Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Part IV (Unemployment benefit) of the Convention. The Committee notes the detailed information on Part IV in the Government’s report and asks it to reply to the following questions:

(a)       Article 23. Under the general scheme, in order to be eligible for unemployment allowances, a full-time worker must complete a certain qualifying period, the length of which depends on the worker’s age. If he is between 36 and 50 years of age, he must provide evidence of 468 days worked during the 27 months preceding the benefit application; if he is aged 50 or over, the qualifying period increases to 624 days worked during the previous 36 months. The Committee observes that the length of the qualifying period for these categories of workers is much longer than in the other Contracting Parties. It also observes that the said qualifying period can include several different periods which are computed as days worked or included in the reference period, which makes the rules for calculating the qualifying period very complex. The Committee reminds the Government that section 23 of the Convention states that the duration of the qualifying period may not be longer than what is needed to preclude abuse, both on the part of potential beneficiaries of the unemployment allowance and on the part of the institutions and services which administer it. It therefore asks the Government to explain in its next report the reasons why it has introduced such qualifying periods for the unemployment allowance.

(b)      Article 69(d). According to the report, unemployment allowances are suspended for between one and 13 weeks when the unemployed person has made an inaccurate, incomplete or belated declaration or has omitted to make a required declaration and has received or can receive allowances unduly as a result. Fraudulent intention is not required for a suspension to be applied; the mere fact of the irregularity being established is sufficient. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, in the cases in question, the abovementioned provision of the Convention authorizes the suspension of the benefit only if the person concerned has attempted to obtain it fraudulently.

(c)       Article 69(f). The report indicates that if the worker is responsible for his dismissal, he may receive a caution or his benefit may be suspended for a minimum of four weeks and a maximum of 26 weeks. He is deemed liable for his dismissal if he is personally guilty of misconduct which gave rise to it. The Committee is bound to reiterate in this respect that the Convention authorizes the imposition of penalties only where the misconduct was wilful. The same rule also applies in cases where the unemployed person is penalized when support or rehabilitation measures are discontinued or fail owing to misconduct on his part.