Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2020, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Venezuela (République bolivarienne du) (Ratification: 1944)

The Committee notes the observations received from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Federation of Chambers and Associations of Commerce and Production of Venezuela (FEDECAMARAS) on 31 August 2017; the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) on 11 December 2019; the Federation of University Teachers' Associations of Venezuela (FAPUV) and the Independent Trade Union Alliance Confederation of Workers (CTASI) on 11 September 2020; and the CTASI on 30 September 2020. The Committee requests the Government to provide its reply to these observations.

Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. Requisitioning of workers. The Committee previously noted that resolution No. 9855 of 19 July 2016 establishes a transitional labour regime of a compulsory and strategic nature for all work entities in order to contribute to the recovery of the production in the agro-food sector, through the establishment of a system where entities identified by the Government as requiring special measures to increase their production may request a specific number of workers from public or private enterprises, which are required to make the requested workers available. It noted that, as a result, requisitioned workers can be transferred from their job at the request of a third enterprise, without being able to give their consent, for a renewable 60-day period. Observing that the resolution was adopted within the framework of Decree No. 2323 of 13 May 2016 which declared the state of emergency and economic crisis and was subsequently extended, the Committee noted that, while such a system aimed at reinforcing agro-food production to ensure food security, it did not appear to respond to a sudden and unforeseen happening endangering the existence of the population and could therefore not be considered as an exception to forced labour under the terms of Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. It requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that in practice no pressure is exerted on workers to accept these transfers, and to ensure that any act authorizing the requisitioning of workers in cases of force majeure is confined within the strict limits authorized by the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report, that the resolution was not implemented in practice and that, as a result, no worker was transferred under the transitional labour regime. The Government adds that the resolution was in force for six months and then ceased its effects. Taking note of this information, the Committee further notes that, in their joint observations, the IOE and FEDECAMARAS indicate that the Government has merely ceased applying the resolution on a temporary basis but that there has not been any formal repeal of the resolution. It notes that similar observations are made by the FAPUV and CTASI. The Committee observes that the “state of emergency and economic crisis” declared under Decree No. 2323 and which served as a basis for the elaboration of resolution No. 9855 has been extended through several decrees for more than one year. It recalls that, pursuant to Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, compulsory labour should be confined to genuine situations of emergency or cases of force majeure, that is a sudden unforeseen happening which endangers the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population, and therefore calls for instant countermeasures, so that such requisitioning is not transformed into the mobilization of labour for purposes of economic development, which is also prohibited by Article 1(b) of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105). Noting that resolution No. 9855 is no longer applied in practice, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to formally repeal the resolution to bring its national legislation in conformity with the Convention.

Social work by public employees. The Committee previously noted that, in its observations received on 2016, the Independent Trade Union Alliance (ASI) raised concern about voluntary social work undertaken by public sector officials and employees to carry out solidarity work outside their working time, and indicated that there were doubts about the voluntary nature of this work as pressure could be exerted by the authorities. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on these allegations. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there were very few cases where public employees have been summoned to carry out social work and, when it happened, such employees were free to respond or not to the convocation and carrying out the social work was fully voluntary. The Government highlights the low probability that a supervisor could impose social work as the necessary safeguards are in place and the Government issued instructions to make sure that this cannot happen. It adds that no complaints of social work were made before administrative or judicial bodies by trade union or workers. In this regard, the Committee notes that in their observations, the CTV, FAPUV and CTASI indicate that several complaints were made by retired workers from electric and oil companies who have been forced to remedy certain situations by police forces who entered their homes. The CTV adds that there have been allegations of cases where supervisors imposed quotas for participation in social work under the menace of a penalty. The Committee further notes that, in its observations, the CTASI states that the Government has openly promoted the practice of “voluntary” work for civil servants and public sector employees, alleging solidarity reasons. The CTASI further highlights that, in some cases, such workers had to work during their rest day, summoned by authorities, under the menace of a penalty, in order to carry out tasks beyond their normal duties and outside of their working environment, such as cleaning public space, painting buildings or maintaining parks. The Committee takes note with concern of this information. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on these allegations. It further requests it to provide information on the legal framework regulating social work undertaken by public servants and public sector employees, including instructions issued by the Government in that regard, as well as the manner in which it is ensured in practice that public servants and public sector employees give their consent to carry out social work.