CMNT_TITLE

Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189) - Brazil (RATIFICATION: 2018)

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - SpanishAlle anzeigen

The Committee notes the observations of the National Federation of Domestic Workers (FENATRAD), the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT) and the International Federation of Domestic Workers (IDWF) received on 1 October 2020 and 2 September 2021, and the Government’s replies thereto, received on 24 November 2020 and 3 October 2021, respectively. It further notes the observations of the Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Domestic Workers (CONLACTRAHO) received on 1 September 2022, as well as the observations of the CUT received on 2 September 2022, which incorporate its previous observations by reference. The Government is requested to provide its comments with respect to these observations received in 2022.

Articles 1(a)–(c) and 2. Definitions of domestic work and domestic worker. Exclusions. The Committee welcomes the information provided in the Government’s first report. It notes that section 1 of Complementary Law No. 150 of 1 June 2015 defines a “domestic worker” as a person who provides services on a continuous, subordinate, not-for-profit and personal basis, in exchange for remuneration, to a person or family in their residence, for more than two days per week. In this context, the Committee notes the observations of FENATRAD, CUT and IDWF, in which the workers’ organizations point out that this definition excludes day workers from the definition of domestic workers and thus from the protections afforded by Complementary Law No. 150 of 2015. Moreover, the CUT adds that neither the Constitution of 1988 nor Article 1 of the Convention differentiate between workers who perform domestic work as daily workers and those who perform domestic work for more than two days per week. It also expresses the view that working one or two days per week does not in itself signify the absence of an employment relationship. The CUT and CONLACTRAHO indicate that the increase in the number of domestic workers who work for multiple households as day workers has been one of the principal changes in the domestic sector. The workers’ organizations point out that, according to data from the Institute of Applied Economic Studies (Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada – IPEA), in 2018, 44 per cent of all domestic workers (some 2.5 million women) were working as day workers, considered to be independent workers. Consequently, the domestic employer is not required to enter into an employment contract with the worker, increasing the already high levels of informality that exist in the domestic sector, and depriving these workers of the range of labour rights to which they would otherwise be entitled.

In this respect, the Government indicates that the requirement in section 1 of Complementary Law No. 150 that domestic workers work more than two days per week is intended to ensure greater legal certainty in terms of the definition of domestic work that did not exist in labour relations under the previously applicable legislation. The Government points out that such workers perform domestic work on a sporadic basis and are considered as self-employed, being hired on a per-task basis. They are therefore not considered subordinate to the contractor – the worker being free not to carry out the activity or prefer to provide the service for another claimant. It adds that, under the terms of Law No. 8.212 of 1991, workers who carry out paid work and have no employment relationship are compulsorily insured as individual contributors and can contribute to social security as an individual micro-entrepreneur, at a reduced rate of 5 per cent of the minimum wage, and have access to protection in case of old age, disability, sickness and maternity, among other social security benefits. In addition, the Complementary Law No. 150 prohibits the hiring of children under the age of 18 to perform domestic work.

The Committee notes in this respect that, pursuant to its Articles 1 and 2, the Convention applies to all domestic workers performing such work under an employment relationship, regardless of employment duration and length, subject to the exclusions made in respect of either (i) categories of workers who are otherwise provided with at least equivalent protection; or (ii) limited categories of workers in respect of which special problems of a substantial nature arise. It also notes that, in order to be admissible, these exceptions need to be formulated in the first report on the application of the Convention, after consultations with the most representative organizations of employers and workers and, where they exist, with organizations representative of domestic workers and those representative of employers of domestic workers. In the present case, the Committee therefore needs to examine whether the exclusion of the abovementioned category from the scope of the Convention can be validated under the exceptions foreseen by its Article 2. It notes, in this respect, that although it does not expressly invoke the provisions of Article 2, the Government implicitly refers to it since it states that, although they are not considered as domestic workers for the purposes of Complementary Law No.150: (i) domestic workers who perform their activities for not more than 2 days per week are nonetheless provided with certain protections as they are eligible to benefit from the social protection benefits applicable to autonomous workers (as contemplated by Article 2(2)(a)); and (ii) have been excluded to ensure greater legal certainty and waive previous difficulties in the application of the labour legislation to them (as contemplated by Article 2(2)(b)). The Committee therefore needs to examine whether: (i), the exclusion concerns the categories of workers envisaged by this provision and that and; if so, whether (ii) the necessary consultations have been carried out prior to specifying the exclusion in the Government’s first report.

As regards the first condition, the Committee observes that the exclusion is based on a presumption that domestic workers working less than three days per week for a person or a family are not subordinate workers and operate sporadically. The Committee notes however that, by adopting the presumption that these workers are not in an employment relationship regardless of the actual work arrangement of each worker and by denying them the possibility to validate successive periods of work performed in several households during the course of the same week, the national legislation is in breach of the Convention which applies to all domestic workers in an employment relationship regardless of the number of days worked per week and defines domestic work as work performed in or for a household or households. In addition, the Committee notes that the Convention only authorizes the exclusion of limited categories of domestic workers to which the application of the Convention would raise special problems of a substantial nature, whereas the domestic workers excluded from the scope of Complementary Law No.150 represent almost half of those active in the country and whereas the Government has not invoked any reasons explaining why the application of the Convention to these workers would raise special problems of a substantial nature. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that domestic workers working no more than two days for a person or a family need to be granted the protection guaranteed by the Convention and asks the Government to indicate measures taken in this respect.

As regards the other condition established by the Convention, namely that there must have been consultations prior to making exclusions from its scope, the Committee observes that the Government’s first report does not contain any information as to whether any consultations have taken place with the most representative organisations of employers and workers and, where they exist, with organizations representative of domestic workers and those representative of employers of domestic workers. Brazil being also party to Convention No. 144, the Committee notes that these consultations ought to have taken place prior to specifying this exception to the scope of the Convention. Had such consultations not been duly carried out prior to being included in the first report, then it would not be able to validate any exclusion from the scope of the Convention pursuant to its Article 2 in its monitoring of the implementation of the Convention. In view of the above, the Committee asks the Government and the social partners to indicate whether the required consultations as stated, have taken place at the national level prior to making exceptions from the scope of the Convention.

Article 3. Human rights. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the National Campaign for Decent Domestic Work, an initiative launched in February 2022, whose objective is to disseminate information to the public concerning the legislation applicable to domestic work, including with respect to discrimination, harassment, child and forced labour and to raise public awareness of the importance of complying with the legislation. In this context, the Committee also notes the observations of CONLATRAHO, which refers to a 2020 study indicating that 83 per cent of domestic employers and 70 per cent of domestic workers were not familiar with the legislation applicable to domestic work, suggesting the need for targeted activities to disseminate information to these two groups. The Government indicates that the Campaign has also carried out consultations with representatives of domestic workers, as well as with domestic employers. The CUT contends for its part that domestic workers’ organizations were not consulted in relation to the development of the Campaign or invited to attend the launch, only learning about the initiative from the press. Recalling that pursuant to Article 18, each Member is required to implement the Convention, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, the Committee asks the Government to provide updated information in relation to the nature, scope and impact of activities carried out under the auspices of the National Domestic Work Campaign on the effective promotion and protection of the human rights of all domestic workers in the country.

Article 3(2)(a) and (3). Freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Government reports that freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain are rights guaranteed under article 8 of the Constitution of 1988. This right was extended to domestic workers, pursuant to Constitutional Amendment No. 72 of 2013. The Government adds that section 199 of the Criminal Code establishes that it is a crime to infringe on freedom of association rights. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are 32 trade unions, one workers’ confederation and 3 employers’ organizations registered with the Ministry of Labour and Social Security that can negotiate collectively in the area of domestic work. It adds that 43 collective bargaining agreements in relation to domestic work were registered between 2009 and 2022. The Committee further notes that the workers’ organizations provide information on the obstacles that exist in Brazil to the full exercise by domestic workers of their freedom of association and collective bargaining rights. CONLACTRAHO indicates that the Labour Reforms introduced by Law No. 13.467 of 2017 place limitations on the activities of trade unions, eliminating the requirement that unions approve the conclusion of employment contracts, and undermine their self-sufficiency by suppressing the compulsory trade union fees. CONLACTRAHO also observes that according to data available from IPEA in 2020, only 1.7 per cent of domestic workers in Brazil are unionized. The Committee observes that the Government’s report does not contain information concerning measures taken or envisaged to facilitate the exercise of domestic workers’ rights to form and join associations of their own choosing, or their exercise of the right to collectively bargain and conclude collective agreements. With respect to freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, the Committee recalls that the specific characteristics of domestic work, often involving triangular employment relationships, a high degree of dependence on the employer and the frequent isolation of domestic workers in their workplaces, are all factors that make it difficult for domestic workers to form and join unions. Taking into account the particular characteristics of domestic work, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which domestic workers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining rights are ensured in practice, and to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the promotion and protection of the right of domestic workers and their employers to establish and join organizations, federations and confederations of their own choosing, as well as to inform them of their rights and obligations in this respect. In addition, the Government is requested to provide examples of collective bargaining agreements concluded in the domestic work sector.

Article 3(2)(b). Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is committed to the complete abolition of slave labour and its reference to the existence of projects to combat domestic work in slave-like conditions. The Government reports that these projects were developed and implemented by the Labour Inspectorate in several Brazilian states, beginning in 2017, and have led to the re-establishment of the rights of a number of domestic workers. The Government also refers to efforts made to eliminate forced labour, including in domestic work. The Committee also notes the launch by the Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship (MDHC) in April 2023, on the occasion of the National Domestic Workers Day, of the National Campaign Against Domestic Work in Slave-like Conditions (Campanha contra trabalho doméstico escravo). Moreover, the Committee notes the observations of FENATRAD, CUT and IDWF, in which the workers’ organizations refer to incidents in which domestic workers were held in slave-like conditions, including incidents occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic in which domestic workers were required by their employers to remain In the employer’s household and denied freedom of movement for extended periods. In its 2022 observations, the CUT also refers to data from the Labour Inspectorate indicating that between 2017 and the first half of 2021, labour inspectors identified 30 cases of domestic work in slave-like conditions. Additionally, the CUT refers to the 2018 report of the Working Group established by the National Commission on the Elimination of Slave Labour (CONATRAE) to address domestic work in slave-like conditions. According to the CUT, the Working Group’s report made a number of recommendations, including the development of awareness raising campaigns, informational and training material and the establishment of criteria for labour inspection in domestic work. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information further specifying the nature, scope and impact of the projects to combat forced and compulsory labour in domestic work, including domestic work in slave-like conditions, indicating the number and type of incidents identified and investigated, the outcome and reparations granted to the victims. In addition, the Government is requested to provide information on enforcement and awareness-raising measures taken or envisaged to promote the effective elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour in domestic work, especially for migrant live-in domestic workers and child domestic workers.

Articles 3(2)(c) and 4(1). Effective abolition of child labour.Minimum age for domestic work. The Committee notes that section 1 of Complementary Law No. 150 of 2015 prohibits the hiring of children under the age of 18 to perform domestic work. It further notes that Decree No. 6.481 of 2008 includes domestic service on the list of the worst forms of child labour and prohibits children under the age of 18 from engaging in domestic work. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that article 7, subsection XXXIII of the 1988 Constitution, as amended, prohibits night work, work in dangerous or unhealthy conditions for children under the age of 18 and work of any kind for children of less than 16 years of age, with the exception of apprentices, from the age of 14. The Committee recalls its 2022 comments in relation to the application of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), in which it noted that, according to the National Household Sample Survey (PNAD contínua) for 2016–19, there were 125,528 children from 5 to 17 years of age engaged in domestic work. While it noted the measures taken by the labour inspectorate to address the problem of child domestic labour, the Committee observed that the number of child and adolescent domestic workers remained significant and that very few (seven) had been identified and removed from this type of work during an eight-year period (January 2013–July 2021). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the nature, scope and impact of measures taken to strengthen and expand its efforts to ensure that no children under the age of 18 are engaged in child domestic work, as required under Complementary Law No. 150 of 2015 and Decree No. 6.481 of 12 June 2008. The Government is further requested to provide detailed updated information on the number and type of registered complaints of child domestic labour, the penalties imposed on the employers concerned and the reparations granted to the victims of child domestic work, including provision of education and training to enable the victims to secure employment in decent conditions that respect their fundamental labour rights.

Article 3(2)(d). Elimination of discrimination. The Committee notes the observations of FENATRAD, CUT and IDWF, in which they refer to the historical undervaluation of domestic work in Brazil due to its roots in slavery which have led to systemic structural discrimination. In its 2022 observations, the CUT refers to data from IPEA indicating that in 2019 there were more than six million people in domestic work, of which 5.7 million (93 per cent) were women, and 3.9 million (63 per cent) of whom were black or mulatto. The percentage of men in paid domestic work, on the other hand, was less than one per cent of the total. In their 2020 observations, FENATRAD, CUT and IDWF highlight the high rate of informality in domestic work, noting that according to data from IPEA, in 2019, 72 per cent of domestic workers were not registered by their employers, and their average remuneration was below the national minimum wage. FENATRAD expresses the view that there are in fact some 8 million people in domestic work, taking into account the prevalence of informal domestic work and observing that many domestic workers do not identify themselves as such for fear of prejudice and discrimination. The Committee further notes the observations of the workers’ organizations, which maintain that, during the pandemic, one-third of domestic workers lost their jobs. According to the Inter-Union Department of Statistics and Research (Departamento Intersindical de Estatística e Estudos – DIEESE), of the more than 1.5 million domestic workers who lost their jobs in 2020, 500,000 were in formal employment, holding signed Work and Social Protection Cards, while one million were in conditions of informality and did not have access to social protection benefits (DIEESE, 2021). The CUT also expresses the view that, while progress has been made in many aspects of domestic work, the legislative framework continues to deny domestic workers the enjoyment of the full range of labour rights enjoyed by other workers more generally. In its Concluding Observations on Brazil, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) noted with concern that article 7 of the Constitution discriminated against domestic workers, as it granted them only nine out of 34 rights enshrined in that article that were granted to other categories of workers. The CEDAW Committee expressed concern about the negative impact of this provision on the advancement towards the elimination of discrimination against women, as women represent the vast majority of domestic workers in the country, particularly Afro-descendent women and girls, who often suffer from multiple forms of discrimination. The CEDAW Committee recommended that the full range of rights provided for in article 7 of the Constitution be granted to women domestic workers and that the Government take appropriate measures to guarantee substantive equality for women domestic workers as well as to eliminate the multiple forms of discrimination against Afro-descendent women domestic workers. (CEDAW/C/BRA/CO/7, 23 March 2012, paragraphs 12 and 13). In this context, the Committee recalls its 2022 comments under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), regarding employment discrimination against persons of African descent, in which it noted that, according to the PNAD, carried out by the IBGE, from 2012 to 2018, the average income of the black population was equivalent to only 60 per cent of that received by the white population. Moreover, the Committee noted that persons of African descent face discrimination in their access to education and the formal labour market, among others. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to address, prevent and redress discrimination against domestic workers on the basis of sex and race, and to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for this category of workers, which is vulnerable to decent work deficits and exclusion in access to education and employment as well as in and terms and conditions of employment.

Article 4(2). Protection of the right to an education. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to article 227 of the Constitution, as amended, which establishes that it is the duty of the family, the society and the State to ensure that children, adolescents and youth enjoy a series of basic rights, including the right to education and professional training. Noting that the report does not provide information regarding the manner in which this right is enforced, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which Article 4(2) of the Convention is given effect to in practice. In particular, the Government is requested to provide information on the nature, scope and impact of measures taken to ensure that the economic activities of young domestic workers 18 and over do not prevent them from accessing opportunities for completing compulsory education or pursuing further education and vocational training opportunities.

Article 5. Protection against abuse, violence and harassment of domestic workers. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 27 of Complementary Law No. 150 of 2015, which provides that the domestic work contract may be rescinded due to the fault of the employer in certain circumstances, including where the employer or the employer’s family treat the domestic worker with excessive severity or in a degrading manner, where the domestic worker is in clear danger of significant harm, or where the employer or the employer’s family commit an act against the domestic worker or a member of the worker’s family that is damaging to honour or good reputation, physically offensive or where the employer commits any form of domestic or family violence against women. The Government also refers to section 223-C of the Consolidated Labour Laws of 1943, as amended, which provides that honour, image, intimacy, liberty of action, dignity, sexuality, health, leisure and physical integrity are legally protected rights inherent to the physical person. In addition, section 216-A of the Criminal Code establishes that it is a crime to coerce someone with the intent of obtaining sexual advantage or favours, taking advantage of hierarchical superiority in the context of the employment relationship. In this respect, as the Committee recalled in its 2022 comments under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), criminal provisions are not completely adequate in discrimination cases because, inter alia, they do not always provide a remedy to the victim and are very unlikely to cover all forms of conduct that amount to sexual harassment. The Government also refers to the Maria da Penha Law (Law No. 11.340 of 2006, which establishes mechanisms to prevent domestic and family violence against women. Its section 5 defines domestic and family violence to include any action or omission on the basis of sex, which causes death, injury, physical, sexual or psychological suffering and moral or pecuniary damage and which takes place in the context of the domestic household. The Committee also notes the observations of FENATRAD, CUT and IDWF on this point. In its 2022 observations, the CUT refers to the recent introduction of the crime of psychological violence against women, which was introduced in the Criminal Code as section 147-B through Law No. 14.188 of 28 July 2021. The CUT indicates that this new provision could be applicable to domestic work in cases of moral harassment in the workplace. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in respect of the application of Article 5 of the Convention. The Government is requested to provide detailed information on the manner in which effect is given to Article 5 of the Convention through measures that take into account the specific characteristics of domestic work, including statistical data on the number, type and outcome of complaints brought by domestic workers for abuse, harassment and violence under the national legislation. In this respect and noting that some of the legal provisions cited apply specifically to women, the Committee recalls that abuse, harassment and violence can take many forms and can be directed at domestic workers regardless of whether they are female or male. Thus, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that domestic workers have effective protection against abuse, harassment and violence at work regardless of gender. In addition, the Government is requested to provide information on the application of Law No. 14.188 of 28 July 2021, including in the context of domestic work.

Article 6. Fair terms of employment, decent working and living conditions. The Government indicates that the National Domestic Workers Campaign continues to strengthen compliance with legislation to ensure fair terms of employment for domestic workers. In this context, the Committee welcomes the changes introduced in the national legislation prior to the ratification by Brazil of the Convention on 31 January 2018. It notes that, prior to the adoption of Constitutional Amendment No. 72 of 2 April 2013, domestic workers enjoyed nine of the 34 rights provided for under article 7 of the Constitution of 1988, being entitled to: a minimum wage, protection against reductions to salary, payment of a 13th salary, a paid weekly rest day; maternity leave of 120 days, paternity leave, prior notice and retirement benefits. Subsequently, Constitutional Amendment No. 72 of 2013 modified article 7 of the Constitution to extend to domestic workers 25 of the 34 labour rights provided for in this article. The Government adds that Complementary Law No. 150 of 2015 granted a series of rights to domestic workers, including rights related to the workday, the hours bank, access to the Duration of Employment Guarantee Fund (Fundo de Garantía do Tempo de Serviço – FGTS), social security, holidays and labour inspection and other protections. The Committee nevertheless notes the observations of the workers’ organizations, including the 2022 observations of the CUT, in which it points out that the Complementary Law No. 150 of 2015 (which implements Constitutional Amendment No. 72) does not extend the same or equivalent rights to domestic workers in a number of areas, including with respect to unemployment insurance and labour inspection. Referring to its comments as regards Articles 14 and 17 regarding, respectively, social security and labour inspection, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed updated information indicating the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that all domestic workers, including Afro-descendent and migrant domestic workers, enjoy fair terms of employment, decent working conditions and, if they reside in the household, decent living conditions that respect their privacy. It draws attention to paragraph 17 of the Domestic Workers Recommendation, 2011 (No. 201), which contains guidelines in this regard.

Article 7. Information regarding terms and conditions of work. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that article 7 of the 1988 Constitution, as amended by Constitutional Amendment No. 72 of 2013, ensures a series of rights to domestic workers, including registration of their employment contract in the Work and Social Security Card (Carteira de trabalho e previdência social – CTPS). With respect to the form of the domestic work contract, the Government indicates that, in accordance with sections 442 and 443 of the Consolidated Labour Laws of 1943, the individual contract of employment can take the form of an implicit or explicit agreement, which can be verbal or in writing, for a definite or indefinite period. While the legislation provides for the possibility of an oral or written contract, registration of the contract in the CTPS is compulsory and must set out the basic elements of the contract, as required by section 28 of Complementary Law No. 150 of 2015. The Government also refers to the existence of a digital Work and Social Security Card, where the elements of the contract must be recorded, and which is accessible to the parties. The Committee notes with interest that the Government has made available a model domestic work contract and models of other documents on its eSocial website to facilitate the domestic employer’s compliance with the relevant obligations. It further notes the case law provided by the Government according to which, if the employer does not formalize a written contract with the domestic worker or record the worker’s daily hours of work, the lack of such information can be construed against the employer in the event of an employment dispute. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide updated detailed information on the measures taken to ensure that domestic workers are informed of their terms and conditions of employment in an appropriate, verifiable and easily understandable manner.

Article 8. Migrant domestic workers. The Government reports that migrant workers are guaranteed the inviolability of the right to life, freedom, equality, safety and property on an equal basis with nationals, pursuant to Law No. 12.445/2017 (the Migration Law). Section 3, paragraph XI of the Law provides that it is a principle of Brazilian migration policy to guarantee free and equal access of migrants to services, programmes and social benefits, public goods, education, public legal assistance, employment, accommodation, banking services and social security. The Committee nevertheless notes that the Government does not provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that a migrant domestic worker recruited in one country for domestic work in another receives a written job offer or contract of employment enforceable in the country of destination prior to crossing national borders, as required under Article 8(1) of the Convention. In addition, the Committee notes the observations of the CUT, which points out that there is no legislative requirement providing for the migrant domestic worker to receive a contract in a language that the worker understands. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that migrant domestic workers recruited for domestic work in Brazil receive a written job offer or contract of employment which is enforceable in the country of destination, prior to crossing the border and which contains the terms and conditions of employment contemplated in Article 7 of the Convention. The Government is also requested to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that migrant domestic workers understand their terms and conditions of employment, guidance on which is provided by Paragraph 6 (1) of the Domestic Workers Recommendation, 2011 (No. 201). It also requests the Government to provide information on the conditions under which migrant domestic workers are entitled to repatriation on the expiry or termination of their employment contract.

Article 11. Minimum wage. Remuneration established without discrimination based on sex. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that article 7 of the Constitution, as amended, provides in its subsection IV that domestic workers are entitled to a minimum wage sufficient to enable the worker to meet their basic needs and those of their family for lodging, food, education, health, leisure, clothing, hygiene, transport and social security, with periodic readjustments to preserve their purchasing power. Subsection XXX of article 7 also prohibits differences in salaries on the grounds of sex, age, colour or civil status. The Government refers to an IPEA study which indicated that, in 2018, the average monthly salary recorded among formalised female workers was R$1200 (BRL) (approximately 245.88 US$), while the minimum wage set for that year was R$954 (approximately 195.47 US$). The Committee nevertheless notes the 2022 observations of the CUT, in which it indicates that domestic workers in Brazil are entitled to a minimum wage of one minimum salary, but that in practice, female domestic workers often receive lower salaries than white men, with black female domestic workers being the lowest paid. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information regarding the minimum wages currently set for domestic workers in the country. The Government is also requested to communicate information on the measures in place to ensure payment of the minimum wage and non-discriminatory remuneration conditions to all domestic workers, regardless of sex or other grounds, such as race or migration status.

Article 13. Right to a safe and healthy workplace. The Committee notes the observations of FENATRAD, CUT and IDWF regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on domestic workers in Brazil. It also notes the information provided by the Government concerning measures taken to respond to the crisis posed by the pandemic. The workers’ organizations stress that domestic workers were one of the groups of workers hit hardest by the pandemic, due to the particular characteristics of domestic work. The Committee notes that, according to a survey carried out by the IDWF, 62 per cent of domestic workers that continued to work during the pandemic reported that they did not receive personal protective equipment, while 63 per cent reported that their employers did not take any measures to protect the domestic worker from exposure to the virus during their workday. The workers’ organizations observe that domestic workers, particularly those with caregiving duties, were highly vulnerable to exposure to the COVID-19 virus due to the nature of their work in one or more households, where they were often unable to practice social distancing. In addition, they highlight instances of forced imprisonment in the employer’s household, excessively long working days, an increase in the numbers of cases of sexual harassment and assault during the pandemic, and instances where domestic workers were required to work even where one or more members of the employer’s family were ill with the virus. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed updated information on the nature, scope and impact of measures taken to ensure the occupational safety and health of domestic workers, taking into account the specific characteristics of domestic work.

Article 14. Access to social protection. The Committee notes the observations of FENATRAD, CUT and IDWF, indicating that the legislative framework does not provide equal protection to domestic workers in certain areas, such as unemployment insurance. On this point, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that unemployment insurance is granted to domestic workers under unequal conditions, namely, in the amount of one minimum salary for a maximum period of three months, in accordance with article 25 of Complementary Law No. 150 of 2015, compared to other workers generally, who may be entitled to up to five minimum salaries, in varied and higher amounts. While acknowledging this disparity, the Government observes that domestic employers do not contribute to the Worker Protection Fund (Fundo de Amparo ao Trabalhador – FAT), which funds the unemployment insurance benefits, and that extending the same benefits to domestic workers as those received by other workers would necessitate requiring contributions to the FAT from domestic employers. In their observations, the workers’ organizations also refer to difficulties experienced by domestic workers in accessing paid sick leave for absences of up to 15 days due to illness. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information regarding the nature, scope and impact of all measures taken to ensure that domestic workers enjoy the same access to social protection benefits as other workers.

Article 15. Private employment agencies. The Government indicates that the Brazilian legal framework does not have any specific regulation governing the functioning of private employment agencies. It notes, however, that the Public Labour Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público do Trabalho – MPT) has acted to protect workers from abusive practices, mainly where private employment agencies have deducted fees from workers’ salaries in violation of subsection X of Article 7 of the Constitution and section 18 of Law No. 6.019 of 1974. The Committee notes the observations of FENATRAD, CUT and IDWF in this respect, as well as the information provided by the Government. In its 2022 observations, the CUT refers to Law No. 7.195 of 12 June 1984, on the Civil responsibility of domestic work employment agencies, maintaining that the Law is insufficient, outdated and discriminatory. Law 7.195 does not extend any protections to domestic workers against abuses that may be committed by private employment agencies, instead providing only for the employment agency’s liability for damage done by the domestic worker in the course of the worker’s activities on the assumption that the domestic worker may steal from the employer. The Committee notes in this respect that Law No. 7.195 remains in force and has been applied in labour court decisions. In addition, the CUT stresses that it is necessary to update the legal framework in the domestic work context, given that the number of private employment agencies, as well as platforms hiring domestic workers on a daily and monthly has increased after the adoption of Complementary Law No. 150 of 2015. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to determine the conditions governing the operation of private employment agencies recruiting or placing domestic workers, in accordance with national law, regulations and practice, as required under paragraph 1 of Article 15. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number and type of complaints registered by the Public Ministry of Labour concerning abuses and fraudulent practices by private employment agencies or enterprises during the reporting period in relation to domestic workers, and the penalties imposed, if any. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements have been concluded to prevent abuses and fraudulent practices in recruitment, placement and employment where domestic workers are recruited in one country for work in another. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to consider repealing Law No. 7.915 of 1984 and to communicate information on any measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Articles 16 and 17(1). Access to justice. Effective complaints mechanisms. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that domestic workers have access to courts, tribunals and other dispute resolution mechanisms in the same manner as other workers. The Government points out that, in 2020, 31,386 new cases were brought before the labour courts involving domestic work. In 2021, there were 33,764 new cases, according to information from the Higher Labour Tribunal. The Committee nevertheless notes the observations of the workers’ organizations, which indicate that domestic workers have little access to legal aid, often relying on domestic worker organizations for assistance. They also refer to the perception of domestic workers interviewed that the justice system involves lengthy, protracted procedures that are often biased against them. Recalling the importance of rights awareness-raising campaigns coupled with effective and easily accessible complaint and appeal mechanisms allowing domestic workers to claim observance of their rights, the Committee requests the Government to supply detailed updated information on how these mechanisms operate in practice, supplying copies of decisions rendered by courts of law or other dispute resolution mechanisms involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention. In particular, it requests the Government to indicate whether it is envisaged to carry out awareness campaigns directed to both domestic workers and their employers and to provide updated information on the number and type of complaints lodged by domestic workers with the labour courts or other mechanisms, the outcomes and compensation granted, if any.

Article 17(1) and (2). Measures for labour inspection, enforcement and penalties. Access to household premises. The Committee notes that section 11-A of Law No. 10.593/02, as amended, provides for inspection in respect of domestic work. According to this provision, the labour inspector’s verification of compliance with the rules governing the work of domestic employees in the employer’s home depends on prior scheduling and agreement between the inspector and the employer. In addition, during the inspection of the employer’s residence (which is also the domestic worker’s workplace), the labour inspector must be accompanied by the employer or someone from the employer’s family designated by the employer. The Government indicates that these provisions are in accordance with article 5, subsection XI of the Constitution, which provides that the home is the inviolable sanctuary of the individual, which no-one can enter without the consent of the person who lives there, except in specified circumstances, or by judicial order. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government with regard to the creation of a digital platform for the registration of labour complaints which aims to facilitate access for the complainant, the preservation of documentation, reduction of costs and more efficient handling of complaints. The Committee also notes the observations of the CUT in this respect, as well as the information provided by the Government. Taking note of the above, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the existence of a dedicated ILO tool on Labour inspection in domestic work aimed at helping governments design strategies to enforce and promote compliance with the labour regulations by reference to successful comparative practices, policies and measures. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure an effective system of labour inspection in the domestic work context in the event that the domestic employer declines to allow the labour inspector access to the domestic workplace. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed updated information on the measures envisaged or taken to strengthen the capacity of labour inspectors to conduct domestic work inspections and increase the number of inspections in this sector. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide updated detailed information, including statistical data, on the number of inspections carried out in relation to domestic work, the number and type of violations detected, and penalties imposed.