Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Maldives (Ratification: 2013)

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Prohibition of discrimination and equal opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. Legislation. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal does not extend to the interpretation of constitutional provisions, such as the meaning of “national origin” (article 17(a)). The Committee also notes that per section 88(a) of the Employment Act (No. 2/2008), the Employment Tribunal has final jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the Employment Act. It further notes that section 5 of the Employment Act provides that non-discrimination shall be considered a fundamental principle and section 4(a) limits the scope of the prohibition of discrimination to persons carrying out “equal work”; the Government therefore states that the Employment Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to ensure that persons carrying different work are protected against discrimination in employment and occupation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of article 17(a) of the Constitution by the competent authorities. It reiterates its request regarding the following: (i) whether the legislative framework addresses both direct and indirect discrimination based on all the grounds specified in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, particularly race, colour, religion, national extraction, and social origin; (ii) how direct and indirect discrimination are defined and interpreted in practice by the competent authorities; and (iii) the measures taken to raise awareness among workers and employers, their organizations, and law enforcement officials on the relevant legislative provisions and principles of the Convention, as well as the available procedures and remedies.

Police and armed forces. The Government asserts that the Armed Forces Act No. 1/2008 and the Maldives Police Service Act (Act No. 34/2020) safeguard members of the Police and Armed Forces — who are excluded from the scope of the Employment Act under section 2(a) — from direct and indirect discrimination in accordance with international standards. After reviewing these legislations, the Committee notes that they cover matters related to employment, remuneration and working conditions for members of the armed forces and police but that they do not contain specific provisions protecting against non-discrimination. The Committee wishes to recall that no provision in the Convention limits its scope as regards individuals or branches of activity, and that the purpose of the Convention is to protect all persons against discrimination in employment and occupation based on race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to indicate how police officers and members of the armed forces are effectively protected against direct and indirect discrimination based on all grounds listed in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, across all aspects of employment and occupation as defined in Article 1(3).

Article 1(1)(a). Discrimination based on sex. Sexual harassment. The Committee notes that section 2 of the Sexual Harassment and Abuse Prevention Act (Act No. 16/2014) defines sexual harassment as “unsolicited sexual act committed by one person against or targeted towards another person, without the latter’s consent”. It notes that this definition does not explicitly cover all forms of sexual harassment and recalls the two elements that are included in sexual harassment: (1)“Quid pro quo” sexual harassment, which includes any physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature and other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of a person, which is unwelcome, unreasonable and offensive to the recipient; and a person’s rejection of, or submission to, such conduct is used explicitly or implicitly as a basis for a decision which affects that person’s job (for instance, requesting sexual favours (for oneself or a third person) from a job candidate in exchange for a job appointment); and (2) “hostile work environment” sexual harassment, which includes conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating working environment for the recipient (for instance, the showing of pornographic materials at a place of work, making sexual jokes or remarks, etc.). The Committee wishes to point out that sexual harassment is a serious form of discrimination based on sex and that, for the full implementation of the Convention, it is essential for sexual harassment in employment and occupation to be clearly defined and prohibited, i.e. to include both quid pro and hostile work environment sexual harassment (General Survey of 2023, Achieving Gender Equality at Work, paragraph 113). The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, between 1 June 2020 and 1 June 2023, the Employment Tribunal adjudicated three cases of sexual harassment; and, as of July 2022, the Maldives Police Service referred three of 46 known cases of sexual harassment for prosecution, none of which led to charges. In this regard, the Committee wishes to point out that the very low number or absence of complaints regarding sexual harassment does not necessarily indicate that this form of sex discrimination does not exist. It is likely to reflect the lack of an appropriate legal framework, the lack of awareness, understanding and recognition of this form of sex discrimination among government officials, and workers and employers and their organizations, as well as the lack of access to or the inadequacy of complaints mechanisms and means of redress, or fear of reprisals (General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 790). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 2 of the Sexual Harassment and Abuse Prevention Act (Act No. 16/2014)toincludeprovisions: (i) defining and prohibiting sexual harassment at work in all its forms (i.e. quid pro quo and hostile environment), in relation to all aspects of employment; and (ii) covering all workers in all economic sectors. It also asks the Government: (i) to envisage a review of the applicable substantive and procedural provisions to examine their effectiveness in practice, in particular whether they allow claims to be brought successfully; (ii) to raise awareness of the relevant legislation to enhance the capacity of the competent authorities (including judges, labour inspectors and other public officials) to identify and address cases of sexual harassment; and (iii) to communicate information on the nature and outcome of sexual discrimination complaints and cases filed on the basis of section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act 2010, and the penalties imposed.

Discrimination based on religion. The Committee recalls that, having noted that section 12 of the Civil Service Act (Act No. 5/2007) requires members of the Civil Service Commission — the body responsible for recruiting, appointing, promoting, transferring and dismissing members of the civil service, and establishing personnel procedures relating to recruitment, appointments, transfers, promotions and dismissals — to be Muslim, it had asked the Government to indicate how protection against direct and indirect discrimination on the ground of religion in employment or occupation is ensured in practice for all workers. The Government responds that section 4(a) of the Employment Act prohibits discrimination in employment and occupation, and that the Civil Service Act (Act No. 5/2007) and the Civil Service Regulation (Regulation No. R-311/2014) ensures that non-Muslim individuals do not encounter any direct or indirect discrimination in employment and occupation. However, the Committee notes that sections 20 and 21 of the Civil Service Regulation specifically exclude ‘religion’ as a protected ground, based on which discrimination is prohibited in intra-employee relations and relations between employees and the public. It further notes that ‘religion’ is not mentioned in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in article 17(a) of the Constitution of 2008. In that regard, the Committee wishes to stress that religious discrimination can lead to severe exclusion and intolerance towards unrecognized religions (General Survey of 2012, paragraph 798). The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government: (i) to report on any concrete measures taken to ensure that the decisions taken by private employers as well as by the Maldivian Civil Service on the appointments, transfers, promotions and dismissals of civil service officers do not lead to direct or indirect discrimination against non-Muslims, in practice; and (ii) to examine section 12 of the Civil Service Act and section 6 of the Human Rights Commission Act, in light of the requirement of Article 1.1(a) of the Convention. In the meantime, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on any activity undertaken to promote religious tolerance in employment and occupation.

Article 1(1)(b). Additional grounds of discrimination. Disability. The Committee notes that in response to its previous request for information on the application of section 19 of the Disability Act No. 8/2010, the Government indicates that the Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction on matters pertaining to discrimination based on disability in employment and occupation. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that sections 4 and 5 of the Employment Act give affected persons the right to file complaints before the Tribunal in situations of alleged discrimination and mandates the Tribunal to prioritize allegations of contraventions of this nature. The Committee welcomes the indication of the Government that the Employment Tribunal utilizes inclusive measures to receive complaints, including the use of interpreters, translators, legal representatives and audio/visual conferences where necessary (sections 17(b) and 78(b) of Regulation Number 2022/R-14). The Committee notes the Government's establishment of the Rihiveli Award to recognize the contributions of individuals with disabilities to Maldivian society. However, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that between June 2020 and June 2023, only one case of discrimination at work based on disability has been brought before the Employment Tribunal. In that regard, it wishes to again refer the Government to paragraph 790 of its General Survey of 2012 where it explains that the absence of complaints is not an indicator of the absence of discrimination in practice. The Committee further notes that, in its response to the 2023 List of Issues of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”), the Government stated that the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (“HRCM”) investigated 30 complaints of discrimination based on disability between 2019 and 2022 (without specifying if these concerned discrimination in employment and occupation). The Committee also notes that in the same document, the Government states that while no cases related to discrimination based on disabilities have been lodged at the Educational Supervision and Quality Improvement Division (“ESQID”), which is a department under the Ministry of Education, ESQID received 67 cases between 2020 and 2022 related to challenges faced by students with disabilities. Support has been provided by ESQID, including conducting case analysis, making necessary interventions, following up on cases and technical assistance on handling future cases effectively (CRPD/C/MDV/RQ/1, 12 October 2023, paragraph 24). The Committee asks the Government to continue providing information on the application of section 19 of the Disability Act No. 8/2010 in practice, including on any cases or complaints concerning discrimination on the ground of disability dealt with by the labour inspectors, the Employment Tribunal, the Human Rights Commission or any other competent authority; the sanctions imposed; and the remedies granted. It asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken to promote access for persons with disabilities to training and employment, and to improve their access to the open labour market. The Committee asks the Government to provide statistical data on the employment rates of women and men with disabilities, in both the public and private sectors.

Article 1(2). Inherent requirements of the job. The Committee recalls that section 20(d) of the Gender Equality Act No. 18/2016 provides that “employment opportunities shall not be offered or advertised to restrict a particular sex, except in circumstances where the work is required to be undertaken by a particular gender” and notes the Government’s indication that no such case has been reported. If such a case arises, the Employment Tribunal will undertake a comprehensive examination and render a decision in accordance with prevailing laws and regulations. As per article 38 of Civil Service Act, merit shall be a prerequisite, irrespective of gender, to appoint a person to a position in the Maldivian Civil Service. The Committee wishes to point out that not all distinctions, exclusions and preferences are deemed to be discrimination within the meaning of the Convention. This includes measures based on the inherent requirements of a particular job (Article 1(2)). However, it is crucial to recall that the exception must be interpreted restrictively to avoid undue limitation of the protection that the Convention is intended to provide. Each case must be examined carefully as, in practice, there are very few instances where the grounds listed in the Convention constitute inherent requirements of the job. The Committee further notes that restrictions based on gender are often rooted in stereotypical views about the capabilities and aspirations of persons based on gender, and thus contrary to the Convention. To ensure effective protection against discrimination in employment and occupation, exceptions based on inherent requirements of a particular job should be interpreted narrowly and on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind that the concept of “a particular job” refers to a specific and clearly defined job, function or task, and that any limitation must be directly related to the characteristics of that job and proportionate to its inherent requirements (General Survey of 2012, paragraph 817). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 20(d) of the Gender Equality Act, to ensure that any circumstances where a particular gender is deemed necessary for a job are determined objectively and take into account individual capacities.

Articles 2 and 3. Equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women. The Committee welcomes the information that the Government formulated a Gender Equality Action Plan (2022–2026) with five main policy areas in the following emphasised areas: (1) Leadership and Governance (ensuring the equal participation and equitable representation of both women and men in governance and leadership positions); (2) Economic Empowerment (ensuring the equal participation of women and men in economic development, engagement, and empowerment). (3) Institutional Gender Mainstreaming (strengthening the capacity of relevant government institutions to address the specific needs of women, men, girls and boys); (4) Elimination of Gender-Based Violence (ensuring greater personal security of families and reduced violence against women, men, and children); and (5) Access to Justice (ensuring equal opportunities for access to justice, redress and effective remedies for women, men, girls, and boys). The Committee also notes the statistical information provided by the Government on the participation of women and men in employment and occupation disaggregated by occupational categories and positions in the civil service, which notably indicates that there are 11,582 women employed as support officers, compared to 4,590 men. The Committee notes that the United Nation’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”) expressed concern in its 2021 concluding observations about the relatively low labour force participation rate of women in the Maldives (45.6 per cent) compared to that of men (77.1 per cent). CEDAW also highlighted that 44 per cent of employed women work in the informal economy and that 84 per cent of home-based workers are women (CEDAW/C/MDV/CO/6, 23 November 2021, paragraph 39). Additionally, the concluding observations revealed that 49 per cent of women cited domestic and childcare responsibilities as the main barrier to their labour force participation. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the Gender Equality Action Plan 2022-2026, in particular on some of the concrete measures taken to combat gender stereotypes and enhance women’s economic empowerment, which are among the fivepolicygoals set out in the Action Plan. It also requests the Government to continue providing statistical information on the participation of men and women in education, training, employment and occupation, disaggregated by occupational categories and positions in the public and private sectors and the informal economy, to monitor progress over time.

Migrant workers. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the Employment Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to address discrimination against migrant workers. The Committee notes the Government refers to two cases where, irrespective of this, migrant workers brought allegations of discrimination (based on nationality for one, and gender, race and economic status for the other one) before the Tribunal, which ultimately rendered verdicts that no act of discrimination had been established because the complainants could not prove their claims. In that regard, the Committee recalls that one of the main difficulties in relation to allegations of discrimination in general relates to the burden of proof and notes the fact that section 4(d) of the Employment Act provides for the shifting of the burden of proof to the employer in the case of an alleged violation of the provisions on non-discrimination. In addition, the Committee notes that article 17 of the 2008 Constitution states: “Everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms included in this Chapter without discrimination of any kind, including race, national origin, colour, sex, age, mental or physical disability, political or other opinion, property, birth or other status, or native island”, while section 2 of the Employment Act extends the scope of the Act to matters concerning state and private employment, without exception as to nationality or national origin. The Committee is thus unsettled by the Government’s report in this respect. The Committee notes the concern highlighted by the 2023 Report of the United Nations Working Group on discrimination against women and girls regarding migrant workers' lack of special and legal protection against exploitative conditions of work in the Maldives (A/HRC/53/39/Add.2, 26 April 2023, paragraph 28). It further notes that the 2021 Concluding Observations of CEDAW highlight social exclusion and discrimination faced by disadvantaged groups of women due to various intersecting factors including ethnicity, nationality, and migrant status. (CEDAW/C/MDV/CO/6, 23 November 2021, paragraph 51). The Committee asks the Government to take measures to promote effective access to justice for migrant workers, in particular by enhancing workers’ awareness and knowledge of the legal framework on discrimination as well as on the functioning and the case law of the enforcement mechanisms.

Article 3(a).Cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee welcomes the Government's enactment of the Industrial Relations Act on 2nd January 2024, and the establishment of a 10-member National Tripartite Labour Advisory Board (section 88). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the activities undertaken by the National Tripartite Labour Advisory Board concerning equal opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation, including any awareness-raising activities undertaken in that respect.

Article 5. The Committee notes that, according to article 17(b) of the Constitution and section 4(b) of the Employment Act, special measures for assistance or protection for disadvantaged individuals or groups are not considered discriminatory. Similarly, section 13 of the Gender Equality Act states that measures aimed at supporting or protecting a particular gender shall not be deemed discriminatory. The Committee requests the Government to specify the disadvantaged persons or groups referred to in the above-mentioned texts. Additionally, it reiterates its request for information on the practical implementation of article 17(b) of the Constitution, section 4(b) of the Employment Act, and section 13 of the Gender Equality Act, including details of any positive measures taken to promote equal opportunities in employment and occupation for disadvantaged individuals or groups.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the explanation provided by the Government on the reasons why most cases brought before the Employment Tribunal were dismissed. According to the Government, the claimants often failed to clearly prove the alleged discrimination, as by virtue of section 4(d) of the Employment Act the complainant must first produce prima facie or plausible evidence of a violation, for the burden of proof to shift to the employer to demonstrate that discrimination did not occur. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on: (i) the practical application of section 4(d) of the Employment Act; (ii) the number of internal complaints mechanisms established pursuant to the Gender Equality Act and any assessment or study available on their activities, effectiveness and impact; and (iii) any measures taken or envisaged to enhance greater access and confidence in the judiciary and their impact.