ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

Other comments on C012

Direct Request
  1. 2023
  2. 2019

Other comments on C017

Observation
  1. 1995
Direct Request
  1. 2023
  2. 2019
  3. 2012
  4. 2006
  5. 1999
  6. 1990

Other comments on C018

Direct Request
  1. 2023
  2. 2019
  3. 2012
  4. 2006
  5. 1999

Other comments on C102

Observation
  1. 2012
  2. 2007
  3. 2006
  4. 1998
Direct Request
  1. 2023
  2. 2019
  3. 2012
  4. 2006
  5. 1998
  6. 1997

Display in: French - SpanishView all

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on social security, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 12 (agriculture), 17 (accidents), 18 (occupational diseases) and 102 (minimum standards) together.
The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers–National Trade Unions (CGTP–IN), and the General Workers’ Union (UGT) communicated with the Government’s reports.
Part V (Old-age benefit). Article 26 of Convention No. 102. Pensionable age. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report on the reform of the pension system undertaken in the past decades in order to enhance financial sustainability. The modifications introduced included linking the pensionable age to the average life expectancy. Accordingly, the normal pensionable age has been gradually increased in the past years up to 66 years and 5 months in 2019 and 2020, as set out in Decree No. 25/2018 of 8 January 2018. The Committee notes the observations by the CGTP–IN and its allegation that this modification is not in conformity with Article 26(2) which allows for an increase of pensionable age beyond 65 years only with due regard to the working ability of older persons in the country concerned. In addition, the CGTP–IN points out that linking the pensionable age to the average life expectancy will bring variations in the pensionable age from year to year. The CGTP–IN further indicates that this creates uncertainty for future pensioners who are no longer able to anticipate the age at which they can draw a full pension. The Committee also notes the concerns raised by the UGT in its observations regarding the detrimental impact that a yearly determination of the pensionable age, based on sustainability criteria, will have on pensioners, and regarding the lack of agreement among social partners on the implementation of this measure. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in its 2019 report on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol (Code), which contains a provision similar to Article 26, in which it indicates that “the number of elderly persons aged 65 compared to the number of persons in working age (from 15 to 64) reached 33.6 per cent in 2018 compared to 20.3 per cent in 1990”. The 2019 report also provides statistical data showing that not only the general life expectancy but also the disability free life expectancy (DFLE) have increased over the past years. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to continue providing statistical data on the working ability of older persons and notably on the disability free life expectancy, the life expectancy at 65 and the employability of persons aged 65 and over.
Part VI (Employment injury benefit). Article 35. Rehabilitation and reintegration. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning rehabilitation and reintegration services.
Article 36. Payment of compensation in the form of a lump sum. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on how private insurance companies verify that a lump sum paid instead of a periodical pension would be properly utilized, as required by Article 36. The Government replies that in case of incapacity for work of less than 30 per cent, the conversion of a periodical pension into a lump sum is permitted if the amount of pension does not exceed six times the indexing reference of social support, the IAS (indexante dos apoios sociais). The Government further indicates that in case of incapacity for work of more than 30 per cent, the conversion of a periodical pension into a lump sum is permitted only partially and at the request of a beneficiary. According to the UGT, the payment of a lump sum is advantageous for insurance companies but prejudicial to injured workers. The Committee recalls that in accordance with Article 36(3), the periodical payment may be commuted for a lump sum only where the degree of incapacity is slight or where the competent authority is satisfied that the lump sum will be properly utilized. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that in case of incapacity for work of more than 30 per cent, the competent authority is satisfied that the part of the benefit that can be paid as a lump sum will be properly utilized.

Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments). Article 65(10).

(a) Review of the rates of employment injury pensions. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the delay in the publication of uprated employment injury pension rates and expressed the hope that the Government would in future issue the reviewed rates of employment injury pensions at the same time as other social security pensions. The Committee notes the CGTP-IN’s indication that the updating of employment injury benefits continues to be made with considerable and unjustified delay. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.
(b) Review of the rates of old-age, employment injury, invalidity and survivors’ benefits. The Committee notes the statistical data provided by the Government on the review of the benefits rates for the period 2014–15. The Committee notes that unlike minimum pensions, benefits received by a standard beneficiary were not adjusted according to the increased consumer price index (CPI) rate. The Committee further notes the CGTP-IN’s allegations that the purchasing power of pensions has not been ensured, as required by Article 65(10) and that some pensions were not indexed from the period 2009 to 2015, although the cumulative inflation rate had reached 9 per cent by 2015. The Committee also notes from the 2019 report on the Code that, since 2017, the adjustment of pensions to the CPI depends on the amount of the pension and on the gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate: if the GDP growth was less than 2 per cent, only pensions up to 1.5 IAS are indexed according to full CPI rate; if the GDP grew from 2 per cent to 3 per cent, indexation according to the full CPI rate is extended to pensions between 1.5 and six times the IAS; and if the GDP grew by more than 3 per cent, the full CPI rate is also applied to adjustment of pensions over six times the IAS. According to the 2019 report, the CPI rate of the previous year reached 1.03 per cent and the average GDP growth rate of the last two years was 2.58 per cent. Pensions were therefore adjusted in 2019 as follows: 1.6 per cent for pensions up to €871.52 (2 x IAS), 1.03 per cent for pensions between €871.52 and €2,614.56 (between 2 and 6 x IAS) and 0.78 per cent for pensions above €2,614.56 (more than 6 x IAS). The Committee observes that the new mechanism delinks pension adjustment from changes in the general level of earnings in the country, which is put forward by Convention No. 102, and links it instead to changes in GDP rates. The Committee further observes that in case real GDP growth is less than 2 per cent, adjustment of all pensions over 1.5 times the IAS according to the new rules will not permit the maintenance of their purchasing power vis-à-vis inflation, which is the primary objective of Article 65(10). In order to ascertain to what extent pension adjustments have effectively permitted the maintenance of the purchasing power of all pensions in payment, the Committee requests the Government to supply data on the changes in the index of earnings, the cost of living, the amount of old-age, employment injury, invalidity and survivors’ benefits, as well as changes of the GDP since 2010, in accordance with Title VI of the report form for the Convention.
Part XIII (Common provisions). Article 69. Suspension of employment injury benefits. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to sections 14–17 of Act No. 98/2009, employers’ liability to compensate occupational accidents would not be engaged, inter alia, in case of gross negligence, force majeure or where the accident is due to another worker or a third person. It further noted that such cases were taken up by insurance carriers, given that the insurance contracted by employers for cases of occupational accidents aims at transferring to the insurer the obligations of the employer. In light of this, the Committee hoped that, in drafting the implementing regulations of the Act, the Government would take into account that the established grounds for the suspension of benefits might go beyond what is permitted by the Convention and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in applying sections 14–17 of Act No. 98/2009, the competent authorities would take into account the requirements of the Convention, which limits the causes of benefit suspension to those listed in Article 69. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to such effect.
Social security and poverty reduction. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that austerity measures had resulted in reducing social expenditure, greater precarity and poverty and requested the Government to provide information on the dynamics of poverty in the country, including data on the number of beneficiaries and the minimum amounts of social benefits in comparison with the poverty threshold. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that along with the general improvement of the Portuguese economy, targeted social policy measures widened the coverage of the minimum income schemes, and contributed to improving living conditions in households whose income was considerably below the poverty threshold. The Committee notes from the 2019 report on the Code the decrease in residents who were at risk of poverty (1 per cent less than in 2016 and 2.2 per cent less than in 2013). The 2019 report further indicates that income from retirement and survivors’ pensions contributed to a 21 per cent decrease in the at risk-of-poverty rate. The Committee notes the CGTP–IN’s observations indicating a deterioration in terms of coverage and level of non-contributory benefits, particularly regarding family allowances, unemployment allowances, the social integration income (RSI), and the solidarity supplement for older persons (CSI). The Committee hopes that the Government will continue taking measures on the sustainable reduction of poverty and extension of coverage by the minimum social security benefits and requests the Government to continue providing statistical data in this respect.
Part XIII (Common provisions). Article 71. Financing of the social security system. The Government indicates that, under the EU/IMF Economic Adjustment Program for Portugal, pensions, subsidies and other similar monetary benefits have been subject to the extraordinary contribution of solidarity (Contribuiçao Extraordinâria de Solidariedade) during the period 2012–16. The Committee notes in this regard the observations of the CGTP-IN, which alleges that extraordinary pension contributions form part of restrictive measures put in place by the Government, which raises issues of compliance with Article 71. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 71 of the Convention, the cost of the benefits provided in compliance with the Convention and the cost of the administration of such benefits shall be borne collectively, and requests the Government to provide statistical data on the share of the insurance contributions borne by the employees of the total of the financial resources allocated to the protection of employees and their dependants, according to the report form for the Convention.
Article 1 of Convention No. 12. Coverage of all agricultural wage-earners, and application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Portugal’s legislation on compensation for employment accidents is applicable to all workers, including in the agricultural sector. It also notes from the data supplied by the Government an increase in the number of employment accidents in agriculture, livestock, hunting, forestry and fishing. In this regard, the Committee notes that, according to the UGT, the measures taken to prevent occupational accidents in the agricultural sector, one of the sectors with the highest rate of employment accidents, are not sufficient. The UGT also raises concerns as to the high rate of undeclared work in the agricultural sector, which is difficult for the Working Conditions Authority (Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho, ACT) to detect. In this regard, the UGT refers to the National Campaign against Undeclared Work launched by the ACT in 2014–15 to tackle undeclared work and ensure the coverage of the workers concerned by the occupational accident insurance scheme. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to prevent work-related injuries in the agricultural sector and to refer to its comments under the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184), in this regard. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure that all agricultural wage-earners are effectively covered in case of work-related injury, in accordance with Article 1.
Article 1 of Convention No. 17 and Article 71(3) of Convention No. 102. Responsibility of the State for the due payment of employment injury benefit. In its reply to the Committee’s previous request, the Government supplies statistics on the number of inspections carried out and sanctions imposed. In this light, the Committee notes that the number of inspection visits decreased during the period 2011–15. The Committee also notes the UGT’s allegation that insurers are reported to be slow in paying compensation and that subcontractors do not conclude the required insurance policies, making it more difficult, if not impossible, to compensate workers. The Committee recalls that Article 1 of Convention No. 17 and Article 71(3) of Convention No. 102 establish the responsibility of the State for the due payment of employment injury benefits and that the State must take all measures required for this purpose, which includes appropriate enforcement and compliance measures. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to improve the compliance of the parties concerned with their employment injury insurance obligations and to ensure the effective payment of the compensation due to injured workers or their dependants in case of employment injury. The Committee also requests the Government to refer to its comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), with respect to the maintenance of sufficient numbers of labour inspectors.
Application of Convention No. 18 in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the under-notification of occupational diseases and explain the manner in which medical practitioners intervene in the clinical recognition of occupational diseases. The Committee notes the Government’s reply, which refers to Legislative Decree No. 2/82 of 5 January 1982, on mandatory treatment of a suspected or worsening case of occupational disease and explains stages of the procedure for certifying an occupational disease. The Government also refers to the guidelines issued by the General Directorate of Health pursuant to Article 2(2)(a) of Regulatory Decree No. 14/2012 of 26 January 2012 and the Second National Occupational Health Programme (2013–17) which regulate the participation of medical practitioners in the clinical diagnoses of occupational diseases. The Committee notes the observations made by the UGT and the CGTP-IN, which indicate that most occupational diseases are not diagnosed as such, that occupational diseases are under-reported and that, as a result, there is a lack of necessary statistical data and relevant studies on the incidence and prevalence of occupational diseases. They also stress the need for increased awareness within the medical profession about the causal links between pathologies and occupational activities. The Committee requests the Government to refer to its comments under the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), with respect to measures to improve the reporting of occupational accidents and diseases. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to improve the collection of statistical data on the incidence and prevalence of occupational diseases.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer