CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Imposition of work as a condition for maintaining entitlement to unemployment benefits. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in reply to the Committee’s previous direct request, including the indication, in connection with the administration of the new rules on availability of unemployed persons for reasonable work adopted under the Government’s labour market reforms of 2003, that the National Directorate of Labour will continue to monitor those cases where unemployed persons are sanctioned for refusing to accept a job placement offered by the Public Employment Service.

The Committee recalls that in its previous report the Government, in describing how the new rules are being administered, indicated that in cases where there are several possible qualified persons for a job, “the person referred will always be the best suited for the job”, and that, while by law it is possible to offer only “reasonable” work to unemployed persons whose qualifications exceed the requirements of that work, such placements “will still have to take place ‘with due consideration’ to the unemployed person, his skills and orientation towards the labour market, etc”.

The Committee requests the Government, in the course of monitoring the sanctions cases, to monitor how in such cases the criteria referred to above have been applied. As also requested in its direct request addressed to the Government in connection with its application of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), the Committee would like the Government to continue to indicate in its future reports any changes in the national legislation or practice related to the conditions governing entitlement to and suspension of unemployment benefits.

CMNT_TITLE

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Imposition of work as a condition for maintaining entitlement to unemployment benefits. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in reply to the Committee’s previous direct request, including the indication, in connection with the administration of the new rules on availability of unemployed persons for reasonable work adopted under the Government’s labour market reforms of 2003, that the National Directorate of Labour will continue to monitor those cases where unemployed persons are sanctioned for refusing to accept a job placement offered by the Public Employment Service.

The Committee recalls that in its previous report the Government, in describing how the new rules are being administered, indicated that in cases where there are several possible qualified persons for a job, “the person referred will always be the best suited for the job”, and that, while by law it is possible to offer only “reasonable” work to unemployed persons whose qualifications exceed the requirements of that work, such placements “will still have to take place ‘with due consideration’ to the unemployed person, his skills and orientation towards the labour market, etc.”

The Committee requests the Government, in the course of monitoring the sanctions cases, to monitor how in such cases the criteria referred to above have been applied. As also requested in its direct request addressed to the Government in connection with its application of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), the Committee would like the Government to continue to indicate in its future reports any changes in the national legislation or practice related to the conditions governing entitlement to and suspension of unemployment benefits.

CMNT_TITLE

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Imposition of work as a condition for maintaining entitlement to unemployment benefits.  The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in its report received in October 2006, in reply to the Committee’s previous direct request. The Committee refers to the comments on this information it has already made in its 2007 direct request under the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), in relation to the application by the Government of Part IV (Unemployment benefit) of that Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, under amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and administrative orders adopted in 2003, the distinction between “reasonable” work (outside the occupational field of an unemployed person) and “suitable” work (corresponding to the skills, qualifications, acquired experience and length of service in the former occupation of an unemployed person), was abolished for purposes of the requirement that unemployed persons accept job placements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this change was accompanied by a policy requiring the administration of rules to take place in such a way that the skills and qualifications of the unemployed are used in the most efficient and appropriate manner. The Government indicated that, out of the 24,000 placements of jobseekers made by the Public Employment Service (PES) in 2005, sanctions were imposed upon 352 persons for failing to turn up for interviews or for refusing to accept job offers. According to the Government, an examination by the National Directorate of Labour of all 352 of the sanction cases in 2005 showed that, in all except one, the unemployed persons were referred to jobs “within their occupational field”, an outcome the Government attributed to its policy, noted above, governing the way the availability rules are administered. In the single case where an unemployed person was referred to a job outside his occupational field, he was referred to a job in a related field, in which he had recently received training. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it cannot provide statistics showing the number of cases in which the refusal to accept job placements or appear for interviews “was due to the job being ‘only’ reasonable” rather than “suitable” and that such statistics do not exist.

The Committee recalls that the Convention defines forced or compulsory labour as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty”, and that such a penalty might take the form of a loss of rights or privileges. Recalling paragraph 129 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee has considered that, at least in relation to contributory unemployment benefit schemes, while a person’s availability for work is generally a precondition of entitlement, if the work required to be performed is not “suitable” employment, as that concept has been elaborated by the Committee under the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), it may constitute a form of compulsory labour within the meaning of the Convention. The Committee considers that the fact that a job is within a person’s occupational field does not necessarily make it suitable, since factors such as skills, qualifications, acquired experience, and length of service must also be considered. These factors would normally be reflected in the wage level corresponding to the job.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the examination of the cases where sanctions were imposed on unemployed persons was limited to a determination of whether the job placements involved jobs “within their occupational field”, and not whether they were suitable. Given that the Government is able to monitor cases in which sanctions are imposed, the Committee requests the Government to continue such monitoring and to extend its inquiry beyond whether placements of unemployed persons are “within their occupational field” to an inquiry as to whether the placements refused are “suitable” by reference to the wage levels attached to the jobs being offered, in comparison with the person’s earlier earned income and the relevant collective agreement, where one exists.

Recalling also from the Government’s indications that in actual practice, all unemployed persons were referred to jobs within their occupational fields (or a related field in which they had recent training), the Committee requests the Government to consider giving statutory effect to this practice, and to supply information on any measures taken to this end.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report dated 26 May 2005, in which it supplied comments on matters raised in a previous communication received from the Danish Masters’ Association (Dansk Magisterforening, DM), concerning the application of the Convention by Denmark.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Imposition of work as a condition for maintaining entitlement to unemployment benefits. The Committee previously noted the communication dated 22 July 2004 received from the Danish Masters’ Association. In that communication, the DM expressed concern about the Government’s recent reforms of its labour market policies, particularly the introduction of obligatory "job offer" and labour "activation" schemes and their impact on unemployed persons receiving benefits under existing unemployment insurance and social assistance programmes. Among the concerns expressed was that, under the new policies, an unemployed person "stands the risk to lose his or her rights to unemployment benefits or social assistance if one rejects an offer" of a job or an activation measure. In the view of the DM, the Government’s new policies amount to forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Committee recalls that, in its last direct request to the Government under the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), it pointed out that it shared the concerns expressed by the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) regarding the rules on the readiness and availability of jobseekers to take up offered employment laid down in the Unemployment Insurance Act, as amended by Act No. 1035 of 17 December 2002. The Committee referred to the XVII-1 Conclusions of the ECSR concerning the application by Denmark of Article 12(3) of the European Social Charter, in which it stated:

The Committee considers the new rules on availability to be very stringent, virtually compelling unemployed persons on pain of loss of benefits to accept a job regardless of the occupational field from the first day of unemployment. The Committee holds that one of the aims of an unemployment benefit system is to offer unemployed persons adequate protection during at least an initial period of unemployment from the obligation to take up any job irrespective of occupational field, precisely with a view to giving them the opportunity of finding a job which is suitable taking into account their individual preferences, skills and qualifications. However desirable it may be for the labour market authorities to channel surplus workforce into areas with labour shortages, unemployed persons should be treated with due respect for their professional, social and family status and not as ordinary labourers, physically and mentally fit for any job.

The Committee asks that the Government supply more complete and explanatory information concerning the functioning of the unemployment insurance system. In this regard, it refers the Government to the Committee’s request for information on the application of Convention No. 102 set forth in its direct request of 2004 under that Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes a communication dated 22 July 2004 received from the Danish Masters’ Association (Dansk Magisterforening, DM), which contains observations concerning the application of the Convention by Denmark. It notes that this communication was sent to the Government, on 16 August 2004, for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Committee observes that no such comments have been received from the Government so far and hopes that the Government will communicate its comments with its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2005.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes a communication received on 21 November 2003 from the Danish Union of Lawyers and Economists, which contains observations concerning the application of the Convention by Denmark. It notes that this communication has been forwarded to the Government, for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Union’s observations, as well as the Government’s responses to these observations, will be examined at the Committee’s next session.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with satisfaction that sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code, under which, in certain cases of habitual idleness, a person able to work could be directed by the police to employment and punished for vagrancy, and which were no longer applied in practice, were repealed by Act No. 141 of 17 March 1999.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request.

Article 1(1) and Article 2 of the Convention.  In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may in certain cases of habitual idleness by his own fault be directed by the police to employment and later punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means may be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, under the menace of penal sanctions, directed to such employment. The Committee noted the Government's indication in its report received in October 1998 that, though sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code were still in force, it was expected that a Bill to abolish them would be proposed in the near future. Sections 198 and 199 were said to be no longer applied in actual practice, and the Chief of Police had reported that there had been no notifications or decisions in 1996 and 1997. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government in the very near future in order to repeal sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code and requests information on any progress made in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1(1) and Article 2 of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may in certain cases of habitual idleness by his own fault be directed by the police to employment and later punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means may be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, under the menace of penal sanctions, directed to such employment. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report received in October 1998 that, though sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code are still in force, it is expected that a Bill to abolish them will be proposed in the near future. Sections 198 and 199 are said to be no longer applied in actual practice, and the Chief of Police has reported that there have been no notifications or decisions in 1996 and 1997. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government in the very near future in order to repeal sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code and requests information on any progress made in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may be directed to employment by the police if, as a result of habitual idleness which may be regarded as his own fault, he becomes a charge on the public, or neglects his responsibility to maintain another person who is consequently in need, or fails to pay an allowance due to his wife or child; if, within one year, such person, because of idleness by his own fault, is again found in any of these situations, he shall be punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means, shall be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, as far as possible, shall be directed to such employment, under the menace of penal sanctions. The Government has indicated that although the sections concerned are still in force, the Danish Criminal Code Committee, in its report on penalties and release on parole, had stated that these provisions are never applied in actual practice and had proposed that both sections be repealed:

In its latest report, the Government indicates that sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code are still in force but are never applied in actual practice. The Government adds that the Ministry of Justice has consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions, all the assistant public prosecutors, the Commissioner of the Copenhagen Police and the Association of Police Commissioners in Denmark, and none of the parties consulted had any objections to the abolition of sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code. In reply to a written request from a member of the Danish Parliament concerning sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code, the Minister of Justice indicated on 12 June 1996 his positive attitude to the abolition of these provisions.

The Committee takes due note of these indications and hopes that the Government will soon be able to report that sections 198 and 199 of the Danish Penal Code have been repealed.

CMNT_TITLE

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may be directed to employment by the police if, as a result of habitual idleness which may be regarded as his own fault, he becomes a charge on the public, or neglects his responsibility to maintain another person who is consequently in need, or fails to pay an allowance due to his wife or child; if, within one year, such person, because of idleness by his own fault, is again found in any of these situations, he shall be punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means, shall be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, as far as possible, shall be directed to such employment, under the menace of penal sanctions. The Government had indicated that although the sections concerned are still in force, the Danish Criminal Code Committee, in its report on penalties and release on parole, had stated that these provisions are never applied in actual practice and had proposed that both sections be repealed.

Noting the Government's indication in its latest report that there are no plans to repeal these provisions in the course of the next year, the Committe can only express again the hope that the Government will soon be able to report on measures adopted to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may be directed to employment by the police if, as a result of habitual idleness which may be regarded as his own fault, he becomes a charge on the public, or neglects his responsibility to maintain another person who is consequently in need, or fails to pay an allowance due to his wife or child; if, within one year, such person, because of idleness by his own fault, is again found in any of these situations, he shall be punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means, shall be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, as far as possible, shall be directed to such employment, under the menace of penal sanctions. The Government had indicated that although the sections concerned are still in force, the Danish Criminal Code Committee, in its report on penalties and release on parole, had stated that these provisions are never applied in actual practice and had proposed that both sections be repealed.

Noting the Government's indication in its report that there is no new information as regards a possible repeal of sections 198 and 199 of the Penal Code, the Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will soon be able to report on the abrogation of the sections in question.

CMNT_TITLE

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 198 of the Penal Code, a person able to work may be directed to employment by the police if, as a result of habitual idleness which may be regarded as his own fault, he becomes a charge on the public, or neglects his responsibility to maintain another person who is consequently in need, or fails to pay an allowance due to his wife or child; if, within one year, such person, because of idleness by his own fault, is again found in any of these situations, he shall be punished for vagrancy. Under section 199, a person living in idleness in such circumstances that there is reason to assume that he does not seek to maintain himself by lawful means, shall be instructed by the police to try to find lawful employment within a specified reasonable period and, as far as possible, shall be directed to such employment, under the menace of penal sanctions. The Government had indicated that although the sections concerned are still in force the Danish Criminal Code Committee, in its report on penalties and release on parole, had stated that these provisions are never applied in actual practice and had proposed that both sections be abolished.

Noting the Government's indication in its report that there is no new information as regards a possible repeal of sections 198 and 199 of the Penal Code, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will soon be able to report on the abolition of the sections in question.