Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2002, publiée 91ème session CIT (2003)

Convention (n° 158) sur le licenciement, 1982 - Cameroun (Ratification: 1988)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report for the period ending September 2000. It also notes the communication from the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Cameroon (USLC), a copy of which was forwarded to the Government in March 2001. The Committee would be grateful for additional information on the following points.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the reasons which are considered valid for termination of employment are not set out in national laws or regulations. It recalls that, under the terms of Article 1 of the Convention, in so far as the provisions of the Convention are not made effective by means of collective agreements, arbitration awards or court decisions or in such other manner as may be consistent with national practice, they have to be given effect by national laws or regulations. The Government is therefore requested to provide copies of the decisions of arbitration boards or tribunals or collective agreements setting out reasons for which termination of employment is permitted.

Article 5(c). The USLC indicates that the reasons given for the termination of employment are in most cases without legal basis, particularly in the case of dismissals of staff delegates. The Committee notes that, under the terms of the relevant provisions of the Labour Code, termination of employment is considered to be abusive when it is by reason of opinions held by workers, their membership or otherwise of a trade union (section 39 of the Labour Code), their position as staff delegates (section 130) or during the maternity leave of women workers (section 84). The Government is however requested to indicate the manner in which it is ensured in law and practice that the fact of having filed a complaint or participated in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violations of laws or regulations, or adopted recourse to competent administrative authorities (Article 5(c) of the Convention) do not constitute valid reasons for termination.

Article 5(d). Under the terms of this provision, race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin do not constitute valid reasons for termination. In this respect, the Committee refers to its direct request of 2000 on the application of Convention No. 111, in which it noted the Government’s statement that it is difficult in legal terms to establish that a worker has been dismissed because of his or her political activities, since employers contrive to find some professional or economic pretext for the dismissal. The Committee requested the Government to illustrate its comments by providing further information on appeals lodged in recent years against wrongful dismissals. The Committee notes that in its last report on the application of Convention No. 158 the Government states that all the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention are incorporated into the laws and regulations respecting termination of employment. It requests the Government to provide with its next report on the application of Convention No. 158 copies of judicial decisions setting out the principles relating to the reasons for termination of employment enumerated in Article 5(d) of the Convention and to indicate the provisions of national laws or regulations which have been adopted or are envisaged to give full effect to Article 5(d).

Article 7. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the right to defend themselves prior to termination, as required by Article 7, is ensured for all workers. The Government is requested to supply copies of judicial decisions, model employment contracts, internal regulations and collective agreements which illustrate the manner in which effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

The Committee notes the comments made by the USLC to the effect that observance of the procedures established in laws or regulations is not ensured, particularly in cases of dismissal of staff delegates and trade union representatives. The Committee notes that under the relevant provisions any dispute concerning the reasons for termination cannot be brought to the courts unless an agreed settlement has not been possible (section 139 of the Labour Code). It also notes Circular No. 16/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 8 June 1990 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, which emphasizes the need to treat applications for authorization to dismiss staff delegates with greater care and recalls certain protective principles. It requests the Government to inform it of any cases or judicial decisions demonstrating that the protection set out in law is ensured in practice.

Article 8, paragraph 3. The Government is requested to indicate how effect is given to this provision of the Convention by indicating the time limits within which a worker must exercise his or her right to appeal against termination of employment.

Articles 11, and 12, paragraph 3. The Government indicates in its report that case law defines grave misconduct as a serious act involving the will to harm and making it impossible to continue the employment relationship. It also states that it is the responsibility of the competent jurisdiction to assess the seriousness of the misconduct. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of decisions by competent authorities setting out principles relating to the definition of grave misconduct.