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

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.