Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2010, Publicación: 100ª reunión CIT (2011)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Vulnerable situation of migrant workers in the construction sector. The Committee notes the communication dated 1 September 2010 received from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which contains comments on the application of the Convention by Azerbaijan. It also notes the Government’s reply to this communication received on 29 November 2010.

The Communication by the ITUC contains allegations concerning the situation of about 700 workers from Bosnia and Herzegovina, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia who were working on construction sites managed by the SerbAz Design and Construction Company in Azerbaijan. The ITUC refers in this connection to the reports received from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and from ASTRA (Anti-Trafficking Action), an NGO in Serbia. According to the allegations, workers had been recruited in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, once in Azerbaijan, were not provided with any legal work permits, but only with tourist visas, having also to hand over their passports to their employer. Without identification documents and residence permits, workers’ freedom of movement was limited and their vulnerability was aggravated by the fact that they were obliged to live at the construction site, being strictly forbidden to leave, subject to threats of penalties, including physical punishment. The ITUC further alleged that workers had been living in appalling conditions, with insufficient food, water or proper medical services, which lead to two deaths.

The ITUC expressed the view that there have been indications of forced labour in this case, which include, inter alia, the use of threats and abuse of workers’ vulnerability; coercion; deception regarding working and living conditions; physical punishment, high recruitment fees; withholding of wages; salary deductions; confiscation of documents; absence of work permits; limitations to freedom of movement; and absence of regular employment contracts.

The ITUC informs that the OSCE representative visited the constructions sites and confirmed the poor living conditions and apparent threats to workers. The Azeri Parliament was also informed of the situation and debated the issue, coinciding with the submission of the annual report of the Azerbaijan National Anti-Trafficking Coordinator, which stated, however, that the situation of Serbian and Bosnian workers did not fall within Azerbaijan’s jurisdiction, since the workers signed work agreements with SerbAz in their countries of origin. According to the above communication by the ITUC, some investigations have been initiated by national authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Azerbaijan; in December 2009, investigations concerning 14 accused were in process in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the case had been forwarded to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. A petition to the Ombudsman in Azerbaijan had also been prepared, and about 500 workers in Bosnia and Herzegovina were preparing to submit a case to the court in Azerbaijan to claim unpaid wages and other violations of workers’ rights.

Finally, the ITUC informs that, in April 2010, a cooperation agreement on mutual protection of migrant workers, prepared with the assistance of the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI), had been signed by construction workers’ unions from Bosnia and Herzegovina and from Azerbaijan.

In its reply to the comments submitted by the ITUC, the Government denies the allegations, indicating that no direct appeals from workers employed by SerbAz regarding labour violations have been submitted to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of Population of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It further indicates that the only information concerning workers’ rights violations had been received from the NGO “Azerbaijan Migration Centre”, and that an appropriate investigation has been subsequently conducted by the State Labour Inspectorate, which did not confirm the allegations against the SerbAz company. According to the investigation, “it was defined that some specialists from a number of foreign countries were on their business trip” for that company. Finally, the Government informs that no individual work permits for foreign citizens have been obtained by the SerbAz company.

While noting the above information and considering the gravity of the allegations, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to thoroughly investigate the alleged facts, and will provide information on measures taken or envisaged in order to strengthen the protection of migrant workers, so as to prevent the abuses of workers’ rights and to exclude the exploitation of their vulnerable situation which might lead to the exaction of labour for which the workers have not offered themselves voluntarily. The Committee also requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the outcome of any legal proceedings which have been instituted regarding this case.