CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

Article 25 of the Convention. Penalties. For many years, the Committee has been raising its concern about the failure of the Government to comply with Article 25 of the Convention, which requires that illegal exaction of forced labour shall be punishable as a penal offence. The Government has consistently maintained that forced or compulsory labour would be regarded as a constraint or oppression under the Shari’a and that, if a case was brought to a tribunal, the judge in applying the Shari’a may subject the offender to penalties in the way of fines, jail or other sanctions at the discretion of the judge. In its latest report, the Government reiterates that the exaction of forced labour is punishable as a sin, and that penalties specified by law vary according to the type of sin committed. The Government also indicates that it is currently examining a new draft Labour Code, which has been submitted to the ILO for comments.

The Committee has previously indicated that Article 25 of the Convention requires a member State to have a specific law which describes both the exaction of the forced labour and the penalty. The broad discretionary application of the Shari’a does not fulfil the requirements or purpose of the Article. The Committee hopes that measures will soon be taken in secular law, e.g. by way of the new Labour Code, to introduce provisions punishing the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour as a penal offence, and that the penalties imposed by law will be really adequate and strictly enforced, as required by the Convention. It requests the Government to supply a copy of the new Labour Code, as soon as it is adopted.

Migrant workers

In its earlier comments, the Committee has raised the problem of migrant workers, and in particular agricultural and domestic workers who are not covered by the present Labour Code. The lack of protection for such migrant workers exposes them to exploitation in their working conditions, such as retention of their passports by their employers, which deprives them of their freedom to leave the country or change their employment. This problem is linked to the Committee’s comments in regard to the absence of a penalty provision, as described above.

The Committee has previously noted the adoption, by Decision No. 166 of 12 July 2000 of the Council of Ministers, of the Regulation governing the relationship between employers and migrant workers. It noted that, according to section 3 of the Regulation, "migrant workers may keep their passports or the passports of members of their families and may be authorized to move within the Kingdom as long as they have a valid residence permit". The Committee also noted the provision of section 6 concerning the creation of a rapid mechanism for the examination of conflicts which may arise and for their settlement by the competent authority. It asked the Government to provide details regarding the sanctions which may be imposed in case of non-observance of the provisions of the above Regulation and to communicate further information on the dispute settlement mechanism provided for in section 6.

The Government indicates in its report that the appropriate mechanism has not yet been decided upon, but is currently under examination by the competent authorities. It also indicates that there are special committees which settle labour conflicts within labour offices established everywhere in the Kingdom, to which both employers and workers may submit their complaints without any conditions or restrictions. While noting these indications, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide full information on the dispute settlement mechanism under section 6 of the Regulation referred to above, as soon as it is decided upon and put into operation, as well as on the sanctions which may be imposed for non-observance of the Regulation.