Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2019, Publicación: 109ª reunión CIT (2021)

Convenio sobre la discriminación (empleo y ocupación), 1958 (núm. 111) - Honduras (Ratificación : 1960)

Otros comentarios sobre C111

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), the Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CTH), and the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), provided with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the COHEP, received on 2 September 2019 and the response of the Government received on 9 October 2019.

Legislative reforms. The Committee notes the adoption of a new Penal Code, through Decree No. 130-2017 (“Penal Code”) and the Labour Inspection Act, through Decree No. 178-2016 (“Labour Inspection Act”). The Committee also notes the indication in COHEP’s observations that that a tripartite consensus was reached on draft regulations pursuant to the Labour Inspection Act. Further to its previous comments on the possible revision of the Labour Code and the Equal Opportunities for Women Act (LIOM), the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the National Institute for Women (INAM) has initiated a proposal to reform the LIOM and that, in this respect, several meetings have been held with representatives of various State institutions and civil society. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication in its report on the application of the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), that, in order to reform labour legislation, the Economic and Social Council (CES) first has to be informed of the intention to reform or amend the Labour Code and that the authorities were notified so that they could begin taking the necessary measures to harmonize labour legislation with international Conventions. The Committee also notes that, in its observations, the COHEP indicates that no employers’ organization has been convened to analyse the LIOM reform, nor has the proposed reform been submitted to the CES. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Articles 1 and 3(b) of the Convention. Definition of discrimination in legislation. The Committee notes from the provisions of the new Penal Code on the prohibition of discrimination (sections 212 and 295), that: (1) they cover four of the seven grounds listed in Article 1(1) (a) of the Convention (race, sex, religion and political opinion (or ideology)) and 17 other grounds of discrimination (beliefs, language, ethnicity, national origin, indigenous people or people of African descent, place of residence, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender considerations, civil status, family or economic situation, age, illness, disability and pregnancy); (2) they do not refer to discrimination based on colour; (3) they prohibit discrimination based on “national origin” and “economic status”, which are terms that may be more limited than the criteria in the Convention, of “national extraction” and “social origin”; and (4) they prohibit “denying a service to which a person is entitled” and “presuming to exercise legal or trade union representation”, which does not necessarily cover all aspects of employment and occupation protected by the Convention. The Committee also notes that the relevant provisions of the Labour Code (sections 12 and 367): (1) do not define the term “discrimination”; (2) do not include references to the grounds of colour and national extraction; (3) only prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex with respect to wages; and (4) prohibit discrimination based on “economic situation”, which could be more restrictive than the term, “social origin”, contained in the Convention. The Committee recalls that having clear and comprehensive definitions of what constitutes discrimination in employment and occupation is instrumental in identifying and addressing the many manifestations in which it may occur (see General Survey, 2012, on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 743). The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to consider, in the context of the possible reform of the Labour Code, the inclusion of a definition of the term “discrimination” and the enumeration of at least all the grounds listed in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 212 of the Penal Code in the workplace.

Sexual harassment. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to adopt legislative measures to prohibit both quid pro quo and hostile working environment harassment and to provide information on the results of the “No means No” campaign. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the INAM will propose the inclusion of regulations on hostile working environment harassment in the context of the reform of the LIOM. The COHEP also indicates in its observations that, in June 2018, a bill was proposed to combat violence and harassment in employment and in education. According to the COHEP, the bill presents procedural inconsistencies and could have an adverse effect on the private sector. While it notes this information, with regard to the legislation in force, the Committee notes that: (1) the Labour Code does not cover quid pro quo sexual harassment, (2) sections 60 of the LIOM and 30 of the LIOM regulations refer to sexual harassment without defining it; and (3) the definition of sexual harassment in section 294 of the Penal Code does not cover sexual harassment. The Committee also notes that, in their observations, the CGT and CTH indicate that there should be broader knowledge of the statistics on complaints of sexual harassment. Concerning the results of the “No means No” campaign, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that workshops on the issue of sexual harassment were held in the public and private sectors. It also notes COHEP’s indication that it is unaware of the results of the “No means No” campaign. The Committee therefore requests the Government to: (1) adopt legislative measures to prohibit both types of sexual harassment (quid pro quo and hostile working environment harassment); (2) provide statistical data on complaints of sexual harassment (civil and penal) and on the action taken as a result of those complaints; and (3) continue providing information on the campaigns conducted to combat sexual harassment.

Articles 2 and 3. National equality policy. Further to its previous comment, in which it noted that the National Agreement, which envisaged equality measures for a range of population groups, was no longer in force, the Committee notes that, in its report, the Government and the COHEP refer to the adoption of the Joint Framework for Action (MAC), implementing the National Employment Policy of Honduras (PNEH), which were both approved on a tripartite basis in the CES. In this respect, the Committee notes that the PNEH promotes equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation and refers explicitly to the following grounds of discrimination: race, sex, age, religion, political opinion and social origin. The Committee also notes that the principles of equality and non-discrimination are cross-cutting themes of the Joint Framework for Action. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Sectoral Office for Development and Social Inclusion (GSDIS) was established to facilitate coordination between State departments, with the institutional objective of “generating opportunities for well-being and developing skills and abilities to improve the living conditions of families in situations of extreme and relative poverty, vulnerability, exclusion and labour market risk, and with a view to achieving active inclusion in society.” The Government also indicates that the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion (SEDIS) comprises, among others, the Directorate of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples (DINAFROH) and the Directorate for Disability. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, particularly statistics, on the monitoring and assessment of the impact of the National Employment Policy of Honduras and Joint Framework for Action in relation to equality and non discrimination.

Articles 2 and 3(b) and (e). National gender equality policy. Elimination of stereotypes, and assistance programmes. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to take specific measures to ensure gender equality in access to employment and training and to eliminate stereotypes relating to the tasks ascribed to women and to men. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the adoption of the Second Gender Equality and Equity Plan of Honduras 2010-2022 (II PIEGH) and the creation of a technical standing committee to implement the plan. The Committee notes that both the National Employment Policy of Honduras and the II PIEGH envisage the adoption of specific measures for the vocational training and inclusion of women (such as skills training, access to credit, workshops, etc.). The Committee also notes that, according to the information available on the website of governmental programme, “City Woman”, four permanent City Women’s Centres (CCM) and one mobile CCM that offer, among other services, assistance in matters relating to economic independence, protection of rights and education. In its observations, COHEP refers to various initiatives by businesses aimed at promoting gender equality. COHEP indicates that: (1) the “Principles of Gender Equality and Equity in Business”, promoting an inclusive corporate culture, were adopted; (2) a number of interview-based videos were made to inspire more companies to break free from gender stereotypes; (3) in collaboration with the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH), a market systems diagnostic survey was conducted, according to which companies that offer more non-wage benefits (annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave, etc.) report a higher percentage of employed women; (4) it worked with the ILO to prepare a report, “Women in business management in Honduras”, according to which 50 per cent of the companies surveyed implement a number of initiatives for women’s equal advancement, 46 per cent implement equal wage policies, and the main impediments to women accessing managerial positions are stereotypes regarding the skills and role of women, compatibility with family responsibilities, the lack of commitment of leaders and flexibility of hours and/or travel. According to COHEP, these results highlight a cultural problem in the country and society’s vision of the work-family balance which doubles the burden on women. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the activities of the City Women Centre (CCM) to eliminate gender stereotypes and to specify whether those activities also aim at combating sexual harassment in the workplace. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the other specific measures envisaged or taken to eliminate stereotypes and improve women’s access to a broader range of jobs, and to promote gender equality in the workplace.

Articles 2 and 3(b) and (f). National gender equality policy in the maquila. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote gender equality in the maquila industry and in the Employment and Economic Development Zones (ZEDE). The Committee notes that the Government, CGT, CTH and COHEP indicate that the Employment and Economic Development Zones are not operating in the country. With regard to the application of the principle in the maquila industry, the Committee notes that the Government and COHEP have provided the same report by the Honduran Association of Maquiladoras (AHM). In its report, the AHM notes, for example, that: (1) with technical support from the ILO, a good practice guide to promote equality and combat discrimination in the industry has been prepared; (2) it launched a campaign in collaboration with the ILO in order to eradicate violence in the world of work; (3) it ran training sessions in companies in industry on the issues of sexual harassment and workplace psychological harassment; (4) it signed the Agreement of the “City Woman” Presidential Programme, which includes the objective of women’s development and financial independence; and (5) it signed the Tripartite Agreement for the Promotion, Investment, Generation, Protection and Development of Decent Employment, Health, Access to Credit, Debt Consolidation and Access to Housing of Workers in the Honduran Maquila Textile Sector and other companies in the Free Zone, signed on 13 December 2018 (maquila industry agreement), which includes clauses on the promotion of gender equality and the prevention of violence and harassment in the workplace. While noting this information, the Committee observes that, on the issue of discrimination against women in law and practice, the Working Group of the United Nations Human Rights Council reported that women workers in the maquila sector often suffer from “harassment, exploitation, psychologic pressure based on high productivity objectives, longer working hours, few resting times, little time to eat and no access to drinking water, safety and health” and recommended the Government to ensure that labour inspectors conduct independent and thorough investigations in the maquila into the working, safety and health conditions, and that effective referral mechanisms are available to all workers (A/HRC/41/33/Add.1, 8 May 2019, paragraphs 41 and 76(d) and (e)). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the action taken in the maquila sector in order to promote gender equality in employment and occupation, and on the action and resources available to combat discrimination in employment and occupation in that sector. In this regard, the Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the work of labour inspectors in the maquila sector, as well as on the number of complaints received on discrimination in the sector and the action taken as a result of those complaints.

Articles 2 and 3(f). Gender equality policy in agriculture and in rural areas. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote gender equality in the Honduran agricultural sector, particularly in relation to the equitable distribution of land title. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the National Agrarian Institute has created a number of mechanisms to promote the participation of women under equal conditions, in particular with relation to: the granting of land titles, the organization of groups of rural workers, the implementation of productive projects and training. The Committee also notes the statistics provided by the Government on the land titles issued between 1 January 2016 and 20 March 2019 and observes that, according to those statistics, the number of land titles granted to women continues to be significantly lower than the number of titles granted to men (7,928 titles issued to men and 4,278 to women). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote gender equality in employment and occupation in the agricultural sector and in rural areas, as well as statistical information on the impact of those measures (such as information disaggregated by sex on the holding of land title).

Article 3(b) and (e). Educational programmes and occupational guidance and training activities for indigenous women and women of African descent. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to improve education, vocational training and increase the labour market participation of indigenous women and women of African descent. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that since 2018, the Directorate of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples (DINAFROH) has been helping to draft the Policy on Indigenous Women and Women of African Descent and that the main components of the policy include political participation, education, culture and access to information and the economic rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran women. The Government also indicates that the DINAFROH has promoted the inclusion of indigenous women as beneficiaries of the governmental programme, “Solidarity Credit” to encourage the development of microenterprises and to boost community economies. The Government also refers to the holding of talks, workshops and meetings for indigenous and Afro-Honduran women. The Government indicates, for example, that DINARFROH, SEDIS and City Woman organized the “Honduras is a Woman” forum, within the framework of International Women’s Day. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that on 26 November 2018, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and the Redmiah Network of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Women, signed a cooperation agreement that will contribute to improving the conditions in which women involved in the network can exercise their political rights. Lastly, the Government indicates that, in the context of the Table on International Labour Standards of the CES, information was shared and discussed with the worker and employers’ sectors regarding the impact of the measures adopted on the education, the vocational training and the increase in the participation in the labour market of indigenous and Afro Honduran women. Noting this information, the Committee observes that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed concern at the multiple forms of racial discrimination that indigenous and Afro Honduran women continue to endure, reflected in impediments to their access to work and education, for example (CERD/C/HND/CO/6-8, 14 January 2019, paragraph 36). The Committee also notes the indication of the Working Group on discrimination against women in legislation and in practice of the United Nations Human Rights Council that there is insufficient data on women suffering intersectional forms of discrimination in order to serve as a basis for the formulation of specific policies (A/HRC/41/33/Add.1, 8 May 2019, paragraphs 61 and 62). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the collection of data on the multiple discriminations faced by indigenous and Afro-Honduran women in employment and occupation, and on the measures taken or envisaged in order to eliminate them.

Articles 2 and 3. National equality policy to combat discrimination on the grounds of race, colour and national extraction. The Committee notes that the public policy to combat racism and racial discrimination for the comprehensive development of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples (P-PIAH) 2016–2026 provides, for example, for the adoption of measures to ensure legal protection in the areas of equality and non-discrimination as well as an indicator system to measure policy results. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the public policy to combat racism and racial discrimination for the comprehensive development of the indigenous and Afro Honduran peoples (P-PIAH) 2016–2026.

General observation of 2018. With regard to the above issues, and in more general terms, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation on discrimination based on race, colour and national extraction which was adopted in 2018. In the general observation, the Committee notes with concern that discriminatory attitudes and stereotypes based on the race, colour or national extraction of men and women workers continue to hinder their participation in education, vocational training programmes and access to a wider range of employment opportunities, resulting in persisting occupational segregation and lower remuneration received for work of equal value. Furthermore, the Committee considers that it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated approach to tackling the obstacles and barriers faced by persons in employment and occupation because of their race, colour or national extraction, and to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for all. Such an approach should include the adoption of interlocking measures aimed at addressing gaps in education, training and skills, providing unbiased vocational guidance, recognizing and validating the qualifications obtained abroad, and valuing and recognizing traditional knowledge and skills that may be relevant both to accessing and advancing in employment and to engaging in an occupation. The Committee also recalls that, in order to be effective, these measures must include concrete steps, such as laws, policies, programmes, mechanisms and participatory processes, remedies designed to address prejudices and stereotypes and to promote mutual understanding and tolerance among all sections of the population. The Committee draws the Government's attention to its general observation of 2018 and requests the Government to provide information in response to the questions raised in that observation.

Articles 2 and 3(a) and (b). National equality policy for persons with HIV and AIDS. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to prevent and eradicate discrimination against persons with HIV and AIDS. With regard to the legal framework, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to measures provided for by the Special Act on HIV/AIDS (Decree No. 25-2015). The Government also indicates that it is preparing the regulations of the Special Act on HIV/AIDS. Concerning activities relating to the prevention of discrimination and stigmatization of persons with HIV, the Government indicates that it is working, including through the National Human Rights Council (CONADEH), on training public and private actors (national police, prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor’s office, health workers, inspectors from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (STSS), municipal decision-makers and human rights networks, etc.). Finally, with regard to the relevant coordination institutions, the Committee notes that: (1) the Government refers to the National AIDS Commission (CONASIDA); (2) COHEP indicates that it is part of the regional and national HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis Coordination Mechanisms (MCR and MCP-H), and the CONASIDA, but that none of these three bodies addresses measures to prevent and eradicate discrimination on the grounds of HIV or AIDS; and (3) the CGT and CTH note that the committees that used to deal with HIV and AIDS no longer exist. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to collaborate with employers’ and workers’ organizations in order to prepare and develop its equality policy for persons with HIV and AIDS.

National equality policy for persons with disabilities. Further to its previous request to provide information on all of the grounds of discrimination protected by the Convention, the Committee notes with interest the detailed information provided by the Government on the efforts made for the employment of persons with disabilities. In particular, the Committee notes the adoption of the following measures: (1) the improvement and relaunch of a computerized registration platform, “Empleate Plus”; (2) the establishment of the Working Group on the Labour Market Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, made up of representative organizations of civil society and governmental institutions; (3) the establishment of the National Labour Market Inclusion Committee, in which organizations of persons with disabilities, private companies and governmental institutions, including the STSS participate; (4) the preparation of a protocol on care for people with disabilities; and (5) job analysis to identify the physical, cognitive and sensory requirements for the performance of a job. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on the access to work of workers with disabilities (proportion of persons with disabilities who are employed, information on the job analyses, information on the use of complaints mechanisms in case of discrimination, etc.).

Enforcement. Labour inspection. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on labour inspection activities relating to discrimination and the action taken on the cases identified. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the inspection protocols do not contain sections focusing specifically on issues relating to discrimination. The Government also indicates that it is working on the preparation of action plans for labour inspectors that have an inclusive outlook in terms of gender equality; and that, in collaboration with the ILO, the National Labour Inspection Strategy was drafted and will be used to develop labour inspection activities and that it identifies specific parts of the country, as well as priority issues, with a focus on gender equality throughout. The Committee also notes COHEP’s indication that it requested the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) for information labour inspection notices, detailing the amounts of the fines imposed by the General Directorate of Inspection, but that it has not received that information. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the adoption of new inspection protocols, the number of inspections conducted relating to discrimination, the number of cases identified (by ground of discrimination) and the action taken on those cases (sanctions imposed and applied).