Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 1988, Publicación: 75ª reunión CIT (1988)

The Government has communicated the following information:

Following the comments made by the Committee of Experts, the Government has conveyed to the ILO the documentation which constitutes a partial reply to the observations of the Committee concerning the present Convention.

In addition, a Government representative stated that at the outset of this Conference, the Government had provided the Office with the documentation which the Committee of Experts had requested concerning the application of the Convention. Detailed information was contained in the 1987 annual general report on the activities of the inspection services. The bulk of the information requested under Article 16 of the Convention was provided in this report, as regards both the number of inspections carried out and their frequency. The data also permitted an evaluation of the types of inspection by sector of activity to be made. The Government had also supplied the text of the Act on the status of the staff of local health units which are assigned labour inspection functions, in response to the request made by the Committee of Experts regarding Article 6 of the Convention. In reflecting upon the contents of the report on labour inspection activities, the Government had noted that although the inspection services are staffed by highly qualified personnel, the services should be reinforced in order to meet the growing requirements of inspection and oversight. In regard to the problem of co-ordination between the various services which had been assigned inspection functions, the Government agreed that this fell within the scope of Article 5 of the Convention. A misunderstanding had developed, however, over replies furnished by the Government several years ago. Several institutions were engaged in co-ordination at different levels: local, regional and national. Local health units, while they were legal entities enjoying complete autonomy, were organisationally part of local and territorial structures (i.e. regions and communities). At the national level, the application and interpretation of standards of protection at the workplace were within the competence of the Ministry of Labour which, on request or on its own accord, could draw up directives and instructions which were discussed by a permanent commission on the prevention of accidents and on occupational health. There were obviously some problems of co-ordination when matters concerning workers' health and the observance of technical standards at the workplace were concerned. For those aspects, the local health units had access to an interregional standing committee with branches in the most significant zones of economic activity. In reply to the point raised in the Committee of Experts' report regarding Article 9 of the Convention, the Government stressed that in practice technicians specialising in various sectors, such as industrial hygienists, engineers and doctors, collaborated in every standing committee branch. The Government had provided annual reports under Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention on a regular basis, except for during a certain period in which there had been operational difficulties owing to the entry into force of new legislation. The Government remained attentive to problems of the effectiveness of labour inspection. In the past few years, there had been thorough discussions on measures which could be taken in response to the large-scale introduction of new technology in production processes. Efforts had been launched to seek more efficacious means to ensure maximum protection for workers and to preserve the environment. The Government pledged to provide any other documentation which might assist in an evaluation of the extent of application of the Convention.

The Employers' members thanked the Government representative for her statement. There had for some years been several shortcomings in respect of a number of Articles of this important Convention. Sufficient information on the frequency of inspections, on co-operation between the labour inspectorate and the local health units and on the status of their staff was still lacking. Despite problems of co-ordination, the Committee of Experts should have the proper information at its disposal especially considering the importance of annual inspection reports; for ten years now, this had not been the case. Although the Government representative appeared to have said that reports were being sent regularly, the Committee of Experts had observed that no annual reports had been received by the Office since 1978. According to written information recently supplied by the Government, a substantial report had now been communicated. They hoped that it would contain all the necessary information and that such information would be submitted on a regular basis from now on, to avoid having another gap of several years during which the Committee of Experts had no information at its disposal.

The Workers' members welcomed the new information provided by the Government. A partial reply to the points raised by the Committee of Experts had been given, but this was still not fully satisfactory. They found the failure to send reports since 1978 to be irregular and abnormal. This led them to wonder if there were also other shortcomings in regard to labour inspection. They recalled the vital role it played in verifying that laws were in fact being respected, as for example, in the field of ensuring equal opportunity. The Workers' members welcomed the Government's statement that it wished to equip the inspection staff sufficiently in order to meet the obligations under the Convention.

The Worker member of Italy expressed his surprise at both the optimism which had been voiced and the Government's statement that it was now providing the information requested by the Committee of Experts. He had hoped to hear a statement of commitment on the part on the Government to prevent the large number of occupational accidents occuring in Italy. He wondered how those accidents could be explained if everything was going so well. In 1987 there had been 1 million occupational accidents, resulting in 1,500 deaths and 50,000 cases of permanent invalidity. He hoped the Government would reinforce the labour inspection services before it was too late for other workers. The absence of labour inspection gave employers a licence to violate labour laws. The unions had often asked the Government to take steps to redress the situation. He added in closing that the Senate had recently set up a commission of inquiry on labour inspection and workplace conditions.

The Government representative acknowledged that the reply given has been a partial one, but she had attempted to provide additional information, in particular on co-ordination. All the information requested on the frequency of inspections was included in the report mentioned. Unfortunately, it can be confirmed that the number of accidents at work and their quite serious consequences are very high. The Government was making an effort to find a solution to the problem of inspection. Unfortunately, the number of persons engaged in labour inspection was still too low and regular, timely inspections could not be guaranteed. The commission of inquiry to which the Workers' member of Italy had referred stood as testimony to the efforts being made by the Italian authorities to ensure the full application of the Convention.

The Workers' members though that the comments made during the discussion pointed to the absolute necessity of having properly functioning labour inspection services and of providing information regularly in this regard. In the light of the accident statistics cited, there were steps to be taken above and beyond labour inspection, steps involving improved protection for workers under provisions contained in laws and freely concluded collective agreements.