Texts of pending comments

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Consultation mechanisms and tripartite consultations required by the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested information concerning the content and outcome of consultations held within the National Tripartite Commission on Social Partnership (RTK), particularly with regard to items placed on the agenda of the Conference (Article 5(1)(a)), the re-examination of unratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(c)) and questions arising out of reports on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(d)). The Committee also previously requested information on the outcome of tripartite consultations held with respect to the possible ratification of Conventions Nos 97, 102, 131, 154 and 184. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the General Agreement for 2021-2023 was signed by the parties at the RTK meeting held on 12 March 2021. The General Agreement establishes the main areas for cooperation on employment, social protection, improvements to working conditions and pay, occupational safety and health, among others. The Government reports that the parties have agreed to consult on matters concerning the ratification of nineteen ILO Conventions, including the abovementioned instruments. The Committee further notes the Government’s explanation that examination of the question of ratifying Convention No. 102 is being set aside pending full implementation of the measures provided for in the Framework for further modernization of the pension system until 2010, adopted by Decree No. 841 of 18 June 2014. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated detailed information on the content and outcome of the consultations held within the National Tripartite Commission on Social Partnership on each of the matters related to international labour standards listed under Article 5(1) of the Convention, particularly with regard to: Conference agenda items (Article 5(1)(a)); the re-examination at appropriate intervals of unratified Conventions and Recommendations to which effect has not yet been given (Article 5(1)(c)); and questions arising out of reports to be presented on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(d)). The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the tripartite consultations held with regard to the possible ratification of the abovementioned Conventions.

Article 4. Administrative support and financing of training. The Government provides information on training provided to enterprise workers on national labour legislation, in the framework of the programme on “The Social Modernization of Kazakhstan: 20 Steps to a Society of Universal Labour”.The Government indicates that, by the end of 2018, 1,544 training courses on national labour legislation had been provided to 36,848 enterprise workers through the territorial offices of the Committee for Labour, Social Protection and Migration.The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government in relation to a large number of seminars and presentations provided in 2021, aimed at explaining aspects of labour legislation to workers. Moreover, the Government indicates that the Regional Support Organization of the Federation of Trade Unions of Kazakhstan provides ongoing training for trade union members and officials to improve their legal knowledge and expertise. The Committee nevertheless notes that the activities referenced by the Government do not give effect to the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention. As the Committee noted in paragraph 123 of its 2000 General Survey on Tripartite Consultation, Article 4(1) of the Conventionrequires the competent authority to assume responsibility for the administrative support of the procedures provided for in the Convention, namely the tripartite consultations held within the RTK on international labour matters set out in Article 5(1) of the Convention.The administrative support called for under the Conventionincludes, among other elements, making meeting rooms available, correspondence and, where appropriate, the assistance of a secretariat (2000 General Survey on Tripartite Consultation, paragraph 124). In addition, Article 4 of the Convention calls for appropriate arrangements to be made “for the financing of any necessary training of participants” in the consultation procedures. The intent of this provision is “to make available appropriate training to enable participants in the procedures to perform their functions effectively” (Paragraph 3(3) of Recommendation No. 152. The Committee therefore once again requests that the Government provide information on the manner in which administrative support is provided for the procedures laid down in the Convention, as well as on arrangements made for the financing of any necessary training of participants in the consultative procedures on international labour matters required by the Convention.

Article 5(1)(b). Prior tripartite consultations on proposals made to Parliament. The Committee once again refers to its repeated comments since 2010 in relation to the Government’s constitutional obligation of submission, in which it has continued to urge the Government and the social partners to examine the measures to be taken with a view to holding effective consultations on proposals made to Parliament when submitting the instruments adopted by the Conference since 1993. The Committee notes that there are currently 38 instruments adopted by the Conference between 1993 and 2019 that are pending submission. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the measures taken to ensure effective consultations in relation to these instruments. The Committee once again recalls that prior effective tripartite consultations must be held with the representative organizations on the nature of the proposals to be made to Parliament when submitting ILO instruments adopted by the Conference (2000 General Survey on Tripartite Consultation, paragraph 85). The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to its previous comments on the constitutional obligation of submission. It urges the Government to take steps without delay to examine, together with the social partners, the measures to be taken in order to ensure prior effective consultations on the proposals made to Parliament when submitting the 38 instruments adopted by the Conference between 1993 and 2019.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), received on 1 September 2021.

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.

Legislation. The Committee notes the adoption of the Labour Code No. 414-V ZRK of 2015.

Articles 3(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No.81 and Articles 6(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No.129. Preventive functions of labour inspection. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the Labour Code was amended to provide for state control “in other forms” based on criteria jointly approved by the labour inspectorate and a body representing employers. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government does not clarify whether “other forms of control” refers to preventive inspection visits. The Committee notes that section 191(5) of the Labour Code provides that state control over compliance with labour legislation is carried out in the form of inspection and other forms of control.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, following a raft of initiatives taken by governmental bodies and employers over the past five years (2016-2020) in relation to occupational safety and health (OSH), a positive trend in the creation of safe working conditions has been established insofar as the number of industrial accidents has decreased by 10 per cent (from 1,683 to 1,503) and the number of related deaths by 16 per cent (from 248 to 208). Furthermore, it indicates that since 2019, proactive and preventive inspection visits have been routinely conducted at enterprises with the aim of preventing violations of labour legislation, including in relation to OSH. According to the Government, these visits take place in sectors more likely to generate injuries, namely mining and quarrying, construction, electricity generation, transmission and distribution, water supply, sewerage and waste management, farming, forestry and fishing, manufacturing industry, transport and warehousing. The Committee notes that in 2020, State labour inspectors carried out 113 preventive inspections. The Committee requests once again that the Government clarify the meaning of “other forms” of state control; it also requests the Government to continue providing information on actions taken to augment the creation of safe working conditions.

Article 4 of Convention No.81 and Article 7 of Convention No.129. Supervision and control of the labour inspection system by a central authority. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that under Law No. 102 – VRK of 2003 on the division of power between state bodies, the functions of the State labour inspectorate were transferred to executive bodies at the local level.

The Committee notes that, in relation to its request on the organization and functioning of the labour inspection system following the transfer of labour inspection functions to the executive bodies at the local level in accordance with the Law No. 102 – VRK of 2013, the Government refers to section 16 of the Labour Code. According to this section, the authorized state body for labour organizes the public supervision of compliance with national labour legislation and also coordinates the work of local labour inspection services. In addition, the Government indicates that the overall leadership of the Labour Inspectorate activities is exercised by the Chief State labour inspectors, who sit on the Committee for Labour, Social Protection and Migration of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection (the Committee). The Committee’s Chief State labour inspectors provide guidance and coordinate the activities of the local executive authorities to regulate labour relations by requesting information on labour relations from local labour inspectorates, coordinate the activity of State bodies to develop technical regulations on OSH, and coordinate and cooperate on OSH with other State agencies and representatives of workers and employers. Recalling that Article 4 of Convention No. 81 requires that labour inspection be placed under the supervision and control of a central authority, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the manner in which the work of the inspection services in local authorities is monitored, supervised, and effectively controlled by the central authority for labour inspection.

Articles 5(a) and 17 of Convention No.81 and Articles 12(1) and 22 of Convention No. 129. Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that the number of proceedings instituted appeared to be low in relation to the number of cases reported, and that the Government had not provided the requested information in relation to cooperation with the judicial authorities. The Committee notes the Government’s information that in 2020 labour inspectors conducted 4,439 inspections, in the course of which 7,260 violations were found, of which 5,001 concerned labour relations, 2,096 OSH, and 163 public employment issues. Employers were issued with 2,614 orders and 1,090 fines. In addition, a total of 496 accident investigation files were sent to the law enforcement authorities, resulting in 56 criminal proceedings. However, the Committee notes that the Government still does not provide information in relation to cooperation with the judicial authorities as requested. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to enhance effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the judicial authorities (which could include joint meetings to discuss practical aspects of cooperation, joint trainings on the procedural and material aspects of labour law and inspection procedures, the establishment of a system for the recording of judicial decisions accessible to labour inspectors, etc.). The Committee further requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the number and nature of offences reported, the number of penalties imposed, the amounts of fines imposed and collected, and information on criminal prosecutions, if any.

Articles 6 and 7(1) and (2) of Convention No.81 and Articles 8 and 9(1) and (2) of Convention No.129. Status and conditions of service. Conditions for the recruitment of inspection staff. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the selection and appointment of candidates for the post of State labour inspector take place in accordance with the Civil Service Act, under competitive conditions and subject to qualification requirements. The Government states that candidates for the post of State labour inspector are required to have a higher legal, economic or technical education. In addition, the Government indicates that the staff of the State labour inspectorate are public officials who work within local authorities and other public bodies and that, in the performance of their duties, State labour inspectors are protected by law and guided by the Constitution and other statutory instruments. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the text setting out the conditions for the recruitment of labour inspectors.

Articles 10 and 11(1)(b) and (2) of Convention No.81 and Articles 14 and 15(1)(b) and (2) of Convention No. 129. Human resources and material means of the labour inspectorate. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the applicable procedure regarding the reimbursement of any travel costs incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties. However, it notes the Government’s indication that, as of 1 August 2021, there were 242 State labour inspectors active in the country, equipped with 33 mobile units. The Committee also notes ITUC’s indication that the actual number of state labour inspectors is not sufficient for adequate oversight of the observance of labour rights and does not allow for performing preventive activities on a larger scale. ITUC indicates that according to official data, about 1.3 million small and medium-size businesses and over 2,400 large businesses operate in Kazakhstan. Therefore, according to ITUC the number of labour inspectors is insufficient to ensure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the resources allocated to the labour inspection service, i.e. the budget for labour inspection functions at the local levels, as well as the number of inspection staff, the transport facilities and office space available to labour inspectors. The Committee further requests the Government once again to indicate the legal provisions and the applicable procedure regarding the reimbursement of any travel costs incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in respect to ITUC’s observation.

Article 15(a) and (c) of Convention No.81 and Article 20(a) and (c) of Convention No.129. Ethical principles of labour inspection. Noting that the Government has not provided a reply in relation to its previous request on this matter, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide further information on the effect given to Article 15(a) and (c) of Convention No. 81 and Article 20 (a) and (c) of Convention No. 129, and to send copies of the relevant legal provisions.

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

Article 6(1)(a) and (b) and 2 of Convention No. 129. Activities of the labour inspection services in occupational safety and health in agricultural undertakings. Noting the absence of a reply from the Government in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the activities of labour inspectors in relation to agricultural undertakings, particularly on acts of supervision and prevention with a view to ensuring the protection of workers exposed to risks inherent to the use of chemicals, plant or complex machinery.

Recalling that Article 6(2) provides that national laws or regulations may give labour inspectors in agriculture advisory or enforcement functions regarding legal provisions relating to conditions of life of workers and their families, the Committee also once again requests the Government to provide information in relation to the application of this provision.

Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129. Training for labour inspectors in agriculture. Noting the absence of a reply from the Government in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the content, duration, and dates of the training sessions intended specifically for labour inspectors performing their functions in the agricultural sector and the number of labour inspectors receiving such training at each session.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 and 28 September 2021, referring to the issues raised by the Committee below.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 109th Session, June 2021)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (the Conference Committee) in June 2021 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee welcomed that further steps towards implementing the 2018 road map were made, in particular amendments to the law. However, it regretted that not all previous recommendations have been fully addressed so far. In this regard, the Conference Committee took note of the continuing restrictions in practice on the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing, in particular the unduly difficult re-registration and deregistration processes, which undermine the exercise of freedom of association. The Conference Committee also noted with concern the numerous allegations of violations of the basic civil liberties of trade unionists, including violence, intimidation and harassment. The Committee notes that the Conference Committee requested the Government to: (i) bring all national legislation into line with the Convention to guarantee full enjoyment of freedom of association to workers’ and employers’ organizations; (ii) ensure that the allegations of violence against trade union members are completely investigated, notably in the case of Mr Senyavsky; (iii) stop judicial harassment practices of trade union leaders and members conducting lawful trade union activities and drop all unjustified charges, including the ban for trade unionists to hold any position in a public or non-governmental organization; (iv) continue to review developments in the cases of Mr Baltabay and Ms Kharkova; (v) resolve the registration of the Congress of Free Trade Unions (KSPRK) and the Industrial Union of Employees of the Fuel and Energy Sector so as to allow them to enjoy the full autonomy and independence of a free and independent workers’ organization, to fulfil their mandate and to represent their constituents without further delay; (vi) review with the social partners the law and practice concerning the registration of trade unions with a view to overcoming existing obstacles; (vii) refrain from showing favouritism towards any given trade union and put an immediate stop to the interference in the establishment and functioning of trade union organizations; (viii) remove any existing obstacles in law and in practice to the operation of free and independent employers’ organizations in the country, in particular repeal of provisions in the Law on the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs (NCE) on accreditation of employers’ organizations with the NCE; (ix) ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations are not prevented from receiving financial or other assistance by international workers’ and employers’ organizations; and (x) fully implement the previous recommendations of the Committee and the 2018 road map. The Committee also notes that the Conference Committee requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission of the International Labour Office before the next session of the International Labour Conference with full access to the organizations and individuals mentioned in the observations of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee recalls that in their previous observations, the ITUC and the Federation of Trade Unions of Kazakhstan (FPRK) denounced the sentencing of a trade union leader Mr Baltabay to seven years of imprisonment in July 2019 for the alleged misappropriation of approximately US$28,000 of union dues. Mr Baltabay was released in August 2019 after being pardoned by the President and given a fine of US$4,000 in exchange for his remaining prison sentence. Mr Baltabay insisted on his innocence, refused to pay the fine or recognize the presidential pardon, and argued in court that criminal charges of large-scale misappropriation of funds levied against him were politically motivated and unfounded. The Committee further recalls that on 16 October 2019, Mr Baltabay was given a new prison sentence of five months and eight days of imprisonment for union-related activities and for not paying the fine. While Mr Baltabay was released from jail on 20 March 2020, the Committee notes that according to the ITUC, he is still banned from any public activity, including trade union activities, for seven years, as per the previous sentence.

The Committee notes from the ITUC observations, that Ms Larisa Kharkova, the Chairperson of the now liquidated Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Kazakhstan (KNPRK), who was sentenced to four years of restriction on her freedom of movement and a five-year ban on holding any position in a public or non-governmental organization, continues to serve her sentence.

The Committee notes that the Government does not dispute the facts as outlined by the ITUC, but indicates that judicial decisions in the cases of Ms Kharkova and Mr Baltabay were made in respect of ordinary crimes, namely the “misappropriation and embezzlement of entrusted property” and the “abuse of office”, and were not related to their participation in legal trade union activities. The Government indicates that the period of restricted freedom imposed on Ms Kharkova expires on 9 November 2021.

The Committee takes due note of the information provided and refers to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) which continues to examine cases of Mr Baltabay and Ms Kharkova in the framework of Case No. 3283 (see 392nd Report, October 2020). It requests the Government to indicate whether Ms Kharkova and Mr Baltabay are still prevented from holding a trade union office.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with deep concern the ITUC allegation of assault and injuries suffered by Mr Dmitry Senyavsky, the Chairperson of a trade union of workers of the fuel and energy complex in the Karaganda region, and urged the Government to investigate the matter without delay and to bring the perpetrators to justice. The Committee had noted the information provided by the Government confirming the assault by unknown persons on 10 November 2018. According to a forensic medical report, Mr Senyavsky suffered mild damages to his health. The Committee recalls the Government’s indication that while pretrial investigations were opened under section 293(2)(1) of the Criminal Code (disorderly conduct), they were later suspended pursuant to section 45(7)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (failure to identify the person who committed a crime) until new circumstances (evidence) would come to light.

The Committee notes the ITUC indication that no progress has been made in investigating the attack. The ITUC points out that absence of effective investigations and judgements against guilty parties reinforce the climate of insecurity for victims and impunity for perpetrators, which are extremely damaging to the exercise of freedom of association rights in Kazakhstan. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the work to solve this case continues. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on all developments in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to establish organizations without previous authorization. The Committee recalls that following the entry into force of the Law on Trade Unions in 2014, all existent unions had to be re-registered. It recalls in this respect that the KNPRK affiliates were denied registration/re-registration, which ultimately led to the KNPRK’s liquidation. The Committee further recalls the ITUC allegation of denials to register organizations, which previously formed the KNPRK, as well as the refusal to register the KSPRK (the name under which the successor of the KNPRK had last tried to re-register) and the Industrial Trade Union of Employees of the Fuel and Energy Sector. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted the Government’s explanation that in the event that the registering authority (Ministry of Justice) identifies shortcomings, it issues a reasoned refusal. The Government further indicated that the KSPRK had received a reasoned refusal and that the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population (MLSPP) had held a series of meetings with the representatives of the Congress regarding the refusal to register it. The Government had pointed out that if the trade union in question rectified the indicated shortcomings, the Ministry of Justice stood ready to re-examine the application for registration. However, according to the Government, the applicant had not yet addressed the relevant registering authority. Having duly noted the information provided by the Government, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the status of registration of the KSPRK and the Industrial Union of Employees of the Fuel and Energy Sector.

The Committee notes the ITUC indication that the KSPRK remains unregistered and that the Industrial Union of Employees in the Fuel and Energy Sector is undergoing a process of dissolution following a court decision dated 5 February 2021 to suspend its activities. The Committee further notes that the Government reiterates the information previously provided regarding the refusal to register the KSPRK and its predecessor and that the irregularities pointed out by the registering authority have not been addressed and no reapplication for registration has been submitted. The Government further indicates that by its decision of 6 May 2021, the civil and administrative appellate court decided not to change the verdict of the Shymkent special inter-district economic court of 5 February 2021 that the activities of the Industrial Union of Employees in the Fuel and Energy Sector should be suspended for six months. In order to resume its activities, the sectoral trade union was required, within six months of the court’s February 2021 decision coming into effect, to resolve the irregularities regarding the numerical strength of its affiliates (subdivisions, member organizations) in territory covering more than half of the country’s regions. As of August 2021, the union had not applied for registration of its affiliates. The Government also indicates that on 13 August 2021 Mr Kuspan Kosshygulov was appointed chairperson of the Union.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are currently three national trade union associations, 54 sectoral, 34 territorial and 365 local trade unions, which bring together around 3 million workers, or half of all the country’s employees. Since the adoption of changes to the legislation in May 2020, one sectoral trade union (the “Byrlyk” union of workers in construction, housing and utilities, and transport, registered on 22 July 2021) and 37 local unions have been formed. The Government further indicates that a permanent working group exists to review areas of concern involving the registration of trade unions. Its members include representatives of the MLSPP, the Ministry of Justice and three national trade union associations (the FPRK, the Kazakhstan Labour Confederation and the “Amanat” Trade Union). While noting that new trade unions have been established and registered since the amendment of the legislation in 2020, the Committee observes that its longstanding concern regarding the registration of the KSPRK and the Industrial Union of Employees of the Fuel and Energy Sector is yet to be resolved. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps for the resolution of the issue of registration of the KSPRK and the Industrial Union of Employees of the Fuel and Energy Sector so as to allow them to enjoy the full autonomy and independence of a free and independent workers’ organization, to fulfil their mandate and to represent their constituents without further delay. The Committee further requests the Government to continue engaging with the social partners to review the difficulties identified by trade unions seeking registration with a view to finding appropriate measures, including legislative, to fully give effect to Article 2 of the Convention and to ensure the right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization. It requests the Government to provide information on all progress made in this respect.

With reference to the conclusions of the Conference Committee, the Committee encourages the Government to continue reviewing the application of the Law on the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs (NCE) in practice with the social partners to ensure that its provisions on accreditation of employers’ organizations with the NCE do not hinder the right of employers’ organizations to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.

Article 3. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend section 402 of the Criminal Code (2016), according to which an incitement to continue a strike declared illegal by the court was punishable by arrest for the duration of up to 50 days and in certain cases (substantial damage to rights and interest of citizens, mass riots, etc.) up to two years of imprisonment,

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that on 9 June 2021, the President of the Republic signed a decree on further human rights measures to be taken in Kazakhstan following which, the Government approved a plan of urgent human rights-related measures, including in respect of the right to freedom of association. The Government points out, in particular, that with a view to implementing the ILO recommendations, the intention under the Plan is to work towards further changes to national legislation, including with a view to further reviewing section 402 of the Criminal Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken thus far, and planned for the future, to review section 402 of the Criminal Code so as to ensure that simply calling for a strike action, even one declared illegal by the courts, does not result in detention or imprisonment.

Article 5. Right of organizations to receive financial assistance from international organizations of workers and employers. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s reference to its Ordinance No. 177 of 9 April 2018 “On the adoption of a list of international and state organizations, foreign and Kazakhstani non-governmental organizations and funds which can provide grants”, which determined 98 international organizations allowed to provide grants to physical and legal persons in Kazakhstan. In this connection, the Committee welcomed the Government’s indication that the MLSPP was ready to examine the possibility of including in that list the ITUC and the International Organisation of Employers if a request to that effect is made. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statement and indicates that any such request should outline the reasons and specific objectives and state the areas in respect of which the grants are provided. The Committee trusts that the list contained in the Ordinance will be amended, if need be upon the Government’s initiative, to include international workers’ and employers’ organizations and requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to that end.

The Committee trusts that a direct contacts mission of the International Labour Office requested by the Conference Committee will take place as soon as the situation so permits.

Scope of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide clarification on the trade union rights and rights to collective bargaining of prison staff and firefighters who have no military or police rank and to inform about any collective agreement covering them. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that all civilian staff engaged in the above-mentioned services enjoy the rights set out in the Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous direct request, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 145 and 154 of the Criminal Code (2014), pursuant to which cases of interference in the functioning of social organizations and/or trade unions are punishable by a fine or imprisonment. In the absence of the Government’s reply, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of the abovementioned legislative provisions in practice.

Article 4. Right to collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled that, under the terms of the Convention, the right of collective bargaining lies with workers’ organizations of whatever level, and with employers and their organizations. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to clarify whether under the model of collective bargaining provided for by the Labour Code other representatives can bargain collectively alongside an existing trade union. The Committee notes that sections 1(44) and 20(1) of the Labour Code were amended in 2020 to provide that workers are represented by trade unions or, in absence thereof, by other elected representatives. The Committee further notes that according to paragraph 3 of section 20(1) of the Labour Code, however, should workers’ membership in trade unions constitute less than half of an organization’s staff, the workers’ interests can be represented by trade unions and by elected representatives. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 20 of the Labour Code, as amended, if a trade union exists at the organization/enterprise, no collective bargaining can take place without the participation of that union. According to the Government, the amendments have made it possible to maintain a balance between the interests of workers who are union members and those who have not joined a union, and to take into account the opinions of the entire workforce without infringing the rights of union members. While taking due note of the amendments, the Committee recalls that in the collective bargaining process the position of a representative union, even if it does not represent 50 per cent of the workforce, should not be undermined by elected representatives. The Committee therefore requests the Government to further amend section 20 of the Labour Code in consultation with the social partners in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention and so as to eliminate the contradiction within the above-mentioned provisions of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all steps taken to that end.

The Committee had previously noted that pursuant to section 97(2) of the Code on Administrative Breaches (2014), an unfounded refusal to conclude a collective agreement is punishable by a fine. The Committee had recalled that legislation which imposes an obligation to achieve a result, particularly when sanctions are used in order to ensure that an agreement is concluded, is contrary to the principle of free and voluntary negotiation. The Committee had thus requested the Government to repeal the mentioned provision. The Committee notes in this respect the Government’s indication that under article 158(5) of the Labour Code, any unjustified refusal to conclude a collective agreement by those authorized to conclude it renders them liable, under article 97(2) of the Code on Administrative Breaches, to a fine of 400 monthly calculation index (MCI). The Government provides detailed information on the procedure to follow prior to the conclusion of a collective agreement as set out in article 156 of the Labour Code. The Government points out that once all the procedures have been followed, any unjustified refusal to conclude the collective agreement is deemed unlawful. The Government further explains that the sanctions provided for in article 97(2) of the Code on Administrative Breaches are designed to protect the right to conclude a collective agreement and to avoid any forced conclusion thereof. While taking notes of this explanation, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the full conformity of the legislation with the principle of free and voluntary negotiation. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above-mentioned provisions in practice, in particular on the offences committed and the sanctions applied.

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.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on Conventions Nos 81 and 129, received on 1 September 2021.

Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Limitations and restrictions of labour inspections. Powers of labour inspectors. 1. Moratorium on labour inspections. The Committee notes with deep concern that the Presidential Decree No. 229 “On Introduction of a Moratorium on Inspections and Preventive Monitoring and Oversight with Visits in the Republic of Kazakhstan” of 26 December 2019, introduces a three year moratorium on labour inspection, which applies to private and state-owned enterprises belonging to the categories of small and micro-enterprises, starting from 1 January 2020. According to the Decree, the only exceptions allowing for inspections shall be inspections aimed at the prevention or elimination of violations that potentially bear a major threat to human life and health, to the environment, to law and public order; or a direct or indirect threat to the constitutional order and national security, in addition to inspections performed on the grounds specified by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 4 July 2003 “On the Governmental Regulation, Control and Oversight of Financial Market and Financial Organisations”. According to the observations submitted by the ITUC: (i) this moratorium is also valid for unscheduled inspections performed by the State Labour Inspectorate following complaints of employees about various labour violations by employers; (ii) between January and September 2020, the provisions on exceptions provided in the Decree were used by state inspectors only three times (in Kostanay Region, East Kazakhstan Region and in the city of Nur-Sultan); and (iii) according to information from the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, as many as 16,330 complaints were submitted to the State Labour Inspectorate in the first 8 months of 2020. The Committee further notes that section 140(6) of the Entrepreneur Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 2015 (No. 375-V ZRK) provides for the possibility of suspending inspections of private business entities for a specific period after a decision by the Government, in coordination with the Administration of the President of the Republic. In this respect, the Committee recalls its General Observation of 2019 on the labour inspection Conventions, expressing concern at reforms that substantially undermine the inherent functioning of labour inspection systems, including moratoria on labour inspections, and urging governments to remove these restrictions, with a view to achieving conformity with the Conventions. Recalling that a moratorium placed on labour inspection is a serious violation of the Conventions, the Committee urges the Government to act promptly to eliminate the temporary ban on inspections and to ensure that labour inspectors are able to undertake labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions, in compliance with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129.

The Committee previously noted that there appeared to be extensive legal and practical restrictions in relation to scheduled inspections concerning inspectors’ access to workplaces and the frequency of inspection visits, resulting in a reduced effectiveness and scope of inspections.

The Committee notes that the Government does not provide in its report information in relation to its previous request on whether Order No. 55-p of 16 February 2011 repeals Order No. 12 of 1 March 2004, and whether the restrictions introduced by the latter Order, especially the prior registration of inspections at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, have been lifted.

In addition, the Committee notes with concern that the Labour Code and the Entrepreneur Code of 2015 contain various limitations on labour inspectors’ powers, including with regard to: (i) the ability of labour inspectors to enter freely any workplace liable to inspection (section 12 of the Entrepreneur Code); (ii) the ability of labour inspectors to undertake inspection visits at any hour of the day or night (sections 197(5) of the Labour Code and 147(2) of the Entrepreneur Code); (iii) the ability of labour inspectors to undertake inspection visits without previous notice (section 147(1) of the Entrepreneur Code); (iv) the free initiative of labour inspectors (section 197(2)(2) of the Labour Code and section 144(10) of the Entrepreneur Code); and (v) the scope of inspections, particularly in terms of the issues that can be examined in the course of inspections (section 151 of the Entrepreneur Code).

The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to make visits to workplaces without previous notice at any hour of the day or night, and to carry out any examination, test or enquiry which they may consider necessary, in conformity with Article 12(1)(a) and (c) of Convention No. 81 and Article 16(1)(a) and (c) of Convention No. 129. In addition, the Committee requests once again the Government to provide information on whether Order No. 55-p of 16 February 2011 repeals Order No. 12 of 1 March 2004, and whether the restrictions introduced by the latter Order, especially the prior registration of inspections at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, have been lifted.

2. Frequency of labour inspections. The Committee previously noted with concern that the number of inspections undertaken had decreased, owing to the discontinuation of inspections of small and medium-sized enterprises starting from 2 April 2014 until 1 January 2015, pursuant to the Presidential Decree on Cardinal Measures to Improve the Conditions for Entrepreneurship in Kazakhstan (Decree No. 757).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the risk management system is currently the main tool for determining the frequency of inspections; (ii) the joint Decree of the Ministry of Health and Social Development (No. 1022 of 25 December 2015) and the Ministry for the National Economy (No. 801 of 28 December 2015) established the risk assessment and checklist criteria for inspecting compliance with national labour legislation; and (iii) the risk management system has made it possible to regulate the controls carried out by state labour inspection bodies, to reduce the administrative pressure on employers in the context of their due diligence, and to improve the quality of the work performed by state labour inspectors. According to the ITUC: (i) the risk management system determines the frequency of scheduled inspections depending on the risk category assigned to the employer; (ii) in these conditions, no frequency of inspections is established for low-risk employers, meaning that the employers classified under such risk category are not covered by any scheduled monitoring activities; (iii) the procedure for the assessment of the risk category assigned to the employer depends, among other criteria, on the number of employees, with higher risk categories being assigned to enterprises with a greater numbers of employees; (iv) there is a decreasing probability of inspections of small and medium-sized businesses that carry a significant risk of abuses by employers; and (v) during scheduled inspections, an inspector is limited to the number of questions included in the checklists.

The Committee notes with concern that the Labour Code, as well as the Entrepreneur Code of 2015, which uses risk assessment criteria for classifying inspections and their frequency, contain various limitations on the frequency and duration of labour inspections (sections 140(8), 141, 148 and 151(6) of the Entrepreneur Code and section 197(6) of the Labour Code). Referring to its general observation of 2019 on the labour inspection Conventions, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures, including the revision of the Entrepreneur Code and the Labour Code, to ensure that labour inspectors are able to undertake labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of relevant legal provisions. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that risk assessment criteria do not limit the powers of labour inspectors or the undertaking of labour inspections. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the undertaking of inspections in practice, indicating the number of scheduled and unscheduled inspections, as well as the total number of workplaces liable to inspection. With regard to inspections conducted without prior notice, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the number of such inspections, whether they are conducted on-site or without a visit to the workplace, as well as the number of inspections conducted in response to a complaint, and the results of all such inspections.

Articles 13, 17 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 18, 22 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Powers of labour inspectors to ensure the effective application of legal provisions concerning conditions of work and the protection of workers. Further to its previous request, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the penalties imposed for violating labour legislation and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern, that section 12 of the Entrepreneur Code of 2015 provides that enterprises may deny the inspection by officials of state control and supervision bodies in cases where they fail to comply with the requirements for inspections established by the Code.

The Committee notes that various legal provisions, such as sections 136 and 153 of the Entrepreneur Code of 2015, appear to limit the powers of labour inspectors to take steps with a view to remedying defects observed in plant, layout or working methods and to order measures with immediate executory force in the event of imminent danger to the health or safety of the workers.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous request, that in order to prevent violations of labour law, section 197 of the Labour Code provides for a new form of monitoring of preventive visits to enterprises, following which the state labour inspector issues the employer with an improvement notice only, with no imposition of administrative penalties.

The Committee recalls that Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129 provide that, with certain exceptions, persons who violate or neglect to observe legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors shall be liable to prompt legal proceedings without previous warning, and that it must be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give a warning or provide advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including the revision of the Entrepreneur Code and the Labour Code, to ensure that labour inspectors are able to initiate legal proceedings without previous warning, where required, in conformity with Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129. The Committee further requests the Government to take the necessary measures to empower labour inspectors to take steps with a view to remedying defects observed in plant layout or working methods, or to order measures with immediate executory force in the event of imminent danger to the health or safety of the workers. In addition, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors, and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties, to provide a copy of the relevant provisions, and to indicate how often such penalties have been assessed, as well as the amounts of sanctions imposed and collected.

Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Annual report on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes that since the ratification of the Conventions in 2001, an annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services has never been received by the Office. However, the Committee notes that the Government provides statistics on the number of inspectors, the number of inspections carried out, the number of industrial workplaces inspected, the number of industrial accidents, the number of accidents investigated, and the number of violations detected and penalties imposed. The Committee notes that the statistics sent by the Government on the activities of the labour inspectorate do not identify the specific data relating to the agricultural sector, so as to allow the Committee to assess the level of application of Convention No. 129. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the establishment and publication of an annual report on the work of the inspection services and to transmit it to the ILO, in accordance with Article 20 of Convention No. 81 and Article 26 of Convention No. 129, and to ensure that it contains the subjects listed under Article 21 of Convention No. 81, including in particular Article 21(a), (c) and (g). 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 is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Kazakhstan (ratification: 2001)

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 30 September 2020 on pay discrimination between men and women for work of equal value. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Definition of remuneration. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to clarify whether the term “payment” referred to in section 22(5) of the Labour Code is defined sufficiently broadly to cover all the elements of remuneration, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its report, the Government indicates that: (1) section 1(20) of the Labour Code defines “payment of labour” as the system of relations connected with the employer making the mandatory payment to a worker of compensation for his or her labour, in compliance with the Labour Code and other legislation, agreements, employment contracts, collective agreements and the employer’s internal regulations; (2) section 113 indicates that remuneration is set and paid in cash in the national currency at least once a month; and (3) section 1(37) defines “remuneration” as compensation for labour as a function of the worker’s qualifications and the difficulty, quantity, quality and conditions of the work performed, and indicates that it also includes compensatory and incentive payments. The Committee observes that it is still not clear from the Government’s reply what is encompassed by the term “payment” in section 22(5) of the Labour Code 2015 currently in force. The Committee recalls that the broad definition of “remuneration” set out Article 1(a) of the Convention captures all elements that a worker may receive for his or her work, including payments in cash as well as in kind, and payments made directly or indirectly by the employer to the worker which arise out of the worker’s employment, such as overtime payments, commissions, pay supplements and allowances as a result of specific working conditions, allowances for accommodation or for travel between home and work, holiday pay, shares in the capital of the enterprise, etc. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to clarify whether the term “payment” in the Labour Code 2015 also includes, in addition to the ordinary, basic or minimum wage or salary, all additional emoluments whatsoever payable to the worker out of his or her employment, directly or indirectly, whether in cash or kind, as required for the full implementation of the Convention.

Article 2. Minimum wages. The Committee previously requested the Government to: (1) indicate how “ordinary and unskilled work” is defined; (2) provide information on the types of jobs or sectors covered by the minimum wage; and (3) continue to provide information on any developments, with respect to the coverage and rates of minimum wages. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that unskilled workers are defined as workers who are not required to have an education and perform simple and mechanical jobs, and that the minimum level of remuneration is the same across Kazakhstan, irrespective of sex, place of residence, etc. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the types of jobs or sectors covered by the minimum wage and any developments with respect to the coverage and rates of minimum wages; and (ii) the role of social partners in the minimum wage-setting process.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to specifically indicate: (1) how it is ensured that the selection of factors for comparison, the weighting of such factors and the actual comparison carried out are not discriminatory, either directly or indirectly; and (2) the measures taken in practice to encourage the use of objective evaluation methods and procedures in both the private and public sectors. It also requested information on any job evaluation exercises undertaken, and their outcome. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 103 of the Labour Code, a worker’s monthly remuneration is set differently depending on the worker’s qualifications, the difficulty, quality and quantity of the work performed, and working conditions, and that there is no limit on the maximum level of monthly remuneration. In addition, the Committee notes that the Government recalls that remuneration for the same post with the same characteristics in terms of qualifications, geographical location and working conditions is identical and that these remuneration factors are therefore not discriminatory, directly or indirectly. The Committee wishes to recall in that regard that, whatever methods are used for the objective evaluation of jobs, particular care must be taken to ensure that they are free from gender bias, as often in practice skills considered to be “female”, such as manual dexterity and those required in the caring professions, are undervalued or even overlooked, in comparison with traditionally “male” skills, such as heavy lifting (General Survey on Fundamental Conventions, 2012, para. 701). Noting that the information provided does not indicate how the Government is encouraging the use of objective evaluation methods to ensure gender equality in the determination of remuneration, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to encourage the use of objective job evaluation methods and procedures free from gender bias, in both the public and private sectors.

Articles 2 and 4. Collective bargaining. Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee previously once again asked the Government to provide: (1) summaries of any collective agreements expressly providing for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value; and (2) information on specific measures taken in cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations with a view to giving effect to the principle of the Convention. In its reply, the Government merely refers the Committee to section 157 of the Labour Code, which provides that collective agreements shall contain provisions on the fixing of remuneration, pay systems, the basic wage and salary rates, and emoluments for workers, including for those who perform heavy manual work or work in unhealthy and/or unsafe working conditions; in other words, a collective agreement must set out a pay system which includes equal pay for men and women. The Committee reiterates therefore its request to the Government to: (i) communicate copies of extracts from collective agreements explicitly providing for equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value; and (ii) provide information on the specific measures taken in cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations to give effect to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, such as joint training or awareness-raising activities.

Enforcement. The Committee previously asked the Government to provide information on: (1) the nature and number of violations of the legislation related to the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value identified by or brought to the attention of labour inspectors; (2) the remedies provided and penalties imposed; and (3) examples of the practical application of sections 6 and 22(15) of the Labour Code, including any relevant administrative and judicial decisions applying the principle of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection has worked with the Office of the Prosecutor General and carried out inspections of enterprises employng more than 30 foreign workers in 2019. Inspections in 95 enterprises revealed 1,000 infringements of labour and migration legislation, including 479 cases of pay inequalities in 27 enterprises between foreign and local workers. The Ministry has carried out an analysis with a view to improving the legislative and regulatory framework to prevent any future breaches. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that although the Convention applies to all workers, it specifically addresses equal remuneration for men and women. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to provide information on: (i) the nature and number of violations of the legislation related to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value detected by or brought to the attention of labour inspectors; (ii) the remedies provided and penalties imposed; and (iii) any judicial or administrative decisions concerning the principle of the Convention, in particular on the practical application of sections 6 and 22(15) of the Labour Code.

Articles 1 and 2. Gender pay gap. The Committee previously asked the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken or envisaged in order to: (1) reduce the significant gender pay gap; and (2) improve the access of women to a wider range of job opportunities including into higher-level and higher-paid occupations, as well as in sectors in which they are currently absent or under-represented, with a view to reducing inequalities in remuneration that exist between men and women in the labour market. The Committee further asked the Government to provide detailed and up-to-date comparable statistics on earnings of women and men, including sex-disaggregated data by industry and occupational category. The Committee notes the information according to which in 2019: (1) a worker’s nominal average monthly remuneration was 186,800 tenge (KZT); (2) for men, the figure was KZT222,500 while for women it amounted to KZT150,800 – that is to, women’s remuneration was 67.7 per cent of men’s; and (3) where the work has the same characteristics in terms of qualifications and place of work, men and women’s remuneration is the same. The Committee also notes the numerous statistical information provided by type of economic activity concerning, amongst other thing: the number of employees, their wage, the index of average monthly wages and real wages, the number of employees and their wages by region, the average monthly salary and real wage index by regions, the average monthly salary and number of employees in the industry by type of economic activity, etc. Finally, the Committee notes that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in its 2019 concluding observations, expressed concern that the significant gender pay gap (34 per cent) and the horizontal and vertical segregation in the labour market impede the full achievement of equality at work (doc. CEDAW/C/KAZ/CO/5, 12 November 2019 paragraph 37(b)). The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government, all pointing to the fact that the gender pay gap in the country is still significant. The Committee reiterates therefore its request to the Government for detailed information on the concrete measures taken to improve the access of women to a wider range of job opportunities including into higher-level and higher-paid occupations, as well as in sectors in which they are currently absent or under-represented, in particular in industrial sectors where wages are higher than the national average, such as oil and gas, mining and processing, transport and construction, etc.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year (see Article 1(d) below, on penalties for participating in strikes), as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Code of Administrative Offences. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 322 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1984, administrative arrest involved an obligation to perform labour under the supervision and control of local authorities. It noted that, under section 488 of the new Code of Administrative Offence of 5 July 2014, as amended in 2015, the violation of the Kazakh law on the procedure for organizing and holding peaceful meetings, rallies, marches, pickets and demonstrations is punishable with a fine or administrative arrest for a term of up to 15 days. The Government indicated that in 2015, 109 actions were held in which 4,719 people participated and 75 of those actions were unauthorized. The Government stressed that only 19 people who participated in unauthorized action were sentenced to administrative penalties under section 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 2014. The Committee however noted that the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association expressed his concern that participants in unauthorized assemblies seemed to have been increasingly subjected to intimidation, imprisonment and administrative sanctions. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that persons who peacefully assemble were not subject to penalties involving compulsory labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the event of a refusal to stop an unauthorized meeting, rally, march, picket or demonstration, the internal affairs authorities take the necessary measures to stop the act being committed, to ensure public safety. It also notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), for the Universal Periodic Review of November 2019, that on 9 and 10 June 2019, at least 1,000 arrests of peaceful protesters had reportedly taken place in Nur-Sultan, Almaty and Shymkent, with 550 individuals being charged and penalized for “participating in an unauthorized assembly” under the Code of Administrative Offences. The report also indicates that mass arrests, detentions and criminal prosecutions had followed demonstrations over proposed land reforms across the country, in 2016 (A/HRC/WG.6/34/KAZ/2, paragraph 28). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that persons who peacefully assemble are not subject to penalties involving compulsory labour and to provide information in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the provisions governing the sentence of administrative arrest, including, if any, the voluntary nature of work under administrative arrest.

2. Criminal Code. The Committee notes that, under a certain number of provisions of the Criminal Code of 2015, sanctions involving compulsory labour (such as correctional work, community service, restriction of freedom, deprivation of liberty) may be imposed for offences related to civil rights and political freedoms on persons holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The provisions in question are as follows:

-sections 130 and 411, concerning defamation of another person or of public officials;
-sections 131, 376 and 378, which penalize insult of another person or of public officials;
-section 182, which establishes penalties of deprivation of liberty for the creation, management of and participation in extremist groups;
-section 274, concerning the spreading of false information;
-section 372, concerning the desecration of state symbols;
-section 373, which establishes penalties for infringing upon the honour and dignity of the president; and
-section 405, punishing the organization of and participation in activities of social or religious associations or other organizations after the prohibition of their activities or their liquidation due to extremism.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate how the above mentioned sections of the Criminal Code of 2015 are applied in practice, so that it can assess to what extent these provisions are compatible with the present provisions of the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide details of court decisions handed down, the number and nature of sentences applied and the grounds for prosecution.

3. Law on Social Associations The Committee previously requested the Government to clarify the scope of liability of individuals (including officials in state agencies and members of the governing body of a social association) for violation of the provisions of the Law on Social Associations of 31 May 1996, pursuant to section 22 of this Law. It also requested the Government to indicate the applicable sanctions.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that section 489 of the Code of Administrative Offences establishes a penalty of a fine and a warning for breaching the legislation on social association as well as for the management of or participation in the activities of social or religious associations that have not been duly registered.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violations of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 371 of the Criminal Code of 2015, a failure to execute or improper execution by an official of his/her duties as the result of unscrupulous or negligent attitude towards service, if this entails significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or interests of the society or the State, is punishable by a fine, correctional labour, restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of this provision.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that according to the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, in the first half of 2019, three people were convicted under section 371 of the Criminal Code, among which one was sentenced to restriction of freedom. The Government requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 371 of the Criminal Code, including the nature of the penalties applied, and to indicate the circumstances in which the penalties have been imposed.

Article 1(d). Penalties for participating in strikes. 1. Labour Code. The Committee noted that section 176 of the Labour Code of 2015 defines a strike as illegal “in the period of martial law, emergency or special measures introduced under the law of Kazakhstan on national emergencies; at military units of the armed forces of Kazakhstan, or other military establishments and entities authorized to deal with the national defence, national security, emergency recovery, rescue operations, fire suppression, disaster prevention or response; at special public and law enforcement bodies, at hazardous industrial facilities, at ambulance and first aid stations” and that “persons provoking further strike action recognized as illegal by the court shall be liable under the law of Kazakhstan”. The Committee also noted that section 177 of the Labour Code states that “where a strike has been recognized illegal by the court, the employer may bring disciplinary action against the workers involved in organizing or holding of the strike”. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the scope of liability provided for under section 176 of the Labour Code, as well as on any sanction that might have been imposed under this provision on persons peacefully participating in a strike defined as illegal.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that, under section 176(2) of the Labour Code, strikes are also declared illegal in organizations directly related to ensuring the life of the population that provide energy, heat, water, and gas supply, aviation, rail, road, public and water transportation, communications, and health care, if the minimum list and volume of relevant services, required for the population and determined on the basis of a preliminary agreement of employee representatives with the local executive body, have not been preserved. In addition, the Committee notes section 176(2-1) of the Labour Code, introduced by the Act on amendments and additions to some legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on labour issues of 4 May 2020, No. 321-VI, which specifies the cases of recognition of strikes as illegal at hazardous industrial facilities.

Moreover, the Committee observes that section 176 prohibits strikes that have been declared with no account taken of the time frames, procedures and requirements set out by the Labour Law and strikes creating a real risk to human lives and health. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the scope of liability for individuals who contravene section 176 of the Labour Code, indicating the applicable sanctions. It also requests the Government to provide information on the application of this section in practice, including any sanction that may have been imposed.

2. Criminal Code. The Committee notes that section 402 of the Criminal Code of 2015 introduces a new offence, pursuant to which an incitement to continue a strike that has been declared illegal by a court is punishable with a fine, correctional work, restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty. Referring to its comments made in 2017 under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee notes the information provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) that individuals have been convicted and sentenced under section 402 of the Criminal Code (2016).

The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government in its latest report on the application of Convention No. 87 that, in accordance with the Act on amendments and additions to some legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on labour issues of 4 May 2020, No. 321-VI, the liability for an incitement to participate in illegal strikes was mitigated. In this respect, the Committee notes that although the penal sanctions imposed for violation of section 402 of the Criminal Code have been lowered, they still include correctional work, community service, restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty, which involve compulsory labour.

Recalling that the exaction of compulsory labour as a sanction imposed for the mere fact of organizing or peacefully participating in strikes is prohibited by the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to repeal sanctions involving compulsory labour under section 402 of the Criminal Code. It requests the Government to provide information on the progress achieved in this regard. In the meantime, it requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 402 of the Criminal Code in practice, including the number and nature of the penalties applied.

Communication of texts. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the latest updated laws governing the press and other media and governing religion.

The Committee notes the supplementary information provided by the Government on matters raised in its previous direct request, and otherwise repeats the content of its observation adopted in 2019 which read as follows.

The Committee previously noted that according to the Criminal Code of 3 July 2014, persons convicted for penal offences with penalties of correctional work or community service are under the obligation to perform labour (sections 42 and 43 of the Criminal Code). The Committee notes that the penalties of restriction of freedom and deprivation of liberty (provided for under sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Code, respectively) also involve compulsory labour, under the conditions set out in the Executive Penal Code of 5 July 2014 (sections 63(2) and 104(2)(1)).

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Criminal Code. In its previous comments, the Committee noted a number of provisions of the Criminal Code, under the terms of which certain activities might be punished by sentences involving an obligation to perform labour in circumstances which are covered by the Convention. The provisions in question are as follows:

-section 174, which provides for penalties of restriction of freedom or deprivation of liberty for the incitement of social, national, gender-based, racial, class or religious discord;
-section 400, which establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work, community work or remand in custody in case of violation of the procedure for organizing and holding meetings, rallies, pickets, street marches and demonstrations;
-section 404, which establishes penalties such as a fine, correctional work, restriction of freedom, deprivation of liberty, with forfeiture of the right to hold certain posts or to engage in certain activities in case of forming, leading and participation in activities of illegal social and other associations.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication that, in 2015, there were 47 offences under section 174 of the Criminal Code, out of which three cases were submitted to court, and 44 cases were discontinued. The Committee requested the Government to ensure in practice that the provisions of sections 174, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code were applied in a manner so as to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour were imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political or ideological views.

The Government indicates in its report that, according to the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, in the first half of 2019, 19 people were convicted under section 174 of the Criminal Code, including six who were sentenced to imprisonment and ten to restriction of freedom. The Government states that no cases were prosecuted under sections 400 and 404. The Committee notes the information in the compilation report prepared by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for the Universal Periodic Review of November 2019, that the Special Rapporteur on terrorism observed that section 174 of the Criminal Code was the most commonly used against civil society activists, particularly against religious organizations (A/HRC/WG.6/34/KAZ/2, paragraph 25). The Committee also notes that, according to the 2017 Report “Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), section 174 of the Criminal Code has been increasingly widely used against critical activists, including atheist writers (page 29). Moreover, section 174 of the Criminal Code has been applied in cases concerning criticism of policies pursued by the president of a foreign state (page 132).

Referring to its General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraphs 302 and 303, the Committee points out that the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour, under Article 1(a), comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. It also emphasizes that the Convention does not prohibit the application of penalties involving compulsory labour to persons who use violence, incite violence or prepare acts of violence. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, correctional work or community service, are imposed in law and in practice, on persons who peacefully express views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, for example by clearly restricting the scope of sections 174, 400 and 404 of the Criminal Code to situations connected with the use of violence, or by suppressing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, as well as information on the application in practice of the sections referred to above, specifying the number of prosecutions made under each provision, the grounds for prosecution, and the type of penalties imposed.

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

Enforcement. The Committee notes that the government does not provide information on this point. However, it notes that the CEDAW expressed concerns indicating that “the legal framework on discrimination is fragmented and does not provide effective protection against discrimination in fields such as employment” and that “[t]he law on gender equality does not establish liability in cases of violations of its provisions and lacks an effective monitoring mechanism” (CEDAW/C/KAZ/CO/5, 12 November 2019, para. 11(b) and (c)). In view of the above and of the fact that the Government did not reply to its previous direct request with regard to the enforcement of the Convention, the Committee urges the Government: (i) to take the necessary steps to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention; and (ii) to provide specific information on the implementation of the relevant legislation, as well as on all violations found by the labour inspectorate, and on the decisions of administrative or judicial courts relating to the principle established by the Convention, including the remedies granted and penalties imposed.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in the light of the decision taken by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee reviewed the implementation of the Convention on the basis on the additional information received from the Government this year, as well as the information available to it in 2019.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 30 September 2020, on the persistence of gender stereotypes, the definition of discrimination in national law and prohibited grounds of discrimination, gaps in protection against discrimination and enforcement, discrimination in job advertisements, cases of victimization and workplace violence. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. Prohibited grounds of discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to: (1) indicate the reasons for the omission of the ground of colour during the revision of the legislation and take the opportunity of any future revision of the Labour Code of 2015 to include colour as a prohibited ground of discrimination in section 6(2); and (2) provide detailed information on the measures taken to ensure effective protection in practice against discrimination based on the grounds enumerated in the Convention, including colour. In its report, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection (MTPS) works continuously to improve the labour legislation. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the opportunity of a forthcoming revision of the Labour Code to include the ground of colour in the list of grounds of discrimination that are explicitly prohibited by law. In the meantime, it requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken to ensure in practice effective protection against discrimination based on the grounds listed in the Convention, including colour.

Article 2. Equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women. In its previous comment, the Committee urged the Government to provide: (1) detailed information on the measures taken to promote and ensure in practice equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women in employment and occupation in a wide range of jobs, including high-level jobs and those with career prospects, and (2) information on the distribution of women and men in the various vocational training courses and in education. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which indicates the measures taken with regard to women, in particular the number of women as of 1 September 2020 who have benefited from programmes, short courses and loans to start their own businesses. The Committee also notes that the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in its concluding observations of 2019 welcomes: (1) the increased representation of women in the judiciary and at different levels of the executive branch and the increased participation of women in political parties; and (2) the progress achieved in promoting access for women to employment. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided to CEDAW, the Government has drawn up a second action plan on family policy and gender equality 2020–2022. The Committee further notes that, according to the CEDAW, this new action plan should refocus the conceptual framework of the State on the promotion and empowerment of women and the implementation of a strong gender equality policy. However, the Committee notes the concerns expressed by the CEDAW with regard to: (1) the postponement to 2030 of the full realization of the goal of 30 per cent representation of women in decision-making posts; (2) the under-representation of women at the ministerial level, in the foreign service, in the armed forces and in local administrations; (3) the low representation of women in the Senate (10.6 per cent), which is presided over by a woman, and at the head of local representative bodies (maslikhat); (4) the low representation of women in the governing bodies of political parties; (5) the lack of disaggregated data on the political participation of women; (6) regional discrepancies in the political representation of women; (7) discriminatory gender stereotypes hindering the participation of women in political and public life; (8) the reports of discrimination in employment and sexual harassment in the workplace, exacerbated by persistent gender stereotypes; (9) the concentration of women in traditional and low-paid sectors of the economy and a glass ceiling that precludes most women from reaching senior management positions; and (10) the limited access to employment and social security schemes for disadvantaged groups of women, such as migrant women, women domestic workers, rural women and women with disabilities (CEDAW/C/KAZ/CO/5, 12 November 2019, paragraphs 29 and 37). Furthermore, the Committee recalls that it previously noted the Law of 2009 on State Guarantees on Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities of Men and Women and the Strategy for Gender Equality 2006–16, the objectives of which include the equal representation of women and men in executive and legislative bodies and in decision-making positions, the expansion of women’s entrepreneurship and the increase of women’s competitiveness in the labour market. The Committee once again asks the Government to: (i) provide information, including statistics disaggregated by sex, on the impact of the measures taken, particularly in the framework of the Law of 2009 on State Guarantees, in promoting and ensuring in practice equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women in employment and occupation in a wide range of occupations, including high-level jobs and those with career prospects; and (ii) provide information on the distribution of men and women in the various vocational training programmes and in education. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in the framework of the second action plan 2020–22 to implement the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women enshrined in the Convention.

Equality of opportunity and treatment for national, ethnic and religious minorities. In its previous comment, the Committee urged the Government to: (1) provide information on the conditions of access of national, ethnic and religious minorities to the public service, and particularly the linguistic requirements, and (2) take the necessary steps to collect and analyse data, disaggregated by branch of activity and occupation, on the distribution of men and women belonging to the various minorities in the public and private sectors, as well as their participation at different levels of vocational training and education. Noting with regret that the Government’s report does not contain a specific reply to the questions raised previously, the Committee is bound to repeat its request. The Committee once again urges the Government to: (i) provide information on the measures taken with regard to the conditions of access of national, ethnic and religious minorities to the public service, and particularly the linguistic requirements; and (ii) take the necessary measures to collect and analyse data, disaggregated by sector and occupation, illustrating the distribution of men and women belonging to various minorities in the public and private sectors, as well as their participation in the various levels of vocational training and education.

Articles 2 and 3. National equality policy. The Committee notes the following progress welcomed by the CEDAW: (1) the adoption in 2019 of the National plan for the period up to 2025 to ensure the rights and improve the livelihoods of persons with disabilities; (2) the Forum for rural women to promote, amongst other things, entrepreneurship by women, held in 2018; and (3) the implementation of the “Women in Business” programme, conducted jointly with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is focused on providing concessional credit to businesses run by women (CEDAW/C/KAZ/CO/5, 12 November 2019, paragraph 5). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to implement these various programmes, the impact of these measures on the professional situation of people with disabilities and rural women and the development of female entrepreneurship.

Article 5. Special protection measures. Restrictions on the employment of women. In its previous comment, while noting the Government’s wish to protect women’s health and safety, the Committee urged the Government to: (1) take the necessary measures to guarantee equality of opportunity and equal protection in terms of health and safety for men and women, and to review the list of occupations prohibited for women that is currently in force so that measures to protect women in employment are limited to the protection of maternity in the strict sense of the term and do not reflect gender stereotypes about the capacities and role of women in society and in the family; and (2) provide information on the measures taken to consult workers’ organizations and employers and the results of such consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the MTPS has updated the list of jobs that women cannot do with the aim of bringing it into line with contemporary working conditions, which have improved in a significant number of workplaces in order to guarantee them access to jobs that are not a threat to their health as a result of automation and the introduction of technology. The Government adds that this list of jobs has been reduced by 33 per cent and will continue to be shortened and updated as scientific and technical progress is made. The Committee welcomes the Government’s efforts to gradually reduce the list of jobs prohibited for women. The Committee requests the Government to indicate to what extent the social partners are consulted during the process of revising the list, and to provide a copy of the revised list. The Government is requested to provide information on the jobs that are now open to women and to specify whether the removal of prohibitions on jobs to which women have access has been covered by information campaigns.

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

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

Article 1(2) of the Convention. Definition. Other members of the immediate family. In its previous comment, the Committee: (i) recalled that, in addition to children, Article 1(2) of the Convention also covers men and women workers with responsibilities for other members of their immediate family who clearly need their care and support, and (ii) asked the Government to provide information on the legal provisions that give effect to the Convention in this regard. In its report, the Government details the measures in relation to men and women workers with dependent children, but not to other members of their immediate family who clearly need their care and support. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how the Convention is applied to men and women workers with responsibilities for other members of their immediate family who clearly need their care and support.

Article 3. National policy. The Committee previously asked the Government to provide information on the legal and practical measures taken or envisaged to enable men and women workers with family responsibilities to engage in employment without being discriminated against and to do so without conflict between their employment and family responsibilities, including those taken in the framework of the 2006–16 National Strategy for Gender Equality. The Committee notes that in its reply, the Government once again emphasizes that the labour laws guarantee non-discrimination on the grounds of sex. In this respect, the Committee notes the concluding observations of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on the fifth periodic report of Kazakhstan, in which it expresses its concern regarding: (i) the substitution of the gender equality strategy for the period 2006–2016 with the “concept for family and gender policy for the period up to 2030”, which, by combining gender equality and family issues, reinforces traditional stereotypes about women’s roles and responsibilities in the family, and which reportedly has been met with strong opposition in society; and (ii) the lack of information about the outcome of the first action plan to implement the concept for family and gender policy (2017–2019) (CEDAW/C/KAZ/CO/5, 12 November 2019, para. 15). Furthermore, the Committee notes that, while CEDAW commends the Government for favouring the involvement of fathers in child care, including through the promotion of paternity leave, it is concerned about the discriminatory gender stereotypes that limit women’s roles to domestic work and child care, undermining the empowerment of women in the economic, social and political spheres (CEDAW/C/KAZ/CO/5, 12 November 2019, para. 23, (b)).The Committee recalls that the Convention requires the adoption of a national policy to enable persons with family responsibilities who are engaged or wish to engage in employment to exercise their right to do so without being subject to discrimination and, to the extent possible, without conflict between their employment and family responsibilities. This national policy, which is broad in scope and applies to all sectors of economic activity and to all categories of workers, should be implemented through the adoption of a combination of specific measures of a legal, administrative, policy or practical nature, adapted to the national conditions relating to rates of participation in employment and job security, working conditions, social security and the provision of community services. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information concerning: (i) the legal and practical measures taken or envisaged to enable men and women workers with family responsibilities to engage in employment without being discriminated against and to do so without conflict between their employment and family responsibilities; (ii) the evaluation of the outcome of the implementation of the first action plan for the family and gender policy (2017–2019) on the situation of men and women workers with family responsibilities in order to adapt the implementation of the second action plan. Please provide a copy of the second action plan for the family and gender policy, 2020-2022.

Article 4(b). Working hours and leave entitlements. The Committee recalls that there remain provisions of the Labour Code (sections 76(4)(1) and 82(3)) that seemingly suggest that childcare obligations are expected to be performed exclusively by the mother, and, only in her absence, by the father, which reinforces stereotypes with regard to the roles traditionally assigned to both sexes in terms of family responsibilities. In this regard, it refers to its previous comments in respect of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government: (i) to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that entitlements aimed at reconciling work with family responsibilities are available to men and women on an equal footing; and (ii) to provide information, disaggregated by sex, on the number of men and women exercising their right to parental leave, and an indication of the number of men and women employees requesting unpaid parental leave, flexible working time arrangements, reduced working hours or home work in order to better combine work with family responsibilities.

Article 5. Childcare facilities. With reference to its previous comment on the extent of childcare services and their beneficiaries, the Committee notes the Government’s general indication that section 6 of the Education Act provides that the local executive authorities of a city or of the capital may create, reorganize and dissolve, in accordance with national laws, state education institutions offering development programmes and preschool, primary, basic secondary and general secondary education, technical and vocational and post-secondary education programmes and extracurricular programmes for children, as well as state education institutions offering specialized and personalized general education programmes. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information – including statistical information – on the available childcare services and facilities (in the public and private sectors), including the total number of places; their geographical distribution; the number and age of children requiring care and any other types of services available to men and women workers with family responsibilities.

Article 6. Awareness raising. The Committee recalls that it requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to raise public awareness of the problems encountered by workers with family responsibilities in preparing for, entering, participating in or advancing in economic activity. It notes that the Government has not provided information on this subject in its reply. It therefore wishes to recall that the measures taken to implement a national policy under Article 3 of the Convention should be accompanied by a major awareness-raising campaign to promote the notion that the family is the concern of each individual, man and woman, and that society must enable all persons with dependants both to exercise their family responsibilities and to participate fully in the labour force (see General Survey on Workers with Family Responsibilities, 1993, para. 90). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to implement an information and education policy which engenders broader public understanding of the problems encountered by workers with family responsibilities and of the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women workers with family responsibilities and workers without family responsibilities.

Article 7. Integration in the labour force. Concerning the communication of information on any practical and legislative measures taken or envisaged to take account of the special needs of male and female workers with family responsibilities with a view to enabling them to enter and remain in the labour force and to return to employment after an absence due to such responsibilities, the Committee refers to its comments under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).

Article 8. Protection against dismissal on the ground of family responsibilities. The Committee recalls that section 42(1) of the Labour Act (amendment) provides that several grounds, including family responsibilities, shall not constitute fair and sufficient cause for dismissal or the application of disciplinary measures against a worker. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to section 42(1) of the Labour Act (amendment), including information on any cases examined by the courts.

Article 11. Workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government describing the general machinery for collective bargaining at the national level. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the manner in which employers’ and workers’ organizations have participated in practice in the preparation and application of the measures taken to give effect to the provisions of the Convention.

Enforcement. Noting that the Government has not provided information on this subject, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information (including statistical information) on the activities of the supervisory authorities and law enforcement mechanisms, including the labour inspection service, to give effect to the provisions of the Convention, indicating any administrative or judicial decisions relating to the application of the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information, including statistical data disaggregated by sex, studies, surveys or reports to enable the Committee to assess how the principles of the Convention are applied in practice, with an indication of the progress made in addressing existing inequalities between men and women workers with family responsibilities and between these workers and workers without such responsibilities.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the Committee’s General Observation, adopted in 2019, recalling the relevance, importance and practical usefulness of the principles contained in the Convention and its accompanying Recommendation (No. 165), which seek to ensure that all workers with family responsibilities – women as well as men – are not disadvantaged in relation to other workers and, in particular, that women with family responsibilities are not disadvantaged in comparison to men with family responsibilities. Recalling the objective of the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work to achieve gender equality at work through a transformative agenda and stressing the importance of the Convention in achieving this objective, the Committee has called upon member States and employers’ and workers’ organizations to strengthen efforts towards achieving these specific objectives.

The Committee notes the Government’s first report.

Articles 2(3) and 3(3) of the Convention. Periodic consideration of measures that could be taken to ratify relevant occupational safety and health (OSH) Conventions and measures to promote basic OSH principles and to develop a national preventative safety and health culture in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that a range of training and awareness-raising activities have been conducted on OSH, including the organization of the Kazakhstan International Occupational Safety and Health Conference. The Committee also notes the adoption of the General Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and national associations of workers and employers for 2018–2020 which sets out general objectives in the area of OSH, including a Road Map for the introduction of an occupational risk management system. The Committee further notes that the General Agreement provides that the Government will undertake technical consultations on the ratification of the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to develop a national preventative safety and health culture in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers concerned, including information on the implementation of the Road Map for the introduction of an occupational risk management system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any subsequent agreements planned or adopted related to the promotion of OSH. The Committee further requests the Government to continue to provide information on the periodic consideration of the measures that could be taken to ratify relevant OSH Conventions, including the outcome of the consultations undertaken on Convention No. 184.

Article 4(3)(e). Research on OSH. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the National Scientific Research Institution on Occupational Safety provides scientific support for the development and implementation of the national regulatory framework and carries out applied research in the field of OSH for long-term planning. It notes that evidence-based approaches are being developed to implement the occupational risk management system in various sectors, including procedures for identifying, assessing and managing occupational risks. It further notes that studies and reviews of OSH regulations are being carried out, with a focus on particularly hazardous sectors. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information regarding measures taken or envisaged to carry out research on OSH, in particular concerning the implementation of the occupational risk management system.

Article 4(3)(g). Collaboration with relevant insurance or social security schemes covering occupational injuries and diseases. The Committee notes that the Action Plan adopted in the framework of the General Agreement for the years 2018–2020 aims to strengthen the compulsory social insurance system covering occupational injuries and diseases, and the establishment of insurance rates depending on the state of working conditions and occupational safety at the workplaces. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the process and the outcomes of the revision/establishment of insurance rates.

Article 4(3)(h). Support mechanisms for a progressive improvement of occupational safety and health conditions in microenterprises, in small and medium-sized enterprises and in the informal economy. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether support mechanisms are in place for a progressive improvement of OSH conditions in microenterprises, in small and medium-sized enterprises and in the informal economy.

Article 5. National OSH programme. Objectives, targets and indicators of progress. The Committee notes the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection for the years 2017–2021, which outlines steps and activities to be taken by the Government and other relevant stakeholders to improve OSH practices in the country, and includes specific targets related to the reduction of occupational injuries. In this regard, the Committee notes that several measures have been implemented, such as the creation of occupational health and safety production councils, the adoption of rules for the Declaration of employer’s activities and the establishment of a scientific research on the occupational risk management. It further notes the Strategic Plan for Development 2025, which includes the integration of a standardized system for regulating OSH matters based on a risk management approach, a wide-scale revision and updating of OSH standards, the monitoring of compliance through the use of an electronic database of standards and the introduction of new types and methods of training on OSH. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation, monitoring, evaluation and periodic review of the national programme on OSH, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. In particular, it requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved with regard to the targets and indicators of progress established. It also requests the Government to provide information on the implementation and the evaluation carried out of the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection for the years 2017–2021, and on how this evaluation contributes to the formulation of the Plan for the subsequent period.

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Kazakhstan

Adopted by the CEACR in 2022

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

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

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 109th Session, June 2021)

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C129 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C100 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C187 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Kazakhstan

Display the list by:

Adopted by the CEACR in 2022

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

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

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 109th Session, June 2021)

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C129 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C100 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C156 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C187 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)