ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2004, publiée 93ème session CIT (2005)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Cameroun (Ratification: 1962)

Autre commentaire sur C081

Demande directe
  1. 2022
  2. 2015
  3. 2012
  4. 2004
  5. 2001
  6. 1990

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Referring to its observation and further to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed additional information on the following provisions.

Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Convention. In connection with the requirements of Article 16.

Article 4. In connection with Articles 19, 20 and 21.

Articles 8 and 10. By stating the geographical distribution and the respective duties of labour administrators, labour controllers and deputy labour controllers, given the functions and areas assigned by the Convention to the labour inspection system.

Article 13. By giving details of the exercise in practice of the power of labour inspectors and medical labour inspectors to order measures with immediate executory force in the event of imminent danger to the health or safety to the workers.

Article 14. By communicating Decree No. 78-546 of 28 December 1978, which is not attached to the report as stated.

Article 18. By referring to relevant developments in relation to paragraph 263 of the 1985 General Survey on labour inspection.

Articles 19, 20 and 21. By indicating any steps taken to obtain technical assistance from the ILO for the purpose of implementing these provisions.

The Committee also notes, in accordance with the information contained on page 38 of a handbook entitled "Labour inspection - Guide for inspection visits", published in 2000, that "the inspector should not fail to advise the head of the enterprise or his representative of the inspection visit". In this regard, the author of the publication also strongly advises that account should be taken not systematically but only exceptionally of the principle of visits without prior notification prescribed by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes the arguments put forward by the author to support this point of view and observes that they are contrary not only to the Convention but also to section 108(1)(a) of the Labour Code. Under these provisions, it is prior notification which should be the exceptional practice, not an unannounced visit, as emphasized in paragraphs 158 ff. of the abovementioned General Survey. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the legal value of the abovementioned document and the established practice in this matter.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer