Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Sudan (Ratification: 1970)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes that the Government is in the process of preparing regulations concerning the jobs and occupations which are prohibited to women, to be adopted under sections 19 and 20 of the recently enacted Labour Code. The Committee takes this opportunity to invite the Government to consider the possibility of re-examining these provisions, in consultation with the social partners and, in particular, with women workers, with a view to assessing whether it is still necessary to prohibit the access of women to certain occupations, in view of the improvements in conditions of work, changing attitudes and also the adoption by the ILO of its 1985 resolution on equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women in employment; the Protocol of 1990 to the Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948 (No. 89); the Night Work Convention, 1990 (No. 171); and the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176), and the corresponding Recommendations. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the list of industries, occupations and jobs which are prohibited to women workers by the regulations which are currently being drafted. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Federation of Sudanese Women has challenged Decree No. 84/2000 (Wali Decree No. 84) in the Constitutional Court. The Decree was issued by the Governor of Khartoum, and envisaged prohibiting the employment of women in gas stations, hotels, restaurants and cafeterias. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the action taken by the Court as a result of this complaint and to provide it with a copy of the Court’s final decision, and of Decree No. 84/2000.

2. The Committee notes that the Government has referred the suggestions made by the Committee in its previous comment to the ministerial department responsible for matters relating to vocational training. These suggestions were designed to increase the participation of women in training centres, but also and in particular to facilitate their access to more varied types of training and therefore to a greater variety of jobs (literacy, out-of-school education for women, the development of childcare facilities, flexible training schedules, awareness-raising campaigns to promote women’s education and training, etc.). In this respect, the Committee notes the fact that girls now have greater access to technical trades, such as mechanics, computer processing, electricity and technical drawing. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the specific measures taken to promote the participation of women in varied training programmes and their access to employment and occupation.

3. The Committee notes that the Government has not replied to the question that it raised concerning the impact of the Passports and Immigration Act, 1970, which, among other things, requires the approval of the husband or guardian for women who wish to travel abroad. Since travel abroad may prove to be necessary in the context of training or a job, the Committee once again requests an answer to the question of whether a woman must obtain the approval of her husband or guardian when she must travel abroad for professional or educational reasons.

4. In view of the Government’s reaffirmation of its commitment to promote equality between men and women in employment and occupation, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether it intends to extend to male workers certain advantages, such as optional overtime hours (section 20(3)) or longer rest periods (section 43(2)) accorded to women by the Labour Code.

5. In view of the Government’s indication in its previous report that the rare cases of racial discrimination brought before the courts principally concern conditions of work, the Committee had requested it to indicate the matters which had been raised in the abovementioned legal actions. Since the Government’s reply merely reiterates its previous statements, the Committee would be grateful if in future it would provide copies of the decisions handed down by the courts in cases of discrimination in employment and occupation on grounds of race, as well as on grounds of colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin.

6. The Committee notes the 1995 Public Service Regulations, and particularly Chapter 4 (selection and appointment) and Chapter 13 (promotion). In this respect, it wishes to recall the importance of the State’s responsibility to pursue a policy of equality of opportunity and treatment for jobs which are subject to its control, particularly with a view to ensuring the representation of minority groups (according to their race, colour, national extraction, religion, etc.) and a broader representation of women. In addition to the overall concern for their participation, there is also the concern to ensure the representation of members of these groups at all levels, including at higher levels of employment. Noting that the above Regulations do not address the issue of training during employment, which broadly determines possibilities for further promotion, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to promote training during the course of careers. It also requests the Government to provide statistics on the composition of the staff of the public service, disaggregated by sex, and on the distribution of members of vulnerable groups in the different sectors and at the different levels of the public service.