Texts of pending comments

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee previously noted the Government’s commitment to combating trafficking in persons through continuous adaptation of the national legislative and institutional framework against this crime. It requested the Government to continue its efforts and to provide information on the implementation of the Anti-Trafficking Action Plan (2015–19), the measures taken to ensure better identification and protection of victims and on prosecutions and convictions handed down under sections 433 ter to 433 novies of the Penal Code relating to trafficking of persons.

Implementation of action plans. The Government indicates that three action plans have already been implemented and that in 2020 an addendum specifically concerning child victims was added to the national action plan for 2015–19. A new action plan for 2021-2025 has been submitted to the Interdepartmental Task Force for the Coordination of Action against Human Trafficking, which brings together all competent persons and coordinates national policy in this field. The Committee also observes that the Centre for Migration (Myria), as the independent national reporter on trafficking in persons, publishes an annual report assessing the evolution and results of the policy to combat human trafficking. In 2020, the report focused on the exploitation of domestic workers, with particular attention paid to the impact of the COVID-19 health crisis on the combat against trafficking in persons. Among the points made in the report is the need to continue awareness-raising activities for the public at large and to focus particularly closely on diplomatic domestic personnel.

Protection of victims. The Committee notes that the Government, apart from psychosocial and medical assistance, administrative support and legal aid to victims provided by the three specialized reception centres, has continued to take measures to improve protection of trafficking victims. For example, the latter now automatically receive a residence document valid for 45 days, rather than an order to quit the territory within 45 days. Moreover, the principle of not penalising victims of trafficking has been formally integrated into the Penal Code. The Committee also notes from the Myria’s 2019 report, that Myria has analysed and proposed improvements to the aid system for trafficking victims in areas including the right to information, access to specialized aid services, legal aid and participation in the criminal procedure, and compensation. The Government also refers to several legal rulings in which the courts awarded damages (for material and non-material prejudice) to victims who are party to civil proceedings in cases on human trafficking.

Prosecutions and penalties. In reply to the Committee’s requests related to repression of cases of trafficking in persons, the Government provides information on the training activities organized by the department responsible for trafficking in persons within the National Social Security Office (ONSS) for labour inspectors with regard to trafficking for economic exploitation. The Government also refers to inspection visits conducted with a view to detecting cases of trafficking for labour exploitation and in particular to targeted monitoring undertaken in sectors identified as presenting a risk. In 2020 these inspections concerned the hotel, restaurant and café sector and nail bars. These inspections have made it possible to refer a growing number of victims to the legal authorities in 2018, 2019 and 2020 (65, 82 and 156, respectively). The Government indicates that for 2017, 2018 and 2019 convictions made under article 433 of the legal code stood at 112, 127 and 113 respectively. Between 2016 and 2020, 1715 cases were brought before the criminal courts, 57 of which were for trafficking for sexual exploitation and 31 for labour exploitation. A total of 750 cases were dismissed, in large part for technicalities such as “insufficient charges” or “perpetrator(s) unknown”)

The Committee again welcomes the measures taken by the Government to combat trafficking in persons through a comprehensive and coordinated approach. It requests the Government to continue providing information on: (i) measures taken to continue to raise the awareness of the public and the competent authorities in identifying trafficking in persons for the purposes of both sexual and labour exploitation; (ii) the follow-up given to the recommendation of Myria in respect of improving the legal aid system for victims and their compensation; (iii) the evaluation of the implementation of the new national action plan conducted by the Interdepartmental Task Force for the Coordination of Action against Human Trafficking, as well as proposals formulated by the Task Force; and (iv) and the legal procedures engaged, judgments handed down in cases of trafficking and redress for victims.

Noting that the Government has not provided its first detailed report on the application of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, the Committee requests it to provide this report at the same time as the report on the Convention, both in 2024.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Labour Federation of Belgium (FGTB), the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC) and the General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (CGSLB), dated 25 August 2021, as well as the Government’s reply of 29 October 2021, which deal with issues examined in the context of the present comment. The Commission also takes note of the additional observations from the above-mentioned organizations received on 17 November 2021.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of trade union organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. Malicious obstruction of traffic (section 406 of the Criminal Code). In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application of section 406 of the Criminal Code and on the outcome of the criminal proceedings brought. The Committee notes that according to the Government there is consistent jurisprudence from which it can be inferred that when certain acts can be qualified as criminal offences detrimental to the security and freedom of all citizens (here, the criminalization of malicious obstruction of traffic), these cannot be purely and simply set aside for certain fundamental rights, but that this is however without prejudice to freedom of association. The Government emphasizes that the fundamental principle underlying section 406 of the Criminal Code is not detrimental to the right to strike or the free exercise thereof: the section is not aimed at these actions, but rather at all instances where road barrages are erected with malicious intent, regardless of the underlying motive. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the status of two cases in which the public prosecutor has brought criminal proceedings under section 406 of the Criminal Code in respect of trade union representatives who erected a road barrage in the context of strike action. The first case concerns acts committed during an inter-professional strike on 24 June 2016 against government policy in respect of pension measures; on this occasion, certain access routes to the Port of Antwerp were closed off, with a view to causing economic damage and encouraging the enterprises affected to put pressure on the Government. Regarding this case, the Government indicates that the Court judged that the deliberate act of obstructing traffic was sufficient to demonstrate the essential maliciousness of the action. Consequently, it is not necessary “that the perpetrator know, or ought to have known, that the act of obstructing the traffic could become dangerous”. The Government emphasizes that according to the Court: (i) “the mere fact that an offence is committed in the context of a strike or a demonstration does not remove the moral element of the offence, regardless of the motives for the action. Thus, the fact that an obstruction to traffic should be organized to support trade union demands does not necessarily prevent the act of obstructing traffic from being qualified as malicious within the meaning of section 406, first paragraph, of the Criminal Code”; and (ii) “under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the right to strike or the right to demonstrate are not absolute rights, and their exercise may be subject to restrictions, provided that the latter answer effectively to the general interest and cannot be considered to be excessive or intolerable actions detrimental to the very basis of these protective rights; the judge rules definitively on this matter, on the basis of the facts before him.”

The second case concerns acts committed during a day of strike action on 19 October 2015. The Government reports that about 300 demonstrators blocked a motorway viaduct in the Province of Liège, with serious consequences for public goods and for users (deterioration of the road surface and traffic jams which, in particular, prevented a surgeon from operating on a hospital patient who subsequently died). The Committee notes that in a judgment of 23 November 2020, the Liège Criminal Court convicted 17 trade unionists of malicious obstruction of the traffic (15 days’ imprisonment (suspended) and a fine of 300 Euros for the unionists and one month’s imprisonment (suspended) and a fine of 600 Euros for the union leaders) and that the union has appealed the decision. The Committee notes that, according to the FGTB, the CSC and the CGSLB, the approach adopted by the Criminal Court undermined the right to strike, since the mere fact of being present at one moment or another at a barrier point criminalizes the participants (the defendants had already asserted that they had gathered at a barrier that was already in place and that the action had been disturbed by rioters who were not connected with the union). The Committee notes that according to the trade union organizations the sentences pronounced will have serious consequences: they risk intimidating trade unions and discouraging trade union action and, on a personal level, they entail the establishment of a criminal record likely to have repercussions in terms of access to employment. The organizations also note that they have given rise to a press campaign assimilating trade unionists to thugs or common criminals. The Committee notes the information according to which, on 19 October 2021, the Liège Court of Appeal upheld the verdict issued by the Criminal Court, maintaining the prison sentences and imposing heavier fines. The Court of Appeal deemed the defendants guilty of deliberate obstruction of traffic and that the right to strike could not be used in defence. The Committee notes that the FGTB envisages appealing to the Court of Cassation.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and by the trade union organizations. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 406 of the Criminal Code and on the outcomes of criminal prosecutions engaged, in particular the appeal before the Court of Cassation against the decision of the Liège Court of Appeal of 19 October 2021.

Individual declaration of participation in a strike. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of: (i) the Act of 29 November 2017 on the continuity of rail transport service in the event of a strike, which required each member of staff in an operational category considered to be essential to declare his or her intention to participate in a strike by a determined deadline (72 hours’ notice, in line with the General Regulations on Trade Union Relations (RGRS)); and (ii) the Act of 23 March 2019 on the organization of prison services and the prison staff regulations, which allows for a similar procedure. The Committee noted that the procedure regarding the individual declaration of intent to strike was established in comparable terms, on the one hand, in the context of rail transport, which the Committee considers not to be an essential service in the strict sense of the term but rather a service of fundamental importance for which the establishment of a minimum service can be justified, and, on the other, in the context of prison services, which the Committee considers to be essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee considered that if the declaration of intent to strike could be justified in order to ensure that a minimum level of activity in the services in question is maintained, it is important to ensure that the implementation of such procedures, which could be used to weaken the collective action of workers and their organizations, does not result in any kind of interference in the actions carried out by the trade union organizations or in any form of pressure on potential strikers. The Committee noted that the Constitutional Court had rejected the appeal for annulment filed against the Act of 29 November 2017 in a ruling of 14 May 2020, considering that since a minimum of eight working days’ notice of a strike is required, staff members required to submit a prior declaration have sufficient time to take a decision on their participation in the strike, 72 hours ahead of it, and that such a procedure did not therefore entail disproportionate interference with the rights of the workers concerned.

The Committee notes that the Government recalls that the Constitutional Court, in its ruling of 14 May 2020 deemed it disproportionate, in light of the objectives pursued, to consider as a breach of discipline the fact that an agent fails to declare his intention not to participate in the strike and, therefore, to work. Regarding the practical application of the Act, the Committee notes the circular provided by the Government regarding continuity of the rail transport service, which applies to strikes initiated under the prior notice and consultation procedure for social conflicts, in conformity with the Trade Union Rules for the Belgian Railways (RGPS Pamphlet 548). By virtue of this legal framework, staff members belonging to operational professional categories considered to be essential by the management committees of Infrabel and the SNCB, whose presence is foreseen for the day(s) of the envisaged strike, are invited to make known their intention to participate or not in the strike, by means of a traceable procedure previously installed by the enterprises and made public through all internal channels of communication to the staff members concerned.

With regard to the Act of 23 March 2019 on the organization of prison services and the prison staff regulations, the Committee notes that the Government recalls that the Act sought and found a balance between guaranteeing the right to strike, on the one hand, and the organization of effective minimum services for the detainees, on the other, and for this reason, declarations of intention, treated confidentially, are required so as to be able to manage the strike in the prison and avoid it preventing provision of minimum services to detainees. The Committee notes the example of instructions provided to prisons in case of strike notice, which include checklists allowing the prisons to ascertain that the procedures are followed correctly. The Committee takes due note of all information provided by the Government.

Prison services. Resolution of conflicts. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the allegations by the above-mentioned trade union organizations concerning the Act of 23 March 2019 establishing a minimum service and the possibility of using a system of requisitioning staff in the case of a strike of more than two days. The organizations indicated in particular that any dispute concerning the negotiation of a minimum service should be resolved through an independent body, such as the judicial authorities, and not by the ministry concerned, but that under section 19 of the Act, if the competent advisory committee does not submit an operational plan in the three months following the entry into force of the Act, either because it has not taken a decision or because no agreement has been reached in the committee, the minister shall determine the services to be provided and the measures to be taken. The Committee notes the Government’s observation that sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 23 March 2019 set out the minimum service requirements for detainees and determine the persons whose access to the prison must be guaranteed throughout the duration of the strike, and that there is therefore no consultation on these points, already established by the legislator; however, to assure these services, the staff must be sufficient in number. This information is provided in the tables or service plans for each prison. The Government recalls in this regard that since the legislator wished to resolve matters insofar as possible by common accord, the “post planning” by prison was initially entrusted to local social consultations (that is, grass-roots advisory committees). If no agreement is reached at local level, another consultation is foreseen at a higher level (in the higher advisory committee). If no agreement is reached at that level either, the minister decides. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication, in respect of the consultation and decision process for the official tables, that: “finally, when no agreement was forthcoming through social dialogue, the memorandum with the plans for each prison was approved by the minister.” Noting the information provided by the Government to guarantee a minimum service, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the compensatory guarantees or resolution mechanisms applicable in disputes in the prison services.

The Committee notes the Government’s first report.

Article 5 of the Convention. National programme on occupational safety and health (OSH). Objectives, targets and indicators of progress. The Committee notes the National Strategy for Well-Being at Work 2016-20 and the report on its evaluation, which provides a summary of the actions undertaken in the context of the national strategy. It also notes that this strategy contains operational objectives linked to four strategic objectives to improve OSH practices in the country, such as healthy and safe work, strengthening participation in the labour market, and reinforcing prevention and the culture of prevention. The Committee further notes that the strategy and its evaluation report do not include specific qualitative indicators of progress or measurable targets. The Committee recalls that in its 2017 General Survey, Working together to promote a safe and healthy working environment, paragraphs 147–153, it stressed the importance of evaluating the past performance of national OSH programmes using a methodology based on clear targets and indicators of progress. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to supply more information on the elaboration of qualitative indicators of progress that make it possible to evaluate to what extent the objectives of the national strategy for well-being at work are being achieved, as required by Article 5(2)(d) of the Convention. It also requests the Government to continue to supply information on the formulation and adoption of a new national strategy for well-being at work and on the consultations held in this context. It further requests the Government to send a copy of this strategy once it has been adopted.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government and the social partners this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and of the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB), dated 28 September and 1 October 2020, concerning issues raised in the present comment. It also notes the observations of the General Labour Federation of Belgium (FGTB), the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC) and the General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (CGSLB), dated 1 October and 9 November 2020, which, apart from referring to the issues examined in the present comment, denounce the lack of negotiation with trade unions regarding the adoption of measures to tackle the health crisis. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on this point.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection of staff delegates against anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the allegations of the FGTB, CSC and CGSLB concerning an absence of adequately dissuasive penalties for abusive dismissal of staff representatives, and the Government’s reply in this regard, based on the Act of 19 March 1991, as amended in August 2002, which establishes specific dismissal procedures for employee delegates on workers’ councils and safety, health and workplace embellishment committees and for candidate employee delegates.

Article 4. Right to collective bargaining. Wage fixing. The Committee notes the observations of the trade union organizations on the Act of 26 July 1996 on employment promotion and the preventive maintenance of competitiveness, as amended by the Act of 19 March 2017. The trade union organizations indicate that the provisions of the Act result in the fixing of a maximum wage band that severely limits the possibilities for collective bargaining and does not really allow wage increases, not only on the national level, but also at the sectoral and enterprise level. The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (i) the goal of the legislation in question is to reduce the gap in wage costs with neighbouring countries in order to encourage the competitiveness of the country’s enterprises and the development of employment; and (ii) the mechanism for negotiating the wage band and wages has not been amended, and the role of the social partners remains critical in wage fixing. The Government explains that wage standards are determined by the Group of Ten comprising the executive bodies of the trade union and employers’ organizations, in the framework of the Interoccupational Agreement (AIP), based on the technical report of the Secretariat of the Central Economic Council (CCE). The Government indicates that: (i) the AIP has to be concluded before 15 January in odd-numbered years; (ii) the wage standard is then established through a collective labour agreement concluded by the National Labour Council (CNT), which is made obligatory by the King; (iii) if the social partners do not reach an agreement, the Government must summon them to a dialogue and formulate a mediation proposal; (iv) if no agreement is reached in the month following the dialogue, the King, by degree discussed by the Council of Ministers, shall fix the maximum band of wage cost increases for the two years that should have been covered by the AIP ; and (v) negotiations at the sectoral and enterprise level are then held, respecting the wage band determined at the interoccupational level. Therefore, in the Government’s view, the social partners play an important decision-making role in the wage fixing process, and the public authorities intervene only if they do not reach agreement. The Committee notes that an AIP was concluded for 2017–18, but that no agreement was reached for 2019–20 owing to an absence of unanimity in the Group of Ten, as had already been the case in 2013–14 and 2015–16. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the system had already been criticized by the FGTB, CSC and CGSLB in 2013. At that time, the Government explained that the system placed emphasis on the participation of the social partners and that, in the cases where the public authority had to fix the wage band due to a lack of agreement, it had followed the draft agreement concluded by the majority of the social partners. The Committee noted those replies. The Committee also notes that the IOE and the FEB emphasize that: (i) the social partners remain fully competent for negotiating wage adjustments and that the Government only intervenes on a subsidiary basis; and (ii) any such political decision is only valid for a limited duration. It applies for a maximum period of two years, after which the social partners regain their freedom of collective bargaining in each case. Noting the divergence in approach between the trade unions, on the one hand, and the Government and employers’ organizations, on the other, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the effect given to the provisions of the Act of 26 July 1996, as amended by the Act of 19 March 2017, so that it can assess their effects on the possibility of negotiating wages at any level.

Harmonization of the joint committees and workers in the platform economy. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the allegations of the trade unions that workers in the platform economy are excluded from the scope of the Act of 5 December 1968 governing the negotiation and conclusion of collective labour agreements, which implies that they are unable to participate in the negotiation of collective labour agreements. In this regard, the Committee noted the Government’s indications that the so-called “collaborative” economy, established by the Framework Act of 1 July 2016 and amended by the Act of 18 July 2018 on economic recovery and the strengthening of social cohesion, is a limited regime legally governed by a certain number of cumulative conditions. In particular, the activity must: (i) be provided through an approved platform that is also the intermediary for the payment for the service; (ii) be performed only by an individual for the benefit of another individual (delivery services to individuals of meals prepared by restaurants, for example, are excluded); (iii) be undertaken outside any occupational activity; and (iv) not result in compensation of over €6,250 a year. The Government also explains that: (i) when these conditions are fulfilled, the collaborative economy regime is applicable, as the services are provided outside occupational activity and any relation of subordination; (ii) in view of the limited amount of the compensation, the service providers are not in a situation of economic dependence in relation to either the approved platforms or those giving instructions; (iii) when the conditions for the collaborative economy regime are not fulfilled, the income is classified for tax purposes as self-employed income (resulting in the provider being subject to self-employed status), unless the provider proves that it is not occupational income (not subject to social security) or that the work is performed in the context of a relationship of subordination (subject to social security for employees); and (iv) if the work is performed in the context of a relationship of subordination, the whole body of labour law applies, including the regulations guaranteeing freedom of association, the right to organize and collective bargaining. The Government indicated that the self-employed may join bodies that defend the rights of self-employed workers, particularly in relation to Government authorities. The Committee noted that the information provided by the Government in reply to the allegations of the trade unions mainly related to people in the so-called “collaborative” economy (which, under the terms of the Act of 18 July 2018, consists of services of low economic value provided outside of occupational activity), which it distinguishes from other platform workers. However, the Committee noted that, according to the Government, platform workers not covered by the collaborative economy regime are by default considered to be self-employed, and that the provisions of labour law, including the right to collective bargaining, only apply if the work is performed in the context of a relationship of subordination. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and trade unions (the FGTB, CSC and CGSLB) that the Constitutional Court, in Judgment No. 2020/53 of 23 April 2020, annulled the Act of 18 July 2018 at the request, inter alia, of the most representative workers’ organizations and a number of employers’ federations. Having been requested to issue a ruling on the question of the conformity of the tax- and labour-related aspects of the aforementioned Act with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, in that the Act establishes a difference of treatment (in tax- and labour-related terms) regarding the performance of activities in the context of associative work, occasional services among citizens or services in the collaborative economy, the Court considered, for each of the three activities, that this difference of treatment was unjustified. The Constitutional Court explains that “even though the uncertainty regarding correct classification may if appropriate justify the establishment of a separate status, such a status has already been created by the Framework Act of 1 July 2016. Moreover, this lack of clarity regarding correct classification does not constitute grounds, under the impugned provisions, for this status to qualify for total exemption from coverage by the labour legislation, social security scheme and tax obligations” (point B.7.7 of the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 23 April 2020). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, pending a response from the legislature, income from associative work, occasional services and the collaborative economy will follow the ordinary tax and social security classifications and rules from 1 January 2021.

However, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information concerning the collective rights of platform workers that is new in relation to the information already communicated in 2019, namely that platform workers not covered by the collaborative economy regime are by default considered to be self-employed and that it is only if their work is performed in the context of a relationship of subordination that the provisions of labour law, including the right to collective bargaining, will apply.

Without prejudice to the legal classification applicable to the various kinds of platform workers, the Committee recalls that, in so far as all workers, with the only possible exception of members of the armed forces and the police and civil servants engaged in the administration of the state, are covered by the convention, the right to collective bargaining should also apply to organizations representing self-employed workers (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 209). The Committee also recalls that it is aware that the collective bargaining machinery applied in traditional labour relations may not be adapted to the specific circumstances and conditions of the work of self-employed persons. In view of the above, and duly noting the information sent on the Constitutional Court decision of 23 April 2020, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the various organizational structures in the digital platform economy and on the way in which the workers concerned are able to organize and conduct collective bargaining. The Committee invites the Government to hold consultations with the parties concerned with a view to ensuring that all platform workers covered by the Convention, irrespective of their contractual status, are authorized to participate in a free and voluntary collective bargaining. Considering that such consultations are intended to enable the Government and the social partners concerned to identify the appropriate adjustments to make to the collective bargaining mechanisms to facilitate their application to the various categories of platform workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard and on any legislative measures adopted or contemplated further to the Constitutional Court decision of 23 April 2020.

Night work for e-commerce. The Committee notes the allegations by the trade union organizations that the Government, through the Framework Act of 25 December 2017 and without consultation with the social partners, has made possible the introduction of night and Sunday work in enterprises engaged in e commerce with the agreement of a single representative trade union, rather than all of them. The Committee notes that the trade union confederations express their disagreement in this respect with what they consider to be a use of collective bargaining for the purposes of deregulation. The Committee also notes the Government’s indications that, where the law requires the conclusion of a collective agreement at the enterprise level as a condition for the implementation of a measure, the legislator thereby wishes to prevent the employer from being able to unilaterally introduce the stipulated measure and to guarantee social dialogue. The Government indicates that: (i) in accordance with the “normal” rules of Belgian collective labour law, a collective agreement at the enterprise level may be concluded by a single representative workers’ organization; (ii) stricter rules exist for night work, in the sense that, for example, in order to introduce a labour regime that includes night work (work performed between midnight and 5 a.m.), a collective labour agreement must be concluded with all the trade unions represented in the enterprise trade union delegation; and (iii) in order to facilitate night work for the purposes of e-commerce, the Belgian legislator re-introduced the “normal” rule, which means that the conclusion of a collective agreement at the enterprise level with a single trade union is sufficient to introduce night work into e-commerce. The Committee notes that, in respect of night work, the rules of collective bargaining applicable to e-commerce have been amended by the Framework Act of December 2017, and that the trade unions criticize both the lack of dialogue in this regard and the use of collective bargaining for purposes of deregulation. The Committee wishes to recall that, under Article 7 of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), ratified by Belgium, measures taken by public authorities to encourage and promote the development of collective bargaining shall be the subject of prior consultation, and, whenever possible, agreement between public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organizations. In view of the above, the Committee invites the Government to hold consultations with the parties concerned to assess the effects of the exemption to the rules of collective bargaining introduced for e-commerce in relation to night work, and to determine possible measures to be taken in this regard.

Taking trade union organisations to court for non-compliance with collective bargaining commitments. The Committee takes note of the observations of the FEB and the IOE, which contain allegations that Belgian companies are regularly confronted with trade union actions carried out in violation of the provisions of the sectoral collective labour agreements, such as conventional conciliation procedures and formalities related to strike notice. They consider that, as trade unions do not have legal personality, any action in court against them remains impossible and that the legal framework should be adapted to solve this problem and thus improve mutual trust between the social partners.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates that : (i) various laws confer on trade union organisations a limited, functional and active legal personality, such as the Law of 5 December 1968 on Collective Agreements and Joint Committees which, inter alia, allows representative trade unions to conclude collective labour agreements ; (ii) according to article 4 of this law, representative organisations may take legal action in all disputes to which the application of this law would give rise and for the defence of the rights of their members deriving from the agreements concluded by them; and (iii) this article implies that trade union organisations may take legal action as plaintiffs, but may also be sued if they do not comply with the aforementioned law or a collective agreement.

The Committee notes a divergence between the views of the employers' organisations mentioned above and those of the government in cases of non-compliance with commitments entered into under a collective agreement. It notes that article 4 of the Law of 5 December 1968 extends the prerogative granted by law to representative trade union organisations, although they do not have legal personality, to conclude collective agreements with the capacity to take legal action to enforce their content, and observes that the question raised by the employers' organisations concerns the counterpart of this right to take legal action, namely the possibility of bringing trade union organisations before the courts. While stressing that mutual respect for the commitments undertaken in collective agreements is a central aspect of the right to collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any legal obstacles that may prevent legal action from being taken against trade unions for failure to comply with their commitments in collective agreements, and to make any useful comments on the impact of the current situation on the effective implementation of collective agreements.

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s first report and the national measures, including more than 20 pieces of legislation implementing all Parts of the Convention.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee has examined the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as the information at its disposal in 2019.

Article 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes with interest the detailed information provided by the Government concerning the tripartite consultations held in the National Labour Council (CNT) during the period from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2020, in which the CNT examined issues related to international labour standards. The Government indicates in its report that the practice relating to the application of Convention No. 144 in Belgium has undergone slight changes. These changes were introduced following reflection undertaken by the CNT, in close collaboration with the services of the administrative department responsible for employment, on the rationalization of regular reporting procedures on ratified and unratified Conventions. In this context, the working methods were adapted in order to provide support to the Government in terms of the content of replies and to achieve an optimal synergy between positions, while at the same time improving the transparency and effectiveness of the procedure of tripartite consultation in the broadest sense. Moreover, on 25 October 2019, in view of the need to rationalize the procedures, the CNT and the Federal Public Service for Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, in collaboration with the Ministry of Employment, adopted a new collaboration protocol relating to the application of Convention No. 144. The new protocol updates the collaboration protocol concluded in 1983. The Committee notes that the new protocol contains a schedule setting out the various procedures and key moments with the aim of achieving an optimal national consultation process for the various ILO mechanisms. There is also a timeline of the reporting process on unratified Conventions and on ratified Conventions. The Government adds that, despite the efforts made by the services of the administration to make the process of tripartite consultation more fluid, the proper functioning of the exercise still runs up against obstacles, and particularly the difficulties related to the regular reporting process faced by the administrative services and, consequently, the social partners, who are consulted at the end of the process. The Committee notes the observations made by the Government concerning the need for the Office to commence in-depth reflection on possible improvements to the reporting process under articles 19 and 22 of the ILO Constitution and on the rationalization of the procedures on which consultation is based. In this regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the guidance provided by the Governing Body of the ILO at its 335th Session in March 2019, in the context of the Standards Initiative, concerning the streamlining of reporting, with a view to reducing the reporting burden on member States (GB.335/INS/5, Part 3.1, paragraphs 51 and 52). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed and updated information on the impact of the new collaboration protocol adopted to optimize the functioning of the National Labour Council (CNT). It also requests the Government to continue providing detailed information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held within the framework of the CNT.

COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the tripartite consultations on international labour standards have been temporarily disrupted. The Government notes the CNT’s insistence that the traditional processes for the involvement and consultation of the social partners are duly re-established following this period of crisis related to the pandemic. In this context, the Committee recalls the guidance provided by international labour standards and encourages the Government to make use of tripartite consultations and social dialogue as a solid basis for the preparation and implementation of effective responses to the deep-rooted socio-economic repercussions of the pandemic. The Committee invites the Government to provide updated information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention and Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Recommendation No. 152, including with regard to any measures taken to reinforce the capacities of the tripartite constituents and to improve national tripartite procedures and mechanisms. It also requests the Government to provide information on the challenges faced and the good practices identified in relation to the application of the Convention during and after the period of the pandemic.

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on occupational safety and health (OSH), the reports on which are examined this year, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 167 (on safety and health in construction) and 170 (on chemicals) together.

The Committee takes note of the first reports of the Government concerning Conventions Nos 167 and 170, and the supplementary information provided concerning Convention No. 170, in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

A. Protection against specific risks

Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170)

Article 10(3). The employer’s responsibilities. The Committee notes the obligations pertaining to employers, including those concerning risk analysis in the workplace, which are covered in Title 1 “Chemical Agents” of Book VI of the Code on Welfare at Work, promulgated in 2017. The Committee notes, however, that the Code on Welfare at Work does not appear to include the specific obligation of Article 10(3) of the Convention, which requires employers to ensure that only chemicals which are classified, or identified and assessed, and labelled or marked in accordance with the Convention are used. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the specific provisions setting forth the obligation of employers to ensure that, in accordance with Article 10(3), only chemicals which are classified in accordance with Article 6 or identified and assessed in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, and labelled or marked in accordance with Article 7 are used.

Article 14. Disposal. The Committee notes that section VI.1-5, 4 of the Code on Welfare at Work defines an “activity involving chemicals” as including the “disposal” of these chemicals and that, consequently, the provisions of the Code on Welfare at Work, Book VI, Title 1 on "Chemical Agents" apply to safety and health risks. The Committee also notes the Government's indication in its report that the protection of the environment, in the context of the disposal of chemical agents, falls under the competence of the Regions, and of the legislation in force for the Flemish authority. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the manner in which it is ensured, in the various regions, that hazardous chemicals which are no longer required and containers which have been emptied but which may contain residues of hazardous chemicals, are handled or disposed of in a manner which eliminates or minimizes the risk to the environment.

Article 18(1). Right to remove oneself from danger. La Committee notes that section I.2-26 of the Code on Welfare at Work provides that workers who remove themselves from their workplace or a hazardous area in the event of serious and immediate danger “and which cannot be avoided", must not suffer any damages and must be protected from any harmful and unjustified consequences. Section I.2-26 of the Code also stipulates that the workers must immediately inform their line manager and competent internal unit. The Committee notes that Article 18(1) of the Convention does not refer to a danger “which cannot be avoided”. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to align its legislation with this Article. It requests the Government to indicate all other measures to ensure that workers have the right to remove themselves from resulting from the use of chemicals when they have reasonable grounds to believe there is an imminent and serious risk to their safety or health, in accordance with Article 18(1) of the Convention.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the data provided by the Government concerning the inspections carried out in enterprises, between June 2018 and April 2019, by the Directorate for the prevention of major accidents, which identify certain shortcomings in the regulations relating to labelling, distribution of safety data sheets, signage, and protection against exposure to chemical agents. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures taken to ensure the effective application of this Convention in practice, including the number of inspections in enterprises carrying out activities involving chemicals, any shortcomings identified and the outcome of follow-up action.

B. Protection in specific branches of activity

Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167)

Article 12 of the Convention. Right to remove oneself from an imminent and serious danger. Employer’s obligation when there is an imminent danger to the safety of workers. The Committee notes that section I.2-26 of the Code on Welfare at Work provides for the right of workers to remove themselves in the event of serious and immediate danger "and which cannot be avoided”. In addition, according to section I.2-24 of the Code on Welfare at Work, the employer must “take measures and give instructions to the workers to allow them, in the event of serious and immediate danger which cannot be avoided, to stop their activity or to move to safety by immediately evacuating the workplace. The Committee recalls that Article 12(1) and (2) of the Convention do not refer to a danger which "cannot be avoided". The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to align its legislation with this Article. It also requests it to indicate all other measures taken or envisaged to give effect to Article 12.

Article 23. Work over water. The Committee notes that section 468 of the General Regulation for occupational prevention and protection provides that where there is a risk of drowning, easily accessible life-saving equipment shall be made available to personnel. The Committee also notes that, pursuant to section 26(1) of the Royal Decree of 25 January 2001 concerning temporary or mobile work sites, specific prevention measures relating to work exposing workers to a risk of drowning must be described in the health and safety plan of the temporary or mobile work site where such work is being carried out. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the manner in which it is ensured that these measures include those set forth under Article 23(a) (preventing workers from falling into water) and (c) (safe and sufficient transport) of the Convention.

Article 27. Explosives. The Committee notes that under section 26(1) of the Royal Decree of 25 January 2001 concerning temporary or mobile work sites, the specific preventive measures relating to work involving the use of explosives must be described in the safety and health plan of the temporary or mobile work site where such work is being carried out. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the national conditions in which explosives must be stored, transported, handled or used; and the measures taken to ensure that explosives are stored, transported, handled or used only by a competent person, who must take such steps as are necessary to ensure that workers and other persons are not exposed to risk of injury.

The Committee takes note of the observations of the General Labour Federation of Belgium (FGTB), of the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC), and of the Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (CGSLB), received on 30 August 2019, that relate to the issues examined in the present comment, as well as the Government’s reply to those observations, received on 29 October 2019.

Article 3(1) of the Convention. Adoption of a national policy. The Government indicates that the workers in the Horeca (hotels, restaurants, cafes) sector enjoy the same protection under employment law as all other workers. It also indicates that the sector can, when the law so allows, make specific provisions by means of sectoral collective agreements. The Committee notes, however, that the Government does not provide information on the adoption of a national policy aimed at improving the employment conditions of the workers concerned, as provided for by the Convention. In that connection, the Committee notes the report, cited by the workers’ organizations in their observations, of the Court of Auditors, transmitted to the House of Representatives of Belgium in 2019. According to that report, the Government launched the “Horeca plan” in 2015, with a view to improving the viability of the sector at the same time as combatting undeclared labour. The Horeca plan set out measures to reduce social contribution charges on employment: creating flexi-jobs, exempting overtime from these charges, and also expanding the existing system of occasional work. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated and detailed information on the measures taken, including as part of the Horeca plan, to develop and apply a national policy aimed at improving the employment conditions of workers in the Horeca sector. It also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the measures taken in the Horeca sector, the major challenges and trends in the sector, as well as all specific measures taken to limit job losses and the deterioration of employment conditions in the sector.

Article 4(2) of the Convention. Reasonable normal hours of work and overtime provisions. The Government indicates that hours of work and overtime for all workers, including those in the Horeca sector, are regulated by the Labour Act of 16 March 1971 (sections 19 and 29). In that connection, the workers’ organizations observe that the adjustments made to the overtime regime in the Horeca sector, in particular the specific overtime hours, combined with voluntary overtime and the cash register system (a system certified by the Ministry of Finance, which has become compulsory for the vast majority of Horeca operators in Belgium), can have the effect of increasing the annual number of overtime hours to 503 hours, thus preventing the workers concerned from benefitting from the reasonable overtime provisions foreseen by the Convention. In its reply to the workers’ organizations, the Government indicates that the particular nature of the Horeca sector makes a degree of flexibility necessary, to cope with unexpected peaks of work. The Government indicates that the limits placed on recourse to overtime systems, in particular section 27(5) of the Labour Act of 16 March 1971, impose an absolute limit, known as the “European limit”, under which the various authorised exceptions are without prejudice to the provisions of EU Directive 2003/88, such that working hours, including overtime hours, cannot exceed 48 hours a week within a four-month period. In that connection, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 145 of its General Survey on hours of work, in which it points out that, when deciding what should be considered as a “reasonable” limit on the number of additional hours in cases of exceptions, the public authority should make a thorough evaluation of the intensity of the respective work, its ability to produce physical or mental fatigue, and of the possible negative consequences from fatigue for the respective employee and the public at large. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the effective measures that have been adopted to ensure respect for the limits set on the organization of working time in the sector. It also requests the Government to supply information on the measures taken to guarantee that overtime hours done by workers in the sector are compensated by time off with pay, by a higher rate or rates of remuneration for the overtime worked or by a higher rate of remuneration, in accordance with national law and practice and after consultations between the employer and the workers concerned or their representative, as provided under paragraph 7(3) of the Working Conditions (Hotels and Restaurants) Recommendation, 1991 (No. 179).

Point V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indications regarding monitoring of social legislation, that in 2018 the Federal Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue Service carried out 4,611 regulatory actions for a total amount of €9,279,786 and concerning 21,846 workers in the Horeca sector. It indicates further that 2,295 infringement reports (pro justitia) had been drawn up and submitted to the labour tribunal. These infringement reports concern 7,545 workers and amount to a total of €1,619,885. The Committee notes in that regard, according to the information provided by the Government, that the nature of the infringements in the sector principally concerned: protection of remuneration; public holidays; part-time work; labour regulations, social security (supplying information); respect for collective agreements; maintaining social documentation and undeclared workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide updated and detailed information, especially statistics, on the application of the Convention in practice, disaggregated by sex, age and category of work in the sector, concerning the number of visits undertaken by the labour inspectors, the results of the visits and the measures taken, if any.

COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of the global COVID-19 epidemic, the Committee recalls the guidance provided by international labour standards. In that regard, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017 (No. 205), which provides guidelines for the formulation and implementation of effective responses to the profound socioeconomic repercussions of the pandemic. The Committee invites the Government to provide up-to-date information in its next report on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Horeca sector and on support measures and re-launching action taken to preserve the sector.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

Part V of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee takes note of the statistics relating to the number of occupational accidents at Zeebrugge port from 1996 to 2016. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical data on the number of occupational accidents recorded in national ports, as well as all other relevant information so that it can assess the application of the Convention in practice.

Prospects for the ratification of the most up-to-date Convention. The Committee takes this opportunity to encourage the Government to follow up on the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group, and to consider the possibility of ratifying the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152), which is the most up-to-date instrument in this area. The Committee requests the Government to report any measures taken in this regard.

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on wages, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 26 and 99 (minimum wage) and 95 (protection of wages) together.

Minimum wage

Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 26, Article 1 of Convention No. 99. Scope of application of the minimum wage fixing machinery. Further to its previous comment on this matter, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that in 2013 the National Labour Council (CNT) removed the sliding scales that were applied to the monthly average interoccupational minimum wage level for young persons between 18 and 21 years.

Articles 3(2)(3), and 4 of Convention No. 26, Articles 3(4) and 4 of Convention No. 99. Binding nature of minimum wages. Supervision and sanctions. Further to its previous comments on this matter, the Committee notes the Government’s information that confirms, in particular, that a sectoral collective agreement fixing a minimum wage lower than the minimum wage fixed by the collective labour agreement adopted by the CNT for the interoccupational level is null and void. It also notes the adoption of the Social Criminal Code in 2010 and the joint liability mechanism for the payment of wages incorporated in 2012 into the Act on the protection of remuneration for workers.

Wage protection

Article 11 of Convention No. 95. Protection of wage claims in the event of bankruptcy. Further to its previous comments on this matter, the Committee notes that the 2009 Act on the Continuity of Enterprises was repealed by the Act of 11 August 2017 incorporating Chapter XX, on insolvency in enterprises, into the Code of Economic Law. In accordance with the new mechanism, workers’ remuneration owed to them because of the termination of their employment relationship is admitted as a preferential claim, irrespective of whether the termination occurred before or after the declaration of bankruptcy.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

The Committee notes the Government’s first report.

Article 17 of the Convention. Cost sharing for medical care benefits. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report that insured persons have to share in the costs of medical care benefits but that various measures have been adopted by the Government to reduce the cost sharing of broad categories of insured persons, such as ceilings on medical expenses and preferential treatments established for the purpose of offering additional protection to vulnerable people. The Committee further notes from the information provided by the Government in its 46th (2016) and 48th (2018) reports on the application of the European Code of Social Security, as amended by the Protocol (Code), which contains a similar provision, that the rate of cost sharing in the cost of consultations and home visits by general practitioners is 30 per cent and 40 per cent for specialist consultations and that the total amount of cost sharing for dental care may amount to 40 per cent. The Committee observes that such high rates of cost sharing may place a financial burden on ordinary insured persons, who are not subject to ceilings on medical expenses and preferential treatments, and act as a disincentive for those persons to access medical care when in need. Recalling that Article 17 of the Convention requires that the rules concerning cost sharing shall be so designed as to avoid hardship and not to prejudice the effectiveness of medical and social protection, the Committee hopes that the Government will consider reducing the rate of cost sharing or take other measures to ensure that participation in the costs of medical care benefits does not place persons protected in a situation of hardship or prevent them from accessing medical care when needed. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

Article 27. Funeral benefit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in case of death of a person who was in receipt of a sickness benefit, his or her entitlement to benefits paid for incapacity for work ceases and funeral benefits are not granted. The Government further refers to subparagraph (a) of Article 27(2) of the Convention which allows derogation from the provision of funeral benefits where, as in the case of Belgium, a member State has accepted the obligations of Part IV of the Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors’ Benefits Convention, 1967 (No. 128). The Committee recalls that in accordance with Article 27(2) of the Convention, a member State may derogate from the provision of funeral benefits if along with subparagraph (a), the requirements of subparagraphs (b) and (c) are also met. The Committee further recalls that in accordance with subparagraph (b) of Article 27(2) of the Convention, the above-mentioned derogation is allowed if cash sickness benefits are provided at a rate of not less than 80 per cent of the earnings of the persons protected and if, as per subparagraph (c), the majority of persons protected are covered by voluntary insurance which is supervised by the public authorities and which provides a funeral grant. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the requirements specified in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 27(2) of the Convention are met.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

The Committee notes the observations of General Labour Federation of Belgium (FGTB), the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC) and the General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (CGSLB), dated 30 August 2019, and of the Government’s reply thereto, received on 29 October 2019.

Article 7 of the Convention. Social dialogue and procedures for determining terms and conditions of employment. The Committee notes the allegations made by the trade unions relating to the lack of effective social dialogue in the public service, and the Government’s response thereto. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the functioning of the procedures in place for negotiations between the public authorities and public employees’ organizations on the terms and conditions of employment, and the application in practice of those procedures.

Article 8. Settlement of disputes. The Committee notes the allegations of the above-mentioned trade union organizations that the Act of 23 March 2019 on the organization of prison services and the status of prison personnel affects the application of the Convention, particularly in relation to special consultation and negotiation procedures in the event of industrial action. They indicate that, even though prison personnel are covered by the public service trade union rules, the Act gives the King the power to establish special arrangements, derogating from the “standard” trade union rules in the event of a social conflict in the sector. In particular, the trade union organizations indicate that this power has resulted in provisions which grant consultation committees additional powers in social conflicts, reduce the time allowed for consultation or negotiation procedures, and establish an “internal conciliation” function, which does not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality established in Article 8 of the Convention. In this regard, the trade union organizations indicate that such a role already exists in the “standard” trade union rules (section 12-8 of the Act of 19 December 1974), but that the involvement of this independent and competent social conciliator is subsidiary to the involvement of the internal conciliator. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the role of conciliator was previously envisaged in an initial version of the Royal Decree issued under sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 23 March 2019, the Royal Decree being a transposition of protocol No. 351 which provides for a specific contact in each Regional Directorate to conduct social dialogue in prisons; (ii) this role was then referred to as “internal conciliator”; (iii) following trade union negotiations in Committee A (the common committee for all public services), the role is performed by a representative of the Regional Directorate, with the aim of ensuring good practice, without preventing recourse to the social conciliator in the public service; and (iv) the use of the “internal conciliator” often meets with satisfaction by both partners: the local directorate and the trade unions.

The Committee wishes to recall that whether a system or dispute settlement body can guarantee the impartial and independent settlement of disputes, in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention, depends on its capacity to ensure the confidence of the parties in practice. The Committee therefore underlines the fact that a system that provides for conciliation, mediation or arbitration bodies that are administrative in nature and composition for the settlement of disputes in connection with collective bargaining in the public service, does not meet the requirements of the Convention with regard to the independence and impartiality of procedures and their ability to ensure the confidence of the parties (see the 2013 General Survey on collective bargaining in the public service, paragraph 438). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide additional information on the current mechanism for conciliation in the prison administration in order to ensure that it inspires the confidence of the parties in practice, and to provide a copy of the legislative provisions and applicable regulations.

The Committee notes the Government’s first report and requests it to provide information on the following issues.

Article 1 of the Convention. Definitions. Dependent children and other members of the worker’s immediate family who clearly need their care or support. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that there is no uniformly applied definition of the notion “dependent child” and “other members of the immediate family” in the national legislation. The definition of these terms varies according to the legal matter and system in question but the term “dependent children” generally concerns the people whose maintenance is taken on by another person. The term “other members of the immediate family” under the terms of the social security system, refers to people who benefit from social security through another person who is a beneficiary. Dependent persons can therefore be the spouse of a beneficiary of social security or the worker; the person who lives with the beneficiary of social security or the worker; children under 25 years of age; ancestors of the beneficiary of social security or the worker, or his or her spouse; and, where relevant, their parents-in-law. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to indicate whether the members of the immediate family of a worker who receive social security in their name but who nonetheless may need care or support that may restrict the possibilities of the worker in preparing for, entering, participating in or advancing in economic activity, may be considered “members of the immediate family” within the meaning of this Convention.

Article 2. Application to all branches of economic activity and all categories of workers. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s statement, where the legislation provides for measures for women and men workers with family responsibilities in the private sector, equivalent measures are in place for territorial public services (federal, community and regional). It also notes that many of the measures to enable persons with family responsibilities who are engaged or who wish to engage in employment to exercise their right to do so or to acquire work without being subject to discrimination and, to the extent possible, without conflict between their employment and family responsibilities, are implemented through collective agreements. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that private sector workers with family responsibilities, both women and men, who are not covered by collective agreements, are able to exercise their right to engage in employment or to acquire employment without discrimination or conflict between their professional and family life.

Article 3. National policy. The Committee notes that the protection of men and women workers with family responsibilities is ensured at federal, community and regional level through different means, such as maternity and paternity protection or equal treatment for men and women workers in occupation and employment. The Committee notes, however, that the prohibition of discrimination based on family responsibilities is not expressly stated as such in the law. Therefore, for example, the Act on combating certain forms of discrimination of 10 May 2007, which prohibits discrimination based on sex does not contain any provisions against discrimination based on family responsibilities. The Committee notes, however, that in addition to the present Convention, the legislation of the European Union, of which Belgium is a Member, and the European Social Charter, revised in 1996, set forth the principle according to which workers with family responsibilities are entitled to work without being subject to discrimination and, to the extent possible, without conflict between their employment and their family responsibilities. In this regard, it highlights the adoption on 20 June 2019 of the European Union Directive 2019/1158 on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Directive 2010/18/UE on parental leave. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to consider including in its national policy a provision formally prohibiting discrimination in employment and occupation based on family responsibilities, in the same vein as discrimination based on sex, pregnancy and maternity. Noting the recent adoption of the European Union Directive 2019/1158 on work-life balance for parents and carers, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to reflect it in its national legislation.

Article 4(b). Equality of opportunity and treatment concerning conditions of employment and social security. The Committee notes with interest that a number of working-time arrangements are guaranteed in national legislation, such as suspending a career (credit-temps), teleworking, accumulating time worked to take as leave (épargne-carrière), flexi-time, floating holidays, part-time work, leave-sharing, leave for providing assistance or care to a member of the household or family who is seriously ill, leave for palliative care, leave for compelling reasons and special leave, also known as “leave of absence”. These measures cover both specific situations for workers with family responsibilities and situations that all workers might face, irrespective of whether they have family responsibilities. In addition to maternity leave (and the right to nursing breaks), the Committee notes that the legislation also provides for more traditional leave granted to men and women workers with family responsibilities, namely paternity or parental leave, adoption leave and leave for foster care. In this respect, it notes that these forms of leave are essentially for men and women workers with responsibilities towards their dependent children and that for other members of their immediate family who clearly need their care or support, working-time arrangements are in place instead. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information disaggregated by sex concerning:

(i) the percentage of men and women respectively who actually use working time arrangements and other leave mentioned above, particularly the percentage of men who use parental and paternity leave, as well as the percentage of men and women who do part-time work and use teleworking arrangements;
(ii) the number of men and women who have requested and obtained leave to care for dependents, other than dependent children; and
(iii) the number of cases in which workers with family responsibilities have presented a case to labour inspection or the courts, following their employer’s refusal to grant them any of the above forms of leave.

Article 5. Childcare and family services and facilities. The Committee recalls that Belgian federalism is built at two levels: territorial and linguistic. There are therefore three regions with a territorial base (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels Capital region) and three language communities (Flemish, French- and German-speaking). The federal State, the communities and the regions each have “exclusive powers” and only the institution invested with an area of action can intervene (including in international relations) and enact legislation. Belgium is thus one of the few federal States to strictly apply the principle of equipollence of standards, which gives federated laws the same hierarchical level as federal laws. In this respect, the Committee notes that measures relating to childcare (nurseries, after-school care and other childcare services) and “assistance for persons” (which includes family policy, social assistance, assistance for persons with disabilities and assistance for older persons) fall within the competence of communities and that, as a result, there may be notable differences between the relevant services provided by the German-speaking, Flemish and French communities. According to a national study conducted between 2016 and 2017 on childcare, mentioned in the Government’s report, the Committee notes that at the national level only 23.7 per cent of children between 3 months and 2 years are placed in a childcare institution for a period of less than 30 hours and 31.4 per cent for 30 hours or more. The scarcity of childcare places for very young children has a greater impact on the Brussels-Capital region, where, between 2016 and 2017, the number of children not placed in nurseries rose from 63.4 to 66 per cent. However, during the same period, the number of children not placed in nurseries in the Flemish region fell from 52.1 to 41.5 per cent. Childcare for children aged 3 and over nevertheless seems much more accessible with, for example, a national average in 2017 of 77.6 per cent for placement of 30 hours or more for children aged 3–5 years. The Government refers to another study on the rate of inactivity or part-time activity of parents, owing to insufficient childcare systems and family responsibilities, that shows that women are clearly the most affected, while a tiny percentage of men are concerned. At the national level, in 2017, only 0.5 per cent of men had no work or were working part-time due to family responsibilities compared with 9.1 per cent of women. Noting that the lack of childcare facilities for very young children constitutes an obstacle to equality of opportunity of men and women workers wishing to reconcile their professional and family lives, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken at the regional and national level to: (i) improve the rate of coverage of childcare needs for children between 0 and 3 years (as well as information on the results achieved, particularly with regards to increasing childcare capacity); and (ii) combat territorial inequalities relating to childcare. It also requests the Government to provide detailed statistical information on the availability and accessibility of affordable facilities for childcare and for family services.

Article 6. Information and awareness-raising. The Committee notes that the Government’s first report is silent on this matter. It therefore wishes to recall that the measures taken to implement a national policy under Article 3 of the Convention should be accompanied by a major campaign of sensitization in order to promote widespread acceptance of the notion that the family is the concern of each individual, man and woman, and that society must enable all persons with dependents both to exercise their family responsibilities and to participate fully in the labour force (see General Survey of 1993 on workers with family responsibilities, paragraph 90). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to promote, at federal, regional and community levels, an information and education policy which engenders broader public understanding of problems of workers with family responsibilities and the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women workers with family responsibilities and workers without family responsibilities.

Article 7. Vocational guidance and training. The Committee notes that the implementation of vocational guidance and training measures falls within the competence of the federated entities, and more precisely of the regions. The Committee notes with interest that the regional employment offices (FOREM, VDAB, ORBEM) already provide for integration/reintegration, guidance and training measures for job seekers, and especially for “returning women” who have left the labour market or who never entered it owing to family responsibilities. Further, it notes the adoption at the national level of the Act on feasible and manageable work of 5 March 2017, which reforms and repeals the former training system. Thus, the interoccupational target of allocating 1.9 per cent of total wages to training has been replaced by a new interoccupational target of an average of five days of training per full-time equivalent and per year. The new Act provides for training to be organized, either at sectoral or enterprise level, by creating an individual training account. Where there is no collective sectoral or enterprise agreement, the worker is entitled to two days of training per year and per full-time equivalent. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the practical and legislative measures taken at the various regional and community levels, such as occupational training and employment programmes targeted at workers, particularly “returning men and women” with family responsibilities, with a view to enabling them to become and remain integrated in the labour force, as well as to re-enter the labour force after an absence due to those responsibilities. In this regard, it requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the Act of 5 March 2017 on training for men and women workers with family responsibilities, who are at a particular disadvantage when endeavouring to obtain and maintain a job. It also requests the Government to provide statistical data disaggregated by sex.

Article 11. Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the existence of various collective agreements giving effect to the principles and provisions in national law, in particular in the area of special forms of leave and conditions of work. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the manner in which employers’ and workers’ organizations exercise their right to participate in the development and implementation of measures to give effect to the provisions in the Convention, including with regard to reconciliation of workers’ professional and family responsibilities through collective agreements or other means. It also requests the Government to provide information on the programmes implemented at enterprise level, in consultation with the social partners, to promote reconciliation of professional and family responsibilities, as well as the notion of a better work-life balance.

Enforcement. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on legislation enforcement activities to give effect to the Convention, particularly labour inspection, and on all judicial or administrative decisions relating to the application of the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide statistical data disaggregated by sex, studies, surveys and reports which may allow the Committee to examine how the principle enshrined in the Convention is applied in practice, indicating the obstacles faced and the progress achieved with regard to equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women workers with family responsibilities and between the worker and workers without family responsibilities.

Articles 1–10 of the Convention. Protection for part-time workers. The Committee notes the Government’s first report and the national measures implementing the Convention, particularly the Act on non-discrimination of part time workers of 5 March 2002.

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and 2016 entered into force for Belgium on 18 January 2017 and 8 January 2019, respectively. Following its second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f), 2 and 3, of the Convention. Scope of application. Seafarers. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that seafarers with a status other than that of employee are not covered by the Act of 3 June 2007 issuing various labour provisions (Act of 3 June 2007) or by its implementing regulations. However, one title of the Act, on seafarers’ agreements, contains provisions on living and working conditions on board ships and these are relevant to the Convention. Among seafarers with employee status, some of those employed on dredgers appear to be covered not by the Act of 3 June 2007 but by the Labour Act of 16 March 1971. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the protection afforded by the Convention is guaranteed to all seafarers within the meaning of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that section 5(1)(2) of the Act of 13 June 2014 implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006, provides that the shipowner must guarantee that seafarers with a status other than that of employee enjoy the same decent living and working conditions equivalent to those guaranteed for seafarers with employee status by the national provisions giving effect to the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee also notes that section 5(1)(1) provides that the Act of 13 June 2014 applies both to seafarers covered by the Act of 3 June 2007 and its implementing regulations and to seafarers without employee status. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that seafarers employed on dredgers are covered by a number of collective agreements in the merchant navy sector, further to the conclusion of the collective agreement of 20 January 2017, concerning conditions of work and pay on dredgers.

In its previous comment, the Committee noted that section 28/1 of the Act of 3 June 2007 allows the King to establish, after consultation of the relevant joint committee, the categories of persons who are not seafarers. The Committee asked the Government to keep it informed of decisions taken pursuant to section 28/1 of the Act of 3 June 2007. The Committee notes that the Government adopted the Royal Decree of 7 March 2016 determining the categories of persons who are not seafarers pursuant to section 28/1. The Committee notes that this Decree provides that “the following categories of persons shall not be considered seafarers within the meaning of section 28/5 of the Act of 3 June 2007: […] 2. Trainees”. The Committee recalls that under Article II, paragraph 1(f), of the Convention, a seafarer is defined as “any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which this Convention applies”. The Committee considers that undergoing on-board training with a view to becoming a seafarer implies by definition working on board and so there can be no doubt that trainees in this situation must be considered as seafarers for the purposes of the Convention. The Committee emphasizes that the protection granted by the Convention assumes particular importance for the most vulnerable categories of persons such as trainees. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that trainees are considered as seafarers and that they enjoy the protection afforded by the Convention. The Committee is fully aware of the shortage of qualified officers capable of serving on board ships undertaking international voyages and ensuring their effective operation, a situation that is likely to persist in the maritime sector, and of the difficulties encountered in ensuring that trainee officers (cadets) satisfy the requirements of minimum compulsory seagoing service which forms part of the conditions prescribed by the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) with regard to certification. In view of the above, the Committee recalls that, as indicated in Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Convention, governments, in consultation with the social partners, may, if necessary and in conformity with the Convention, agree on measures which are substantially equivalent to be applied to trainee officers.

Regulation 1.1 and the Code. Minimum age. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that the dredging sector is covered by the Labour Act of 16 March 1971, which defines the concept of “night” as the period between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. Section 34bis of the Act provides that for “young workers over 16 years of age the limits set are 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. or 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. in the case of: (1) work, the performance of which, by reason of its nature, cannot be interrupted; (2) work organized in shifts”. Recalling that Standard A1.1, paragraph 2, of the Convention requires that the term “night” “shall cover a period of at least nine hours starting no later than midnight and ending no earlier than 5 a.m.”, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the periods referred to in section 34bis cover a period of only eight consecutive hours. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that, in accordance with the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC), Part I, young seafarers employed on dredgers are subject to clause 6 of Appendix 1 to the Royal Decree of 12 March 2003 concerning the application of the provisions relating to maintaining compulsory hours of work of seafarers on board ships calling at Belgian ports, which provides that the term “night” shall cover a period of at least nine consecutive hours, starting no later than midnight and ending no earlier than 5 a.m.

The Committee previously noted that in connection with the determination of the types of work likely to jeopardize the health or safety of seafarers under 18 years of age (Standard A1.1, paragraph 4), the Government refers to a Royal Order of 3 May 1999 on the protection of young persons at work. Observing that this order does not contain any provisions which deal expressly with work on board seagoing ships, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to adopt the list of types of work required by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Royal Order of 3 May 1999 is also applicable to seafarers and that the DMLC, Part I, for the dredging sector contains a list of examples of prohibited types of work. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, provides that the employment, engagement or work of seafarers under the age of 18 shall be prohibited where the work is likely to jeopardize their health or safety, and that the types of such work shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, in accordance with relevant international standards. The Committee requests the Government to adopt for the merchant navy sector, after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned, the list of types of work specifically prohibited on board seagoing ships as required by Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, of the Convention, and to send a copy of the DMLC, Part I, applicable to the dredging sector.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that no public or private services for the placement of seafarers operate in its territory. The Committee nonetheless noted that there are several sets of national regulations which govern placement activities by both public institutions and private employment agencies, and it asked the Government to indicate the provisions that implement Standard A1.4. The Government indicates that the Flemish region has public and private placement offices which are governed by the Decree of 10 December 2010 concerning private placement and by an Order adopted pursuant to this Decree. The Government states that this Decree was adopted to apply the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181). However, the Committee notes that the Decree of 10 December 2010 has not been amended to incorporate the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Government indicates that there are no public or private seafarer placement services operating in the Brussels-Capital region. However, the Ordinance of 14 July 2011 concerning the joint management of the labour market in the Brussels-Capital region, which came into force in October 2012 further to the implementing order of 12 July 2012 adopted by the Brussels-Capital regional government, allows the placement of seafarers by private employment agencies. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.4, paragraph 2, provides that where a Member has private seafarer recruitment and placement services operating in its territory whose primary purpose is the recruitment and placement of seafarers or which recruit and place a significant number of seafarers, they shall be operated only in conformity with a standardized system of licensing or certification or other form of regulation. This system shall be established, modified or changed only after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.4, paragraph 5, specifies the conditions which the system established in paragraph 2 must satisfy pursuant to the legislation or other measures in force. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to give full effect to the requirements of Standard A1.4.

The Committee also previously requested information on current procedures for dealing with complaints pertaining to the recruitment of seafarers on ships registered in Belgium (Standard A1.4, paragraph 7). The Committee notes that the Government describes the conditions for the implementation of the complaints procedure established in section 21 of the Decree of 10 December 2010 concerning private placement in the Flemish region. The Government indicates that monitoring of the application of the Decree is undertaken by an independent Flemish inspection service having competence in labour law and that this service can always be reached through various channels of communication enabling seafarers to highlight any problems. The Government indicates that no complaints from seafarers have been recorded so far.

Regulation 2.1 and the Code. Seafarers’ employment agreements. Record of employment. The Committee previously noted that section 52 of the Act of 3 June 2007 provides that “when the employment agreement ends, the employer shall give the seafarer all the social documents and a certificate recording only the date of the beginning and the end of the agreement, and the nature of the work. The certificate may contain no other entries, except at the express request of the seafarer …”. The Committee noted that the Government had provided a document entitled “Certificate of service”, which has a field headed “Remarks” without specifying that it shall not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarer’s work. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to Standard A2.1, paragraph 3, which specifies that this document “shall not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarers’ work or as to their wages”. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the “Remarks” field will be supplemented with the following statement (in English): “This document shall not contain any statement as to the quality of the seafarers’ work or as to their wages”.

Regulation 2.2 and the Code. Wages. The Committee notes that section 15 of the Act of 12 April 1965 concerning the protection of workers’ pay provides that the worker shall be provided with a statement (in paper or electronic form) at the time of each final payment. The King may determine the details that the statement must contain and how they are subdivided under different headings. It is stated that, in the six months following the entry into force of this Act, the joint committees must determine the particulars to be included in this document. In the event of any shortcoming or absence of the joint committees, the King shall take the necessary measures after consulting the National Labour Council. Recalling that Standard A2.2, paragraph 2, provides that seafarers shall be given a monthly account of the payments due and the amounts paid, including wages, additional payments and the rate of exchange used where payment has been made in a currency or at a rate different from the one agreed to, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which determine the main headings to be included in the seafarers’ monthly wage statement.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. The Committee previously noted that section 10/1(2) of the Royal Order of 24 May 2006 on seafarers’ certificates of proficiency provides that the limits on hours of work or rest shall be established in reference to maximum duration of work or to minimum duration of rest. The Government indicated in its report that both options were possible and that, as a rule, shipowners opted for minimum hours of rest. The Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to establish either a maximum number of hours of work not to be exceeded in a given period, or a minimum number of hours of rest to be granted in a given period (Standard A2.3, paragraphs 2 and 5). The Government indicates that clauses 7 and 8 of the collective labour agreement of 22 October 2015 for masters and officers registered with the pool fix the minimum number of hours of rest and that clauses 9–11 of the collective labour agreement of 8 May 2003 for ratings (ordinary seafarers) registered with the Belgian pool of merchant navy seafarers employed by a Belgian company fix the hours of work for watchkeeping personnel, day personnel and general service personnel. However, the Committee notes that the collective agreement of 8 May 2003 does not deal with maximum hours of work or minimum hours of rest but with the organization of hours of work. The Committee recalls that Standard A2.3, paragraph 2, provides that national laws and regulations must decide, in accordance with the Convention, the applicable system of maximum hours of work or minimum hours of rest and that the Government cannot therefore transfer responsibility for this decision to the social partners through collective bargaining. Also observing that Standard A2.3, paragraph 2, should not be interpreted as giving shipowners or masters the choice between several systems, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that either a maximum number of hours of work which shall not be exceeded in a given period of time, or a minimum number of hours of rest which shall be provided in a given period of time is fixed (Standard A2.3, paragraphs 2 and 5).

The Committee asked the Government to provide further information on the performance of safety watches provided for in clause 14 of the collective bargaining agreement of 1 February 2006 for masters and officers registered with the Belgian pool of merchant navy seafarers employed by a Belgian company, as amended by the collective bargaining agreement of 2 September 2009. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the collective bargaining agreement of 1 February 2006 was repealed and replaced by the agreement of 22 October 2015 for masters and officers registered with the pool. The Committee notes that the agreement in force no longer contains any provisions for a system of safety watches in ports comparable to the previous one. The Committee also previously noted that under clause 6 of the collective bargaining agreement of 14 December 2005 for navy personnel registered with the pool of seafarers employed on board shortsea ships flying the Belgian flag, the master reserves the right to order at any time work relating to, inter alia, fire drills, lifeboat drills and any similar exercise prescribed by international agreements. The Committee reminded the Government that Standard A2.3, paragraph 7, requires such exercises to be conducted in a manner that minimizes the disturbance of rest periods and does not induce fatigue. The Committee notes that section 10/1(4)(2) of the Royal Order of 24 May 2006 concerning seafarers’ certificates of competency, mentioned by the Government, is compliant with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes that shortsea ships are not excluded from the scope of application of this Royal Order. Lastly, the Committee noted that clauses 14 and 15 of the collective agreement of 1 February 2006 did not establish the requirement of compensatory rest prescribed by Standard A2.3, paragraph 8, in the event of actual work during an on-call period. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this obligation is covered by section 10/1(6) of the above-mentioned Royal Order of 24 May 2006, which provides that, if seafarers are on call, for example when an engine room is not attended, they shall have an adequate period of compensatory rest if the normal rest period is disturbed by call-outs. The Committee also notes that the above-mentioned collective labour agreement of 22 October 2015, which repeals and replaces the collective agreement of 1 February 2006, does not contain any requirement contrary to section 10/1(6) of the Royal Order of 24 May 2006. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the points raised previously.

Regulation 2.4 and the Code. Entitlement to leave. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the leave entitlement for seafarers not registered with the pool is “18 days of leave in a 30-day period of work”, but that no further details on this issue are provided. The Committee noted that the applicable collective agreement of 3 August 2012 defines entitlement to leave in reference to a scale set out in an appendix. However, there is no indication as to whether the figures in this table refer to the number of days’ leave for each month worked or for each year worked, cadets having 18 days whereas the ship’s master has 171 days. The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate exactly how entitlement to leave is determined for seafarers not registered with the pool who are employed on ships flying the Belgian flag. The Government indicates that seafarers who are not registered with the pool always have fixed-term contracts, so rules on leave do not apply. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the pay of seafarers not registered with the pool includes a holiday allowance. The Committee also notes that clause 16 of the collective agreement of 3 August 2012 provides that leave days may only be taken during the period of employment if so desired by the seafarer and if this does not disrupt work on board. Clause 3 indicates that seafarers are recruited on fixed-term contracts of a maximum duration of seven months. The Committee recalls that Standard A2.4, paragraph 2, provides that subject to any collective agreement or laws or regulations providing for an appropriate method of calculation that takes account of the special needs of seafarers in this respect, the annual leave with pay entitlement shall be calculated on the basis of a minimum of 2.5 calendar days per month of employment. Recalling the fundamental importance of annual leave with pay for protecting the health and well-being of seafarers and preventing fatigue, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that all seafarers not registered with the pool who are employed on ships flying the Belgian flag are entitled to a minimum of 2.5 calendar days of leave per month of employment, calculated on a pro rata basis where necessary.

The Committee recalls that, further to a combined reading of Standard A2.4, paragraph 3, on annual leave and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2(b), on repatriation, the maximum continuous period of service on a ship without any leave is in principle 11 months. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which give full effect to the Convention on this point for all seafarers, regardless of the collective agreement that applies to them.

Regulation 2.5 and the Code. Repatriation. The Committee previously asked the Government to indicate the provisions that require the provision of financial security, in accordance with Regulation 2.5, paragraph 2. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s explanation that the Act of 6 March 2017 amending the Act of 3 June 2007 issuing various labour provisions and the Act of 13 June 2014 implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006, has incorporated into the national legislation the necessary provisions for giving effect to the 2014 amendments to the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of a standard certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A2-I to the Convention (Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 7). The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the Maritime Labour Certificate and the DMLC, Part I, in the version which incorporates the information required further to the adoption of the 2014 amendments to the MLC, 2006.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that for ships built before the entry into force of the MLC, 2006, the requirements for the construction and equipment of ships set forth in the Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 92), and the Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1970 (No. 133), shall continue to apply to the extent that they were applicable prior to that date, under the law or practice of the Member concerned (Regulation 3.1, paragraph 2). The Committee noted that under the Act of 13 June 2014 implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006, ships built before the entry into force of the Convention in Belgium are subject only to the requirements on the construction and equipment of ships set forth in Convention No. 92. The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure compliance with the requirements of Convention No. 133 in respect of ships built before the entry into force of the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Appendix XIV to the Royal Order of 20 July 1973 regulating maritime inspection. The Government points out that this is very similar to Convention No. 133 and hence the conformity of Belgian ships with the provisions of Convention No. 133 is ensured. The Committee notes that clause 1(5) of Appendix XIV to the Royal Order of 20 July 1973 provides that the requirements of this Appendix implementing Regulation A3.1 of the MLC, 2006, which deals with the construction and equipment of ships, only apply to ships built on or after 20 August 2014. For ships built before 20 August 2014, the requirements concerning the construction and equipment of ships set forth in Convention No. 92 and Convention No. 133 will continue to apply. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

The Committee notes that clause 7(2)(A) of Appendix XIV to the Royal Order of 1973 provides that on passenger ships where more than four crew members are lodged in the same berth area the minimum surface area per occupant shall be 2.22 square metres. Recalling that Standard A3.1, paragraph 9(i), provides that on passenger ships the floor area of sleeping rooms for seafarers not performing the duties of ships’ officers shall not be less than 14.5 square metres in rooms accommodating four persons, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the Convention does not provide for any exceptions to the implementation of this requirement. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the maximum number of seafarers per sleeping room and the size of these rooms on passenger ships comply with the requirements of Standard A3.1, paragraph 9(i).

The Committee notes that clause 13(1) of Appendix XIV to the Royal Order of 1973 provides that any ship covered by section 1 of the Royal Order of 7 January 1998 concerning medical assistance on board ships of more than 500 gross tonnage carrying 15 or more seafarers and engaged in a voyage of more than three days’ duration shall provide accommodation for the administration of medical care. Recalling that Standard A3.1, paragraph 12, not only applies to ships of more than 500 gross tonnage, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the conformity of its national legislation with this provision of the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that sections 13 and 15 of the Royal Order of 30 September 2014 refer to permissible exemptions and derogations from the provisions of Standard A3.1 and that a follow-up committee has been established at national level, whose mandate includes issuing an opinion on the feasibility of derogations from the requirements of Standard A3.1. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the decisions, either adopted or under preparation, which would constitute exemptions or derogations from the application of Standard A3.1. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no exemption or derogation has been granted or requested. Regulation 4.1 and the Code. Medical care on board and ashore. Regarding measures ensuring that seafarers are able to visit a qualified medical doctor or dentist without delay in ports of call, where practicable (Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c)), the Government mainly refers to the Royal Order of 15 December 2010 concerning first aid for workers suffering injury or illness. The Committee notes that this text does not specifically cover the situation of seafarers calling at a foreign port when they are working under the Belgian flag or calling at a Belgian port, whether they are working under the Belgian or a foreign flag. The Committee also notes that the Royal Order of 15 December 2010 deals with first aid defined as all acts needed to limit the consequences of an accident or traumatic or non-traumatic incident and to ensure that injuries are not aggravated while waiting, if necessary, for specialist assistance. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c), is not solely concerned with situations of first aid. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information on the national measures giving full effect to Standard A4.1, paragraph 1(c). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that seafarers on ships sailing in Belgian territorial waters or calling at a Belgian port have access to medical facilities on shore when they need immediate medical or dental care (Regulation 4.1, paragraph 3), but the Government does not specify the applicable measures. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures giving effect to Regulation 4.1, paragraph 3.

In response to its previous comment on the level of training required for seafarers who are not medical doctors and who are in charge of providing medical care (Standard A4.1, paragraph 4(c)), the Committee notes with interest the Government’s reference to the relevant provisions of the Royal Order of 24 May 2006 and to the Royal Order of 7 January 1998 concerning medical assistance on board ships, as amended. The Committee also requests the Government to send the standard medical report form for seafarers adopted pursuant to Standard A4.1, paragraph 2.

Regulation 4.2 and the Code. Shipowners’ liability. The Committee previously noted that under section 65 of the Act of 3 June 2007, the assistance due from shipowners in the event of illness or accident covers only medical treatment and the provision of medicines and other therapeutical appliances, and that board and lodging expenses appear to be borne by the shipowner only in the event of repatriation. The Committee recalled in this connection that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(c), provides that shipowners shall be liable to defray the expense of board and lodging away from home until the sick or injured seafarer has recovered or until the sickness or incapacity has been declared of a permanent character. It further noted that these costs also appeared not to be covered by the social security scheme applying to merchant navy seafarers. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that shipowners bear the costs of board and lodging for seafarers suffering accident or illness when they are not repatriated, if such costs are indeed not covered by the applicable social security scheme. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it goes without saying that if the seafarer is not repatriated following an accident or illness and he or she remains on board, the obligation established in section 65 of the Act of 3 June 2007 still applies. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

The Committee previously noted that the Act of 3 June 2007 does not provide for the shipowner to bear the cost of burial expenses. The Committee emphasized that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(d), also makes the shipowner liable to pay the cost of burial expenses in the event of death occurring on board or ashore during the period of engagement, while Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 6, allows an exemption for the shipowner if such liability is assumed by the public authorities. The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to the requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 1(d) and 6. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to clause 9 of the collective agreement of 8 May 2003 issuing provisions common to the collective labour agreement for officers and ratings registered with the Belgian pool of merchant navy seafarers employed by a Belgian company, which is in conformity with the requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(d). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures ensuring that seafarers not covered by this collective agreement enjoy the protection prescribed by Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(d).

In its previous comment, noting that sections 65 and 66 of the Act of 3 June 2007 continue to specify the end of the voyage or the actual repatriation of the seafarer as limits to the shipowner’s liability, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to provide seafarers working on board Belgian-flagged ships with protection that meets the requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 2 and 4. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the collective agreement of 3 August 2012 concerning the working conditions of seafarers not registered with the pool who are employed on ships flying the Belgian flag, as established by section 1bis(1) of the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945. The Government adds that the usual social security rules apply to seafarers registered with the pool. All are covered by the regulations relating to occupational accidents and compulsory health insurance. The Government points out that the laws and regulations exceed the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that an employer that has paid the requisite remuneration or a share in medical or travel expenses may recover these costs from the seafarer or the seafarer’s dependants if it demonstrates that the illness or accident is due solely to serious misconduct on the part of the seafarer. The Committee asked the Government to indicate whether this serious misconduct must also be wilful, as provided in the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, by analogy with the general regulations on occupational accidents, which provide, in section 48 of the Act of 10 April 1971, that compensation established by the present Act is not due when the accident was deliberately caused by the victim, the expression “serious misconduct” referred to in section 67 of the Act of 3 June 2007 should be interpreted as serious misconduct involving a deliberate act carried out with the intention of causing harm. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

Regarding the safeguarding of property left on board by sick, injured or deceased seafarers, the Committee noted that neither the Act of 3 June 2007 nor the applicable collective agreements establish an obligation to return the property to the seafarers or to their next of kin (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7). The Committee asked the Government to indicate the provisions adopted or envisaged to ensure compliance with Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the provisions of two collective agreements: the agreement of 22 October 2015 for masters and officers registered with the pool; and the agreement of 8 May 2003 for ratings registered with the Belgian pool and employed by a Belgian company. The Committee notes that these two collective agreements indeed provide for the coverage of baggage transport costs, but only in cases of repatriation and not in cases of death as required by Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7. The Committee also notes that these collective agreements are only concerned with seafarers registered with the pool. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to indicate the measures that give full effect to Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 7, for all seafarers within the meaning of the MLC, 2006.

Regarding the financial security that shipowners are required to provide in order to assure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 1(b) and paragraphs 8–14, and Standard A4.2.2), the Committee notes with interest the adoption of the Act of 6 March 2017 “amending the Act of 3 June 2007 on labour law” and the Act of 13 June 2014 “implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006”, which gives effect in Belgian law to the 2014 amendments to the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes that section 7 of the Act of 13 June 2014 provides that any ship of 500 gross tonnage or more flying the Belgian flag and engaged in an international voyage or operating from a port or between ports of another country shall hold on board and keep up to date a Maritime Labour Certificate, a DMLC and insurance certificates as required by the MLC, 2006. The present title also applies to any other ship flying the Belgian flag at the request of the shipowner or designated official. The insurance certificates designate the certificate of insurance relating to repatriation and the certificate of insurance or any other financial security relating to the shipowner’s responsibility. The Committee recalls that Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 11, provides that all ships – and not only those obliged to be certified pursuant to Regulation 5.1.3, paragraph 1 – must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures giving full effect to Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 11. The Committee also requests it to send a copy of a standard certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security containing the information required in Appendix A4-I to the Convention (Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 14.)

Regulation 4.3 and the Code. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that implementation of the requirements of Regulation 4.3 is ensured mainly through the provisions of the Act of 3 June 2007, the Act of 4 August 1996 concerning the welfare of workers in the performance of their work and the International Safety Management Code (ISM Code), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 336/2006 of 15 February 2006 on the implementation of the International Safety Management Code within the Community. The Committee asked the Government to specify the categories of seafarers that fall within the scope of the Act of 4 August 1996. The Committee also asked the Government to provide detailed information on national guidelines pertaining to the management of occupational safety and health on board ships flying the Belgian flag that have been promulgated or that are being developed (Regulation 4.3, paragraph 2) and on occupational safety and health policies and programmes on ships that have been adopted and are being effectively implemented at national level (Standard A4.3, paragraph 1(a)). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Act of 4 August 1996 concerning the welfare of workers is applicable to workers bound by a seafarers’ employment agreement and workers bound by an inland waterways employment agreement. The Government indicates that all the legislation concerning worker welfare and the various Royal Orders implementing them are therefore applicable to seafarers employed on ships, including seafarers not registered with the merchant navy pool. The Government explains that certain generally applicable regulatory texts are not concerned with seafarers who are covered by specific instruments and that self-employed persons do not come within the scope of the Belgian legislation relating to worker welfare. However, regarding these workers, the Government refers to section 5(1)(2) of the Act of 13 June 2014, which provides that the shipowner must ensure that seafarers having a status other than employee enjoy decent living and working conditions equivalent to those afforded to seafarers with employee status by the national provisions giving effect to the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to send copies of specific instruments that deal with the prevention of occupational hazards for workers employed on ships to which the MLC, 2006, applies.

The Committee previously noted that clause 29(5) of the collective agreement of 8 May 2003 for ratings registered with the Belgian pool of merchant navy seafarers employed by a Belgian company refers to an “advisory committee on safety and health”, which has authority to examine the nature and gravity of occupational accidents on board ships, to explore possible preventive measures and to present advice and proposals to competent bodies, organizations and institutions, and shipowners in connection with the health and safety of crews. Recalling that Standard A4.3, paragraph 3, requires member States regularly to review the laws and regulations and other measures taken, in consultation with the representatives of the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations and, if necessary, revise them to take account of changes in technology and research and of the need to improve them continuously, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the “advisory committee on safety and health” has actually been established and, if not, to specify the framework in which such regular review takes place. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this collective labour agreement is no longer applicable. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. The Committee previously noted that access to benefits provided to seafarers residing in Belgium, in respect of social security protection supplementary to that specified in Regulations 4.1 and 4.2, is ensured through affiliation to the national social security scheme, pursuant to sections 2, 2bis and 2ter of the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945 concerning the social security of merchant navy seafarers. The Committee asked the Government to provide detailed information on the different categories of seafarers who are actually allowed to join this social security scheme. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the application of the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945 is very broad and makes no distinction between the various categories of seafarers. The Government explains that the crucial elements for determining seafarer status are: (1) employment on a seagoing ship, which excludes persons employed on pleasure craft or inland waterway vessels; (2) being assigned to operation of the ship, which excludes divers, scientists or instructors on training ships; and (3) the signature of a seafarers’ employment agreement with a shipowner, which excludes pilots, for example. However, the Committee notes that the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945 mainly refers to the flag of the ship to determine its scope of application. The Committee also notes that section 30 of the Act of 3 June 2007 issuing various labour provisions indicates that its provisions are applicable to employment agreements for seafarers on Belgian seagoing ships, regardless of the place where the agreement was concluded and the nationality of the employer, shipowner or seafarer. Its provisions are also applicable to seafarers’ employment agreements concluded between a Belgian employer or a Belgian shipowner and a seafarer principally resident in Belgium employed on ships flying a flag other than the Belgian flag. The conclusion of an employment agreement gives rise, for seafarers whose shipowner or employer comes under the authority of the joint committee for the merchant navy, to the statutory application of the Belgian social security scheme, as established by the Legislative Order of 7 February 1945. The Committee recalls that Standard A4.5, paragraph 3, provides that each Member shall take steps according to its national circumstances to provide the complementary social security protection referred to in paragraph 1 of this Standard to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. This provision therefore does not limit this responsibility to agreements concluded with a Belgian shipowner or employer, as section 30 of the Act of 3 June 2007 appears to indicate. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures in order to extend the protection provided under Standard A4.5, paragraph 3, to all seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory and who work on board foreign-flagged ships.

In its previous comment, the Committee also noted that the collective agreement of 3 August 2012 concerning the working conditions of seafarers not registered with the Belgian pool who are employed on merchant ships flying the Belgian flag – which, according to its preamble, concerns seafarers residing outside the European Union – deals with certain social security benefits. The Committee noted that clause 20 of the collective agreement requires the employer to take out adequate insurance to cover in full any unforeseen circumstances arising under the terms of the collective agreement. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the specific risks that must be covered by this insurance and any applicable penalties for non-compliance with this requirement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all risks deriving from obligations determined by the collective labour agreement of 3 August 2012 are insured. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that the collective agreement of 3 August 2012 does not lay down any penalties but that the competent authority must decide them if necessary. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all the measures taken or contemplated that seek to provide social benefits to seafarers who do not reside in the national territory, who work on ships flying the national flag and who do not have adequate social security coverage (Standard A4.5, paragraphs 5 and 6; Guideline B4.5, paragraph 5).

Regulation 5.1.1 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. General principles. The Committee previously noted that three bodies had been established with competence to implement the requirements of Title 5 of the Convention (follow-up committee, coordination task force and single contact point) through a memorandum of understanding (MoU) concluded pursuant to section 5 of the Act of 13 June 2014 implementing and monitoring the application of the MLC, 2006. It asked the Government to specify the composition of the above-mentioned bodies. The Committee notes the transmission of the MoU, which specifies the composition, tasks and functioning of these three bodies. The Committee notes that clause A.6 of the MoU indicates that the follow-up committee shall evaluate the implementation of the MoU each year. The evaluation shall address any deficiencies recorded, their nature and the measures taken to rectify them. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

The Committee previously noted that section 5 of the Act of 13 June 2014 states that “in the case of ships flying the Belgian flag, this Act applies only to the seafarers specified in the Act of 3 June 2007 issuing various labour provisions and in its implementing orders, and to seafarers holding a status other than that of employee. The shipowner shall ensure that seafarers with a status other than that of employee enjoy decent working and living conditions equivalent to those established for seafarers with employee status in the national laws and regulations giving effect to the requirements of the MLC, 2006”. The Committee recalled that Regulation 5.1 of the Convention applies to all seafarers working in any capacity on board ships flying the flag of the State concerned, irrespective of their State of residence or their nationality. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the categories of seafarers that are excluded from the scope of application of the Act of 13 June 2014. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Royal Order of 7 March 2016 establishing the categories of persons who are not seafarers pursuant to section 28/1 of the Act of 3 June 2007, and notes that no other category of seafarers is excluded from the scope of application of the Act of 13 June 2014. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

Regulation 5.1.2 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Authorization of recognized organizations. The Committee previously noted that under section 3(4) of the Royal Order of 13 March 2011 setting common rules and standards for ship inspection organizations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations, inspection and certification activities may be delegated to bodies approved by a decision of the competent minister. The Committee asked the Government to provide further information on any such delegation granted. The Committee notes that the Government has provided an example of a contract for the delegation of tasks relating to the renewal of ships’ certificates and also a document entitled “The Work Matrix” (version 7), which describes the conditions in which recognized organizations perform their tasks. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the point raised previously.

Regulation 5.1.3 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Maritime Labour Certificate and DMLC. The Committee recalls that Regulation 5.1.3, paragraph 6, provides that where the competent authority of the Member or a recognized organization duly authorized for this purpose has ascertained through inspection that a ship that flies the Member’s flag meets or continues to meet the standards of this Convention, it shall issue or renew a Maritime Labour Certificate to that effect and maintain a publicly available record of that certificate. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions ensuring that the record of the Maritime Labour Certificate is indeed publicly available.

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Belgium

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C087 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C187 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C098 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C128 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C167 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

A. Protection against specific risks

Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170)

B. Protection in specific branches of activity

Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167)

C172 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C001 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C014 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C032 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C095 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Minimum wage

Wage protection

C102 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C121 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C130 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C132 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C151 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C175 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Belgium

Display the list by:

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C087 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C187 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C098 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C128 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C167 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

A. Protection against specific risks

Chemicals Convention, 1990 (No. 170)

B. Protection in specific branches of activity

Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167)

C172 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C001 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C014 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C032 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C095 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Minimum wage

Wage protection

C102 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C121 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C130 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C132 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C151 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C175 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)