Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2016, publiée 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Qatar (Ratification: 1976)

Autre commentaire sur C081

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee recalls that, at the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2014, the application of Convention No. 81 by Qatar was discussed by the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS). Moreover, a complaint was filed against the Government of Qatar relating to the violation of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) and Convention No. 81 under article 26 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Constitution, and was declared receivable at the Governing Body’s 322nd Session (November 2014). The complaint alleges that the problem of forced labour affects the large migrant worker population, indicating that the Government fails to maintain a legal framework sufficient to protect the rights of migrant workers and to enforce the legal protections that currently do exist.

At its 325th Session (November 2015), the Governing Body decided to request that the Government receive a high-level tripartite visit to assess all the measures taken to address the issues raised in the complaint. This visit was received by the Government from 1 to 5 March 2016. At its 326th Session (March 2016), the Governing Body examined the mission report of the high-level tripartite delegation (GB.326/INS/8(Rev.)). It decided to request that the Government report on the follow-up given to the assessment in this report at the 328th Session (November 2016). Having examined the reports submitted by the Government to that session (GB.328/INS/11(Rev.)), the Governing Body decided to defer further consideration on the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry until its 329th Session (March 2017).

Articles 8, 10 and 16. Sufficient number of labour inspectors and coverage of workplaces. The Committee recalls that the article 26 complaint indicated that the inspectorate had few staff who, in addition, were unable to speak the languages of most workers, and that similar findings were made during a high-level mission to Qatar in February 2015, the report of which was submitted to the Governing Body in March 2015 (GB.323/INS/8(Rev.1). In its comments adopted in 2015, the Committee noted an increase in the number of labour inspectors from 200 to 294, but also noted the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) that this number was still insufficient to effectively control compliance in workplaces. The Committee notes the findings in the high-level tripartite mission report submitted to the Governing Body in March 2016 (GB.326/INS/8(Rev.)) that the strengthening of the labour inspection services should be supported by the development of an inspection strategy targeting as a priority the protection of the most vulnerable migrant workers against abusive practices in small companies which are subcontracted by larger companies or recruited from manpower companies.

The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication in its report that the number of labour inspectors continued to increase to 397 labour inspectors in September 2016 (including 69 women inspectors in May 2016), and that, between 2014 and 2015, the number of labour inspection visits increased from 50,994 to 57,013 inspections. It also notes from the statistics provided by the Government that 10,052 of the 24,914 inspection visits undertaken in the first semester of 2016 were carried out in workplaces with ten or fewer workers. In reply to its previous request concerning the language capacities within the labour inspectorate, the Government indicates that four interpreters proficient in the most prevalent languages spoken by workers were appointed in the Labour Inspection Department, and that the Government seeks to increase the number of interpreters in accordance with future needs. In this context, the Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in its report to the 328th Session of the Governing Body (November 2016) that symposia and meetings are convened on a regular basis with employers and communities of expatriate workers in order to familiarize them with respect to labour laws, and their implementation in order to safeguard the rights of expatriate workers. Noting that there are currently four interpreters employed at the Labour Inspection Department speaking the language of migrant workers and that there are 397 labour inspectors and about 1.7 million migrant workers in the country, the Committee requests that the Government continue its efforts to ensure the recruitment of labour inspectors and interpreters able to speak the language of migrant workers, and to provide information on the number of inspectors and other staff hired in this regard. It also requests the Government to provide information on the inspection strategy devised to achieve sufficient coverage of workplaces by labour inspection, including by targeting small companies employing vulnerable migrant workers.

Articles 5(a), 17, 18 and 21(e). Effective cooperation between the labour inspectorate and the justice system, legal proceedings and effective enforcement of adequate penalties. The Committee recalls that the article 26 complaint stated that the country’s labour inspection and justice system had proven highly inadequate in enforcing the few rights that migrant workers do have under Qatari law, that inspectors have little power to enforce findings and that fines are far from dissuasive or in some cases non-existent. The Committee notes that similar findings were made in the report of the high-level mission (GB.323/INS/8(Rev.1)) and in the recent report of the high-level tripartite delegation (GB.326/INS/8(Rev.)). The latter report stated that challenges remained with respect to the capacity of the labour inspectorate to detect various irregularities, borne out by the relatively small number of violations detected in comparison to the large number of migrant workers in the country. In its comments made in 2014 and 2015, the Committee also noted that a report on migrant workers commissioned by the Government recommended a number of measures, including bolstering the powers of labour inspectors who only have the power to draw up infringement reports when detecting non-compliance but not to apply sanctions and who must refer these reports to the courts for further action. While the Committee noted in its last report that a permanent office had been set up at the labour inspectorate to support cooperation with the judicial system to facilitate prosecution, the Committee nevertheless noted that the outcome of most inspections was no further action and that the Government had not provided information on the specific penalties applied in the cases where decisions had been handed down by courts.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report that the labour inspectorate carried out 57,013 inspection visits in 2015 as a result of which 18,979 warnings to remedy violations and 666 infringement reports were issued, that is to say only 1.2 per cent of inspection visits led to infringement reports. While the Government notes that the infringement reports were subsequently referred to the judicial system, the Committee notes that the Government once again does not provide the requested information on the penalties imposed by the courts as a result. The Government also refers to the fact that non-complying undertakings can be placed on a prohibition list, which means that they will not be granted new work permits and are prohibited from engaging in transactions with the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Interior (in 2015, 929 undertakings were placed on the prohibition list). While the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the decrease in the number of more robust enforcement measures, such as the drawing up of infringement reports against non-compliant companies (referral to public prosecution), reflects the increased efficiency and improved performance of the labour inspectorate, the Committee nevertheless considers that doubts remain with regard to the dissuasiveness of labour inspection, as in 2015, only 1.2 per cent of all inspection visits resulted in infringement reports (with no information on any penalties imposed by the judiciary as a result). As to the dissuasiveness of fines, the Committee also notes the Government’s indication that draft Law No. 21 of 2015 (which is proposed to enter into force in December 2016) provides for increased penalties for non-compliance with the Labour Code, including for the failure to pay wages on time. The Committee requests that the Government take steps to strengthen the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms, including measures to provide enhanced enforcement powers to labour inspectors and further measures to promote effective collaboration with the judicial system (including with regard to the exchange of information on the outcome of cases referred to the judicial system).

The Committee requests that the Government continue to provide comprehensive statistics on the enforcement activities of the labour inspection activities and urges it to provide the missing information on their outcome (that is, the penalties imposed as a result of inspection activities and the legal provisions to which they relate). In addition, it requests the Government to provide detailed information on the possibility of placing undertakings on the so-called “prohibition list” (including information on the competent authority for the taking of such decisions, the type of violations which may justify such a decision, the duration of such a decision, and the practical consequences that may result from such a decision).

Concerning the strengthening of the available complaints mechanisms, which the article 26 complaint had considered to be ineffective, the Committee refers to its comments on the application of Convention No. 29. Noting the information under Convention No. 29 that the permanent office at the labour inspectorate is intended to help workers initiate legal procedures free of charge, and follow up on their complaints and lawsuits, the Committee requests that the Government indicate the number of labour inspectors assigned to this office and their time spent on assisting workers to pursue their claims before the courts.

Articles 5(a) and 14. Labour inspection in the area of occupational, safety and health (OSH). The Committee recalls that during the discussion on the application of the Convention at the CAS in 2014, several speakers indicated that the strengthening of labour inspection would contribute to protecting OSH of migrant workers, particularly in the construction sector where several fatal occupational accidents had occurred. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous request on the measures taken to strengthen the capacity of labour inspection in relation to OSH, that it seeks to upgrade the OSH unit at the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs entrusted with OSH inspections and the registration of occupational accidents to a full department, through the strengthening of its capacities to ensure migrant workers’ safety and health, especially in the construction sector. In this respect, the Committee also notes from the statistics provided by the Government in its report that about a third of inspections in 2014 and 2015 were undertaken in the area of OSH and that the number of OSH inspections increased from 17,117 to 20,777. The Committee further notes the explanation provided by the Government that, where a “regular” OSH violation is detected (that is, a violation other than one that threatens the safety of workers), a compliance notice is issued requesting the rectification of the violation within 15 days. Where the employer has not rectified the violation, an infringement report will be issued during a follow-up visit. In this context, the Committee notes that in 2015, 8,452 warnings to remedy infringements and only 344 infringement reports were issued (in addition to the 174 undertakings that were placed on the prohibition list). The Committee notes however that the Government has once again not provided the requested information on the penalties issued as a result of these infringement reports (that were referred to public prosecution). The Committee finally notes that the Government has communicated statistics on industrial accidents for 2014, 2015 and for the first quarter of 2016, including on the requested number of fatal accidents (that is, 19, 24 and six fatal accidents).

The Committee also notes from the Government’s report submitted to the 328th Session of the Governing Body that the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, the Ministry of Administrative Development and the Labour and Social Affairs concluded a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI). This was to be signed in November 2016 to protect the occupational safety and health of workers in World Cup projects, including through the organization of joint inspection visits and the setting up of a training team specialized in OSH inspections. The Committee requests that the Government provide information on the joint activities carried out by the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs and BWI. It further requests that the Government provide statistics on the inspection activities undertaken in the area of OSH, including the number and type of inspection visits undertaken (announced, unannounced, routine, in response to a complaint, follow-up), the number of violations detected, the number of suspensions of workplaces or machines in the event of a serious danger to the health and safety of workers, the number of infringement reports issued and in particular the information that has not yet been provided, that is to say the follow-up given by the judicial authorities to infringement reports (acquittal, fine or prison sentence, etc.). It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number and type of violations as a result of which undertakings were placed on the prohibition list.

Noting that the Government has not provided a reply in this regard, the Committee once again requests that the Government take measures to ensure coordination between labour inspectors and inspectors in the occupational safety and health department, and to provide information on the specific steps taken in this regard.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]