Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Home Work Convention, 1996 (No. 177) - Netherlands (Ratification: 2002)

Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention. National policy on home work and equality of treatment between homeworkers and other wage earners. The Committee notes the observations of the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) which essentially reiterate views expressed in earlier communications. According to the FNV, the position of homeworkers is not as positive as the Government attempts to describe it in its report; whereas higher-educated workers performing telework may well be protected by labour contracts, workers performing low-skilled jobs very often do not enjoy such protection as they are engaged on a task contract and are remunerated on piece-rate or performance‑based. The FNV adds that even when a labour contract exists, many homeworkers do not fulfil the criteria for health, disability and unemployment insurance (i.e. work at least on two days per week, contract at least for 30 days and earnings representing at least 40 per cent of the minimum wage), while many collective agreements specifically exclude homeworkers from their scope. The FNV considers that the number of teleworkers and homeworkers is increasing, and that given such developments in the labour market a specific policy on telework and homework is required, especially for the protection of low-skilled homeworkers.

In addition, the Committee notes the comments of the National Federation of Christian Trade Unions (CNV) according to which the Government has not produced any solid arguments or facts to support its conclusion that the situation of homeworkers does not call for further measures. The CNV accordingly considers that more information is necessary.

Finally, the Committee notes the comments made by the Trade Union Federation for Middle and Higher Level Employees (MHP) which basically draw attention to the problem of enforcement of homeworkers’ rights. Recalling that the Government openly admits that labour inspection services do not actively inspect homeworkers because they are difficult to identify, the MHP maintains that labour law must be so structured as to provide effective protection to homeworkers, who in most cases are not assertive, do not want to draw attention to themselves by starting procedures against their employer, and have become too disengaged from the regular labour market. The MHP also indicates that the situation should be kept under review since the increase in flexible working goes hand in hand with new forms of homeworking, and in this connection the MHP regrets that the Government’s report does not elaborate on the second evaluation of the Flexibility and Security Act which has shown that many people do not dare to take action to assert their rights. The Committee requests the Government to submit any views it may wish to express in response to the observations of the FNV, the CNV and the MHP.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.