Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2007, publiée 97ème session CIT (2008)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Ouganda (Ratification: 1963)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its observation made in 2004 and repeated in 2005 concerning the process of dismantling the labour inspection system and the need to take measures to establish a system that is in conformity with the Convention. The Government indicates that it has duly noted the comments of the Committee of Experts but adds that the Committee for the Revision of the Constitution has been unable to reverse the decentralization process, contrary to previous announcements. However, the Government says that it is aware of the requirement imposed by the Convention to place the labour inspection system under the control of a central authority pursuant to Article 4 of the Convention and undertakes to keep the ILO informed of all developments in this respect and to send copies of any relevant legislative, regulatory or administrative texts. While recognizing that the decentralization policy has had a negative impact on the labour inspection system, the Government considers that this is particularly because the district authorities are unaware of the role of labour inspection in the production process that they have not given suitable priority to labour services in general. While noting the Government’s statements, the Committee recalls that the question of the deterioration of the functioning of the labour inspection has been the subject of its observations for many years and was raised in discussions within the Committee of the International Labour Conference at its June 2001 and June 2003 sessions.

1. Dismantling of the labour inspectorate owing to the decentralization of labour administration functions. During the discussion in June 2003, the Conference Committee noted that the Government had not supplied the requested information to the Committee of Experts. It reminded it of the commitment made before it in June 2001 to examine all aspects of the labour inspection situation with all the partners concerned, if necessary having recourse to technical assistance, and also its commitment to review the decentralization measures. In addition, the Conference Committee also expressed again the hope that the Government would quickly send the Committee of Experts the requested information and the details showing that its legal and practical obligations had been implemented, in particular with the assistance of the employers’ and workers’ organizations, by means of administrative and financial measures which were essential for the implementation of labour inspection services in conformity with the Convention.

During its November–December 2003 session, the Committee of Experts was bound to note once again that the Government had not sent any report relating to the Convention and to send it a new observation, in which it reiterated its deep concerns and called on the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible, with the required technical assistance.

After examination of the Government’s report covering the period ending in May 2003, but sent to the ILO in June 2004, the Committee essentially pointed out, in an observation which it sent to the Government in 2005, that the labour inspection system, the performance of which had been badly affected by an unfavourable economic situation before the start of the decentralization process, continued to deteriorate owing to the persistence of the economic stagnation, on the one hand, and to the manner in which decentralization of the labour administration was being implemented, on the other. Moreover, the existing legal framework governing the powers, organization and working of the labour inspectorate, still based on the principle of the existence of a central supervisory authority and monitoring of the inspection system, was no longer applicable either in law or in practice, since the process of decentralizing competence to the heads of district was accompanied by withdrawal of the central government in relation to the use of budgetary resources by the districts. The Committee referred to its previous comments and also to the discussions within the Conference Committee at the 2001 and 2003 sessions of the International Labour Conference and also noted the information describing an in-depth reform of its institutions appearing ultimately to aim at decentralizing most state functions. However, as the Government itself observed, decentralization did not comply with Article 4 of the Convention, which calls for supervision and control of the labour inspection system by a central authority.

The information supplied by the Government shows that the very notion of a central labour inspection authority has become devoid of all substance. The little authority that the minister retains in law cannot be exercised for want of the necessary structure and resources, and some heads of districts take the attitude that to maintain or establish local labour inspection services serves little purpose. An ILO mission carried out from 9 to 13 May 2005 revealed that there were a total of 26 labour inspectors for all 56 districts, and that assistance to the labour services from all donors was low in the light of labour inspection needs, particularly with regard to training relating to the gathering of information and the drafting of reports.

The ILO mission was informed that, in order to reconsider the decentralization of the labour inspectorate, revision of the Constitution was necessary. However, the labour inspection function has not been mentioned explicitly as one of the functions calling for relevant measures in the White Paper drawn up to this end.

Since such developments are particularly worrying in terms of the Convention’s social and economic objectives, the Committee called on the Government, in an observation sent to it in 2004 and repeated in 2005, to reconsider, if not the principle of a decentralized labour inspectorate which now appears firmly to be a part of the overall national project, at least the methods and means of implementing decentralization. The Committee reiterated that the Government would be bound to observe the principle of placing the labour inspection system under a central authority, pursuant to Article 4 of the Convention taken as a whole, since restructuring in Uganda seemed to be moving towards a kind of “federalism”, in which the districts are like the “federated units” referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. It also emphasized that the obligations laid down under article 22 of the ILO Constitution that the Government assumed on ratifying the Convention must in any event remain the responsibility of the State. It is the duty of the State to ensure that the conditions needed to apply the Convention exist nationwide. National laws must ensure that competence for labour inspection is shared between the central bodies of the labour administration and the decentralized authorities, and there must be uniform legislation governing the status, conditions of service and training of inspection staff (Articles 6 and 7). Furthermore, there must be scrupulous observance of the need to ensure the establishment either of a labour inspection system in each district or, possibly, of a system in which competence is determined on a broader regional basis, if such an option is deemed better suited to the more rational use of available resources. In any event, resources must be assigned on a legal basis to the labour inspection in order to make available to labour inspection services the staff, material and logistical resources needed to perform their duties (Articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11).

2. Establishment of an inspection system suited to economic and social needs: Urgent preliminary measures. As already observed by the Committee, the fact that it has been impossible for many years to produce an annual report on the work of the inspection services (Articles 20 and 21) not only reflects the extent to which the inspection system has been dismantled but, even more regrettably, prevents any assessment of needs either at the national or regional level. As a result, it is impossible to determine any priorities for action and evaluate the resources needed. The Committee notes in this respect that the Government has not sent the report which, according to the Government, deals with the inspections carried out, without stating the period or geographical area covered.

In its previous comments, the Committee stressed the need to study and anticipate on a tripartite basis the effects of globalization on working conditions and workers’ rights in order to secure the social partners’ attachment to the principle that an effective labour inspection service needs to be established in the twofold interest of social protection and improved productivity. Referring to the technical assistance provided by ILO under the Strengthening Labour Relations in East Africa (SLAREA) project to raise the Government’s awareness of the importance of the tripartite dimension of labour administration, the Committee hoped that measures would be taken in this area, particularly in the context of the application of this Convention. However, it observes that the Government gives no indication that progress has been made in this direction.

The Committee is therefore bound to urge the Government, in the light of the above, to adopt as soon as possible all measures that are essential for the establishment and functioning of an inspection system which conforms to the requirements of the Convention, including in particular seeking the necessary funds and technical assistance, keeping the ILO informed and sending copies of the relevant legislative, regulatory and administrative texts. It also requests the Government to supply the information required by the Convention report form, to send its report to employers’ and workers’ organizations in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the ILO Constitution and to keep the ILO duly informed.