Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2005, Publicación: 95ª reunión CIT (2006)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work for breaches of labour discipline. For many years, the Committee has been drawing the Government’s attention to the need to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code (Act No. 62-32 of 22 March 1962), under the terms of which certain breaches of discipline by seafarers were punishable by sentences of imprisonment involving, by virtue of the penal legislation, compulsory prison labour. Under the terms of sections 223, 241 and 243 of the Code, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior and a formal refusal to obey a service order were punishable by prison sentences. In view of the scope of these provisions, which cannot be confined to cases in which the breach of discipline would endanger the ship or the persons on board, the Committee has considered them to be contrary to the Convention, which prohibits recourse to forced labour, including in the form of compulsory prison labour, as a means of labour discipline. The Government indicated on several occasions that the revision of the Merchant Shipping Code would provide an opportunity to make the amendments called for by the Committee so as to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Government also added that, in practice, no sentence of imprisonment involving compulsory labour had been imposed on any workers in the merchant navy under these provisions.

The Committee notes that a new Merchant Shipping Code was adopted in 2002 (Act No. 2002-22 of 16 August 2002). It notes with regret that the Government did not take the opportunity to amend the provisions on which it commented previously. By virtue of sections 624, 643 and 645 of the new Merchant Shipping Code, unapproved absence from the vessel, verbal insults, gestures or threats towards a superior and a formal refusal to obey a service order are still punishable by sentences of detention, involving compulsory prison labour in accordance with section 692 of the Code of Penal Procedure and section 32 of Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 respecting the implementation and organization of penal sanctions. The Committee nevertheless notes that the penalty which may be imposed in the event of formal refusal to obey following a warning has been reduced from "six days to six months" to "six days to one month". The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring these provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code into conformity with the Convention. In the meantime, it requests the Government to provide information on any court decision which has been handed down or any sentence of imprisonment imposed under these provisions.

Article 1(d). Sentences of imprisonment involving an obligation to work as a punishment for having participated in strikes

1. The Committee notes that section L.276 of the Labour Code enables the administrative authority to requisition workers from private enterprises and public services and establishments who are engaged in jobs that are essential for the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services and the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. The list of jobs so defined is to be determined by decree. Any worker who does not comply with the requisition order is liable to a fine and a sentence of imprisonment of from three months to one year, or to one of these penalties (section L.279(m)). The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the decree issued under section L.276 establishing the list of jobs concerned, as well as information on cases in which the competent administrative authority has had recourse to section L.276. The Committee recalls in this respect, as it has in the context of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), that requisitioning can only be justified in essential services, that is services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

2. The Committee notes that, by virtue of section L.276 in fine, the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by the occupation of the workplace or its immediate vicinity, under penalty of the sanctions established in sections L.275 and L.279(o), namely: loss of entitlement to the benefits and damages envisaged in the event of the termination of the contract; a sentence of imprisonment of from three months to one year; or one of these two penalties. The Committee has drawn the Government’s attention, in the context of the application of Convention No. 87, to the fact that restrictions on the occupation of the workplace should be limited to cases in which the strike action ceases to be peaceful. The Committee recalls that the Convention prohibits recourse to forced labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated in strikes. However, in the event of violations of section L.276 above, a prison sentence can be imposed which involves, under the terms of the penal legislation referred to above, the obligation to work. Under these conditions, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to amend section L.276 of the Labour Code.