and health. According to the Government, the responsibility for applying the relevant legislation lies with specialists from the Occupational Safety and Health Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security with the support and advice from the Medical Department. Under Executive Decree No. 49-84, these officials are also responsible for directly supervising the application and strict observation of provisions under collective agreements and arbitration decisions that are relative in this area. The Government specifies that they are able, if they consider it necessary, to investigate the cause of certain types of occupational accidents. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, pursuant to section 617(c) of the Labour Code, labour inspectors may examine the safety and health conditions of workplaces and must ensure that the legislation in force on the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases is applied. The Government is requested to specify the division of work between the occupational safety and health officials and labour inspectors covered by this provision. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the practical arrangements of their collaboration, as well as the authority to which reports on occupational safety and health and occupational accidents are addressed.

The Committee requests the Government to specify the legal provisions in force applying the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention concerning the right to issue orders to employers, with or without a specified time limit, in the event of danger to the health or safety of workers, and to provide the Office with a copy of the abovementioned Decree No. 49-84 in force in its actual form.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report, as well as the statistical tables on the activities carried out by the labour inspection services in the capital and regions in 2007 (number of inspection visits, number of workers disaggregated by gender, number of proceedings, including conciliations, calculations of workers’ social benefits, consultations held, etc).

Noting that the Government has only replied very partially to the questions raised in its previous observation and direct request, the Committee draws its attention to the following points.

International cooperation. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on any progress made in the implementation of the project for reinforcing workers’ rights in Central America (Centroamérica cumple y gana), and to send a copy of any relevant texts. It observes that the Government has failed to do this.

According to information available to the ILO and posted on the Internet, new resources have been allocated to the project, which was due to be completed in 2007, but was therefore extended until September 2008. These resources were aimed at broadening the distribution of information on the rights and obligations deriving from employment, and incorporating a “component” on discrimination against working women. Under this programme, it was planned to undertake training activities and actions to support staff responsible for gender matters in the ministries of labour of the countries concerned, as well as to carry out awareness-raising and training sessions for labour inspectors and mediators in this area. These resources were also earmarked for institution building, by providing equipment to labour inspection services and the Bureau for Working Women. It was also intended to allocate funds to improve planning, the computer system and public relations.

According to information available to the ILO, an assessment of labour inspection services was carried out this year by the ILO Subregional Office for Central America, in the context of the project RLA/07/04M/USA, with a view to strengthening the public administration in the Ministries of Labour in Honduras and El Salvador. The Committee notes that recommendations were made which included: setting up an integrated labour inspection service that is both specialized and multipurpose; overhauling labour inspection procedures; assessing and reviewing posts in the inspection services; exchanging information on enterprises with the Honduran Institute of Social Security; and setting up a national information network. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to inform the ILO of any progress achieved with the project “Centroamérica cumple y gana”, as well as of any follow up action to the recommendations made in the context of this survey.

Legislation. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the progress made in adopting the Organic Act on the Secretariat of Labour and Occupational Safety, and in revising the Labour Code as announced by the Government in 2002.

Articles 6 and 15(a) of the Convention. Conditions of service of labour inspectors and prohibition on having any direct or indirect interest in undertakings under their supervision. According to the Government, labour inspectors come under the Public Service Act. They have no specific status and their contracts are not affected by changes of government. The Committee requests the Government once again to adopt, as soon as possible, legal provisions which ensure that the conditions of service of inspection staff are such as to guarantee that they are independent of all improper external influences (Article 6) and to prohibit labour inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in the undertakings under their supervision (Article 15(a)). It also asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments or any difficulties encountered in this respect.

Article 11. Financial resources and transport facilities for inspection services. In its observation of 2006, the Committee had expressed the hope that the Government would do its utmost to ensure that, in determining the budget allocated to the working of the labour inspectorate, account would be taken of the obvious needs of the inspectorate and the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to take tangible measures to this end and to provide information on them and on their results.

According to the Government, the regional offices of Chuloteca, San Pedro Sula, Danlí, El Progreso and Santa Rosa de Copán have been renovated and equipped so that the inspectors can carry out their functions more easily; in addition, the Central Labour Inspectorate and a number of regional offices have been provided with means of transport (bus and minibus). The Government nevertheless pointed out once again that the Central Labour Inspectorate does not have a budget to cover travel expenses for labour inspectors. The Committee hopes that measures will rapidly be taken to this end to encourage labour inspectors to travel further afield to cover establishments covered by the Convention, that appropriate resources will be allocated in the next budget of the labour inspection services and that the Government will inform the Office of any measures taken in this respect.

The Government is also asked to describe the procedures determining how the inspectors may use the bus and minibus provided  to the labour inspection services for their professional visits.

Articles 19 and 21. Periodical reports and publication of an annual inspection report. According to the Government, the regional labour inspectors submit monthly reports on the activities carried out in the various offices to the central labour inspection authorities. The Committee notes that the statistics provided indicate the proportion of planned activities carried out. It would be grateful if the Government would inform the Office of any progress made in collecting the data required by the central labour inspection authority to publish an annual report on the labour inspection services under its supervision, containing the information required in clauses (a) to (g) of Article 21.

It would be grateful if the Government would specify the manner in which the programmed objectives of the labour inspection services are determined.

Labour inspection and child labour. The Committee requests the Government once again to explain why it was decided to appoint inspectors specializing in child labour in Tegucigalpa et San Pedro Sula and to provide information on the results of their activities in terms of inspections, penalties imposed and the provision of advice and information to employers and workers. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether it is planned to appoint specialized labour inspectors in other areas and, in any event, to take immediate measures to ensure that inspections targeting breaches of the legislation on child labour are also carried out by non-specialized labour inspectors.

Furthermore, noting that the Government has not made any progress in the application of certain provisions under the Convention, the Committee is bound to reiterate the previous requests that it made directly in this respect:

Articles 12, paragraphs 1(a) and 18. Free access for labour inspectors to workplaces subject to inspection. According to the Government, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has taken firm measures to ensure that labour inspectors are in general allowed to enter workplaces. Several joint inspections have been carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Minister for Security and the Procurator General, and further joint visits are to take place with assistance from a special procurator. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify the purpose of each of the above authorities in participating in these inspections, indicating the extent of the inspections and describing the measures implemented to give safety and health inspectors greater freedom to enter workplaces covered by the Convention, as requested by the Committee in its previous comments.

Article 14. Notification of occupational diseases to the inspectorate. With reference to comments it has made many times, the Committee again requests the Government to take steps to give full effect to this provision of the Convention and to provide copies of any relevant text governing the instances in which the inspectorate must be informed of cases of occupational disease and the manner of such notification.

Article 18. Appropriate penalties. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the draft revision of the Labour Code is being discussed by the Government and the social partners. It draws the Government’s attention to the relevance of this draft legislation to the establishment of a system for setting penalties that remain dissuasive regardless of any monetary fluctuations, and would be grateful if the Government would send the ILO information on any progress in this respect together with copies of any relevant texts.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government concerning other matters.

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

The Committee refers the Government to its observation, and draws attention to the following points.

Article 3 of the Convention. Main functions of the labour inspection system, duties in the area of labour relations and incidental administrative tasks. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the tables showing the activities carried out in 2005 by the regional labour inspection services, that most of the inspectors’ work concerned the settlement of labour disputes and various operations involving the calculation of social benefits due to workers. It notes that there are plans for 2007 to strengthen the inspectorate staff by further recruitment and training, depending on available budgetary resources. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would shortly take measures to ensure that the labour inspectors’ main duties consist of supervision and the provision of information and advice, as prescribed by Article 3, paragraph 1, and to ensure the enforcement of legal provisions on working conditions and the protection of workers. It requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect and in respect of the strengthening of the labour inspectorate’s human resources.

Article 8. Eligibility of both men and women for appointment to the inspection staff; special duties assigned to men and women inspectors. According to the Government, from preference, women labour inspectors are placed in charge of matters pertaining to the working conditions of women and children, male inspectors being responsible for the supervision of occupational safety and health and minimum wages. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how the distribution of duties between men and women labour inspectors is organized in practice when the personnel of a workplace comprises men, women and young workers.

Articles 12, paragraph 1(a), and 18. Free access for labour inspectors to workplaces subject to inspection. According to the Government, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has taken firm measures to ensure that labour inspectors are in general allowed to enter workplaces. Several joint inspections have been carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Ministry for Security and the Procurator General, and further joint visits are to take place with assistance from a special procurator. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify the purpose of each of the above authorities in participating in these inspections, indicating the extent of the inspections and describing the measures implemented to give safety and health inspectors greater freedom to enter workplaces covered by the Convention, as requested by the Committee in its previous comments.

Article 14. Notification of occupational diseases to the inspectorate. With reference to comments it has made many times, the Committee again requests the Government to take steps to give full effect to this provision of the Convention and to provide copies of any relevant texts governing the instances in which the inspectorate must be informed of cases of occupational disease and the manner of such notification.

Article 18. Appropriate penalties. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the draft revision of the Labour Code is being discussed by the Government and the social partners. It draws the Government’s attention to the relevance of this draft legislation to the establishment of a system for setting penalties that remain dissuasive regardless of any monetary fluctuations, and would be grateful if the Government would send the ILO information on any progress in this respect together with copies of any relevant texts.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report containing replies to its previous comments, the documents attached thereto and the observation by the Private Enterprise Council of Honduras (COHEP).

While endorsing the information sent by the Government, COHEP indicates with reference to the direct request of 2004 that, pursuant to article 16(2) of the national Constitution, international agreements ratified by Honduras form part of domestic law as soon as they enter into force, and prevail in the event of inconsistency with domestic law.

1. Articles 7, 10 and 11 of the Convention. Strengthening of the labour inspection system; financial resources and transport facilities for the labour inspectorate. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the draft Basic Act of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has not been adopted. It notes with interest the actions implemented as part of the project to strengthen labour rights in Central America (“Centroamérica cumple y gana” 2004-06), and particularly the establishment of an electronic system for processing information on labour inspections, shortly to be extended to several regional offices, the provision of computers and other equipment for the inspection services, training for inspection staff, surveys of employers and workers on the role and credibility of the labour inspectorate, the creation of a mobile inspection unit in San Pedro de Sula, and the preparation of a handbook on inspection procedures. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on progress made in implementing the abovementioned project, and to provide copies of any relevant texts and, if appropriate, the amended Labour Code and the Basic Act of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security as soon as they are adopted.

The Committee notes with concern that neither the central nor the regional offices of the labour inspectorate have the financial resources to cover duty travel for labour inspectors. The Committee cannot overemphasize the social and economic role played by the labour inspectorate and the need for inspectors to be given the necessary means to carry out their duties, particularly transport facilities to enable them to visit workplaces with sufficient frequency. It hopes that the Government will do its utmost to ensure that, in determining the share of the budget allocated to the working of the labour inspectorate, account is taken of what are obvious needs of the inspectorate, and the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take concrete measures to this end and to provide information on them and on their results.

2. Articles 6 and 15(a). Conditions of service for labour inspectors and prohibition from any interest in undertakings under their supervision. With reference to its previous comments on the need to ensure that the conditions of service of inspection staff are such as to ensure that they are independent of all improper external influences (Article 6) and to prohibit labour inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in undertakings under their supervision (Article 15(a)), the Committee again asks the Government to ensure that relevant legal provisions are shortly adopted and to keep the Office informed of any progress in this regard.

3. Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication of an annual inspection report. The Committee hopes that the implementation of the electronic system for processing the labour inspectorate’s cases will facilitate the publication and communication to the ILO by the central inspection authority of an annual report on the work of the inspection services under its control, in the form and within the time limits prescribed by Article 20, and containing the information required at items (a) to (g) of Article 21.

4. Labour inspection and child labour. The Committee notes that inspectors specializing in child labour operate in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro de Sula. However, according to the Government, owing to budgetary limitations there will not be specialized staff in the other offices. The Committee requests the Government to explain why it was decided to appoint inspectors to these locations, and to provide information on the results of their activities in terms of inspections, penalties imposed, and the provision of advice and information on the matter to employers and workers. Until financial circumstances enable labour inspectors to be appointed to the other offices, it requests the Government to ensure that inspections targeting breaches of the relevant legislation are also carried out by non-specialized labour inspectors, in order to contain child labour as far as possible.

The Committee is addressing a request concerning other matters directly to the Government.

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

With reference to its observation, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information on the following points.

Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the information that, in the cases of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro de Sula, the function of conciliation is entrusted to the Individual Disputes Office of the General Labour Directorate. Nevertheless, noting that at the level of the regional directorates, in view of the budgetary restrictions, this function is entrusted to labour inspectors. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate, with supporting data, the manner in which it is ensured that the organization of the working time of inspectors gives priority to the discharge of their duties of inspection, advice and information rather than functions related to the resolution of collective disputes.

Article 8. The Committee notes that matters related to the specific working conditions of women and to child labour are preferably entrusted to women inspectors, while matters relating to the inspection of occupational health and safety conditions and compliance with the minimum wage are attributed in particular to male inspectors. The Government is requested to indicate the manner in which this distribution of duties is organized in practice in the workplaces inspected.

Articles 10 and 11. The Committee notes with concern the information concerning the successive reductions in the budget allocated to the Secretariat of State for Labour and Social Security in 2002, 2003 and 2004 in the context of the austerity policy and the rationalization of resources advocated by the Government and implemented through Decree No. PCM 005-2002 of May 2002 and it requests the Government to indicate the effects on the human, material and logistical resources of the labour inspection services. With reference to its previous comments, and while noting Decree No. 1775 of 22 August 2002 issuing rules respecting the per diem and other travel expenses of public officials and employees of the executive authorities. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the quality and arrangement of the inspection offices at the central and local levels, and on the resources and transport facilities available to labour inspectors for their official travel.

Article 12, paragraph 1(a). Noting that under section 2(a) of Decree No. 39 of 10 May 1982, occupational safety and health inspectors are authorized to enter workplaces during working hours with the prior consent of the employer or her or his representative, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention so that labour inspectors are duly empowered to enter freely and without previous notice at any hour of the day or night any workplace liable to inspection.

Article 12, paragraphs 1(c)(iii) and 2. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to these provisions of the Convention.

Article 14. According to the information provided by the Government, an occupational safety and health manual has been published and general regulations on preventative measures for accidents at work and occupational diseases were adopted in 2002 and revised in 2004. Furthermore, a notification form for cases of occupational diseases is reported to have been prepared and the technical assistance of the ILO requested to determine the manner in which cases of occupational disease should be notified to the labour inspectorate. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in this respect and copies of any relevant texts.

Article 18. The Committee notes that it is envisaged, in the context of the amendment of the Labour Code, to establish a new system of penalties based on minimum wages. The Committee hopes that such a system will make it possible to ensure that financial penalties are and remain of a sufficiently dissuasive nature and it requests the Government to provide any relevant information or documents available.

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

The Committee notes the information provided in reply to its previous comments, and the attached documentation.

1. Modernization and strengthening of the inspection system. The Committee notes with interest that, following the finalization in June 2003 of the technical assistance for the modernization and strengthening of the labour administration system in the context of the ILO/MATAC project, technical assistance focusing on the formulation and establishment of a polyvalent and unified inspection service was obtained from the Department of Labour of the United States (USDOL). This assistance is intended to improve the inspection system by extending its coverage, particularly through staff training and the development of material resources. The Government adds that a preliminary framework Bill of the Secretariat of State for Labour and Social Security, containing provisions respecting the structure and operation of the polyvalent inspection system, has been submitted for adoption to the National Congress.

The Committee also notes with interest the action taken under the auspices of the Inter-American Agency for Cooperation and Development (IACD) and the Organization of American States (OAS) with a view to strengthening inspection through the training of labour inspectors.

Further referring to the information provided previously concerning the actions planned in the context of the project for the reinforcement of labour rights in Central America (Centroamérica cumple y gana, 1998-2002), one of the objectives of which was to improve the effectiveness of inspection systems and the training of labour inspectors and to establish a system for the organization of data to accelerate the processing of inspection files, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed information on the results achieved in the above fields. The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to provide information in its next report on the expected impact of the various measures referred to above on the improvement of the labour inspection system and the progress achieved in terms of effectiveness.

2. Conditions of service of labour inspectors and guarantees that they have no direct or indirect interest in the enterprises under their supervision (Articles 6 and 15(a) of the Convention). Taking the opportunity of the announcement by the Government of a draft revision of the Labour Code, the Committee once again emphasizes the need to take measures with a view to the adoption of legal provisions to secure for inspection staff status and conditions of service such as to assure them of independence of any improper external influences (Article 6) and prohibiting inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in the enterprises under their supervision (Article 15(a)). The Government is requested to keep the Office informed of the progress in relation to the adoption of the new Labour Code and the progress achieved with a view to giving effect to these provisions, the objective of which is to guarantee the impartiality and integrity that are indissociable from the inspection function.

3. Publication, communication and content of the annual inspection report (Articles 20 and 21). With reference to its previous comments, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 272 et seq. of its General Survey of 1985 on the subject of the value at both the national and international levels of the annual inspection report and it once again hopes that the Government will soon be in a position, in the light of the clarifications offered by the General Survey, to ensure the publication and communication to the ILO by the central inspection authority of an annual report on the work of the services under its control in the form and within the time limits set out in Article 20, containing the information required in Article 21(a) to (g) and formulated insofar as possible in accordance with the guidance provided by Part IV of Recommendation No. 81, which supplements the Convention.

The Committee notes with interest that a number of labour inspectors participated in a training workshop on the subject of combating child labour. It notes the tables of inspections carried out in 2003 and 2004 with a view to identifying cases of child labour and the report on the cases identified in the various enterprises. The Government is requested to ensure that relevant data are regularly included in the annual inspection report.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain matters.

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

With reference also to its observation, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Modification of the Labour Code. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee once again requests detailed information on the impact of the ILO/MATAC programme on the structure, operation and results of the labour inspection system and indications on the progress made in the procedure announced for the adoption of the new Labour Code.

Labour inspection and work by children and young persons. According to the Government, the inspection services carry out many actions to ensure the enforcement of the legal provisions respecting working conditions and the protection of child workers, as well as providing information and advice to employers and young workers on the most effective manner of complying with the legal provisions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the nature of these activities and their impact. Noting also the information concerning the inspections carried out either in the normal course of duty or at the request of those affected to ascertain the presence of children in enterprises or following a complaint made by a child, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that information and statistics on the results of the work of the inspection services relating to child labour are compiled and provided to the Office and that they are regularly included separately in future annual inspection reports.

Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Noting that, according to the Government, the conciliation duties carried out by labour inspectors do not interfere with the discharge of their inspection duties, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the distribution of the working time of labour inspectors between these two duties. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would also indicate the manner in which it is ensured that the further duties entrusted to labour inspectors do not prejudice the authority and impartiality which are necessary to them in their relations with employers and workers.

Article 8. Noting that one-third of the staff of the inspectorate is composed of women and that special duties are assigned in specific cases to men and women inspectors, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide further information in this respect.

Article 9. According to the Government, in the context of the ILO/MATAC programme for the modernization and strengthening of labour administration, draft organic legislation on the labour secretariat envisaging inspections of a polyvalent nature is currently being adopted. The Committee requests information on the progress made with this draft legislation and, where appropriate, a copy of the text that is adopted.

Articles 10 and 16. Noting that the inspection services are currently composed, according to the organigramme provided, of 94 labour inspectors at the national level, but referring to the information provided by the Government in its previous report that, in 2001, there were 17 technical inspectors in occupational safety and health and 116 labour inspectors, the Committee would be grateful for clarifications on the reasons for this reduction in personnel.

Article 11. Noting the absence of a reply to its previous comments under this Article, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number, quality and arrangement of the premises made available to the inspection services at the central and regional levels, and on the transport facilities enabling inspectors to undertake professional travel. It would be grateful if the Government would also provide a copy of the text serving as a legal basis for the travel allowance granted to inspectors, to which the Government referred in a previous report.

Article 14. The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to determine the cases and the manner in which labour inspectors are to be systematically, and no longer occasionally, notified of cases of occupational disease.

Article 18. Noting that, according to the Government, the penalties envisaged in accordance with this Article of the Convention, which were adopted in 1959, are no longer adequate in relation to the current situation of the country, the Committee requests it to take measures to ensure that penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties are henceforth provided for in such a manner that they retain a dissuasive nature despite any monetary fluctuations and are effectively enforced.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes the tables on the inspections carried out in 2001, the number of workers covered by inspections and on the industrial accidents which occurred in 2001. Nevertheless, noting that no annual inspection report, as envisaged in these Articles of the Convention, has yet been provided to the ILO, the Committee recalls that the publication and transmission to the ILO by the central inspection authority of such a report are essential obligations and that, where necessary, the technical assistance of the ILO may be requested to facilitate compliance therewith. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will rapidly take measures in this respect and requests it to keep the ILO informed of any progress.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report, the partial replies to its previous comments and the attached documentation. It draws the Government’s attention to the following point.

Article 15(a) of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, under the terms of section 626 of the Labour Code, inspectors who accept presents from employers, workers or trade unions or who exceed the limits of their powers shall be liable to dismissal. In this respect, the Committee wishes to emphasize that, although the obligation of impartiality, set out in Article 15(a) of the Convention, includes offers of presents or services from employers or workers, the national legislation should be supplemented so that it also prohibits, in accordance with this provision of the Convention, inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in the enterprises under their supervision. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be adopted rapidly for this purpose and that the Government will soon be able to provide a copy of any text adopted in this respect.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other matters.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

With reference to its observation, the Committee notes the Government’s partial responses to its previous comments, and requests it to provide additional information on the following points.

Modernization and strengthening of the labour inspection system. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide details of the impact of the implementation of the subregional ILO/MATAC programme for the modernization and reinforcement of labour administration in Central American countries on the structure and operation of the labour inspection system and on the procedure for the adoption of a new draft Labour Code.

Labour inspection and child labour. The Committee notes with interest the information provided in reply to its general observation of 1999 to the effect that, firstly, during the first half of 2001, seven seminars on the elimination of child labour were organized by the Secretariat of State for Labour and Social Security and, secondly, that private institutions, such as NGOs, including the National Institute for Childhood and the Family (INHFA), the National Institute for Women (INAM) and the inspection services are collaborating in finding appropriate solutions to the problem. The Government is asked to provide detailed information on the precise role assigned to labour inspectors in the diagnosis and supervision of the application of the relevant legislation, as well as statistics on the results of their activities in this field.

Article 3, paragraph 2. With reference to the information provided by the Government in a previous report indicating that labour inspectors only perform conciliation functions in the event of labour disputes in so far as this activity does not impede the activity of inspection, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed explanations on this issue, with an indication of whether the conciliation function is entrusted in other cases to other bodies or services in the labour administration system.

Article 6. The Government is requested to provide a copy of the Act respecting the public service and of the regulations issued under the Act, which it indicates contain provisions guaranteeing the stability of public officials.

Articles 8 and 16. The Government is requested to indicate the distribution by sex of the staff of the inspection services, to indicate whether, as envisaged in Article 8, special duties are assigned to men and women inspectors, respectively, and to provide full information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to strengthen the staff of the inspection services in general in order to ensure that workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary, as envisaged in Article 16.

Article 11. Material means and conditions of work of labour inspectors. The Committee notes a significant improvement in the infrastructure and logistical resources of the Secretariat of State for Labour and Social Security, including the inspection services. With reference to the information contained in the Government’s previous report concerning the clearly prejudicial situation of inspectors working in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula in terms of their volume of work, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed information on the premises of the inspection services, their layout and computer equipment, as well as the means and transport facilities made available to labour inspectors at the central and local levels, and if it would provide a copy of the text serving as the legal basis for the travel allowance for inspectors referred to in the report.

Article 14. The Committee notes that, while section 435 of the Labour Code obliges employers to inform the general labour inspectorate of industrial accidents, information concerning cases of occupational disease is only provided to inspectors at their request during inspection visits or in the event of a complaint. Emphasizing that the notification of labour inspectors of industrial accidents, as well as cases of occupational disease, is of great value for the policy of occupational risk prevention, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would take the appropriate measures to determine the cases and manner in which labour inspectors are to be informed systematically, and no longer occasionally, of cases of occupational disease.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would take measures, particularly in the context of the ILO/MATAC programme, to ensure the publication by the central inspection authority, within the time limits set out in Article 20, of an annual report on the work of the inspection services under its control, containing information on the subjects set out in Article 21(a) to (g). The Committee recalls in this respect that the central authority may find it useful to refer to the guidance provided in Paragraph 9 of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81), on the nature of the information required.

Communication of the Government’s reports to employers’ and workers’ organizations. Noting that the Government does not indicate whether a copy of the report has been communicated, in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the ILO, to the most representative organizations of employers and workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide this information in future, as required by Part V of the report form for the Convention and to report, as appropriate, any comments made by these organizations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and draws its attention to the following point.

Prohibition on labour inspectors having any direct or indirect interest in the undertakings under their supervision. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes once again that the Government provides no reply as to how effect is given to Article 15(a) of the Convention under which labour inspectors, subject to such exceptions made by national laws, shall be prohibited "from having any direct or indirect interest in the undertakings under their supervision". The Committee cannot emphasize too strongly the need to envisage such a prohibition on a legal basis to ensure that labour inspectors have the necessary impartiality and authority required by their functions. Referring to a previous report from the Government indicating that a relevant provision had been provided in a draft decree but was not adopted, the Committee requests the Government to take appropriate measures forthwith, with a view to introducing into legislation a provision to this effect, and would be grateful if it would keep the ILO informed of the matter.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other matters.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period up to June 1999. The Committee also notes the comments made by the United Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH) and the Government's response. It requests the Government to provide information and clarification on the application of the following provisions of the Convention.

Article 1 of the Convention. System of labour inspection. The Committee notes with interest the publication "New role of the General Labour Inspection in the process of integration and globalization", describing the project of modernization of the Labour Administration of the Central America region and the participation of Honduras in this project. The Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour has identified as a priority area in the process of modernization the strengthening of labour inspection (training, improvement of labour legislation, basic programme of information and social-labour statistics, elaboration of manuals of administrative procedures, general plan for the computerization of the labour statistics database). The Committee asks the Government to supply information on improvements in labour inspection activities due to the implementation of this project and on further developments in this area.

Article 3, paragraph 2. Duties entrusted to labour inspectors. The Committee notes, that in accordance with article 617(d) of the Labour Code, labour inspectors are obliged by duty to intervene in all difficulties and labour conflicts between workers and employers, so as to prevent their worsening and attaining conciliation. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken to ensure that such duties of labour inspectors do not interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties listed in Article 3, paragraph 1, and do not prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers.

Articles 4 and 5. Supervision and control by a central authority; cooperation. The Committee notes that the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security is composed of two inspection services, i.e. the General Labour Inspection and the Labour Inspection in the area of Hygiene and Occupational Safety. The Committee asks the Government to indicate how cooperation is organized between these two inspection services.

Article 6. Stability of employment; independence of changes of government and improper external influences. The Committee notes the indication of the Government that labour inspectors lack stability of employment since they can be removed from their posts as a result of a change of government. The Committee also notes the comments by CUTH stressing that labour inspectors should benefit from stability of employment. Recalling that stability of employment and independence of changes of government and improper external influences is an essential principle on which the efficacy of inspection systems rests and that inspectors cannot act in full independence if their service or their career prospects depend on political considerations, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures envisaged in order to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 10. Number of labour inspectors. According to the CUTH, since the number of inspectors in Honduras is insufficient, the Government should increase it. In its report the Government states that the General Labour Inspection comprises 80 labour inspectors. The previous report indicated that there were 85 labour inspectors in the General Labour Inspection. The publication "New role of the General Labour Inspection in the process of integration and globalization" states that in 1997 in the Ministry of Labour there were approximately 125 labour inspectors. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the current number of labour inspectors in both the General Labour Inspection and the Labour Inspection in the area of Hygiene and Occupational Safety and to indicate whether any measures have been envisaged to increase their number.

Article 11. Local offices, transport facilities, reimbursement of expenses. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the budget of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security is scanty and does not permit compliance with the provisions of this article. The Government's report refers to the inadequacy, inter alia, of office equipment and transportation facilities. Referring in addition to the comments of the CUTH, pointing also to the lack of transport facilities, the Committee asks the Government whether any measures have been envisaged to improve the situation in respect of offices, the transport facilities furnished to labour inspectors and the reimbursement to labour inspectors of any travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties. The Committee recalls that labour inspection is of fundamental importance in ensuring the application of labour standards and that it should be given the necessary priority in budgetary decisions. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any progress made in this respect.

Article 12, paragraph 1(c)(iv). Powers of labour inspectors. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the specific provisions of the national legislation empowering labour inspectors to take or remove for purposes of analysis samples of materials and substances used or handled, subject to the employer or his representative being notified thereof.

Article 14. Notification of cases of occupational disease. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the labour inspection is notified of cases of occupational disease and, if so, to indicate the specific provisions of the national legislation determining the cases and the procedure of such notification.

Article 15(a). Prohibition from having any direct or indirect interest in the undertakings under supervision. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether any rules have been adopted to give effect to this Article of the Convention and, if so, to provide the copy of the adopted rules.

Articles 20 and 21. Annual reports. The Committee notes that an annual report on the work of the inspection services in Honduras has not been transmitted to the ILO. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to these Articles of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Article 3(2) of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 8(e) of the draft Rules of the General Labour Inspectorate forwarded by the Government would give inspectors powers to intervene in labour disputes. It trusts that such duties would not -- if this provision is adopted -- interfere with inspectors' primary duties under the Convention. The Government might wish to consider the matter further in this light.

Article 12(1)(c)(iv). The Committee notes with interest that the draft Decree provided by the Government would give inspectors the necessary power to take samples of substances for analysis. It hopes the Decree will be issued soon and that the next report will include details.

Articles 10 and 16. The Committee notes that the Government has decided, instead of opening new regional offices of the labour inspectorate, to raise the remuneration of the labour inspectors. The Government reports that currently 14 of the 18 departments of the country are covered by the labour inspectorate. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report what further steps are being taken to ensure that the labour inspectorate is able to discharge its functions throughout the territory.

Articles 11(2) and 13. Please supply a copy of the Manual de Viáticos referred to in an earlier report and requested in the Committee's previous comments.

Article 14. The Committee recalls that section 435 of the Labour Code and section 6 of the Legislative Decree No. 39 provide for the notification of industrial accidents but makes no reference to industrial diseases. Please supply a copy of any amending legislation or, if none exists, indicate what measures are being considered to give effect to this Article.

Article 15(a). The Committee notes that section 13 of the draft Rules of the General Labour Inspectorate would give effect to this Article of the Convention. It hopes that the Government will soon report that the draft has been adopted and asks that a copy of the adopted provisions be sent.

Article 17(2). The Committee notes that section 8(d) and (s) of the draft appears to give a discretion to labour inspectors to give advice as foreseen in the Convention. It hopes the Government will provide further details.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes the data supplied in terms of Article 21 (except for (a) laws and regulations relevant to the work of the inspection service and (g) statistics of occupational diseases) for the years 1983-87. The Committee recalls that such data should be published annually and forwarded to the Office within three months of their publication. It hopes the Government will ensure that the requirements of these Articles are met in future.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report indicating that there have been no changes in the legislation. It notes that the report contains no information on the questions raised and requests made previously by the Committee. The Committee therefore repeats its previous direct request on application of the following provisions of the Convention:

Article 3(2) of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 8(e) of the draft Rules of the General Labour Inspectorate forwarded by the Government would give inspectors powers to intervene in labour disputes. It trusts that such duties would not - if this provision is adopted - interfere with inspectors' primary duties under the Convention. The Government might wish to consider the matter further in this light.

Article 12(1)(c)(iv). The Committee notes with interest that the draft Decree provided by the Government would give inspectors the necessary power to take samples of substances for analysis. It hopes the Decree will be issued soon and that the next report will include details.

Articles 10 and 16. The Committee notes that the Government has decided, instead of opening new regional offices of the labour inspectorate, to raise the remuneration of the labour inspectors. The Government reports that currently 14 of the 18 departments of the country are covered by the labour inspectorate. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report what further steps are being taken to ensure that the labour inspectorate is able to discharge its functions throughout the territory.

Articles 11(2) and 13. Please supply a copy of the Manual de Viáticos referred to in an earlier report and requested in the Committee's previous comments.

Article 14. The Committee recalls that section 435 of the Labour Code and section 6 of the Legislative Decree No. 39 provide for the notification of industrial accidents but makes no reference to industrial diseases. Please supply a copy of any amending legislation or, if none exists, indicate what measures are being considered to give effect to this Article.

Article 15(a). The Committee notes that section 13 of the draft Rules of the General Labour Inspectorate would give effect to this Article of the Convention. It hopes that the Government will soon report that the draft has been adopted and asks that a copy of the adopted provisions be sent.

Article 17(2). The Committee notes that section 8(d) and (s) of the draft appears to give a discretion to labour inspectors to give advice as foreseen in the Convention. It hopes the Government will provide further details.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes the data supplied in terms of Article 21 (except for (a) laws and regulations relevant to the work of the inspection service and (g) statistics of occupational diseases) for the years 1983-87. The Committee recalls that such data should be published annually and forwarded to the Office within three months of their publication. It hopes the Government will ensure that the requirements of these Articles are met in future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes with regret 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 following matter raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 3(2) of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 8(e) of the draft Rules of the General Labour Inspectorate forwarded by the Government would give inspectors powers to intervene in labour disputes. It trusts that such duties would not - if this provision is adopted - interfere with inspectors' primary duties under the Convention. The Government might wish to consider the matter further in this light.

Article 12(1)(c)(iv). The Committee notes with interest that the draft Decree provided by the Government would give inspectors the necessary power to take samples of substances for analysis. It hopes the Decree will be issued soon and that the next report will include details.

Articles 10 and 16. The Committee notes that the Government has decided, instead of opening new regional offices of the labour inspectorate, to raise the remuneration of the labour inspectors. The Government reports that currently 14 of the 18 departments of the country are covered by the labour inspectorate. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report what further steps are being taken to ensure that the labour inspectorate is able to discharge its functions throughout the territory.

Articles 11(2) and 13. Please supply a copy of the Manual de Viáticos referred to in an earlier report and requested in the Committee's previous comments.

Article 14. The Committee recalls that section 435 of the Labour Code and section 6 of Legislative Decree No. 39 provide for the notification of industrial accidents but makes no reference to industrial diseases. Please supply a copy of any amending legislation or, if none exists, indicate what measures are being considered to give effect to this Article.

Article 15(a). The Committee notes that section 13 of the draft Rules of the General Labour Inspectorate would give effect to this Article of the Convention. It hopes that the Government will soon report that the draft has been adopted and asks that a copy of the adopted provisions be sent.

Article 17(2). The Committee notes that section 8(d) and (s) of the draft appears to give a discretion to labour inspectors to give advice as foreseen in the Convention. It hopes the Government will provide further details.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes the data supplied in terms of Article 21 (except for (a) laws and regulations relevant to the work of the inspection service and (g) statistics of occupational diseases) for the years 1983-87. The Committee recalls that such data should be published annually and forwarded to the Office within three months of their publication. It hopes the Government will ensure that the requirements of these Articles are met in future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the information supplied in reply to its earlier comments.

Article 3(2) of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 8(e) of the draft Rules of the General Labour Inspectorate forwarded by the Government would give inspectors powers to intervene in labour disputes. It trusts that such duties would not - if this provision is adopted - interfere with inspectors' primary duties under the Convention. The Government might wish to consider the matter further in this light.

Article 12(1)(c)(iv). The Committee notes with interest that the draft Decree provided by the Government would give inspectors the necessary power to take samples of substances for analysis. It hopes the Decree will be issued soon and that the next report will include details.

Articles 10 and 16. The Committee notes that the Government has decided, instead of opening new regional offices of the labour inspectorate, to raise the remuneration of the labour inspectors. The Government reports that currently 14 of the 18 departments of the country are covered by the labour inspectorate. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report what further steps are being taken to ensure that the labour inspectorate is able to discharge its functions throughout the territory.

Articles 11(2) and 13. Please supply a copy of the Manual de Viáticos referred to in an earlier report and requested in the Committee's previous comments.

Article 14. The Committee recalls that section 435 of the Labour Code and section 6 of Legislative Decree No. 39 provide for the notification of industrial accidents but makes no reference to industrial diseases. Please supply a copy of any amending legislation or, if none exists, indicate what measures are being considered to give effect to this Article.

Article 15(a). The Committee notes that section 13 of the draft Rules of the General Labour Inspectorate would give effect to this Article of the Convention. It hopes that the Government will soon report that the draft has been adopted and asks that a copy of the adopted provisions be sent.

Article 17(2). The Committee notes that section 8(d) and (s) of the draft appears to give a discretion to labour inspectors to give advice as foreseen in the Convention. It hopes the Government will provide further details.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes the data supplied in terms of Article 21 (except for (a) laws and regulations relevant to the work of the inspection service and (g) statistics of occupational diseases) for the years 1983-87. The Committee recalls that such data should be published annually and forwarded to the Office within three months of their publication. It hopes the Government will ensure that the requirements of these Articles are met in future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

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:

Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the Government's report that it is planned to open several regional labour inspection offices in order to extend inspection activities over the 16 Departments covering 89 per cent of the national territory. It requests the Government to supply in its future reports information on any progress achieved in this respect and expresses the hope that in the near future, it will be possible to regularly inspect all workplaces liable to inspection.

Article 12, paragraph 1(c)(iv). The Committee notes that section 2(b) of Decree No. 39 of 10 May 1982, to which the Government refers in its report, does not expressly authorise inspectors to take or remove for purposes of analysis samples of materials and substances used or handled. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures that have been taken to give formal effect to this provision of the Convention.

Article 14. The Committee notes that section 435 of the Labour Code and section 6 of Legislative Decree No. 39, to which the Government refers in its report, only provide for the notification of industrial accidents, whereas, in accordance with this Article of the Convention, cases of occupational disease shall also be notified. It hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in order to complete the national legislation so as to give full effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 15(a). The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to take the appropriate measures for the adoption of provisions prohibiting labour inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in the enterprises under their supervision.

Article 17, paragraph 2. The Committee notes the Government's reply to its previous direct request and requests the Government to indicate whether it is left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give warnings and advice, instead of instituting or recommending proceedings, to persons who violate or neglect to observe the legal provisions that are enforceable by labour inspectors.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee, noting that section 614(e) of the Labour Code provides for reports by the general inspection service on the results of its inspections, asks the Government to indicate whether these are general annual reports containing information on the subjects listed in Article 21 of the Convention. Moreover, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that annual reports on the activities of inspection services should be published within a 12-month period after the end of the year to which they relate and be forwarded to the ILO. It hopes that the reports for the years 1983-86 will be forwarded in the near future.

With reference to its previous comments concerning the application of Articles 11, paragraph 2, 12, paragraph 1(c)(iv), 13 and 14 and the Government's replies in this connection, the Committee requests the Government to supply with its next report the Manuel de Viaticos and copies of Decrees No. 39 of 10 May 1982 and No. 49-84.