Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Dominican Republic (Ratification: 1956)

1. With regard to the situation of Haitian workers on sugar-cane plantations in the Dominican Republic, the Committee refers the Government to its comments on Convention No. 105.

2. Prison labour. In earlier comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 65 of Act No. 224 respecting prison rules, under which prison workshops may be contracted out to employers, private individuals or enterprises if the State is unable to set them up or operate them.

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no information on this matter and recalls that under Article 2, paragraph 2(c) of the Convention, prison labour does not constitute forced labour provided that it is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the person concerned is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

The Committee has pointed out that prison labour for private individuals may be compatible with the Convention to the extent that the labour relationship can be assimilated to a free labour relationship, in other words, if the persons concerned voluntarily accept such employment and subject to appropriate guarantees such as the payment of normal wages and social security, consent of trade unions, etc.

The Committee notes that under section 57 of the Act respecting prison rules, work shall be compulsory for any prisoner convicted by a final decision and that anyone refusing to work shall be punished by disciplinary sanctions.

The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the conditions of the work carried out in prison workshops contracted out to employers, private individuals or enterprises, as regards the consent of the prisoners to such employment relationships, the level of remuneration and the other conditions of work such as working hours, social security, etc. The Committee asks the Government to state whether there is a work contract between the prisoner and the employer and, if so, to provide a copy of such contract.

3. Freedom of workers in the service of the State to terminate their employment. The Committee noted the Government's earlier information to the effect that there were no provisions establishing criteria for the acceptance of voluntary retirement of members of the armed forces but that, in practice, servicemen other than officers undertake to serve for four years, after which they may retire voluntarily. In the case of officers, acceptance of retirement depends on the Head of State.

The Committee asked the Government to provide information on cases where applications from officers of the armed forces were refused, and observed that leaving the acceptance of voluntary retirement to the discretion of the Head of State did not appear to guarantee the freedom of officers to leave on their own initiative. As for servicemen other than officers, the four-year period does not appear to be compatible with the notion of the "reasonable period required for the termination of the labour relationship".

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not contain the information requested and hopes that the Government will provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that members of the armed forces may leave the service, in peacetime, by means of notice or at certain intervals.