Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2002, publiée 91ème session CIT (2003)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

Article 6, paragraph 1(b). In its previous comments, the Committee drew to the attention of the Government to the fact that the transfer of foreign workers working in the private sector from the Employees’ Social Security Scheme (ESS) to the Workmen’s Compensation Scheme was not in conformity with Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Convention. One of the principal differences was that, under the new scheme, foreign workers were provided with a lump sum and no longer with a monthly payment. A review of the two schemes had in fact shown that the level of benefits in case of industrial accident, provided under the ESS, was substantially higher than that provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Scheme. Even though the Workmen’s Compensation Scheme was amended in 1996 this merely resulted in an increase in the ceiling on lump-sum benefits and did not transform the benefit into a periodic payment equivalent to that provided to nationals under the ESS. In 1998 the Government had indicated that it was contemplating a review of the situation regarding the coverage of foreign workers under the ESS and that it was proposing amendments to the Social Security Act of 1969 in this regard.

In its last report, the Government reiterates its main arguments for introducing the lump-sum system of payment. However, the Government does not give elements of scientific comparison of the benefits which would be awarded according to each system in identical circumstances. In this perspective, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the lump sum referred to should correspond to the actuarial equivalent of the periodical payments involved.

The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will make every effort to provide detailed information and take the necessary action in order to ascertain that migrant workers do not receive treatment which is less favourable than that applied to nationals.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2003.]