National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
Display in: French - Spanish
A Government representative stated that a Bill revising the legislation on dismissal would be presented this year to Parliament. This Bill proposes to delete the requirement for a worker to obtain approval of the Director of the Employment Office for the termination of his employment, if the employer disagrees. In practice, this requirement is hardly ever used since employers and workers typically agree; in any case and if approval is requested it will not be refused. The speaker said that this was not an issue of forced labour since the worker may not be forced to stay in employment under the menace of a penalty. He hoped that next year this case would be listed as a case of progress.
Speaking on behalf of the Workers' members, the Workers' member of the Netherlands expressed his satisfaction with the Government statement but regretted that a solution could not be found earlier.
The Employers' members agreed that this issue might have been settled earlier and that the legislation should be amended as soon as possible.
The Committee took note of the information submitted by the Government representative and of the discussion which followed. It noted that, according to the report of the Committee of Experts, there were divergences between the law and practice and the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to ensure, at least in practice as a first stage, compliance with the requirements of the Convention, pending the solution of this question through legislation. The Committee hoped that the Government would be able to report major progress next year.
Previous comment
The Committee previously noted a communication received in August 2009 from the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV), which contained comments on the application of the Convention by the Netherlands. It noted that this communication was sent to the Government in September 2009, for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. In the above communication, the FNV raised the issues, inter alia, regarding the work of prisoners for private employers; compulsory character of employment measures for young people under the 2009 Act Investing in Young Persons (Wet WIJ), which will be evaluated in 2011; and the vulnerable situation of workers in certain sectors, who may become victims of forced labour exploitation, as a result of abuses of certain informal labour agencies. The FNV requested the Government to take its views into consideration in the course of the evaluation of the 2009 Act referred to above. The Committee notes that no comments have been provided by the Government in response to the above communication. It further notes a new communication from the FNV, which repeated its previous comments and provided additional information on certain points, received in August 2010 and sent to the Government in September 2010 for such comments as might be judged appropriate. The Committee hopes that the Government’s comments will be supplied in its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.
Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private employers. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indications in the report concerning the work of prisoners for private employers. It notes, in particular, that such labour may be performed by convicts outside a penitentiary institution of very low security (ZBBI), and is subject to free, voluntary and informed consent of the person concerned to be placed in a ZBBI (which includes labour to be performed outside the institution). The Government indicates that convicts’ conditions of work are covered by the same legislative provisions as applicable to other employees, and their remuneration approximates the standard minimum wages, taken into account the expenses for housing and food. The Government also states that detainees can also benefit from some social security provisions.
While noting these indications, the Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of provisions regarding the work of detainees outside the ZBBI, such as, for example, the general terms and conditions governing work carried out by inmates, to which reference is made in paragraph (h) of the Additional Clauses of the sample agreement between a penitentiary institution and an employer, annexed to the Government’s 2003 report.
1. The Committee notes a communication received in August 2009 from the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV), which contains observations concerning the application of the Convention by the Netherlands. It notes that this communication was sent to the Government in September 2009 for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Committee hopes that the Government’s comments will be supplied in its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.
Articles 1 (paragraph 1), 2 (paragraph 1), and 25, of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its report concerning measures taken to combat trafficking in human beings, including the information contained in the sixth report of the Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings annexed to the Government’s report, as well as statistical information on the application of section 273(f) of the Penal Code punishing human trafficking. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the legal proceedings that have been instituted under the penal provisions punishing trafficking in persons, indicating the penalties imposed on perpetrators.
2. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to the following matters raised in its previous direct request and hopes that the next report will include full information on these matters:
Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (c). Work of prisoners for private employers. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indications concerning the work of prisoners for private employers. It noted that, as regards work carried out outside penitentiary institutions by detainees who reside in open penitentiary institutions, the contract with the employer is concluded by the institution itself, but the detainees have no terms of employment with the employer concerned. The Committee has also noted the comments made by the Trade Union Federation of Middle and Senior Staff Personnel (MHP), communicated by the Government with its 2005 report, concerning compulsory participation of convicts in work and the absence of a labour law relationship between a detainee and an employer. Further, the MHP indicated that persons who reside in an open penitentiary institution and who cannot or do not want to take part in such work are returned to a closed institution.
The Committee previously noted the Government’s explanations concerning the level of remuneration for detainees working outside the institution, which is based on the gross minimum wage, as well as the Government’s statement that outside work is subject to working conditions legislation. It noted, however, that detainees in an open institution do not come under the social security legislation.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its 2005 report that work carried out by detainees for a private employer outside penitentiary institutions is important for rehabilitation purposes. The Committee recalls that Article 2(2)(c), of the Convention prohibits that convicts are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers. However, the Committee has pointed out in its previous General Surveys, including its most recent General Survey of 2007, paragraphs 59–60, that, provided convicted prisoners voluntarily consent to such work without being subjected to pressure or menace, such work does not fall within the scope of the Convention. At the same time the Committee has indicated that, bearing in mind the captive circumstances of prisoners, there must be safeguards to ensure their consent is given freely and voluntarily. The Committee in paragraphs 114–122 of the General Survey of 2007 discussed the safeguards which include not only written formal consent but, further, that the most reliable indicator of voluntariness of the labour is if the work is performed under conditions which approximate a free labour relationship. Factors to be taken into account in such circumstances would include, for example, that there was a level of wages and social security provisions which approximate a free labour relationship. In addition, the Committee in the General Survey of 2007 indicated that other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work could be considered in determining whether free and informed consent is given. The Committee gave examples such as learning new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills. The Committee indicated that all of these factors should be taken as a whole in determining whether consent was freely given and they should be considered and assessed by the public authorities.
Bearing in mind these features, the Committee requests the Government in its next report to provide information to the Committee on the following matters:
– the objective and measurable factors which authenticate the voluntariness of the consent of the prisoners to the performance of work whilst in open penitentiary institutions, such as the performance of work in conditions approximating a free labour relationship, together with other advantages such as learning new skills which could be deployed when released; the offer of continuing work of the same type upon release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively and develop team skills, or other similar factors;
– the procedures undertaken by public authorities to regularly assess that such objective and measurable factors are in place in order to ensure that work performed by such prisoners is voluntary.
The Committee also requests the Government to supply a copy of the general terms and conditions governing work carried out by inmates of custodial institutions, to which reference is made in paragraph (h) of the additional clauses of the sample agreement between a penitentiary institution and an employer, annexed to the Government’s 2003 report.
Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation. The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in its 2005 and 2007 reports concerning measures taken to combat trafficking in human beings and, in particular, the adoption of the National Plan on Tackling Human Trafficking. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would supply, with its next report a copy of the National Plan, as well as information on its implementation. Please also provide information on any legal proceedings that have been instituted under section 273(a) of the Penal Code punishing trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation, indicating the penalties imposed on perpetrators.
Article 2(2)(c). Work of prisoners for private employers. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indications concerning the work of prisoners for private employers. It noted that, as regards work carried out outside penitentiary institutions by detainees who reside in open penitentiary institutions, the contract with the employer is concluded by the institution itself, but the detainees have no terms of employment with the employer concerned. The Committee has also noted the comments made by the Trade Union Federation of Middle and Senior Staff Personnel (MHP), communicated by the Government with its 2005 report, concerning compulsory participation of convicts in work and the absence of a labour law relationship between a detainee and an employer. Further, the MHP indicated that persons who reside in an open penitentiary institution and who cannot or do not want to take part in such work are returned to a closed institution.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its 2005 report that work carried out by detainees for a private employer outside penitentiary institutions is important for rehabilitation purposes. The Committee recalls that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention prohibits that convicts are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers. However, the Committee has pointed out in its previous General Surveys, including its most recent General Survey of 2007, paragraphs 59–60, that, provided convicted prisoners voluntarily consent to such work without being subjected to pressure or menace, such work does not fall within the scope of the Convention. At the same time the Committee has indicated that, bearing in mind the captive circumstances of prisoners, there must be safeguards to ensure their consent is given freely and voluntarily. The Committee in paragraphs 114–122 of the General Survey of 2007 discussed the safeguards which include not only written formal consent but, further, that the most reliable indicator of voluntariness of the labour is if the work is performed under conditions which approximate a free labour relationship. Factors to be taken into account in such circumstances would include, for example, that there was a level of wages and social security provisions which approximate a free labour relationship. In addition, the Committee in the General Survey of 2007 indicated that other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work could be considered in determining whether free and informed consent is given. The Committee gave examples such as learning new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills. The Committee indicated that all of these factors should be taken as a whole in determining whether consent was freely given and they should be considered and assessed by the public authorities.
The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It notes, in particular, the information on measures taken and contemplated to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation, supplied in response to the Committee’s general observation of 2000, and requests the Government to continue to provide information on the developments in this sphere.
Work of prisoners for private employers. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications that, as regards work carried out outside penitentiary institutions by detainees who reside in open penitentiary institutions, the contract with the employer is concluded by the institution itself, but the detainees have no terms of employment with the employer concerned. The Government also indicated that persons who reside in an open penitentiary institution and who refuse to work, are returned to a closed institution.
As regards prisoners’ wages, the Committee has noted from the Regulation of 15 October 2002 issued by the Ministry of Justice, as well as from the Government’s explanations in the report, that the level of remuneration for detainees working outside the institution is based on the gross minimum wage as set out on 1 January 2002, 40 per cent of this amount (EU 111.36 per week) is paid to the detainee. However, detainees in an open institution do not come under the social security legislation (though medical expenses are paid by the Ministry of Justice).
The Committee recalls that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers. The Committee again refers in this connection to paragraphs 10 and 11 of its 2001 general observation concerning prison labour, in which it pointed out that, in order to comply with the Convention, the work of prisoners for private companies requires the freely given consent of the workers concerned, without the menace of any penalty in the wide sense of Article 2(1) of the Convention (such as loss of privileges or an unfavourable assessment of behaviour taken into account for reduction of sentence). Furthermore, in the context of a captive labour force having no alternative access to the free labour market, such free consent needs to be authenticated by arm’s length conditions of employment approximating a free labour relationship, such as the existence of a labour contract between the prisoner and the private company and free labour market-oriented conditions regarding wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and safety and health.
The Committee therefore hopes that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure that any work by detainees for private employers be performed under the conditions of a freely consented upon employment relationship. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information regarding conditions of work of detainees who reside in an open penitentiary institution and carry out work outside the institution and to supply a copy of the general terms and conditions governing work carried out by inmates of custodial institutions, to which reference is made in paragraph (h) of the additional clauses of the sample agreement between a penitentiary institution and an employer, annexed to the Government’s report.
The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its general observations of 1998 and 2000.
The Committee notes the Government’s indications concerning the work of prisoners for private employers. The Government indicates that, as regards work carried out outside penitentiary institutions by detainees who reside in an open penitentiary institution, the contract with the employer is concluded by the institution itself, but the detainees have no terms of employment with the employer concerned. The detainees receive remuneration for the work carried out for the institution, which is considerably higher than that earned in the closed institutions, but lower than remuneration that can be earned by free workers. Persons who reside in an open penitentiary institution and who refuse to work are returned to a closed institution.
The Committee refers to paragraphs 10 and 11 of its 2001 general observation concerning prison labour, in which it pointed out that, in order to comply with the Convention, the work of prisoners for private companies requires the freely given consent of the workers concerned, without the menace of any penalty; furthermore, in the context of a captive labour force having no alternative access to the free labour market, such free consent needs to be authenticated by arm’s length conditions of employment approximating a free labour relationship, such as the existence of a labour contract between the prisoner and the private company and free labour market oriented conditions regarding wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and safety and health.
The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information regarding conditions of work of detainees who reside in an open penitentiary institution and carry out work outside the institution, indicating in particular the applicable levels of wages (as compared to those of free workers), as well as conditions with regard to hours of work and rest periods, occupational safety and health and social security. Please also supply copies of relevant rules and regulations, as well as sample contracts concluded by a penitentiary institution with the employer.
With reference to its general observation of 1998 under this Convention, the Committee requests the Government to include in its next report information as to the present position in law and practice as regards:
(i) whether there are prisons administered by private concerns, profit-making or otherwise;
(ii) whether any private prison contractors deploy prisoners to work either inside or outside prison premises, either for the account of the contractor or for that of another enterprise;
(iii) whether private parties are admitted by the prison authorities into prison premises of any kind for the purpose of engaging prisoners in employment;
(iv) whether employment of prisoners outside prison premises, either for a public authority or for a private enterprise, is allowed;
(v) the conditions in which employment under any of the above conditions takes place, in respect of remuneration (indicating the level and comparing it with any minimum wage normally applicable to such work), benefits accruing (such as pension rights and workers’ compensation), observance of occupational safety and health legislation and other conditions of employment (e.g. through labour inspection), and how those conditions are determined;
(vi) what the source of any remuneration is (whether from public or private funds) and for what purposes it must or may be applied (e.g. for the personal use of the prisoner or if it is subject to compulsory deductions);
(vii)for whose benefit is the product of prisoners’ work and any surplus profit deriving from it, after deduction of overheads, and how it is disbursed;
(viii) how the consent of the prisoners concerned is guaranteed, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work.
Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention. With reference to its earlier comments concerning the use of conscripts for non-military activities, the Committee notes with satisfaction the Government’s confirmation in its report that compulsory national service and the practice in question concerning the position of conscripts have ended.
The Committee notes the Government's report.
1. Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the Convention. Further to its previous observations, the Committee notes with satisfaction that a provision of section 6 of the Extraordinary (Employment Relations) Decree, 1945, under which workers were legally required to obtain the approval of the District Employment Office for the termination of their employment, has been repealed by the Act concerning Flexibility and Security (Stb. 300), of 14 May 1998, which was due to come into force on 1 January 1999.
2. Article 2(2)(a). In its previous observation, the Committee noted a communication from the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) dated 18 August 1995 concerning the use of conscripts for non-military activities. The Committee has noted from the Government's report received in July 1996 that the position of conscripts was to be reviewed in the light of the Convention, and that compulsory national service would end on 1 January 1997. Since the Government's subsequent reports received in March 1997 and August 1998 contain no new information on this subject, the Committee asks the Government to confirm that the practice in question has been ended.
1. Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee noted a communication from the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) dated 18 August 1995 alleging the use of conscripts for non-military activities. The Committee notes from the Government's report that by a letter of 19 December 1995 from the State Secretary of Defence, the general Association of Dutch Servicemen and Women (AVNM) was informed of the voluntary nature of assignments of conscripts to assist at non-military events, and that at the request of the Association of Conscripts (VVDM), the FNV's communication to the ILO regarding the deployment of conscripts for non-military tasks was discussed by the Consultative Committee for Defence on 21 September 1995, when it was agreed that the position of conscripts would be reviewed in the light of the Convention. The Committee further notes with interest from the Government's report that compulsory attendance of the national service will end on 1 January 1997; the Committee looks forward to learning of the provisions adopted to this end.
2. In earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 6 of the Extraordinary (Employment Relations) Decree, 1945, under which a worker is required to obtain approval for the termination of his employment. The Committee noted that a Bill to repeal this requirement was presented to Parliament on 15 March 1990. It also noted the Government's indication that if the required legislative amendment took too much time, it would consider the possibility of issuing guidelines to the regional employment offices in order to facilitate the termination of employment by workers on their own request. In the absence of further information on any progress made in this regard, the Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken to repeal section 6 of the Extraordinary Decree of 1945, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report on the provisions adopted to this end.
1. Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention. The Committee has taken note of a communication from the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) dated 18 August 1995 alleging use of conscripts for non-military activities. Copy of this communication has been forwarded by the ILO on 29 August 1995 to the Government.
In the absence of a comment from the Government, the Committee hopes that the Government will soon submit its observations on the allegations.
2. With regard to section 6 of the Extraordinary (Employment Relations) Decree, 1945, the Committee looks forward to the Government's answer to the Committee's observation made in 1994 under the Convention.
In previous comments the Committee referred to section 6 of the Extraordinary (Employment Relations) Decree, 1945, under which a worker is required to obtain approval for the termination of his employment. The Committee noted that a Bill to repeal this requirement was presented to Parliament on 15 March 1990.
The Committee notes the Government's information in its latest report that the Bill is being examined by the First Chamber of Parliament. It also notes the Government's indication that if the required legislative amendment took too much time, it would consider the possibility of issuing guidelines to the regional employment offices in order to facilitate the termination of employment by workers on their own request.
The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.
The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report as well as the observations made by the Confederation of the Netherlands Trade Union Movement (FNV) on the application of the Convention.
In previous comments the Committee referred to section 6 of the Extraordinary (Employment Relations) Decree, 1945, under which a worker is required to obtain approval for the termination of his employment.
The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that a Bill amending the legislation on termination of employment was presented to Parliament on 15 March 1990 and was to be examined by the Second Chamber of Parliament at the end of 1991. The Bill repeals from Article 6 of the Extraordinary (Employment Relations) Decree the requirement for an employee to obtain approval by the director of the regional employment office for termination of employment. The Committee notes that in its comments the FNV indicates its agreement with the proposed amendment.
The Committee hopes that the amendment will soon be adopted and that the Government will provide a copy of the Decree as modified. The Committee hopes that, pending the required legislative amendment, the Government will use its administrative powers to ensure that the regional employment offices issue the requisite permits in all cases where workers want to leave their employment upon the expiration of the appropriate notice.
In previous comments the Committee referred to section 6 of the Extraordinary (Employment Relations) Decree, 1945 under which a worker is required to obtain approval for the termination of his employment. It requested the Government to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, and expressed the hope that, pending the introduction of the required draft legislation, the Government would use its administrative powers to ensure that the regional employment offices issue the requisite permits in all cases where workers want to leave their employment upon the expiration of the appropriate notice.
The Committee takes note of the Government's report and the discussions that took place in the Conference Committee in 1989. The Committee notes with interest the Government's information that a Bill revising the legislation on dismissal is to be presented to Parliament and that it would repeal the requirement to obtain approval of the Director of the Employment Office for termination of employment, if the employer disagrees.
The Committee also notes the comments by the Confederation of the Netherlands Trade Unions Movement (FNV) according to which the Bill revising the law on termination of employment, including an amendment for the repeal of the requirement in question, has been adopted by the Council of Ministers and submitted to the Council of State.
The Committee expresses the hope that the proposed amendment will soon be adopted and that it will bring legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.