Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) - Morocco (Ratification: 1993)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations made by National Union of Labour in Morocco (UNTM) on the application of the Convention, and the Government’s reply, received on 29 August 2019.

Articles 4 and 11. Valid reasons for termination of employment. Period of notice. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which Act No. 19-12 guarantees domestic workers the protections afforded by the Convention, particularly in relation to the period of notice, valid reasons for termination of employment, and compensation. It also requested the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged concerning the application of the Convention to workers covered by the Act. The Government indicates that Act No. 19-12 on the conditions of employment and work of domestic workers, promulgated by Dahir No. 1.16.121 of 10 August 2016, entered into force on 2 October 2018. According to the Government, the Act supplements the regulation of domestic work sector pursuant to section 4 of the Labour Code. It thus provides domestic workers with legal protection by establishing a model contract of employment that binds them to the employer and requires both parties to have it validated by the labour inspection services, and even to file a certified copy with the labour inspection offices. This allows labour inspectors to check at the outset the conformity of the employment relationship between the employer and the domestic worker. The Government also indicates that Act No. 19-12 in section 22 empowers labour inspectors to: receive complaints from workers against employers and vice versa; convene the two parties with a view to finding a consensus for the resolution of disputes arising from a breach of the contract of employment; and issue an official report when the conflict cannot be resolved to allow both parties to take legal action. The Committee notes that, in the event of termination of employment after one year of effective work, the domestic worker is entitled to a severance allowance, and section 21 of the Act establishes the amount of the required allowances. However, the Committee notes that the Act contains no provisions on the valid reasons for termination of employment or the period of notice in the event of the termination of employment of domestic workers. The Committee also notes the Government's indication that the labour inspectorate has not registered any cases of the termination of employment of domestic workers. With regard to court decisions on valid reasons for the termination of employment of employees, the Government’s report refers to the rulings of the Court of Cassation, in particular, Judgment No. 194, issued on 13 February 2014, concerning termination of the contract of employment and the requirement for the employer to provide justification for termination of employment, and Judgment No. 389, issued on 20 March 2014, which recalls that it is not sufficient to claim that an employee refuses to sign or to acknowledge receipt of the termination documents. In such a situation, it is the employer's responsibility to have recourse to the labour inspector, pursuant to section 62 of the Labour Code and Judgement No. 18 issued on 8 January 2015 concerning the method of calculating compensation for unfair dismissal. Nevertheless, the Committee understands that the Labour Code does not cover domestic workers and that the cited case law exclusively concerns the provisions of this code. Noting in this connection that the Government does not provide information on the provisions relating to valid reasons for the termination of employment and for a period of notice in the event of the termination of employment of domestic workers, the Committee invites the Government to provide information on these points in its next report. The Government is also requested to provide updated information on the application of the Convention in practice, including extracts from inspection reports, and to indicate the number of inspections carried out and their results

Articles 4, 7, 8 and 11. Court decisions concerning valid reasons for termination of employment, procedure prior to termination, appeals against unjustified termination, and serious misconduct. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in response to its previous request concerning the communication of court decisions illustrating the effect given to Articles 4, 7, 8 and 11 of the Convention.

Articles 13 and 14. Terminations of employment for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature, The Committee previously asked the Government to indicate whether the statistics provided corresponded to terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature and to provide information on other sectors of activity. The Government indicates that in 2018, labour inspectors carried out 33,362 inspections in the industrial, commercial and services sectors and 1,535 inspections in the agricultural sector, after which they drew up two reports concerning termination of employment for reasons of a structural nature. The Committee also notes the UNTM’s observations that the Government’s response regarding Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention does not meet the requirements of the Committee of Experts and also lacks data on the authorizations granted by the Governor of the prefecture or province in the event of a collective labour dispute, in accordance with sections 66 to 71 of the Labour Code. The Committee also notes the Government's response to these observations, that most collective terminations of employment are of a structural nature The Committee requests the Government to continue providing specific information on the application of Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, including available statistics on the number of terminations of employment for reasons of an economic, technological or structural nature.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 2 of the Convention. Exclusions. The Committee notes the promulgation of Act No. 19-12 establishing conditions of work and employment for men and women domestic workers, published in the Official Bulletin on 5 October 2017. The Committee also notes that the Arabic text of the Act was published in the Official Bulletin on 22 August 2016 and that the Act will come into force one year after the date of publication of its implementing texts in the Official Bulletin. The Government adds that the Bill concerning conditions of work in exclusively traditional sectors was sent to the Secretariat-General of the Government in March 2015. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which Act No. 19-12 guarantees domestic workers the protections afforded by the Convention, particularly in relation to the period of notice, the valid reasons for termination, and adequate compensation. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged concerning the application of the Convention to the workers covered by the Act.

Articles 4, 7, 8 and 11. Court decisions concerning the justification for termination, the procedure prior to termination, appeals against unjustified termination, and serious misconduct. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide summaries of court decisions relating to the abovementioned Articles. The Government indicates that the employer is required to observe a criterion of proportionality according to the misconduct committed, dismissal being the most severe penalty that the employer can impose on the employee concerned. The Committee notes sections 62–65 of the Labour Code describing the procedure to be followed in the event of termination, particularly section 62 of the Labour Code, which grants employees whose employment has been terminated the right to defend themselves and to be heard by their employer in the presence of the workers’ delegate or trade union representative of their choice. The Government refers to Judgment No. 177 of 25 August 2011 issued by the Supreme Court (now the Court of Cassation), which concludes that in the event of serious misconduct by an employee, the employer is required to observe the formalities laid down by the Labour Code, otherwise the termination of the employment contract will be deemed unjustified. The Committee notes the statistics communicated by the Government for 2015, namely that there were 41,323 appeals against termination, of which 12,767 were decided in favour of the employee, 9,926 went against the employee, 1,032 were withdrawn and 17,598 are pending. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has sent only one extract from a court decision relating to justified termination. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide examples of decisions illustrating the application of Article 4 (justification for termination), Article 7 (procedure prior to termination) and Article 11 (serious misconduct) of the Convention. It also requests the Government to send up-do-date statistics, particularly on the nature of compensation awarded and the time taken to issue a decision (Article 8).

Articles 13 and 14. Termination on economic, technological, structural or similar grounds. In its previous comments, the Committee invited the Government to continue including information on the termination of employment on economic or similar grounds. In this regard, the Government indicates that in 2015 labour inspectors conducted 23,506 inspections in industry, commerce and the services sector and 1,271 inspections in agriculture, during which they recorded six offences by employers relating to collective termination and 39,387 complaints concerning termination and the notice period out of an overall total of 139,962 complaints, with 4,129 workers reinstated in their jobs. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the statistics provided correspond to terminations on economic, technological, structural or similar grounds. It also requests the Government to provide information on other sectors of activity.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes the replies provided by the Government in September 2013 to the 2011 direct request. The Committee notes that the Ministry of Employment and Vocational Training sent proposals to the Ministry of Justice aiming to facilitate access for labour inspectors to court decisions relating to termination of employment. The Government states that examples of court decisions illustrating the application of Article 7 of the Convention will be sent in due course. The Committee invites the Government to provide summaries in its next report of court decisions illustrating the application of Article 4 (justification for termination), Article 7 (procedure prior to termination) and Article 11 (serious misconduct) of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will also be in a position to communicate available statistics on the activities of the courts with regard to the number of appeals against termination of employment, their outcome, the nature of the remedy granted and the average time taken to issue a decision (Article 8).

Article 2 of the Convention. Exclusions. The Committee notes the provisions relating to termination of employment contained in Decree No. 2-63-164 of 14 November 1963 establishing the general rules applicable to the staff of various public sector enterprises. The Government also sent the staff regulations for production, transport and electricity distribution enterprises in Morocco, updated on 1 July 1962, which include provisions on the termination of employment. With regard to its previous comments on the regulations applicable to personnel in the merchant navy, the Committee notes that the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), came into force for Morocco on 10 September 2013. Moreover, the Government indicates that the adoption of the Bill concerning domestic work and that of the Bill concerning conditions of work in exclusively traditional sectors is scheduled for 2013–14 in the Government’s legislation plan. The Bill concerning domestic work takes into consideration the principles set forth in the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). The Committee observes that the regulations governing the work of public sector employees afford protection to the workers concerned which is at least equivalent to that provided by the Convention. The Committee recalls that it is admissible for a Member to give effect to the Convention by means of various legal instruments without these necessarily being considered as exclusions within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee invites the Government to indicate in its next report whether the legislative instruments which govern the status of domestic workers and traditional sector workers have been adopted and to provide information on the protection afforded by the Convention for these categories of workers.

Articles 13 and 14. Termination on economic, technological, structural or similar grounds. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government concerning the closure of enterprises (approximately 57 enterprises) and laid-off workers (2,113 workers laid off in 2012), and on downsizing in various sectors of activity. The Government states that the procedure has been respected in practice in the case of closures registered as being on economic, technological or structural grounds by the inspection services and that, if the procedure had proved not to have been observed, this would have given rise to a collective dispute and the termination of employment would have been regarded as wrongful and unjustified. The Committee invites the Government to continue to include information in its next report on the termination of employment on economic or similar grounds.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its direct request of 2008 and the communication of relevant court decisions relating to grounds for termination (Article 4 of the Convention) and serious misconduct (Article 11). The appeals court considered in 2008 that refusal by an employee to accept a wage considered to be too low did not constitute serious misconduct giving rise to grounds for termination. The Committee requests the Government to continue to send examples of court decisions which have implemented the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention.

Article 2. Listed exclusions. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government sent a copy of Decree No. 2-90-882 of 29 April 1993 concerning special regulations for merchant navy personnel. The Committee notes that the conditions of work and employment of workers in public enterprises and establishments are not governed by a specific law but depend on the particular regulations established within each enterprise. The Committee requests the Government to supply further information on the regime governing merchant navy personnel and also examples of regulations governing workers in public enterprises that provide them with protection at least equivalent to that afforded by the Convention.

Purported exclusions. The Government indicates that the exclusions, at a date subsequent to the submission of its first report, of domestic workers and workers traditionally covered by the scope of the Convention is due to the entry into force of the new Labour Code in 2004. The Government also explains that, further to these exclusions, laws designed to govern the activities of the categories of workers concerned are in the process of being approved, as is a bill concerning activities of a purely traditional nature. The Committee recalls that it is admissible to give effect to the Convention through several laws without the latter having to be considered as exclusions. The Committee therefore requests the Government to include with its next report a copy of the legal texts which govern the status of domestic workers and workers in the traditional sector. The Government may wish to refer to Convention No. 189 and Recommendation No. 201 concerning domestic workers, adopted in June 2011.

Article 7. Procedure prior to termination. The Committee notes the court decision of 2008 sent by the Government, whereby a dismissal was deemed to be wrongful because it failed to meet the conditions established by section 62 of the Labour Code, which states that an employee must be given the opportunity to raise a defence vis-à-vis the employer or the employer’s representative within eight days following the date of the alleged misconduct. The Committee requests the Government to continue to send examples of court decisions which have implemented Article 7 of the Convention.

Article 8. Examination by appeal bodies. The Committee again requests the Government to provide any available statistics on the activities of the courts relating to appeals against termination of employment, the outcome of these cases, the nature of the remedy awarded and the average time taken for a ruling to be decided.

Articles 13 and 14. Termination on economic, technological, structural or similar grounds. The Committee notes that 127 establishments terminated employment on economic or similar grounds in 2010, affecting more than 8,900 employees. During the first half of 2011, 57 establishments were concerned, with more than 3,410 workers having their employment terminated. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on terminations on economic or similar grounds, indicating especially to what extent Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention have been implemented.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2013.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

1. The Committee notes the detailed reply to its 2006 direct request provided by the Government in its report received in July 2008. The Government indicates that the application of the Convention does not raise particular difficulties. With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide in its next report any court ruling or other decision based on sections 35, 37 and 38 of the Labour Code in relation to the justification of termination of employment (Article 4 of the Convention) or based on section 39 of the Labour Code respecting serious misconduct (Article 11).

2. Article 2. Listed Exclusions. The Committee recalls that the Government in its first report listed only two categories of workers for exclusion under Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Convention, namely workers in public enterprises and seafarers. The Committee notes that article 4 of the Labour Code provides that these categories of workers are subject to special laws which may not be less favourable than those contained in the Code. The Government is requested to include in its next report copies of these laws and to indicate how these categories are provided the protection afforded by the Convention.

3. Article 2. Purported exclusions. The Committee notes that in article 3 of the Labour Code, the following workers, in addition to those listed in the first report, may be excluded from the application of the Code: workers in mining; workers in the film industry; professional journalists; and janitors. These categories of employees were not listed for exclusion in the Government’s first report as requested by Article 2, paragraph 6 of the Convention and, accordingly, may not be excluded from the protection afforded by the Convention. The Committee notes, however, the Government’s reply that these categories of workers are provided protection of the Convention because article 4 of the Labour Code states that they are subject to special laws that may not be less favourable than the Code and that, to the extent that the special laws do not cover a matter, the Code applies. The Committee notes that it is permissible for a Member to give effect to the Convention in more than one law and it is unnecessary to regard them as exclusions.

Domestic workers and workers in the traditional sector are excluded from the application of the Code under article 4. This article of the Code provides that these categories are to be regulated by special laws. The Government indicates in its reply that it considers these categories to be excluded under Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Convention. The Committee notes that these categories of workers were not listed in the Government’s first report and accordingly cannot constitute exclusions for the purposes of Article 2. The Government is requested to provide in its next report copies of the special laws which apply to domestic workers and workers in the traditional sectors and to indicate how these categories of workers are provided the protection afforded by the Convention.

4. Article 7. Procedure prior to termination. The Government indicates that section 62 of the Labour Code requires that a hearing be held prior to termination, and the failure to do so will be considered by the courts to be a wrongful dismissal. The Committee also notes the decisions of the Supreme Court provided by the Government with its report. It recalls that workers may not be dismissed for reasons related to their conduct without being given an opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations made (unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing it with court decisions applying this Article of the Convention.

5. Article 8. Examination by appeal bodies. The Government indicates that section 65 of the Labour Code guarantees dismissed workers recourse to a competent court irrespective of the reason for dismissal. It indicates that the courts that are competent in respect of termination for disciplinary reasons are also competent in respect of other grounds for dismissal. The Committee invites the Government to provide any available statistics with its next report on the activities of the courts in respect of the number of cases related to termination of employment, the outcome of these cases, the nature of the relief and the average time taken for a decision to be made.

6. Terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s statement that the procedure envisaged in section 66 of the Labour Code, under which employers habitually engaging ten or more employed persons may terminate all or part of these employed persons for economic reasons, does not affect the employment relationship as it exists in establishments engaging fewer than ten employed persons and does not in any way have the effect of allowing the obligations attached to such a relationship to be evaded. The Government indicates that in the event of collective dismissals in an establishment engaging fewer than ten employed persons, the competent courts nevertheless treats such cases as cases of individual dismissal. The Committee requests the Government to include information in its next report on the number of dismissals for economic or similar reasons during the period covered by the report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report received in August 2006, and particularly the adoption of Act No. 65-99 issuing the Labour Code, which entered into force on 8 June 2004. It requests the Government to provide in its next report any general information available on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including recent court decisions (Parts IV and V of the report form). Please also provide detailed information on the following points.

1. Exclusions. The Committee notes the indications provided by the Government in its report received in August 2006 that it seeks to exclude from the Convention the categories of workers listed in section 3 of the Labour Code: workers in public enterprises, seafarers, professional journalists, film workers and janitors. The Committee however notes that it is not necessary for the Government to exclude those categories from the scope of the Convention because, under section 3 of the Labour Code, those categories of employees are still covered by the conditions of service applicable to them which may not in any event offer guarantees that are less advantageous than those contained in the Labour Code. The Committee also notes that household employees, persons employed in purely traditional sectors and those employed by certain professional categories of employers determined by regulation are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code (section 4 of the Code). The Committee recalls that Article 2 paragraph 6, of the Convention, requires a member State which has ratified the Convention to list the excluded categories of workers in its first report submitted under article 22 of the ILO Constitution. It recalls in this respect that the Government, in its first report on the application of the Convention received in September 1995, only listed two categories of workers: workers in public enterprises and seafarers. The Committee refers to paragraph 74 of its 1995 General Survey on protection against unfair dismissal, in which it stated that “Article 2, paragraph 6, allows governments to take account of future developments towards a reduction of the exclusions referred to in the first report, but it does not allow them subsequently to introduce new exceptions that were not in force at the time of the first report”. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report how the categories of workers listed in sections 3 and 4 of the Labour Code are provided with the protection afforded by the Convention.

2. Justification for termination. The Committee notes that section 35 of the Labour Code prohibits the termination of employment at the initiative of the employer without a valid reason. The reason must be connected to the worker’s capacity or conduct, or based on the operational requirements of the enterprise. The valid reason connected with the worker’s conduct is subject to sections 37 (disciplinary sanctions against an employee for a fault that is not serious) and 39 (termination for serious misconduct of the worker) of the Labour Code. The Committee recalls that in order to give proper effect to Article 4 of the Convention, it is necessary to distinguish between incapacity that is not the fault of the worker and incapacity that is. In the context of the Convention, no-fault incapacity may not be subject to disciplinary sanction. In order to assess the extent to which the reasons given in practice justifying dismissal under the Labour Code correspond with the valid reasons contemplated in Article 4 of the Convention, the Government is requested to submit court rulings and decisions establishing the case law on sections 35, 37 and 39 of the Labour Code.

3. Procedure prior to termination. The Committee notes that sections 62 to 64 of the Labour Code provide the procedure for termination of employment as a disciplinary measure. Section 62 requires that, before termination of employment, the employee is given the opportunity to put up a defence at a hearing conducted by the employer or his representative in the presence of a delegate of the employees or a trade union representative chosen by the employee. The Committee recalls though that Article 7 of the Convention requires that an employee be given an opportunity to challenge the allegations made if the termination is related to the worker’s conduct or performance. Even in the absence of any fault on his part, the worker may not be dismissed without being given an opportunity to challenge the allegations (unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure that a worker is given prior to termination an opportunity to challenge any allegations in circumstances where the employer seeks to dismiss the worker for incapacity or lack of performance through no fault of the worker (Article 7).

4. Examination by appeal bodies. The Committee notes that section 65 of the Labour Code permits an employee who has been terminated as a disciplinary measure to appeal to a competent tribunal. The Committee notes that no such right to appeal exists in the Labour Code in respect of terminations on grounds relating to no-fault incapacity or lack of performance or on grounds based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service. The Committee recalls that Article 8 of the Convention guarantees a worker whose employment has been terminated the right to appeal against the termination to an impartial body such as a court, tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator. The Committee requests the Government to report on whether the tribunals empowered to hear appeals against disciplinary terminations are also empowered to hear appeals against terminations for reasons related to no-fault incapacity and lack of performance or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.

5. Termination for serious fault. The Committee notes that the serious faults which may give rise to termination of employment are enumerated in section 39 of the Labour Code and it requests the Government to provide examples of recent judicial decisions which have upheld the finding of serious fault by the employed person (Article 11).

6. Terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature. The Committee notes that, by virtue of section 66 of the Labour Code, only employers habitually engaging ten or more employed persons, who envisage the termination of all or some of their employees for economic reasons, are obliged to consult the representatives of the workers and notify the reasons for the terminations to the competent authority. In this respect, the Government may consider it useful to refer to the provisions of the Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No. 198), which contains guidance on overcoming difficulties in establishing whether or not an employment relationship exists in situations where the respective rights and obligations of the parties concerned are not clear, where there has been an attempt to disguise the employment relationship, or where inadequacies or limitations exist in the legal framework, or in its interpretation or application.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, in particular that the draft Labour Code has taken into account some of the previous comments, but that it is still under consideration.

Article 5(d) and (e) of the Convention.  The Committee notes that political opinion, family responsibility, and maternity are not prohibited grounds for dismissal under the draft Labour Code, although such grounds are not permitted under the Convention. Please state how effect will be given to these provisions of the Convention.

The Committee trusts that the draft Labour Code will take into account all the comments of the Committee and will be adopted as soon as possible, and that a copy will be sent to the Office.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

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:

The Committee notes the Government's first report with interest. It notes in particular the Government's statement that the draft Labour Code, currently being prepared, should give effect to Article 5 (improper grounds for termination) and Article 13 (consultation of workers' representatives in the event of termination for economic reasons) of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide details on these matters in its next report together with information on the following points.

Article 7. The Committee notes that the draft Labour Code allows a worker to be heard by the employer who intends to dismiss him for serious misconduct. It asks the Government to indicate how effect is given to Article 7 in other instances of termination for reasons related to the worker's performance or conduct.

Article 11. Lastly, the Committee notes that section 5 of the Standard Conditions of Employment of 23 October 1948 provides that a worker may be dismissed without notice for serious misconduct. The definition of serious misconduct set out in section 6 of the Order of 1948 includes the worker's unsuitability for the job or inability to perform the work for which he was hired. The Committee asks the Government to indicate what is understood by "unsuitability of the worker", for instance by providing copies of court decisions, and to indicate in detail the instances in which a worker whose employment is to be terminated is entitled to notice or compensation in lieu thereof. The Committee would like to point out that in any sense the term "unsuitability for the job"or "inability to perform the work for which he was hired" cannot possibly be regarded as "serious misconduct" within the meaning of Article 11. The Committee asks the Government to consider amendment of section 6 of the Order of 1948 to bring it in line with the requirement of Article 11.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government's first report with interest. It notes in particular the Government's statement that the draft Labour Code, currently being prepared, should give effect to Article 5 (improper grounds for termination) and Article 13 (consultation of workers' representatives in the event of termination for economic reasons) of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide details on these matters in its next report together with information on the following points.

Article 7. The Committee notes that the draft Labour Code allows a worker to be heard by the employer who intends to dismiss him for serious misconduct. It asks the Government to indicate how effect is given to Article 7 in other instances of termination for reasons related to the worker's performance or conduct.

Article 11. Lastly, the Committee notes that section 5 of the Standard Conditions of Employment of 23 October 1948 provides that a worker may be dismissed without notice for serious misconduct. The definition of serious misconduct set out in section 6 of the Order of 1948 includes the worker's unsuitability for the job or inability to perform the work for which he was hired. The Committee asks the Government to indicate what is understood by "unsuitability of the worker", for instance by providing copies of court decisions, and to indicate in detail the instances in which a worker whose employment is to be terminated is entitled to notice or compensation in lieu thereof. The Committee would like to point out that in any sense the term "unsuitability for the job"or "inability to perform the work for which he was hired" cannot possibly be regarded as "serious misconduct" within the meaning of Article 11. The Committee asks the Government to consider amendment of section 6 of the Order of 1948 to bring it in line with the requirement of Article 11.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's first report with interest. It notes in particular the Government's statement that the draft Labour Code, currently being prepared, should give effect to Article 5 (improper grounds for termination) and Article 13 (consultation of workers' representatives in the event of termination for economic reasons) of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide details on these matters in its next report together with information on the following points.

Article 7. The Committee notes that the draft Labour Code allows a worker to be heard by the employer who intends to dismiss him for serious misconduct. It asks the Government to indicate how effect is given to Article 7 in other instances of termination for reasons related to the worker's performance or conduct.

Article 11. Lastly, the Committee notes that section 5 of the Standard Conditions of Employment of 23 October 1948 provides that a worker may be dismissed without notice for serious misconduct. The definition of serious misconduct set out in section 6 of the Order of 1948 includes the worker's unsuitability for the job or inability to perform the work for which he was hired. The Committee asks the Government to indicate what is understood by "unsuitability of the worker", for instance by providing copies of court decisions, and to indicate in detail the instances in which a worker whose employment is to be terminated is entitled to notice or compensation in lieu thereof. The Committee would like to point out that in any sense the term "unsuitability for the job"or "inability to perform the work for which he was hired" cannot possibly be regarded as "serious misconduct" within the meaning of Article 11. The Committee asks the Government to consider amendment of section 6 of the Order of 1948 to bring it in line with the requirement of Article 11.