Texts of pending comments

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Gender pay gap and occupational segregation. The Committee previously noted the persistence of the gender pay gap as a result of several causes, including occupational segregation, the influence of stereotypes in relation to women’s areas of study, and the role of family responsibilities in reducing women’s employment levels. The Committee welcomes the fact that according to EUROSTAT, the gender pay gap (in an unadjusted form) decreased from 13.3 per cent in 2016 to 11.8 per cent in 2019. Furthermore, according to the 2020 report of the Swedish National Mediation Office, forwarded by the Government, the gender pay gap continued to decrease in 2020, with wage differences being estimated at 9.8 per cent. The Mediation Office however highlights that men still earn more than women in all economic sectors and, while decreasing, horizontal and vertical gender occupational segregation persists. Although the gender pay gap can be explained by several reasons, such as discrimination, market forces, the financial conditions of the different sectors, as well as women’s and men’s attitudes or choice of profession, the main explanation remains that women and men work in different professions and sectors. The Committee notes that, as highlighted in 2019 in the context of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), conducted under the auspice of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, despite a generally high rate of labour force participation of women, several UN treaty bodies expressed concern at the continued horizontal and vertical occupational segregation, with women concentrated in part-time work, predominantly for family reasons, and the persistent gender pay gap (A/HRC/WG.6/35/SWE/2, 12 November 2019, paragraphs 43 and 44). In that context, in 2020, the UN Human Rights Council also recommended to consider redoubling efforts in addressing the gender pay gap, both in the public and private sectors (A/HRC/44/12, 18 March 2020, paragraph 156). The Committee notes with regret the persistent lack of information from the Government on the measures adopted to address occupational gender segregation. It however notes the Government’s statement, in its reports, that a Commission for equal living income was appointed on 5 March 2020, in order: (1) to submit proposals for measures that contribute to the promotion of equal pay, equal living income, and equal distribution of public support to women and men, as well as for measures on how equal workplaces can be ensured; and (2) to disseminate knowledge on how to promote economic equality and equal living incomes, in particular among authorities, municipalities and the civil society. The Government adds that the Commission will present its final report in February 2022. While welcoming the continued decrease in the gender pay gap, the Committee trusts that the Government will strengthen its efforts to implement measures to effectively address the persistent occupational gender segregation and gender pay gap. It asks the Government to provide information on the content and impact of the concrete measures adopted and implemented to that end, as well as on any recommendations formulated by the Commission for equal living income in that regard. The Committee further asks the Government to provide updated statistical information on the distribution of men and women in the different sectors of economic activity, occupational positions and their respective levels of remuneration, both in the public and private sectors, and on the gender pay gap in the country.

Article 2. Pay surveys and action plans for equal pay. The Committee previously noted that, pursuant to the Discrimination Act (2008:567), employers were required to take active measures to promote equal opportunities at the workplace and prevent differences in pay and other terms of employment between women and men who perform “work which is to be regarded as equal or of equal value”, in particular by carrying out pay surveys (Chapter 3, section 10) and elaborating an action plan for equal pay following the survey, for employers with more than 25 employees (Chapter 3, section 11). The Committee welcomes the adoption, on 1 January 2017, of the Act (2016:828) amending the Discrimination Act so that all employers, regardless of size, have now a duty to carry out active measures, in cooperation with the employees, concerning working conditions, wages, recruitment and promotion, vocational training and the reconciliation of work and parenthood. It further welcomes the fact that employers are now required to conduct a pay survey every year, instead of every three years, in order to identify, remedy and prevent unfair differences in pay between men and women (Chapter 3, section 8). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Equality Ombudsman has made significant efforts to provide information to the relevant stakeholders on the contents of the new legal provisions in this field, including by revising its online training on pay surveys and launching an e-guide on active measures against discrimination in order to provide support and guidance to employers. However, it also notes that, in the context of the UPR, the Government indicated that there are signs that the Discrimination Act is not being complied with to a sufficiently high extent in terms of requirements made for employers to conduct pay surveys. Furthermore, there is a need for effective oversight of the Act, with effective sanctions where the provisions are not met (A/HRC/WG.6/35/SWE/1, 11 November 2019, paragraph 27). In that regard, the Committee refers the Government to its 2021 direct request under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) regarding possible changes currently under consideration in order to achieve more effective supervision and compliance with the Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to achieve more effective supervision and enforcement of the system of pay surveys and action plans for equal pay. It requests the Government to provide information on the concrete measures implemented by employers as a result of the active measures carried out to address any wage differentials between men and women based on sex, as well as on the number and outcome of any cases concerning pay inequality between men and women dealt with by the labour inspectors, the Equality Ombudsman, the courts or any other competent authorities. The Committee further asks the Government to continue to provide information on the training and awareness-raising activities carried out by the Equality Ombudsman concerning the promotion and enforcement of the principle of the Convention.

Public sector. The Committee previously noted that a “statistical job classification in the national government sector” (BESTA) was intended to group jobs in the national government according to job content and difficulty in the context of wage statistics, but that this classification did not entail an evaluation of jobs. It requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which pay surveys were implemented in the context of the national government sector. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that in 2016, the Equality Ombudsman carried out a large examination of 190 government agencies which focused on gender equality plans, including action plans for equal pay, in order to monitor that public employers carry on a preventive work against discrimination according to the provisions on active measures of the Discrimination Act. After the examination, the Equality Ombudsman found that nine out of ten agencies had up-to-date gender equality plans but almost half of them contained some deficiencies. One of the most common deficiencies identified was the lack of an action plan for equal pay. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any specific measures implemented, including as a follow-up of the evaluation made by the Equality Ombudsman, to address any deficiencies observed regarding the elaboration and implementation of active measures in the public sector, in particular the lack of an action plan for equal pay. It also asks the Government to provide information on any recent evaluation carried out to assess the implementation of the principle of the Convention in the public sector, as well as on any job evaluation method and criteria used to ensure that job classifications and pay scales applicable in the public sector are free from any gender bias.

Articles 2(2)(c) and 4. Collective agreements and collaboration with the social partners. Referring to its previous comments regarding the collaboration with the social partners in order to promote the application of the principle of the Convention, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that central workers’ and employers’ organizations have been participating in the commission of inquiry regarding active measures and equal living income. The Government adds that the Equality Ombudsman also cooperate with the social partners, including through network meetings. The Committee notes that, in its 2021 country report on non-discrimination in Sweden, the European Commission highlights that collective agreements cover about 90 per cent of workers (p. 16). It further notes that, in the context of the UPR, the Government indicated that, in Sweden, the responsibility for pay levels lies with the social partners as the employers, the workers and their organizations, work actively to reduce the pay gap between women and men (A/HRC/WG.6/35/SWE/1, paragraph 72). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which the application of the Convention is promoted through collective agreements, including information on how provisions contained in collective agreements promote equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, as well as their impact at the local level. It further asks the Government to continue to provide information on the actions undertaken to promote the implementation of the principle of the Convention with the cooperation of the social partners, and the results of such initiatives.

Articles 2 and 3. Equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women. The Committee previously noted the adoption in 2009 of the long-term Strategy for gender equality in the labour market and requested the Government to provide information on the specific measures implemented in that framework, to address occupational segregation in the labour market. It notes the Government’s indication that a Gender Equality Agency was established in January 2018 to achieve an effective application of the gender equality policy, through monitoring, analysis, and coordination actions. It observes that the Government does not provide any information on the activities of the Agency or on the measures implemented to address occupational segregation in the labour market as mentioned in its 2021 direct request under the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100). The Committee however notes that, in 2019, in the context of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), conducted under the auspice of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, the Government stated that the goal of the gender equality policy has not been attained in the private sector, as despite some progress, men continue to dominate in the boardrooms of private companies and in management. In 2018, boards of directors in private companies comprised 34 per cent women and 66 per cent men, while women accounted for 9 per cent and 8 per cent of chairpersons and CEOs respectively. Distribution between men and women is equal in wholly and partly state-owned companies, with figures standing at 48 per cent women and 52 per cent men in the same year (A/HRC/WG.6/35/SWE/1, 11 November 2019, paragraph 70). The Committee further notes, from the 2020 report of the National Mediation Office, forwarded by the Government, that while women have on average a higher education than men (with 51.5 per cent of women having a post-secondary education or postgraduate education compared to 38 per cent of men), only 5.6 per cent of women have managerial positions, compared to 7.9 per cent of men. The Mediation Office further highlights that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, after several years of increase, the number of employees decrease; this decrease being twice as large among women than among men. The proportion of women decreased in all sectors except within the state. The Committee notes this information. It further notes that, as highlighted in 2019 in the context of the UPR, several UN treaty bodies expressed concern at the persistence of horizontal and vertical occupational segregation, with women being still concentrated in part-time work (A/HRC/WG.6/35/SWE/2, 12 November 2019, paragraph 43). Furthermore, in the context of the UPR, the Human Rights Council specifically recommended to implement additional measures to achieve gender equality in all spheres, in particular in employment and decision-making (A/HRC/44/12, 18 March 2020, paragraph 156). The Committee trusts that the Government will strengthen its efforts to identify and implement effective measures to address occupational gender segregation and improve equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women in employment and occupation, including in the framework of the long-term Strategy for gender equality in the labour market. It asks the Government to provide information on the concrete measures implemented to that end, in particular by the Gender Equality Agency, as well as on any assessment made of their impact on the employment of women at all levels, including by providing any available statistical information.

Gender equality plans. Previously, the Committee requested information on the adoption, implementation and impact of gender equality plans at the enterprise level as required by the Discrimination Act, and on the measures taken to promote gender equality in enterprises with less than 25 employees. The Committee welcomes the adoption, on 1 January 2017, of the Act (2016:828) amending the Discrimination Act (2008:567) so that all employers, despite size, have now a duty to carry out active measures, in cooperation with the employees, concerning working conditions, wages, recruitment and promotion, vocational training and the reconciliation of work and parenthood. It, however, notes the Government’s indication that a commission of inquiry has been appointed to analyse whether the current provisions regarding supervision of active measures in the Discrimination Act are appropriate for effective compliance with the Act and that it suggested a set of changes in order to achieve more effective supervision. The Government adds that these proposals have been sent for referral and the results are currently under consideration. The Committee further refers the Government to its 2021 direct request under the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No.100). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the steps taken, including as a result of the recommendations made by the commission of inquiry and the evaluation made by the Equality Ombudsman, in order to address any deficiencies observed regarding the elaboration, implementation and evaluation of gender equality plans. It asks the Government to provide information on any concrete assistance provided by the Equality Ombudsman to that end, with a view to promoting gender equality, including by raising awareness about the Discrimination Act, as amended in 2017. The Committee further asks the Government to provide information on any recent evaluation carried out on the implementation of active measures and gender equality plans.

Equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of race, colour and national extraction. National minorities. Roma and Sami. The Committee previously noted that: (1) the Act on National Minorities and National Minority Languages (2009:724) (hereinafter, Act on National Minorities) includes provisions seeking to improve access to education for persons speaking minority languages, in particular Jewish, Roma, Sami, Swedish Finn, and Tornedaler persons; and (2) the Government adopted in 2012 a coordinated Long-Term Strategy for Roma Inclusion 2012–32, as part of the Government’s policy on national minorities, which covers several areas among which education and employment. It notes the Government’s statement that a National Plan to Combat Racism, Similar Forms of Hostility and Hate Crimes was adopted, in November 2016, in order to prevent and combat racism and hate crimes through an integrated approach. The Committee observes that the National Plan highlights the great need for a better awareness of the Act on National Minorities. The Government adds that, as part of the National Plan, the Sami Parliament was commissioned to map racism against Sami today and to propose concrete measures.

Regarding the implementation of the Strategy for Roma Inclusion, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Public Employment Service and the Equality Ombudsman have undertaken several trainings and awareness-raising activities to enhance Roma inclusion. Concerning the pilot project launched in five municipalities to participate in development activities for Roma inclusion, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that in light of the positive results achieved in education, social services and employment, it was decided to reinforce and expand this initiative beyond 2019. The Committee welcomes this information. It however observes that nor the Strategy for Roma Inclusion nor the National Plan to combat racism contain clear targets and measurable outputs that would enable a concrete assessment of their implementation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Equality Ombudsman carried out several activities in favour of the national minorities, including Roma and Sami, but that such activities were not specifically directed at combating discrimination in employment or occupation. The Committee however notes that, in its 2018 concluding observations, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) expressed specific concerned about: (1) continued difficulty faced by Roma in accessing education, employment, housing, health care and justice; and (2) continued reports of hate crimes and discrimination against Sami people (CERD/C/SWE/CO/22-23, 6 June 2018, paragraphs 16 and 24). Referring to its previous request regarding disaggregated statistical data, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that such information is not available as a result of its restrictive approach to collecting data on ethnic grounds, but that a Special Rapporteur was commissioned to evaluate the need for measures to improve qualitative data on Sweden’s national minorities on the basis of each minority’s circumstances and needs. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the proactive measures implemented to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of race, colour and national extraction for the national minorities, more particularly Roma and Sami, and enhance their equal access to education, training and employment, including in the framework of the National Plan to Combat Racism, Similar Forms of Hostility and Hate crimes and the Long-Term Strategy for Roma Inclusion 2012–32. It asks the Government to provide information on the impact of the measures implemented so far, as well as on the recommendations made by the Sami Parliament as a result of the mapping of discrimination against Sami. Recalling that appropriate data and statistics are crucial in particular to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the measures taken to address discrimination and make the necessary adjustments, the Committee asks the Government to provide any available statistical information, disaggregated by sex, or findings of qualitative studies on the labour market situation of the national minorities, more particularly Roma and Sami.

Afro-Swedes and persons of African descent. The Committee notes that, as highlighted in the context of the UPR, several UN treaty bodies expressed concern about reports of economic segregation and discrimination against Afro-Swedes and persons of African descent, in particular in education and employment. It further notes that the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent also considered that the structural discrimination faced by Afro-Swedes and persons of African descent constitutes an extensive social problem that has not been addressed sufficiently (A/HRC/WG.6/35/SWE/2, 12 November 2019, paragraph 12; and CERD/C/SWE/CO/22-23, 6 June 2018, paragraph 22). Furthermore, in its 2021 country report on non-discrimination in Sweden, the European Commission also highlighted that the evident negative effects of discrimination on Afro-Swedes in the labour market are well-documented (p. 5). The Committee therefore asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to prevent and address economic segregation and discrimination in employment and occupation of Afro-Swedes and persons of African descent, as well as on the results of any measures and programmes already implemented to that end. It further asks the Government to provide any available statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the labour market situation of Afro-Swedes and persons of African descent.

Newly arrived migrants. The Committee notes that the Introduction Act (2010:197) which provided for a variety of measures to facilitate access to employment for newly arrived immigrants was replaced, in 2017, by the Act on the Responsibility for Establishment Contributions for Newly Arrived Immigrants (2017:584) (hereinafter, Act on Newly Arrived Immigrants) which introduces, inter alia, an education and job-training obligation for newly arrived immigrants. In that regard, it notes that, in its 2020 conclusions, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) observed that, while the share of participants employed within three months after the completion of the Introduction Programme grew from 27 per cent in 2016 to 39 per cent in September 2018, it decreased to 33 per cent in 2019; and that evaluations of the Introduction Programme further show that women are less likely than men to have access to, and benefit from, integration measures. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken, including in the framework of the Act on Newly Arrived Immigrants, to promote the integration into the labour market and equality of opportunity in employment and occupation of newly arrived migrants, in particular women, as well as on any assessment made of their impact. More particularly, it asks the Government to provide updated statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the labour market situation of newly arrived migrants and the share and gender of participants to the Introduction Programme who have been effectively employed as a result of the programme.

General observation of 2018. With regard to the above issues, and in more general terms, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation on discrimination based on race, colour and national extraction which was adopted in 2018. In the general observation, the Committee notes with concern that discriminatory attitudes and stereotypes based on the race, colour or national extraction of men and women workers continue to hinder their participation in education, vocational training programmes and access to a wider range of employment opportunities, resulting in persisting occupational segregation and lower remuneration received for work of equal value. Furthermore, the Committee considers that it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated approach to tackling the obstacles and barriers faced by persons in employment and occupation because of their race, colour or national extraction, and to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for all. Such an approach should include the adoption of interlocking measures aimed at addressing gaps in education, training and skills, providing unbiased vocational guidance, recognizing and validating the qualifications obtained abroad, and valuing and recognizing traditional knowledge and skills that may be relevant both to accessing and advancing in employment and to engaging in an occupation. The Committee also recalls that, in order to be effective, these measures must include concrete steps, such as laws, policies, programmes, mechanisms and participatory processes, remedies designed to address prejudices and stereotypes and to promote mutual understanding and tolerance among all sections of the population. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to its general observation of 2018 and requests the Government to provide information in response to the questions raised in that observation.

Enforcement. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the number of complaints made before the Equality Ombudsman regarding working life raised gradually since 2017, passing from 240 in 2017 to 988 in 2020, and that the main grounds of discrimination between July 2017 and June 2021 were ethnicity (1,247), sex (940), age (562), disability (547), religion (234), sexual orientation (65) and transgender identity or expression (58). Observing the limited number of legal proceedings initiated and judgments issued on cases of discrimination, the Committee notes that, in its 2021 country report on non-discrimination in Sweden, the European Commission highlights that potential discrimination litigants face various obstacles such as low levels of rights awareness, trust in the legal system and experience with lawyers and the legal system; as well as limited awards if successful. In that respect, the Committee takes note of the adoption of the Law on the Human Rights Institute (SFS 2021:642) on 9 June 2021. It notes that the Institute, that will be established on 1 January 2022, will monitor, investigate and report on the situation of human rights in Sweden and submit proposals to the Government on further measures that are needed to safeguard human rights. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the number, nature and outcome of cases of discrimination in employment and occupation dealt with by the Equality Ombudsman, the labour inspectorate, the courts or any other competent authorities. It further asks the Government to provide information on: (i) any measures taken to remove any obstacles that may be faced by potential discrimination litigants; and (ii) the activities of the Human Rights Institute regarding the scope of application of the Convention.

Article 1(1) of the Convention. Prohibited grounds of discrimination. Legislation. The Committee previously noted that the Discrimination Act (2008:567) does not include “political opinion” and “social origin” as prohibited grounds of discrimination. Welcoming the inclusion of the ground of “transgender identity or expression” in the national hate crime legislation on 1 July 2018, the Committee notes with regret that the grounds of “political opinion” and “social origin” are still not included in the national legislation. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the Government referred in its previous report to a possible investigation to establish a comprehensive ban on discrimination with an “open list” of prohibited grounds. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its 2017 report that there are currently no plans to review the possibility of having an “open list” of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Discrimination Act. The Committee wishes to recall that, when legal provisions are adopted to give effect to the principle of the Convention, they should include at least all the grounds of discrimination enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention (General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 853). The Committee therefore asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the legislation includes an explicit prohibition of discrimination on at least all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, in particular “political opinion” and “social origin”. It asks the Government to provide information on any progress made to that end. In the meantime, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the steps taken to ensure protection against discrimination in employment and occupation on the grounds of “political opinion” and “social origin” in practice, as well as any relevant administrative or judicial decisions handed down in this respect.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Basic human rights. The Committee previously noted that a framework agreement was reached, in June 2012, extending state subsidized health care to undocumented immigrants. It requested the Government to provide further information on its implementation. While regretting the lack of information provided by the Government, in its report, the Committee welcomes the adoption, in 2013, of Act (2013:407) on healthcare for certain foreigners residing in Sweden without proper documentation, which gives undocumented migrants the right to subsidized health care for “care that cannot be deferred”. Referring to its previous comments on posted workers, the Committee notes with interest the amendments introduced, in 2017, in the Foreign Posting of Employees Act (1999:678) by Ordinance (2017:319) regarding the protection of the rights of posted workers. It notes, more particularly, that sections 10 and 11 of the Act now require foreign employers to (1) report to the Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA) when they post workers to Sweden and (2) appoint a contact person in Sweden, who shall be able to provide documents to agencies and employees’ organizations that show that the requirements of the Act have been fulfilled. In addition, sections 14 and 24 provide for financial penalties as well as compensations in the event of non-compliance. Referring to its 2020 direct request on the application of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) by Sweden, the Committee further notes that a Department for Joint Authority Control has been established within the SWEA to control the registry of posting of foreign workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures adopted in order to ensure full respect for the basic human rights of all migrant workers, irrespective of their legal status. It requests the Government to provide information on the activities of the Swedish Work Environment Authority to enforce the rights of foreign workers in an irregular situation, including on any assessment of their access to subsidized health care, as well as of the Department for Joint Authority Control, regarding registry and protection of posted workers. The Committee further requests the Government to provide statistical information, disaggregated by sex, nationality and sector of activity, on the number of migrant and posted workers, whether in a regular or irregular situation.

Articles 2–4. Measures to prevent and address irregular migration. The Committee previously noted that special regulations and more stringent control apply to certain industries where abuse of labour rules has proven to occur (i.e. berry picking, cleaning, hotel and restaurants, construction, trade, agriculture and forestry, automobile repair, and services sectors), before the Swedish Migration Board can issue a work permit to third-country nationals, that is, from countries outside the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). It requested the Government to provide information on the impact of these measures in reducing the employment of migrant workers in abusive conditions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in 2018, the Police Authority has been granted increased powers to carry out workplace inspections to ensure that employers do not rely on employees who do not have the right to stay or work in Sweden, in industries where it has been assessed that there is a particular risk for such employment. It further notes that the Foreigners Act was amended in July 2021 (Prop. 2020/21:191) so that residence permits granted to, amongst others, persons in need of protection and other migrant workers, as a general rule will now be temporary. A permanent residence permit can be granted at the earliest after the foreigner has had a temporary residence permit for at least three years and only if the applicant is able to prove his or her financial independence and that there is no doubt that a permanent residence permit should be granted taking into consideration his or her «expected way of life». The Government adds that the possibility of being granted a permanent residence permit at the first decision has probably been a factor that has contributed to Sweden being considered a country that is more attractive for asylum seekers compared with other countries in the European Union. The Committee takes note of this information. It regrets the repeated lack of information provided by the Government on the potential impact that the measures already implemented may have had in reducing the employment of migrant workers in abusive conditions. The Committee notes that, in its 2018 report, the Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) highlighted that it is not uncommon for third-country nationals to be asked to pay fees to agencies which provide them with temporary work and residence permits in Sweden as such agencies, while being regulated by the Private Placement Act (1993:440), do not require a licence to operate and there is no public sector supervision of their work. Furthermore, the GRETA expressed concern about (1) the implications of the decision to transfer the mandate for anti-trafficking actions to the Gender Equality Agency, in 2018, since the primacy focus of the agency would be trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation; as well as (2) the fact that the actions plan against trafficking adopted in 2016 focused on sexual exploitation. In that regard, the Committee notes that the GRETA specifically recommended that the Government should ensure that action against trafficking in persons is comprehensive and addresses all victims of trafficking for all forms of exploitation, taking into account the particular vulnerability of irregular migrants and asylum seekers (GRETA 2018(8), 8 June 2018, para. 32, 37, 74). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the measures taken to detect, prevent and address trafficking in persons for forced labour purposes, in particular of migrants in an irregular situation and asylum seekers; and (ii) any evaluation undertaken regarding the impact of the measures implemented so far in reducing the employment of migrant workers in abusive conditions. It also asks the Government to provide statistical information on the number of workplaces inspections carried out and of migrant workers in an irregular situation or illegally employed identified, as well as on the nature of the infringements detected.

Articles 5 and 6. Penal, civil and administrative sanctions and prosecution of traffickers for labour purposes. The Committee previously noted that both the Foreigners Act (Chapter 20, sections 5a, 8, 9 and 12) and the Penal Code (Chapter 4, section 1(a)) criminalize trafficking in persons or employing intentionally or through negligence a foreigner without a work permit, and provide for sanctions of imprisonment and a fine. It requested the Government to provide information regarding the new sanctions that would be introduced through the implementation of Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (Sanctions Directive). The Committee notes that, in 2018, the Penal Code was amended (Prop. 2017/18:123) to introduce a new criminal provision on human exploitation (Chapter 4, section 1(b)) in order to strengthen protection against exploitation of persons for work or begging, in cases not covered by the definition of trafficking. Under aggravated circumstances, the person found guilty is sentenced by imprisonment from two to twenty years. In this regard, the Committee asks the Government to refer to its 2021 comments made under the Convention on Forced Labour, 1930 (No.29) and the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930. The Committee welcomes this information. It however notes with regret the lack of information provided by the Government on the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act and the Penal Code in practice and the number of prosecutions carried out and sanctions imposed. In that regard, it notes that, in its 2018 report, the GRETA was concerned that the number of prosecutions for trafficking remained low and the number of convictions is even lower. Moreover, the GRETA highlighted that most of the investigated cases have concerned trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, as it is more difficult to start legal proceedings in cases of trafficking for forced labour purposes (GRETA 2018(8), 8 June 2018, para. 193). The Committee requests once again the Government to provide information on the application of sections 1(a) and 1(b) of Chapter 4 of the Penal Code and sections 5a, 8, 9 and 12 of the Foreigners Act, criminalizing trafficking in persons and human exploitation for forced labour purposes, including on the number of infringements detected or reported, investigations conducted, persons prosecuted, and of administrative, civil and penal sanctions imposed. It also asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the capacity of prosecution and law enforcement authorities, in particular regarding trafficking in persons and human exploitation for forced labour purposes. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any evaluation made regarding the transposition and implementation of the Sanctions Directive in the country

Article 9(1). Equality of treatment of migrant workers in an irregular situation with respect to rights arising out of past employment. The Committee previously noted that one of the proposed amendments regarding the implementation of the Sanctions Directive would be that third-country nationals who have been working in Sweden without the required work permit would have a statutory right to outstanding remuneration from the employer for work already performed. In the absence of information provided, the Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the progress made regarding the adoption of any legislative amendments relating to equal treatment of migrant workers in an irregular situation, in respect of outstanding remuneration and any other benefits arising out of past employment. It further asks the Government to provide information on any cases detected by the Swedish Work Environment Authority or claims brought by migrant workers in an irregular situation regarding non-payment or underpayment of wages, and their outcomes.

Article 9(3). Costs of expulsion. The Committee previously noted that pursuant to Chapter 19, section 1 of the Foreigners Act, a foreigner who is expelled is liable to pay the cost of his or her own journey to the place to which he or she is required to travel through the action of the authority. The Committee wishes to underline that, according to Article 9(3) of the Convention, in case of expulsion of the worker or his or her family, “the cost shall not be borne by them”. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 310 of the 1999 General Survey according to which a “clear distinction should be made between: (1) the case where the migrant worker is in an irregular situation for reasons which cannot be attributed to him or her (such as, redundancy before the expected end of contract), in which case the cost of his or her return as well as the return of family members, including transport costs, should not fall upon the migrant; and (2) the case where the migrant worker is in an irregular situation for reasons which can be attributed to him or her, in which case, only the costs of expulsion may not fall upon the migrant”. In the absence of information from the Government in this regard, the Committee again asks the Government to clarify whether Chapter 19, section 1 of the Foreigners Act covers all migrant workers who are in an irregular situation, including those who are in an irregular situation for reasons that cannot be attributed to them.

Articles 10 and 12. National policy on equality of opportunity and treatment. The Committee previously noted that the Discrimination Act (2008:567) prohibits direct and indirect discrimination at work and promotes equal rights and opportunities regardless of a number of grounds, including ethnicity. Pursuant to the Act, ethnicity means national or ethnic origin, skin colour or other similar circumstances (Chapter 1, section 5). The Committee observes that no information was provided by the Government regarding the nature and impact of the measures taken to achieve the objective of equality of opportunity and treatment between nationals and migrant workers lawfully in the country. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to achieve equality of opportunity and treatment between nationals and migrant workers lawfully in the country with respect to the matters set out in Articles 10 and 12 of the Convention, as well as on their impact. It further asks the Government to provide information on the number, nature and outcome of any cases of discrimination against migrant workers dealt with by the labour inspectorate, the Equality Ombudsman, the courts as well as any other competent authorities, in particular in the framework of the Discrimination Act.

Article 14. Free choice of employment and restrictions. The Committee previously noted that an employer who wishes to recruit a third-country national has to respect the community preference within the EU and the EEA and requested clarifications regarding the implementation of this rule. Since no information was provided in this regard, the Committee once again asks the Government to clarify whether this rule of preference also applies in the case a third-country national who is already in Sweden and applying for a new work permit because he or she is changing occupations.

Enforcement and practical application. The Committee previously noted the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Employment, the Swedish National Police, the Swedish Prosecution Authority and the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention in enforcing the relevant legislation giving effect to the provisions Convention. In light of the absence of information in this regard, the Committee again asks the Government to provide information on: (i) the activities of the above-mentioned bodies entrusted with the supervision of the application of the relevant legislation giving effect to the Convention, and their impact; and (ii) any other information, including studies and surveys, which may enable the Committee to gain a general appreciation of the application of the Convention. It also asks the Government to provide information on any judicial or administrative decisions handed down concerning the application of the Convention, including by the migration courts and the Supreme Migration Court.

Measures addressing family responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication, in its reports, that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the possibilities for parents to receive temporary parental benefits have been expanded as some parents have had to stay at home to care for their children, as a result of the closing of school or preschool facilities. In such a situation, the parents are able to receive around 90 per cent of the daily remuneration they would normally obtain from the temporary parental benefit. The ordinance was established in April 2020 and will expire at the end of January 2022. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the number of parents who benefitted from the specific temporary parental benefits measures adopted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Article 4(b) of the Convention. Leave entitlements. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on social security programmes and entitlements that improve workers’ ability to balance work and family responsibilities and to indicate the reason why the “gender equality bonus” was discontinued. The Government in its response states that an evaluation shown that the “gender equality bonus” did not change the distribution of parental benefits between the parents and concluded that it was an ineffective method to achieve a more equal distribution of parental benefits and parental leave. At the same time, when the “gender equality bonus” was abolished, the number of days in the parental insurance that could not be transferred to the other parent was increased from 60 days to 90 days, which has proven to be a more effective way of contributing to a more equal distribution of parental benefits between men and women. The Committee welcomes the information in the 2020 report from the Swedish Social Assurance Agency showing an increase in the number of days with parental benefits used by men from 25 per cent in 2016 to 30 per cent in 2019. It however notes that, in 2019: (1) 70 per cent of parental leave was still taken by women; (2) women claimed 61 per cent of the days corresponding to temporary parental benefit (compensation to parents who stay home from work in order to care for a sick child); and (3) women represented 72 per cent of the recipients of child allowance and 83 per cent of the recipients of child carer’s allowance for children with an illness or disability. In that regard, the Committee notes that, in its 2020 country report on gender equality in Sweden, the European Commission highlighted that in 2017 an inquiry on gender equality in parenthood delivered its report (2017:101) where it noted that the labour market was still highly gender segregated, with women more often having temporary employment, taking more parental leave and working part time than men. The Committee further notes that, as highlighted in 2019 in the context of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), conducted under the auspice of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, several UN treaty bodies have expressed concern about the concentration of women in part-time work, predominantly for family reasons (A/HRC/WG.6/35/SWE/2, 12 November 2019, paragraph 43). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Statistics Sweden (SCB) has been assigned to investigate and carry out a new study of time use, among women and men with a specific focus on unpaid home and care work. The Government adds that: (1) an inquiry has been appointed to modernize and simplify the regulations regarding parental benefits; and (2) a legislative proposal was submitted for public inquiry in the beginning of 2021 to introduce a new parental benefit, a family day allowance, to be used when the child is home from school at study breaks in order to make it easier for working parents to combine work and family life. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on future developments in social security programmes and entitlements implemented, in particular as a result of the above-mentioned public inquiries, to improve workers’ ability to balance work and family responsibilities. It further asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to encourage more men to make use of family-related leave with a view to achieving a more equitable distribution of family responsibilities, so that women in particular are not restricted in their possibilities of preparing for, entering, participating in or advancing in economic activity. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the conclusions reached by Statistics Sweden on time use for unpaid home and care work by men and women respectively, as well as statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the extent to which men and women workers make use of family-related leave entitlements, both in the public and private sectors.

Article 5(a). Childcare facilities and services. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that the reason for abolishing the childcare allowance was because there was a need to take more effective measures to help ensure that homework and care for children were distributed more equally between men and women. In that regard, the Government indicates that, in 2013, 91 per cent of those who received childcare allowance were women, plus persons born outside Sweden received childcare allowance to a greater extent than persons born in Sweden. Therefore, in the Government’s view, the childcare allowance contributed to more women leaving the labour market, especially women who already had a weak connection to it. The Committee therefore asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to assist men and women workers to reconcile work and family responsibilities, including by effectively ensuring adequate, affordable and accessible childcare services and facilities. It further asks the Government to provide information on: (i) the extent of childcare and family services available for men and women workers with family responsibilities; and (ii) the number of workers with family responsibilities making use of the existing childcare and family services and facilities.

Article 11. Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee previously noted that “extra parental wages” paid by the employer according to collective agreements are especially important to large groups of salaried employees, owing to the upper earning “ceiling” in the social security benefit scheme, and requested the Government to provide information on the number of men and women that have received extra parental wages. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that extra parental wages provided for in collective agreements apply both to women and men but that no statistics are available in that regard. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the type of sectors and number of employees covered by collective agreements providing for “extra parental wages”, as well as extracts from collective agreements relating to “extra parental wages”. It further asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to enhance social dialogue and cooperation with the social partners in the promotion of the application of the principles of the Convention.

Enforcement. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the number of cases of unfair treatment or dismissal on the ground of family responsibilities dealt with by the competent authorities. It notes the Government’s indication that three judgments in relation to the prohibition of discrimination against workers with family responsibilities were handed down and that the Equality Ombudsman was a party in those cases. The Government adds that two of these cases referred to discrimination associated with parental leave and one referred to discrimination based on pregnancy. The Committee observes that the Government does not provide information on any case dealt with by the Labour Court on the principles set out in the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the number, nature and outcome of any cases on unfair treatment or dismissal on the ground of family responsibilities dealt with by the labour inspectorate, the Equality Ombudsman, the courts or any other competent authorities. It further asks 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 these workers and workers without family responsibilities.

General Observation of 2019. Regarding the above issues and more generally, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation on workers with family responsibilities, adopted on 2019. In such observation, the Committee recalls the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work’s aim to achieve gender equality at work through a transformative agenda and stresses the importance of the Convention in achieving this goal. The Committee calls for member States, and employers’ and workers’ organizations, to strengthen efforts towards: (i) making non-discrimination of workers with family responsibilities and the adoption of measures to facilitate the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities explicit aims of their national policy; (ii) regularly monitoring and assessing the results achieved within the framework of the national policy towards achieving the aims of the Convention with a view to adjusting the measures adopted or envisaged; (iii) launching regular public information campaigns to promote the sharing of family responsibilities and remove misconceptions around care roles; (iv) ensuring that workers with family responsibilities have effective equal opportunities and rights to enter, re-enter and remain integrated in the labour market; (v) expanding and increasing access of all workers to voluntary and protected measures of working arrangements and leave that facilitate reconciliation of work–family life; (vi) expanding measures that support the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities within social protection systems; (vii) establishing and expanding adequate quality childcare and family services at community level; (viii) promoting social dialogue, collective bargaining and other measures to strengthen, facilitate and encourage the implementation of the principles of the Convention; and (ix) enhancing the capacity of enforcement authorities, including labour inspectors, tribunals, courts, and other competent bodies, to identify, prevent and remedy cases of discrimination in employment and occupation related to family responsibilities. The Committee asks the government to provide information on any measures taken or foreseen to apply the points referred to above.

The Committee welcomes the ratification by Sweden of the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, and takes due note of the Government’s first report.

Article 1(1) of the Convention and Articles 1(1) and (2) of the Protocol. Institutional framework. National policy and systematic action. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that a National Action Plan to combat prostitution and trafficking in human beings for all forms of exploitation was adopted in 2018, without specifying a time frame for the implementation of the Plan. The Government also indicates that the national assignment on prostitution and trafficking for sexual and other purposes is under the responsibility of the Swedish Gender Equality Agency, which manages an operational network of authorities – the National Task Force against Prostitution and Human Trafficking (NMT). In its 2018 report, the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) expresses its concern about the implications of the decision to transfer the mandate for anti-trafficking action to the Gender Equality Agency in 2018 from the County Administrative Board of Stockholm (CABS), since the primacy focus of the new agency would be trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, given that its creation is linked to the new National Strategy to Prevent and Combat Men’s Violence against Women (paragraph 32). The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the implementation of the national Action Plan and the activities of the Gender Equality Agency, in particular regarding trafficking for labour exploitation.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention and Article 1(3) of the Protocol. Definition and criminalization of forced labour and application of sanctions. The Committee notes the Government’s information that forced labour is defined and criminalized mainly under the provision on trafficking in Chapter 4, section 1(a) of the Criminal Code (trafficking for sexual purposes and forced labour, among others). Moreover, a new criminal provision (Chapter 4, section 1(b)) on human exploitation was introduced into the Criminal Code in 2018, aimed at strengthening criminal law protection against exploitation of persons for work or begging, in cases not covered by the definition of trafficking. It provides that a person who, by unlawful coercion, deception or exploitation of another person’s position of dependence, defencelessness or difficult situation, exploits another person in forced labour, labour under clearly unreasonable conditions or begging, is guilty of human exploitation and is sentenced to imprisonment for at most four years. Under aggravated circumstances, the person found guilty is sentenced to two–ten years. On 5 December 2019, the first judgment on the provision on human exploitation was delivered, regarding a restaurant owner who was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. The Committee also notes the statistical information in the 2018 GRETA report regarding the application of Chapter 4, section 1(a) of the Criminal Code on trafficking. In 2016, the number of reported trafficking offences was 197, of which 81 for sexual purposes, 27 for forced labour and 33 for forced begging. In 2017, there were 214 reported trafficking offences, of which 82 for sexual purposes, 39 for forced labour and 40 for forced begging (paragraph 13). However, in 2016, only three persons were prosecuted for trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation; two were sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. Further, in 2016, four persons were convicted of trafficking for the purpose of forced begging. In 2017, four persons were prosecuted for trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation (paragraph 192). GRETA is concerned that the number of prosecutions for trafficking remains low and the number of convictions is even lower. Moreover, most of the investigated cases have concerned trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. It is more difficult to start legal proceedings in cases of trafficking for the purpose of forced labour (paragraph 193). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of sections 1(a) and 1(b) of Chapter 4 of the Criminal Code criminalizing trafficking in persons and forced labour, including the number of convictions and penalties applied. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in order to strengthen the capacity of the competent authorities, in particular regarding trafficking for labour exploitation and forced labour.

Article 2 of the Protocol. Preventive measures. Clause (b). Educating and informing employers. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Gender Equality Agency allocates funding to civil society organizations who work against prostitution and trafficking for sexual purposes. The organization Realstars has, for instance, been granted funding for a project entitled “An enterprise free from trafficking”. Within the project, the organization will produce guidelines for companies on how to conduct a risk assessment and develop policies to combat trafficking. However, there is an absence of information on measures taken by the Government to educate employers about trafficking for labour exploitation, as well as other forms of forced labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to educate and inform employers about trafficking for labour exploitation and other forms of forced labour.

Clause (c). Labour inspection services and other services. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Work Environment Authority (WEA) coordinated an assignment with seven other authorities, covering the period of 2018–2020, to develop methods for joint control to tackle several problems, including trafficking for labour exploitation. In 2018, two joint operations were carried out under the EU policy cycle on trafficking within the framework of Europol, of which the first one focused on forced labour and other forms of exploitation of workers with the participation of the WEA. GRETA indicates in its 2018 report (paragraph 70) that the WEA inspectors have not received sufficient training to enable them to detect victims of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation. Moreover, although inspections of private households are possible, they rarely take place in practice. The Government further indicates that the Swedish Tax Agency officials often come across suspected cases of trafficking when investigating undeclared labour schemes. A guideline to raise awareness on trafficking is under development, providing indicators of trafficking and describing how STA officials should report cases of trafficking and labour exploitation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the activities of labour inspectors in combating trafficking for labour exploitation and forced labour. It also requests the Government to provide information on the development of the guideline for tax officers.

Clause (d). Protecting migrant workers during the recruitment and placement process. The Committee notes that, according to the information in the 2018 GRETA report (paragraph 75), the operation of temporary work agencies in Sweden is regulated by the Private Placement Act. However, such agencies do not require a licence to operate and there is no public sector supervision of their work. Further, the Agency Work Act regulates the renting out of employees for temporary work. There is an umbrella organization for temporary work agencies and companies renting out staff for temporary work, which supervises the activities of its members. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on measures taken or envisaged to prevent trafficking and labour exploitation in the activities of temporary work agencies.

Clause (f). Addressing the root causes and factors that heighten the risks of forced labour. The Committee notes that, according to the 2018 GRETA report (paragraphs 91 and 92), the Swedish authorities stress that the ban on the purchase of sexual services has reduced the prostitution market in Sweden and thereby demand for sexual services provided by victims of trafficking, and has contributed to making the purchase of sex socially unacceptable. However, research by the CABS and the Swedish Association for Sexual Education about the effects of the ban on purchasing sex shows that while there has been a clear reduction in street prostitution, the offer of sexual services on the Internet has markedly increased. There is also research highlighting some negative consequences of the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services, such as weakened safety procedures, fear of being subjected to police surveillance and difficulties faced by non-governmental organizations and social agencies in implementing harm-reduction measures. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the follow-up to the above-mentioned research regarding the ban on the purchase of sexual services. It also requests the Government to provide information on other measures taken or envisaged to address the root causes and factors that heighten the risks of trafficking for both sexual and labour exploitation.

Article 3 of the Protocol. (i) Identification of victims. Collection of information. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Gender Equality Agency gathers statistics regarding potential victims of trafficking from other agencies and actors, based on the cases that come to its attention. However, according to the 2018 GRETA report (paragraphs 13 and 103), there is no formally established system for identification of victims. The statistics collected by the National Council for Crime Prevention refer to reported offences, rather than to presumed or identified victims. Moreover, according to data provided by the National Rapporteur, the number of persons deemed to be victims of trafficking on reasonable grounds was much lower: in 2015, there were two victims of trafficking for sexual purposes; in 2016, seven victims (two for sexual purposes and five for “other” purposes); and in 2017, 12 victims (two for sexual purposes and ten for “other” purposes, namely forced begging). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the systematic collection of statistics of victims identified, and to provide such statistical information once available.

(ii) Protection and assistance of victims. The Committee notes the Government’s information that persons who are victims of human trafficking are offered support by the social services according to regulations in the Social Services Act on the municipality’s responsibility for providing support and assistance to people in need in general. Support may include sheltered housing, aid in contact with other agencies, financial assistance, interpretation and psychosocial support. This support is independent of whether the person is granted a recovery and reflection period and of cooperation with the law enforcement authorities. Provisions of several national legislative provisions also provide for access to health care for victims with or without a regular status in Sweden. Moreover, according to the 2018 GRETA report (paragraphs 111–113), since 2016, special assistance to victims of trafficking is provided under the National Support Programme (NSP), which is implemented by the Swedish Civil Society against Human Trafficking platform. Victims receive 30 days of assistance, extendable by a further 90 days in cases in which the presumed victims do not wish to formalize their victim status by reporting to the police or cannot obtain formal victim status, for example because they were exploited before arriving in Sweden. There are seven certified shelters within the NSP programme, with another three being reviewed with a view to certification. The Government further indicates that recovery and reflection periods and resident permits are granted to victims pursuant to Chapter 5, sections 6 and 15 of the Aliens Act. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to provide victims of forced labour with protection, recovery and rehabilitation. It also requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of victims who have benefited from the above-mentioned services.

Article 4(1) of the Protocol. Access to remedies. Compensation. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Swedish Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority subordinated to the Ministry of Justice is responsible for dealing with applications for criminal injuries compensation by the State, based on relevant provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, in particular section 15. The injured party in criminal proceedings may also lodge a private claim for compensation of damages to be paid by the offender in conjunction with, or separately from, the prosecution of the offence, according to the relevant provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure (Chapter 22) and the Tort Liability Act (Chapter 2, section 3). The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of victims of trafficking and forced labour who have claimed and obtained compensation, awarded by the Swedish Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority or granted by the courts, as well as the amount of compensation received.

Article 5 of the Protocol. International cooperation. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Gender Equality Agency financed the project entitled “Competence building, Assistance provision and Prosecution of labour exploitation cases in the Baltic Sea Region” (CAPE), which is implemented by the Council of the Baltic Sea States. The main objective of the project is to support relevant national and local authorities in combating and prosecuting forced labour in labour exploitation cases in Sweden and in assisting victims. The project will report on 31 August 2021. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the CAPE project, as well as the results achieved.

Article 6 of the Protocol. Consultation with social partners. The Committee notes the absence of information on this point. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned to determine measures to apply the Protocol and the Convention.

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

Articles 3(1) and (2), and 5(a) of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6(1) and (3), and 12 of Convention No. 129. Additional duties entrusted to labour inspectors related to immigration. Following the Committee’s previous request concerning the activities of the Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA) related to migrant workers in an irregular situation, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that in 2019 the Department for Joint Authority Control was established within the SWEA. The Government indicates that the Department for Joint Authority Control is in charge, among others, of the control of the registry of posting of foreign workers, administrative matters related to the SWEA’s function as the liaison office according to the Posting of Workers Act, as well as administration and decision-making regarding penalties connected to posting. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference in its report to cooperation between the SWEA and the Migration Agency. In relation to the Committee’s request on the number of cases where undocumented workers have been granted their due rights, the Committee notes the Government indication that the SWEA does not handle the issue of payment of outstanding remuneration. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the operation of the Department for Joint Authority Control within the SWEA, indicating if it is staffed by labour inspectors, as well as information on the specific nature of the cooperation between the SWEA and the Migration Agency. In this respect, it requests further information on the measures taken to ensure that the functions assigned to labour inspectors do not interfere with the main objective of labour inspectors of ensuring the protection of workers in accordance with labour inspectors’ primary duties, as provided for in Article 3(2) of the Convention. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the SWEA ensures the enforcement of the rights of migrant workers in an irregular situation (such as social security benefits for the period of employment), irrespective of whether it handles payment of outstanding remuneration.

Article 7(3) of Convention No. 81 and Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129. Qualifications and training of labour inspectors. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that, in their observations, the Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees (TCO), the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) and the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations (SACO) indicated that following the reorganization of the SWEA in 2014, labour inspectors covered all subject areas within the competence of the Authority and all sectors, leading to a system of generalist-oriented labour inspectors, which risked losing expertise and credibility of labour inspectors. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government in its report indicating there is a high degree of specialist industry knowledge among the inspectors at SWEA but that all inspectors must be able to handle different types of inspections as the SWEA prioritize different areas of inspection in different years. In this regard, the Government indicates that internal trainings are always carried out before different forms of inspection activities are initiated, and that there is a mandatory six-month training course for newly recruited inspectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the subjects covered, frequency, duration, and number of participants for the training given to labour inspectors to ensure that they are adequately trained for the performance of their duties, including specific information with respect to the agricultural sector as required by Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129.

Article 5(a) of Convention No. 81 and Article 12 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation between the labour inspection services and other government services. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the TCO and the LO observations concerning deficiencies in the cooperation of the SWEA with other agencies, such as the Swedish Public Employment Service and the Swedish Social Insurance Agency with a view to protecting certain categories of vulnerable workers. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government indicating that the cooperation of the SWEA with other agencies occurs primarily through agreements or arrangements about cooperation, which are oriented towards information and experience exchange but which also encompass the distribution of supervision responsibilities, mutual supervision questions, supervision projects, and competence development. The Government indicates that the SWEA is obliged to cooperate with the Social Insurance Agency, the Public Employment Service and the National Board of Health and Welfare. The Government also indicates the SWEA has started a cooperation with twelve authorities to create overarching cooperation though the coordination of activities regarding inspection, regulatory change, information and analysis. The Committee further notes other cooperation undertaken by the SWEA such as joint supervision campaigns in order to improve the safety of goods transport, the cooperation with the police to counteract fraudulent freight companies, and the cooperation with the Tax Agency. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 5(b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 13 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation between the labour inspection services and employers and workers or their organizations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the TCO and the LO observations concerning difficulties in the collaboration between the workers’ health and safety representatives and the SWEA, including in relation to the follow-up given by labour inspectors to requests made by these representatives to undertake workplace inspections. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government indicating that requests from workers’ health and safety representatives are part of the mandatory supervision for SWEA. An inspection is carried out if the request falls under the SWEA’s supervisory area and the health and safety representative has communicated with the employer. The Government indicates that there was an increase in requests from workers’ health and safety representatives after the new Regulation on Organisational and social work environment came into force in March 2016, but that by 2018, the number of requests declined. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide additional information on cooperation between the SWEA and the workers’ health and safety representatives, including specifically the workers’ representatives in the agricultural sector, and, in particular, on the manner in which the requests of the workers’ health and safety representatives are processed by the SWEA and on the follow-up given to these requests.

Articles 10, 11 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14, 15 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Number of labour inspectors and labour inspection visits. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the SWEA budget increased between 2015 and 2019, which resulted in an increase in the number of labour inspectors from 238 in 2015 to 285 in 2019. It also notes that the number of labour inspections increased from 21,000 in 2015 to 27,000 in 2018, due to the increase in number of inspectors, and the fact that those inspectors recruited are now trained in their roles and work more independently. It notes that the number of injunctions, prohibitions and penalties increased from 1,002 in 2017 to 1,469 in 2018, which the Government indicates is due to the increase in the number of inspections, the improvement in efficiency though better case management, better training and an increase in the quality of the preparation of cases though more efficient cooperation between inspectors, lawyers and decision-makers within the authority. The Committee further notes that the SWEA continues its work of developing digital tools for statistical analysis to support the planning of inspection activities and the selection of workplaces to be inspected.

Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Publication and content of the annual labour inspection reports. Following its previous comment, the Committee takes note of the 2017 annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services submitted with the Government’s report. The Committee requests the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure that the annual labour inspection reports are transmitted to the ILO and published in conformity with Article 20 of Convention No. 81 and Article 26 of Convention No. 129. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the annual reports contain information specific to the agricultural sector, as required by Article 27 of Convention No. 129.

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 second report and additional information received on 1 July 2018 on 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 in 2016 entered into force for Sweden, respectively, on 18 January 2017 and on 8 January 2019. The Committee notes the efforts undertaken by the Government and the social partners to implement the Convention. Following a second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 1. Minimum age. In its previous comment, noting that the Seamen’s Act No. 282/1973 authorizes persons under the age of 16 to be employed on board, if it is part of training, the Committee requested the Government to clarify how it gives effect to Standard A1.1, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Seamen’s Act No. 282/1973 does not authorize persons under the age of 16 to be employed. Maritime training is only done in upper secondary school as a part of an approved maritime training program in accordance with the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). In the Swedish school system all persons are of age 16 in upper secondary school. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. The Committee requested the Government to clarify how its national legislation implements the absolute prohibition of hazardous work for young seafarers in accordance with Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the Swedish Transport Agency has started the process for an amendment to prohibit engagement of seafarers under the age of 18 years for hazardous work without exceptions. The Committee recalls that the Convention, under Standard A1.1, paragraph 4, requires the absolute prohibition for young seafarers of the types of work considered hazardous but allows, under Guideline B4.3.10, the determination of types of work which young seafarers cannot undertake without adequate supervision and instruction. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard and indicate any measures taken to ensure full compliance with Standard A1.1, paragraph 4.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4. Recruitment and placement. The Committee requested the Government to clarify whether there are private recruitment and placement services operating in its territory. The Committee notes the Government’s clarification that such services are prohibited in Sweden according to the Private Employment Agencies and Temporary Labour Act (1993:449). The Committee also requested the Government to explain how it ensures compliance with Standard A1.4, paragraph 9 related to the use of seafarer recruitment and placement service based in countries or territories in which the MLC, 2006, does not apply. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is not possible for Swedish shipping companies to use recruitment services based in countries which have not ratified the MLC, 2006. According to the Swedish model which authorizes employers’ and employees’ organizations to agree about employment conditions, it is only possible to hire seafarers from Russia and the Philippines outside the European Union, both countries having ratified the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(a). Seafarers’ employment agreements. Signature of seafarer and shipowner or a representative. Noting that, according to the standard employment agreement provided by the Government, the agreement can be concluded alternatively between the seafarer and a shipowner or an employer or someone on behalf of the employer or the shipowner, the Committee requested the Government to clarify who the parties to the seafarer’s employment agreement are. It further requested the Government to consider amending the standard employment agreement to ensure that seafarers have an original agreement signed by both the seafarer and the shipowner or a shipowner’s representative, as required under paragraph 1 of Standard A2.1. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the example of a collective bargaining agreement for ship officers on Swedish vessels, attached to its report, states in section 2, subsection 1 that there has to be a written employment agreement drawn up between the shipping company and the ship officer. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the legal provisions ensuring that seafarers’ employment agreements are in all cases signed by the seafarer and the shipowner or a shipowner’s representative, as required under paragraph 1 of Standard A2.1, even when the shipowner is not the direct employer of the seafarer.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7, 8 and 9. Hours of work and hours of rest. Drills. On call work. The Committee requested the Government to clarify whether there are any collective agreements containing provisions on the matters stated in Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7 and 8 and if not, to take the necessary measures to establish such provisions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed between the Swedish Shipowners’ Employer Association (SEA) and the Maritime Officers’ Association – within Leaders (MOA) regulates overtime compensation. The Committee notes however that the said Collective agreement does not contain provisions on the matters stated in Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7 and 8. The Committee further notes that while subsection 3 of section 6 of the Act on Periods of Rest for Seafarers (1998:958) refers to participation in safety drills and the need to compensate with a period of rest of sufficient extent, this Act does not indicate that such drills shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes the disturbance of rest periods and does not induce fatigue. The Committee also notes that this Act does not regulate the issue of on call work. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Standard A2.3, paragraphs 7 to 9 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 14. Hours of work and hours of rest. Immediate safety and distress at sea. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures compliance with Standard A2.3, paragraph 14 related to exceptions to the hours of work due to emergency situations. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 6 of the Act on Periods of Rest for Seafarers which regulates the master’s right to suspend hours of rest. The Committee notes once again that the cases foreseen in section 6 of the said Act go beyond those provided for in the Convention. Recalling that the suspension of the schedule of the hours of work is only allowed under Standard A2.3, paragraph 14, if necessary for the immediate safety of the ship, persons on board or cargo, or for the purpose of giving assistance to other ships or persons in distress at sea, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 12. Hours of work and hours of rest. Records. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it ensures that records of hours of rest may be monitored, as called for under Standard A2.3, paragraph 12. The Committee notes the sample of a record for hours of rest attached to the Government’s report as well as the Government’s indication that these documents are signed by both the master and the seafarer and are monitored when a flag state inspection is carried out. The Committee notes that these elements are included in the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC), Part I. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.5, paragraph 2 and Standard A2.5.2. Repatriation. Financial security in the event of abandonment. The Committee requested the Government to specify whether it requires ships flying its flag to provide financial security to ensure that seafarers are duly repatriated, in accordance with Regulation 2.5, paragraph 2. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that repatriation is regulated by the Seaman’s Act (1973:282) and the Ordinance (1991:1379) on administration of maritime arrangements as well as by collective agreements. The Government further indicates that in the case of the shipowner’s bankruptcy, there are national rules in the Act (1992:497) on guaranteed salary assuring that the seaman continues to get his salary during a number of months. The Committee notes that according to the DMLC Part I as revised following the entry into force of the 2014 amendments to the Convention, Sweden has adopted a substantial equivalence measure to allow ships to sail without certificate or documentary evidence stating financial security. The substantial equivalencies are stated in the following provisions: sections 19–21 of the Swedish Ordinance (1991:1379) on Foreign Missions’ Handling of Shipping Matters. In case of abandonment, a seafarer shall engage a Swedish foreign mission to obtain financial assistance in reasonable amounts and without delay. Financial assistance shall be provided for medical care, repatriation and any other reasonable costs until the seafarer’s arrival at home. The Swedish Wages Guarantee Act (1992:497) entitles seafarers to wages when a shipowner fails to pay contractual wages. Wages shall be provided in circumstances where a shipowner is bankrupt or in a process of company reorganization. While noting this information, the Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) does national legislation require the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in the event of their abandonment (if yes, specify the nature of the financial security system and if the financial security system was determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned); (b) has your country received requests to facilitate repatriation of a seafarer and, if yes, how did your country respond; (c) what are the circumstances under which a seafarer is considered abandoned according to national legislation; (d) does national legislation provide that ships that need to be certified according to Regulation 5.1.3 must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence must contain the information required by Appendix A2-I and has to be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (e) does national legislation require that the financial security system is sufficient to cover outstanding wages and other entitlements, all expenses incurred by the seafarer (including the cost of repatriation), and the essential needs of the seafarers, as defined in Standard A2.5.2, paragraph 9; and (f) does national legislation provide for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions, and to indicate in each case the applicable national provisions.

Regulation 2.6 and the Code. Seafarer compensation for the ship’s loss or foundering. The Committee requested the Government to explain how it ensures that shipowners respect the obligation established in Regulation 2.6. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this Regulation is implemented through collective bargaining agreements and that unemployment is not the consequence if a ship is foundered or lost, since the seafarer does not lose his or her salary. The Committee notes in this regard the Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to above which refers to compensation for loss of personal property in case of shipwreck. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 3.1 and Standard A3.1, paragraph 9. Accommodation and recreational facilities. Sleeping rooms. Noting that the Government’s system of measurement differs from that under the Convention, the Committee requested the Government to provide conversions of those measurements to gross tonnage in order to facilitate the Committee’s review of the implementation of this provision. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in this regard showing the size of Swedish MLC vessels’ crew cabins compared to the requirements of the MLC, 2006. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that in consultation with shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations it has been agreed to retain the more favourable conditions of the existing Swedish legislation. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1 and A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security in the event of death or long-term disability. The Committee requested the Government to identify the measures requiring that shipowners of ships flying its flag provide financial security to ensure compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard, as required under Standard A4.2, paragraph 1(b). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all seafarers working on ships that fly the Swedish flag are assured a financial security as required by this Standard (chapters 40–41 and 88 of the Social Security Code (2010:110)). The Committee notes that according to the DMLC Part I as revised following the entry into force of the 2014 amendments to the Convention, Sweden has adopted a substantial equivalence measure to allow ships to sail without certificate or documentary evidence stating financial security. The Swedish Social Insurance Code entitles seafarers to financial security for any claim which relates to long-term disability or death of seafarers. In case of long-term disability, the financial security shall be in the form of annuity, sick pay and compensation for care and special aids. In case of death, the financial security is in the form of annuity to next of kin as well as compensation for funeral expenses. As a complement to the Social Insurance Code, the shipowner can have collective bargaining agreements which include occupational group life insurance (TGL) and industrial injury insurance (TFA) for all seafarers on Swedish ships. While noting this information, the Committee brings the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) what is the form taken by the system of financial security and was it determined after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned; (b) how do national laws and regulations ensure that the system of financial security meets the following minimum requirements: (i) payment of compensation in full and without delay; (ii) no pressure to accept payment less than the contractual amount; (iii) interim payments (while situation is being assessed) to avoid undue hardship; (iv) offsetting payment against any damages resulting from any other claim made by the seafarer against the shipowner and arising from the same incident; and (v) persons who can bring the claim for contractual compensation (seafarer, her/his next of kin, representative or designated beneficiary); (c) does national legislation provide that ships must carry on board a certificate or other documentary evidence of financial security issued by the financial security provider (if yes, specify if the certificate or other documentary evidence has to contain the information required in Appendix A4-I, be in English or accompanied by an English translation, and if a copy must be posted in a conspicuous place on board); (d) does national legislation provide: (i) for at least 30 days of notice by the financial security provider to the competent authority of the flag State before the financial security can cease; (ii) that the competent authority is notified by the financial security provider if a shipowner’s financial security is cancelled or terminated; and (iii) that seafarers receive prior notification if a shipowner’s financial security is to be cancelled or terminated; and (e) how does national legislation ensure that effective arrangements are in place to receive, deal with and impartially settle contractual claims relating to compensation in the event of the death or long-term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard, through expeditious and fair procedures? The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above-mentioned questions, indicating in each case the applicable national provisions.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraph 3. Social security. Protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information with respect to the protection of seafarers ordinarily resident in Sweden working on board ships operating under the flag of another country that is not a member of the European Union or the European Economic Agreement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these seafarers are covered only by resident-based benefits as far as the public social security protection is concerned. The Committee also notes that the majority of these seafarers work for Swedish shipping companies which have agreed to use a collective agreement providing seafarers with social security protection which is no less favourable than the protection applicable to shoreworkers in Sweden or seafarers working on ships flying the Swedish flag. In addition, certain tax conditions apply to these seafarers and as a result their protection is implemented by a combination of laws, regulations and collective bargaining agreements. The Committee requests the Government to provide an example of such a collective agreement. Moreover, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that seafarers resident in Sweden working on board ships flying the flag of a country outside the European Union working for an employer of another nationality than Swedish and who are not using the abovementioned collective agreement (these seafarers are estimated to be of a very limited number) are covered by the Swedish resident-based benefits as far as the public social security protection is concerned. The Government states that it will initiate consultations with the social partners regarding this category of seafarers. In a communication submitted on 10 July 2018, the Government provides a copy of a letter signed by seafarers’ and shipowners’ national organizations represented at the Swedish Maritime Labour Market. They explain, in reference to this issue, that since living standards and costs are very high in Sweden, there is no reason why a seafarer would work abroad and still live in Sweden without social protection. They add that they have carefully analysed the issue and confirm that there are no seafarers residing in Sweden without any social coverage either by law or by collective bargaining. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.2 and Standard A5.1.2. Flag State responsibilities. Authorization of recognized organizations. The Committee requested the Government to confirm if it has recognized any authorized public institutions or other organizations as competent and independent to carry out inspections or to issue certificates or to do both and, if so, to identify the national laws and regulations which implement the requirements under Standard A5.1.2, paragraphs 3 and 4. The Committee notes the list of recognized organizations provided by the Government as well as the specimen of the agreement governing the delegation of statutory certification and services for vessels registered in Sweden between the Swedish Transport Agency and a recognized organization. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 5. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Investigation and remedy. The Committee requested the Government to provide information concerning its ongoing efforts to establish procedures and regulations for investigations following complaints under Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 5. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 4.3 of the Circular on Routine description for control of working and living conditions (2017-05-08) which gives effect to the provisions of the Convention concerning onshore complaints. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 5.1.4 and Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 6. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. Independence of inspectors. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information concerning the requirements for flag State inspectors’ competencies. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 4.4 of the Circular on Routine description for control of working and living conditions (2017-05-08) which contains very detailed information about the MLC, 2006, training of flag state inspectors. The Committee notes however that the above-mentioned Circular does not provide information as to measures to ensure the independence of these inspectors. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how it implements Standard A5.1.4, paragraph 6 of the Convention.

Regulation 5.2.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. Onshore seafarer complaint-handling procedures. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how it implements Regulation 5.2.2 of the Convention. The Committee notes section 4.3 of the Circular on Routine description for control of working and living conditions (2017-05-08) which implements Regulation 5.2.2. The Committee notes this information, which addresses its previous request.

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Sweden

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C143 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C182 - 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)

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