Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2012, Publicación: 102ª reunión CIT (2013)

Convenio sobre el trabajo forzoso, 1930 (núm. 29) - Türkiye (Ratificación : 1998)

Otros comentarios sobre C029

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes the comments made by the Turkish Confederation of Employers’ Associations (TÏSK) dated 8 November 2011, as well as the Government’s report.

Article 2(2)(b) of the Convention. Work exacted as normal civic obligations of citizens. The Committee refers to its comments made under Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention.

Article 2(2)(c). Work of prisoners for private employers. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that there appeared to be no provisions in the Act on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (No. 5275 of December 2004) or in the corresponding regulations under which the employment of prisoners at private sector worksites is subject to their formal written consent. However, the Committee noted that, pursuant to the Regulation on the Administration and Bidding of Penitentiaries and Work Centres of Detention Institutions in 2005 and the Regulation on Administration of Penitentiaries and Execution of Sentences in 2006, prisoners’ conditions of work may be considered as approximating those of a free labour relationship. Nonetheless, the Committee observed that, under the legislation in force, the free informed, formal consent of prisoners to work for private enterprises does not appear to be asked for, and requested the Government to indicate how this consent was guaranteed, free from the menace of any penalty, including the loss of rights or privileges.

The Committee notes the information from TÏSK that the conditions of work for prisoners approximates that of free labourers, particularly with regard to minimum wages, social security premium deductions and working hours.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it is not possible to employ prisoners without their consent or, more particularly, without a request from the prisoner. Assessments carried out between 2009 and 2011 indicated that there were 1,000 prisoners in closed penitentiaries and 7,000 prisoners in open penitentiaries who were provided the opportunity to work in workshops and work centres. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that section 96 of the Regulation on Administration of Penitentiaries and Execution of Sentences of 2006 and section 20 of the Regulation on the Administration and Bidding of Penitentiaries and Work Centres of Detention Institutions of 2005 state that prisoners who are determined by the institution doctor to be mentally and physically fit and who are willing to work may be employed in workshops in return for such wages as shall be fixed according to the means of the institution. Moreover, the Committee notes that section 20 of the Regulation on the Administration and Bidding of Penitentiaries and Work Centres of Detention Institutions of 2005 further states that detainees may be asked to work, but shall not be obliged to do so. In this regard, the Government states that employment of the prisoners is rendered at the request of the prisoner. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that Circular on Implementation of Work Centres No. 137/3 (published by the Supreme Council of Work Centres) determines the conditions of work of prisoners, both within and outside of prisons and that this Circular includes a standard contract regulating a prisoner’s employment. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Circular on Implementation of Work Centres No. 137/3 with its next report, as well as examples of signed contracts between prisoners and employers, concluded pursuant to this Circular.

Article 2(2)(d). Powers to call up labour in cases of emergency. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under article 18 of the Constitution of Turkey, the term “forced labour” does not include services required from citizens during a state of emergency, which may be declared, under article 119 of the Constitution, in the event, among other things, of a “serious economic crisis”. It also noted that under the State of Emergency Act (No. 2935 of 1983), the Council of Ministers may issue decrees to determine obligations and measures to be taken in the event of serious economic crises, which may concern, inter alia, labour issues. The Committee therefore requested the Government to limit the above provisions to a strict minimum allowed by the Convention, so that recourse to compulsory labour under emergency situations did not develop into mobilization for purposes of economic development.

The Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that Turkey has experienced economic crises in the past but that no state of emergency was called. The Government indicates that the states of emergency referred to in article 119 of the Constitution relate to conditions obstructing life in the country and that, even under these conditions, this does not allow for the exaction of forced labour, as article 18 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits forced labour.

While noting the Government’s indication regarding the application of these provisions in practice, the Committee recalls that the notion of “serious economic crises” does not appear to satisfy the criteria for the exception of “emergency situations” in the strict sense of the term, described in Article 2(2)(d) (that is, to the events of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity). The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will take measures in order to limit the exaction of compulsory work or service in cases of emergency to the strict minimum allowed by the Convention, in line with the current practice. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the State of Emergency Act (No. 2935 of 1983) and article 119 of the Constitution in practice.

Article 2(2)(e). Minor communal services. The Committee previously noted that sections 12 and 13 of Village Affairs Act No. 442, of 18 March 1924, provided for “mandatory works for villagers”, and that failure to perform this work shall be penalized. It noted that some of the work listed in section 13 as “mandatory for villagers” (including building and repairing roads leading from the village to the government centre or neighbouring villages, or building bridges over such roads, etc.) did not seem to meet the criteria of “minor services” or “communal services”, and that there was no provision for consultation regarding these works or services. However, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that sections 12 and 13 of the Village Affairs Act were no longer applied in practice and that an amendment of the Act was being considered. The Committee further noted that, under article 18 of the Constitution of Turkey, the term “forced labour” does not include physical or intellectual work necessitated by the requirements of the country as a civic obligation. Noting the Government’s indication that civic obligations included community cooperation, the Committee requested information on the types of physical or intellectual work which may be exacted for the purpose of community cooperation.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the civic obligation of “community cooperation” are those obligations codified in sections 13, 14, 15 and 44 of the Village Affairs Act of 1924. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that the task of village administration has changed significantly since the enactment of the Village Affairs Act in 1924 and that a new draft Village Affairs Bill has been developed, taking into consideration the views of concerned parties.

In this regard, the Committee recalls that minor communal services may be excluded from the scope of the Convention only if certain criteria are met: (i) the services must be “minor services”, i.e. relating primarily to maintenance work and, in exceptional cases, to the erection of certain buildings intended to improve the social conditions of the population of the community itself; (ii) the services must be performed in the direct interest of the community and not relate to the execution of works intended to benefit a wider group; and (iii) the members of the community itself, i.e. the community which has to perform the services, or their “direct” representative (e.g. the village council) must have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services (General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 281). The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Village Affairs Bill only permits minor communal services performed in the direct interest of the community, following consultation with the community, in conformity with Article 2(2)(e) of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the Village Affairs Bill, once it has been adopted.