Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) - Dominican Republic (Ratification: 1973)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place at the Conference Committee in 1989 on the application of Conventions Nos. 95 and 105. It also refers to its observation on Convention No. 105.

A. Adoption of legislation to give effect to Convention No. 95

In comments that it has been making for a number of years, the Committee has drawn attention to the need to adopt legislative measures to give full effect to Articles 2; 3; 5; 6; 8, paragraph 2; 10; 13, paragraph 2; 14 and 15(b), of the Convention. For its part, in paragraph 543 of its report presented in 1983, the Commission of Inquiry concerning the employment of Haitian workers on sugar plantations of the Dominican Republic pointed out that legislative changes are required to ensure the observance of the Convention, particularly in order to prohibit wage payments in the form of negotiable vouchers, to require the payment of wages directly to the worker, to establish a general prohibition on employers limiting the freedom of the worker to dispose of his wages, to regulate the assignment of wages and to provide for information of workers regarding the conditions governing their wages and deductions from wages.

In a report received before the 1989 Conference, the Government indicated that the competent labour authorities were considering urgent and necessary measures which they considered adopting to give effect to the above Articles of the Convention, in particular amendments to the legislation on each of the points referred to above, as well as other points concerning the employment of sugar plantation workers.

The Committee notes that, since the 1989 Conference, the Government has provided no report on the provisions adopted, or on any other measure taken to give effect to the Convention.

B. Protection of wages in sugar plantations

1. Measures to guarantee observance of the statutory minimum wage. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, in Resolution No. 1/88 of 10 June 1988, the National Wages Commission established, with retroactive effect to 1 April 1988, for agricultural workers engaged in any activity, a minimum wage of RD$12.00 for a working day of eight hours. In the case of piece-work employment contracts or contracts for specific tasks, the minimum wages established "shall be reasonably guaranteed".

The Committee also noted that, according to the rates established on 4 April 1988 by Memorandum-Circular No. 18 of the State Sugar Board (CEA), cane-cutters henceforth were to earn RD$6 per tonne, plus an incentive bonus ("incentivo") of RD$0.60, payable at the end of the harvest season to workers still at their jobs, plus a productivity bonus of RD$0.50, payable to cane-cutters who have cut more than 28 metric tonnes in two weeks. It appeared from the findings of the Commission of Inquiry and the direct contacts mission which went to the Dominican Republic and Haiti in October 1988 at the request of the two Governments, that very few cane-cutters could, in an eight-hour working day, cut nearly two tonnes of sugar-cane, with the result that, for most cane-cutters, the rates established by the CEA in April 1988 were below the minimum wage established by the National Wages Commission. The rates for the cutting and transport of sugar-cane for the 1988-89 harvest had still not been communicated to the ILO at the end of the harvest.

The Committee also noted CEA Circular No. 8 of 20 October 1988 issuing instructions to the administrations of plantations regarding the conclusion of specific contracts with daily workers known as "ajusteros", who are employed by the task in other agricultural work (paid at lower rates) than sugar-cane harvesting. This Circular includes a contract form and obliges the administrator of the plantation ("mayordomo"), at the worker's request, to describe the surface of a field and give the wage rates per task and per day. According to the communication by the United Workers' Organisation (CGT) of 3 January 1989, this Circular was unknown to the workers and was not applied.

The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken to ensure that all workers employed in plantations were paid the statutory minimum wage. It asked the Government to supply soon full information on the wage rates established by the CEA for future harvests; on the practical implementation of CEA Circular No. 8 of 20 October 1988, with indications of the number of contracts concluded and the daily earnings of workers employed in the various tasks; on the measures adopted to ensure observance of the statutory minimum wage in plantations not belonging to the CEA; and on any review of the statutory minimum wage in agriculture.

The Committee notes that most of this information has not been supplied. With regard to the wage rates established by the CEA for future harvests, a Government representative referred, before the Conference Committee in 1989, to a Circular (No. 111) of 11 November 1988 establishing the wages for the 1988-89 harvest, the text of which has still not yet been communicated. According to the above Circular the price per tonne of sugar-cane for 1988-89 was RD$7.50, or RD$8.50 if the incentive bonus offered for the cutting of a specific tonnage is included. The Government representative also referred to the mechanisation of harvesting, but did not specify whether the cane harvested using mechanised or semi-mechanised methods was remunerated at the same rates. Referring to a study conducted on the state plantations, which was not communicated to the ILO, the Government representative compared the total weight of the harvest with the average monthly number of cane-cutters, which gave a daily average of 2.14 tonnes of cane per cutter. He deduced from this that cane-cutters earned much more than the minimum daily wage of RD$12.00.

In this connection, the Committee must point out that the average wage calculations presented by the Government representative are based neither on actual records of wages effectively paid to the various cane-cutters nor even on the total amount of all wages paid by the CEA to all the cane-cutters. Moreover, they do not take account of the number of hours worked per day in excess of eight or of the differences in output, not only between individual workers but also from one plantation to another and between different harvesting methods and harvest seasons.

The Committee recalls the recommendations in paragraphs 533 to 536 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry concerning, among other matters, observance by the administrations of sugar plantations of the statutory minimum wage which should be guaranteed to each worker, irrespective of his output, for a working day of eight hours, with a proportional increase for longer working days, without deductions for the periods during which regularly employed workers are prevented from working by factors that are not of their fault. This involves the adoption of more uniform and regular hours for cane-cutters, including the establishment of a reasonable limit to the working day.

With regard to the other information requested from the Government, the Committee notes the affirmation of the Government representative at the Conference Committee that CEA Circular No. 8 of 20 October 1988 (concerning the contracts of the daily workers known as "ajusteros") referred to by the United Workers' Organisation (CGT) in its communication of 3 January 1989 has been duly observed and widely distributed among cane workers. According to the Government representative, all necessary administrative measures have been taken to make sure that all workers employed in CEA operations receive the statutory minimum wage in accordance with the 1988-89 rates. The labour and CEA authorities planned to supply the ILO with complete information on the practical application of Circular No. 8, including the number of contracts and the daily earnings of workers employed in different tasks, and the measures taken to ensure that non-CEA plantations observe the agricultural minimum wage. The Committee notes that no information has been communicated either on these points or on any revision of the statutory minimum wage in agriculture.

Thus, the Committee is not in possession of any information enabling it to ascertain whether the statutory minimum wage is effectively paid to cane-cutters and piece workers ("ajusteros"), in either the state plantations or private plantations.

2. Weighing the sugar-cane. In its previous comments, the Committee also referred to the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry, in paragraph 537 of its report, that the accuracy of the weighing of the cane that has been cut should be verified by official inspection bodies outside the plantation and by the workers concerned or their representatives. The Committee noted with interest CEA Circular No. 9 of 20 October 1988 establishing a general system for weighing cane, which contains a series of rules to ensure the accuracy of weighing, without any deductions, in the presence of the transporter, cane-cutter or his representative and under the supervision of the central authorities of the CEA. In addition, a conversion table for weights and wage rates must be displayed so that the workers may consult it. According to the above-mentioned communication by the CGT, dated 3 January 1989, this Circular is unknown to cane-cutters and is not applied. The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary measures would be taken for the practical implementation of this Circular and that the Government would supply full information thereon and on any other similar measures taken in plantations not belonging to the CEA.

The Committee notes the statement made by the Government representative before the Conference Committee, that the cane is weighed in the presence of the cane-cutter who receives two chits (showing the number of the cart, the name of the cutter, the date and the exact weight of the cut cane), as proof of the work performed (as provided for in above-mentioned CEA Circular No. 9). The Government representative gave the exact number of weighers at each mill. He also stated that in case of difficulties in the weighing process, the chief weigher intervenes to try to resolve the problems; all the same, inspectors had shown that it was difficult to cheat the cane-cutters, since they had garnered great experience over many years and knew the precise weight of the cane cut. According to the Government representative, only 12 weighers had been dismissed for committing irregularities in carrying out their duties; this indicated that the circulars issued by the CEA were being observed in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide a copy of the inspection reports mentioned, as well as full information on the measures taken in the plantations that do not belong to the CEA.

3. Articles 3 and 7, paragraph 1 of the Convention (payment of wages in cash, and enterprise stores). In paragraph 538 of its report, the Commission of Inquiry recommended that the current practice in plantations belonging to the State and those of the Casa Vicini of permitting the negotiation of wage tickets by workers in favour of third parties be discontinued and that, instead, arrangements be instituted to enable the workers to receive cash advances, as was already the case at La Romana. There would be no objection to allowing workers to cash their wage tickets at stores to be established on the state-owned plantations in collaboration with the Price Stabilisation Institute, on the understanding that this would take the form of an advanced payment of wages by the employer to the worker and would be made without any deduction or discount.

In 1989, the Committee noted the indications provided to the direct contacts mission by the representatives of the CEA to the effect that vouchers would be exchanged for cash each week, and not every fortnight as occurred previously, and that while awaiting payment workers would be able to use their vouchers to buy basic products at the official price in stores operated by the CEA in collaboration with the Price Stabilisation Institute. The Committee also noted with interest a communication of the CEA of 4 October 1988 providing for the system of non-profit-making stores to be extended, both regarding sales for cash and sales covered by advance vouchers (CEA Form No. 1) or a card for the payment of daily workers. The same communication specifies that, when cutting, gathering or transportation vouchers are presented in order to make purchases at the store, change shall be returned in cash without any deduction.

The Committee noted, however, that these efforts would be worthless if wages remained excessively low and were paid late, so that the worker was obliged to spend his vouchers in the store to cover his needs. The Committee also noted the observation made by the direct contacts mission that a private store operating in a sugar plantation camp ("batey") was better stocked than that of the Price Stabilisation Institute and that the latter only accepted payment in cash, and asked the Government to provide detailed information on the implementation in practice of the system of non-profit-making stores envisaged by the CEA and the system for the payment of wages and advances, and on any similar measures taken in private plantations.

In its report received before the 1989 Conference, the Government refers to the following measures adopted in the CEA enterprises and plantations: in collaboration with the Price Stabilisation Institute (INESPRE) various public stores have been set up; in collaboration with the Price Control Department, a price list for essential goods has been drawn up; the CEA has substantially increased the production of groceries for sale to its workers as part of the recent agricultural diversification plan; sugar workers can validate their wage advance chitties in CEA plantation shops in collaboration with the INESPRE without any reduction or discount; the Price Control Department regularly inspects private and CEA stores to ensure prices are fixed and to avoid speculation and usury to the prejudice of the workers; the CEA has considerably increased the network of non-profit stores both for cash sales and through advance forms (CEA Form No. 1) or letter of payment for daily workers; businesses in and around CEA enterprises have to pay all the rest of the money due to sugar workers when they pay for purchases with written proof of what has been cut, collected or transported; all businesses (private or CEA) operating in or around the enterprises and plantations have to accept cash or written proof of what has been cut, collected or transported; to avoid arrears of payments of sugar workers and prevent them having to pay with chitties or written proofs of wage advances, in businesses, stores, shops or public selling points providing essentials, payment of wages is made or cancelled weekly.

In his statement to the Conference Committee in 1989, the Government representative stressed that the works stores, previously under private ownership, which had lent itself to speculation, were now owned by the State and offered prices for food and medicines which were within the reach of the workers and which were controlled by the Government Price Stabilisation Institute. He added that the labour inspectors had been asked to make a detailed report on the situation of agricultural workers on plantations with a view to improving the situation of workers of Dominican Republic and Haitian origins who were resident in the country.

The Committee takes note of this information on the main features of the CEA's system of works stores and payment of wages. It hopes that the information previously requested on the effective implementation of this system will also be supplied, including a copy of the inspection reports drawn up by the Price Control Department and the Labour Inspectorate.

Furthermore, the Committee again expresses the hope that detailed information will also be supplied on any corresponding measures taken in the Casa Vicini plantations.

4. Article 7, paragraph 2 (services intended for workers). In paragraph 539 of its report, the Commission of Inquiry asked for information not only on non-profit-making stores but also on the implementation of the CEA's plan to grow food crops on its plantations for the benefit of the workers, and any corresponding measures on privately owned plantations. In 1989, the Committee took note of a communication prepared by the Directorate of the CEA's social development programme on a food programme involving the production of food, fish farming, the rearing of chickens, pigs and rabbits, the sale of beef at a low price, people's stores and the sale and distribution of flour and other food programmes; and programmes for drinking water and sanitary facilities, nutrition, health and education; the Committee expressed the hope that the Government would provide detailed information on the progress achieved in this respect not only by the CEA but also in private plantations, particularly with regard to the allocation of land for collective or family food growing ("conucos"), in accordance with the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry in paragraphs 516 and 539 of its report. It also expressed the hope that the Government would supply information on any measures taken by the public authorities to supply to camps ("bateyes") on CEA plantations as well as those on private plantations the services that should not be at the expense of the employer, such as education.

In its report which was received before the 1989 Conference, the Government referred to the Casa Romana and CEA programmes for diversifying agriculture and stock raising and to the extension of other programmes such as drinking-water, sanitary facilities, nutrition, health and education programmes. In his statement to the Conference Committee in 1989, the Government representative added that, with regard to the cane-cutters' housing, the labour inspectors had found that in plantations administered by the State, there were adequate sanitary facilities, works stores and child care centres and that labour inspectors had been asked to make a detailed report on the situation of agricultural workers on plantations. In its report which was received before the 1989 Conference, the Government also stated that it would shortly be submitting a full report to the ILO on the efforts undertaken and the results obtained not only by the CEA but also by the private enterprises, with regard to the programmes for agricultural diversification and social assistance, compulsory or otherwise, for employees.

Since this report has not been received, the Committee again expresses the hope that the detailed information awaited on the services of the CEA and private enterprises will shortly be communicated, along with copies of labour inspection reports and information on any measures that have been taken by the public authorities to supply to plantation camps ("bateyes") of the CEA as well as those of private plantations the services that should not be at the expense of the employer, such as education.

5. Deferred payment of a part of wages. In paragraph 541 of its report, the Commission of Inquiry recommended the abolition of the imposed system of deferred payment of that part of cane-cutters' remuneration designated as "incentive pay" then in operation on the plantations of the State and of the Casa Vicini, and the incorporation of "incentive pay" in the workers' wage, to be paid regularly on the days fixed for that purpose.

The Committee notes the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1989 that, according to CEA Circular No. 111 of 11 November 1988, incentive bonuses for cutting a specified number of tonnes are currently paid at the same time as the wage. The Government representative also referred to an incentive bonus paid, as previously, at the end of the harvest to each worker cutting more than 150 tonnes. As already pointed out under point 2 above, the text of CEA Circular No. 111 of 11 November 1988 has not yet been communicated and no information has been supplied on the Casa Vicini.

6. Article 14 (workers' information). Reference has already been made in points 2 and 3 above to the provisions of CEA Circulars Nos. 8 and 9 of 20 October 1988 concerning the provision of information to daily workers, known as "ajusteros", performing work by the task, and to sugar-cane workers presenting cane to be weighed, regarding their wage conditions. More generally, CEA Circular No. 7 of the same date, which was addressed to the administrators of plantations, issuing preliminary recommendations and specifications regarding the engagement of agricultural workers for the 1988-89 harvest provides, in point 3, that each administration has to ensure the display in an appropriate place of the contractual conditions that are to be fulfilled, both by the plantation and by the agricultural worker under contract; these contractual conditions should, among others, include wages, living conditions in sugar refineries, medical assistance, facilities for the purchase of foodstuffs, etc., and labour discipline. According to the communication of the CGT of 3 January 1989, this Circular was unknown to the workers and was not applied.

In its report which was received before the 1989 Conference, the Government indicates that it is common practice in the country to give workers appropriate and easily understandable information on their conditions of wages, a breakdown of how wages are calculated, and the time and place of payment. In the CEA, Circulars Nos. 8 and 9 of 20 October 1988 are satisfactorily applied, guaranteeing information on wage conditions to workers known as "ajusteros" who work by the day or the task, and to workers presenting cut cane by weight, in Spanish and if necessary in Creole. In each CEA enterprise the management displays in prominent places texts, in Spanish and Creole, showing the terms of employment of contracts binding on the employer and the agricultural worker covering such subjects as wages, living conditions, medical assistance, food facilities, labour discipline, etc. Every CEA enterprise also gives orally full information in Spanish and Creole when a worker is engaged or at work.

The Committee takes due note of this information. It observes that the Government has not provided particulars of the provisions that it may have taken to ensure effective implementation of the above-mentioned measures in the CEA plantations or corresponding measures in other sugar plantations.

C. Enforcement

In paragraph 544 of its report, the Commission of Inquiry pointed out the need for effective administrative services for the enforcement of legislation through which ratified international labour Conventions are to be applied. In relation to the employment of workers on Dominican plantations, the primary responsibility of ensuring such enforcement must rest upon the Government of the Dominican Republic. The Commission of Inquiry recommended that labour inspection services of the Ministry of Labour be developed so as to be an effective instrument for ensuring observance of labour laws and of the workers' rights on the sugar plantations.

The Committee noted in 1989, from the report of the direct contacts mission, that the supervision of all sugar production operations in its own plantations, including their labour aspects, was provided by a central State Sugar Board service. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would supply detailed information on any activities of the inspection services of the Ministry of Labour in state and private plantations and the results obtained with regard to the observance of workers' rights, including those respecting wages.

In its report which was received before the 1989 Conference, the Government indicates that the labour authorities have strengthened inspection services in the CEA, Casa Vicini and the Central Romana, in order to guarantee sugar-workers their rights. The CEA has limited its inspection functions to plantation work: cutting and transport of cane, sugar-milling and production, the Agricultural Diversification Programme, etc. Living and working conditions in CEA enterprises and plantations are inspected by the Labour Ministry's inspectorate which also inspects the enterprises and plantations of the Casa Vicini and the Central Romana. In his statement to the 1989 Conference Committee, the Government representative added that there had been a lack of labour inspectors and a budget deficit in the Labour Ministry; 60 posts for labour inspectors had now been created in order to overcome these shortcomings. These labour inspectors were employed under sections 390 and 400 of the Labour Code in order to effectively enforce the application of the provisions of that Code, especially on the sugar plantations of the State and on the different private plantations. These inspectors were to ensure, inter alia, that the minimum wage is paid to agricultural workers, and that the measures adopted by the State Sugar Board (CEA) to improve the situation of Dominican and Haitian labourers are being applied, in particular that workers are paid the incentive bonuses before the end of the harvest.

In its report on the application of Convention No. 105, received before the 1989 Conference, the Government also indicated that, in compliance with the recommendation in paragraph 544 of the 1983 report of the Commission of Inquiry, the State Secretariat for Labour has intensified its inspection services in the sugar plantations and refineries, both state-owned and private, in order to ensure application of labour law and observance of the rights of both national and foreign workers employed in agricultural work and sugar-cane cutting, collection and transport operations. The Government added that, in due course, reports would be forwarded on the results of the plan for regular visits to both the state and private sugar plantations and refineries, in order to improve the effectiveness of these services and on the complaints received and irregularities noted and the sanctions imposed in cases of violations of agricultural workers' rights. Furthermore, the Government representative at the Conference Committee undertook to send a detailed report on the progress achieved by the new labour inspectors, as soon as he returned to his country.

The Committee notes that this information has not been received.

The Committee expresses its deep concern over the contradiction between the stated intentions of the Government and the absence of information to enable it to ascertain any real progress in the implementation of measures to ensure observance of the Convention. [The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.]