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

Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189) - Peru (Ratification: 2018)

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) and of the National Federation of Domestic Workers of Peru (FENTTRAHOP), received on 31 August 2021, requesting that their observations submitted under article 19 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation be taken into account. It also notes the observations of the Autonomous Workers’ Confederation of Peru (CATP), of the Confederation of Workers of Peru (CTP), the CGTP and of the Single Confederation of Workers of Peru (CUT-Peru), received on 1 September 2021. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to these observations, received on 14 December 2021.

Articles 6 and 18 of the Convention. Fair terms of employment and decent working conditions. Implementation of the Convention. The Committee welcomes the efforts made to align national law with the present Convention and promote the labour rights of domestic workers, including through consultation with the representative organizations of domestic workers and trade union centres. In this regard, the Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 31047, the Domestic Workers Act (LTTH) published on 1 October 2020, and of its Regulations (RLTTH), published on 17 April 2021. The Government indicates that the RLTTH was the result of a process of social dialogue conducted with the participation of domestic workers’ organizations, civil society organizations and various national and international bodies, including the ILO, EUROsociAL and the Ombuds Office. The Committee also notes the establishment of a temporary working group: the Working Group on formulating and following up on the Action Plan respecting domestic workers’ rights 2019–21 (TH Working Group). The TH Working Group was composed of the representatives of numerous Government institutions, trade union centres and domestic workers’ federations. The Government reports that the TH Working Group met 16 times between January 2019 and June 2021. Under its mandate, on 21 November 2019, the TH Working Group approved the above-mentioned Action Plan, which includes among its objectives, the promotion of: (i) the formalization of domestic workers; (ii) respect for their fundamental labour rights; and (iii) complaint and monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance with those rights. The Committee also notes the adoption of Ministerial Decision No. 208-202-TR of 27 October 2021 establishing the Intersectoral Working Group to promote compliance with the rights of domestic workers (Intersectoral Working Group), as a standing body comprising representatives of various government bodies and of domestic workers’ organizations, to meet at least once a month. The Committee observes that its mandate includes the drafting of an annual study on the situation of domestic workers in the country, and participation in studies to find solutions to problems identified.

The Committee also notes that the CATP, the CTP, CGTP and CUT-Peru, in their observations, maintain that although the LTTH addresses the particularities of domestic work without prejudice to the principle of equal treatment, the RLTTH provides for equal treatment (as established under the general labour regime) in situations where domestic work presents specificities, which merit special treatment or affirmative action. The trade union centres maintain that the latter impedes the effectiveness of the rights enshrined in the LTTH, which in practice leads to unequal and less favourable treatment for domestic workers. With regard to the social dialogue within the framework of the working groups, the trade union centres maintain that this dialogue is not regular, and that the workers’ organizations are asked to form opinions at very short notice on documents of which they do not have prior knowledge, and they are not informed of the reasons why such suggestions as they might make are not taken into consideration. The trade union centres add that the Intersectoral Working Group should have a set of accessible indicators allowing it to evaluate progress and difficulties in complying with the regulations governing paid domestic work.

Finally, the Committee notes with interest the implementation, between 15 March 2022 and 31 March 2025, of the Proyecto Abriendo puertas (the Opening Doors Project) by the ILO with support from the Government of Canada, the objective of which is to improve the socioeconomic conditions and promote the empowerment of paid women domestic workers in the country. In that regard, it provides for the implementation of measures aimed at: the promotion of greater trade union membership for domestic workers, better dissemination and knowledge of their rights, as well as facilitating the access of domestic workers to a strengthened skills certification system to assist their transition to formal employment or to other jobs. The Committee also notes that the Government has requested ILO technical assistance to evaluate the impact of the regulations, strategies, programmes, plans and activities implemented to promote compliance with the labour rights of domestic workers in the framework of the LTTH and to determine action to improve its effectiveness. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to pursue its efforts to ensure that domestic workers enjoy in practice fair terms of employment and working conditions, as required by the Convention. The Committee trusts that, with the technical assistance of the ILO as requested, that the Government will soon be able to provide information on the progress achieved and the tripartite consultations held in that regard. Accordingly, it requests the Government to provide an evaluation of, as well as general indications on, the manner in which the Convention is implemented in Peru and to communicate copies of the most recent studies on the situation of domestic workers, including those carried out by the intersectoral Working Group, as well as information on solutions proposed regarding the challenges observed.

Article 1(b) and (c). Definition of a domestic worker. Occasional or sporadic domestic workers. The Committee notes that section 3 of the LTTH defines domestic workers as: “(…) those persons who undertake work related to the running of a home or upkeep of a dwelling, where such work does not bring any business or direct financial gain to the employer or his or her family members. Such work includes domestic tasks such as cleaning, cooking, assisting in cooking, washing, ironing, support, maintenance, care of children and of young persons, of adults, sick persons, persons with disabilities or of other dependent persons in the household, care of domestic pets, care of the home, inter alia.” On the other hand, the Committee notes that under section 2(3), second paragraph (d) of the RLTTH, “a person who performs domestic work occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis is not a domestic worker”. In this respect, the CGTP and the FENTTRAHOP highlight the lack of regulations concerning the number of hours performed for work to be considered occasional or sporadic. For its part, the Government indicates that the provision cited concurs with the provisions of Article 1(c) of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the expression “and not on an occupational basis” is intended to ensure the inclusion in the definition of “domestic worker” of day labourers and similar precarious workers. The objective is to ensure that all workers who perform domestic work on an occupational basis benefit effectively from the protection offered by the Convention (see the General Survey of 2022 Securing decent work for nursing personnel and domestic workers, key actors in the care economy, paragraphs 551 and 565). While noting that the definition of a domestic worker in the legislation is in conformity with Article 1(b) and (c) of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, and with the representative organizations of domestic workers and of employers in the sector, where they exist, to regulate the number of hours worked below which paid domestic work is considered to be occasional and sporadic, or to indicate the jurisprudence of the national courts in this regard.

Article 2. Exclusions. The Committee observes that, under section 2(3), second paragraph (c) of the RLTTH, the following shall not be considered to be domestic workers: “(…) persons who, in addition to performing domestic work, provide other services that are not related to the private household or family home, irrespective of their frequency, in activities or enterprises of the employer in the home, in which case it is presumed that there is a single employment relationship outside the regime regulated by the Act.” The Government indicates that this exclusion is related to the recognition of an employment relationship under the general system established for private sector workers in cases where such domestic workers are covered by a false domestic work contract. It adds that in cases of false contracts, the provisions of section 77(d) of Legislative Decree No. 728 on productivity and competitiveness are applicable: “Employment contracts subject to special conditions shall be considered to be open-ended (…) where the worker demonstrates the existence of simulation or fraud in respect of the provisions of the present Act.” The Committee notes that the CGTP and the FENTTRAHOP oppose this exclusion and maintain that the work performed should be differentiated and, based on the actual situation, the corresponding regimes should be applied, with multiple jobs recognized under the different labour regimes. In its reply, the Government indicates that the purpose of the exclusion is to recognize the true nature of the existing employment relationship and to grant the protection afforded by the law.

In this context, the Committee recalls that the Convention defines domestic work as work performed in or for a household or households and establishes it applies to all domestic workers (Articles 1(a) and 2(1)). However, Article 2(2) of the Convention allows total or partial exclusion of certain, distinct limited categories of domestic workers, after consultation with the social partners. The possibility of exclusion concerns only: (a) categories of workers who are otherwise provided with at least equivalent protection; and (b) limited categories of workers in respect of which special problems of a substantial nature arise. The Committee observes that although the Government has not indicated to which of these two options it refers, the reason it gives for the exclusion is that the workers concerned need to be categorized, taking into account the true nature of their employment relationship, which would seem to correspond to the provisions of Article 2(2) of the Convention – categories of workers who are otherwise provided with at least equivalent protection. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that those domestic workers who as well as carrying out tasks related to domestic work, must also provide other services outside the private household or family home (section 2(3), second paragraph (c) of the RLTTH, are provided with a protection at least equivalent to that provided under the regulations in respect of paid domestic work, as required under Article 2(2)(a) of the Convention.

Article 3(2)(a) and (3). Freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Committee notes that section 15, first paragraph, of the LTTH establishes that domestic workers and their employers shall enjoy the collective rights provided under the Political Constitution of Peru and the international standards incorporated into the law. Moreover, the provisions of the Act on Collective Labour Relations (section 41 of the RLTTH) have subsidiary application. The Committee observes that various provisions of the LTTH and the RLTTH expressly reiterate the collective rights of paid domestic workers. Similarly, the RLTTH lists a series of measures to be taken by the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (MTPE) for the promotion of those rights in practice, including: (i) technical assistance to strengthen domestic workers’ representative organizations, including the development, with the participation of those organizations, of regional plans to promote their collective rights (section 38); (ii) the requirement for the parties to negotiate in good faith when engaging in collective bargaining (section 39); (iii) recognition of the nullity of dismissal for trade union activities (section 40); (iv) the creation of a register of employers and workers of the sector; and (v) the implementation of awareness-raising campaigns on the collective rights of paid domestic workers (Fifth Final Supplementary Provision). The Committee also observes that the Action Plan to comply with the rights of domestic workers 2019-2021 provided for the application of strategies to generate capacities and raise awareness of domestic workers and civil society on the importance of trade unionism and collective bargaining in the sector. Those measures included the formulation of a document on the characteristics of the employers in the sector with a view to encouraging their organization.

While welcoming the numerous measures to promote the exercise of the collective rights of domestic workers contained in the legislation and Action Plan , the Committee notes that, in their observations, the CATP, the CTP, CGTP, CUT-Peru and the FENTTRAHOP all maintain that additional measures are required to ensure exercise of domestic workers’ right to freedom of association in practice and promote collective bargaining in the sector. They indicate that such additional measures should take account of the particular characteristics of the sector which complicate the exercise of those rights, such as the fact that domestic workers work on an individual basis in private homes and often in isolation. In this regard, they stress the need for: (i) measures to facilitate the establishment of organizations; (ii) leave, to participate in trade union activities, representation and social dialogue; (iii) support for trade union organizations in terms of spaces and premises where the organizations may be conveniently situated for workers; (iv) the registry for employers in the paid domestic work sector, and promotion of employers’ organizations and (v) spaces for tripartite dialogue, with Government participation to encourage the process of collective bargaining. With regard to the implementation of the Action Plan mentioned above, the FENHATTROP maintains that the only action undertaken to promote strengthening of trade union organizations was the holding of a festival on 29 November 2020 in Metropolitan Lima, where there were only 117 persons present. In its reply, the Government restates the measures provided under the RLTTH aimed at promoting the exercise in practice of collective rights for paid domestic workers. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the nature and impact of the measures adopted to ensure the effective promotion and protection of the right to freedom of association in practice, as well as the effective recognition of domestic workers’ right to collective bargaining. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of the study conducted into the characteristics of the employers in the sector with a view to encouraging their organization, as provided for in the framework of the Action Plan 2019–2021.

Articles 3(2)(c) and 4(1). Child labour. The Committee notes that section 7 of the LTTH and section 2(3) of the RLTTH fix the minimum age for domestic work at 18 years. The RLTTH prohibits the competent authority from issuing an authorization to undertake paid domestic work to persons less than 18 years of age, or from placing or recruiting such persons (section 44(1) and (2)). Moreover, Supreme Decree No. 009-2022-MIMP, approving the list of hazardous or harmful activities detrimental to the physical or moral health of young persons prohibits such work for minors under the age of 18 years. In that regard, the Committee refers to its direct request of 2023 concerning the implementation of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), in which it noted that section 63 of the Code of Children and Young Persons envisages the conditions under which an adolescent may be engaged in domestic work, is in contradiction with the LTTH and Supreme Decree No. 009-2022-MIMP. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its reply that there is no need to expressly repeal the regulations in the Code of Children and Young Persons, since the LTTH expressly recognizes that the minimum age in the paid domestic work sector is 18 years. In light of the above, with reference to its direct request of 2023 on the application of Convention No. 182, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the manner in which it is ensured that the simultaneous application of the above-mentioned provisions do not impede implementation of the prohibition of paid domestic work for minors under the age of 18 years; (ii) the application in practice of the prohibition indicated, including information on the number and nature of violations detected; and (iii) the measures adopted to remove minors under the age of 18 years from paid domestic work and to ensure their rehabilitation and social integration.

Article 3(2)(d). Protection against discrimination. The Committee notes that section 16 of the LTTH prohibits discriminatory acts against persons engaged in domestic work. The RLTTH provides for the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination as one of the principles of the regulations (section 3(1)), defines which actions constitute direct and indirect discrimination (section 2(4)), prohibits discrimination on various grounds – including affiliation to or participation in a trade union (section 42(1) and (3)), and provides guidance mechanisms to defend domestic workers against acts of discrimination (42(2)). Moreover, under section 42(4) of the RLTTH the results of action undertaken by the inspection services in investigating discrimination are reported each month by the National Superintendence of Labour Inspection (SUNAFIL) to the National Commission against Discrimination (CONACOD).

The Committee also notes that the CGTP and the FENTTRAHOP indicate that although the LTTH takes the particularities of paid domestic into consideration without prejudice to the principle of equality and non-discrimination, the RLTTH contains no affirmative measures to ensure implementation of that principle in practice. In its reply, the Government indicates that the RLTTH recognizes the rights of domestic workers in conditions equal to the rest of workers. Furthermore, the Committee notes from the United Nations Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent of 21 August 2020, that large numbers of Afro-Peruvian women perform domestic work, and are often subjected to sexual violence, discrimination and racism (A/HRC/45/44/Add.2, paragraph 89). In this connection, the Committee wishes to emphasize that when persons belong to more than one disadvantaged group, multiple and intersectional discrimination tend to compound and exacerbate existing inequalities. Intersections occur not only between different groups, such as migrant women, but also in relation to other characteristics, such as age, race, cultural background and socio-economic status (see the General Survey of 2022, paragraph 676). In consequence, recalling the requirement to take measures to respect, promote and realize the principle of elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation (Article 3(2)(d) of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the nature and impact of the measures adopted to address discrimination against domestic workers that take account of all forms of multiple and intersectional discrimination and existing inequalities, including with respect to paid Afro-Peruvian domestic workers; and (ii) the number of inspection and verification visits conducted by the SUNAFIL as regards discrimination against domestic workers and their outcomes.

Article 5. Protection against all forms of abuse, harassment and violence. The Committee notes that section 18 of the LPSHS establishes the right to physical, psychological and sexual integrity of domestic workers and prohibits acts that jeopardize or affect the enjoyment of this right. Section 18 also provides that domestic workers benefit from prevention and protection mechanisms against any act of violence and harassment in all aspects of employment and occupation, in particularly against sexual harassment. With regard to sexual harassment in the domestic work sector, Chapter XI of the RLTTH establishes: (i) the definition of sexual harassment (section 48); (ii) prevention mechanisms, such as the requirement for the worker and employer and other members of the household to attend training courses on prevention of sexual harassment (section 49); (iii) mechanisms for investigation and sanctioning by the Labour Inspection Authority (section 50); (iv) annual reporting by the SUNAFIL to the MTPE of complaints received of sexual harassment and the inspection visits undertaken in that regard (section 51); (v) legal remedies available to the paid domestic worker without prejudice to the criminal liability of the person harassing, including requesting the cessation of hostile acts and the payment of compensation for termination of the domestic work contract and filing a claim for damages (section 52); (vi) the possibility for the trade union organizations to which the victim is affiliated, at the request of the victim, to represent the worker in the different procedures, or to participate in investigations conducted by the inspection services (section 53); and (vii) subsidiary application of Act No. 27942 on the Prevention and Sanctioning of Sexual Harassment and its Regulations (section 54), Chapter II of which regulates cases of sexual harassment in domestic work.

The Committee further observes that domestic workers have recourse to the “Trabaja sin Acoso” (Work without Harassment) service, which provides: (i) psychological care and, where necessary referral to the public health services; and (ii) advisory services with regard to activating protective measures (section 50(5)). The Government also provides information on specific measures related to prevention and sanctioning of sexual harassment in the sector during the period covered by the report, including the approval, on 2 November 2022, of a “Guide for the prevention and punishment of workplace sexual harassment of domestic workers”, and the inclusion in the “Protocol for monitoring sexual harassment” of specific guidance to be followed in respect of sexual harassment, for the inspection personnel in the paid domestic work sector.

The Committee notes, however, that the FENTTRAHOP emphasizes in its observations that the legislation on paid domestic work does not regulate protection mechanisms against all forms of harassment, abuse and violence without sexual connotation, such as psychological, verbal or physical violence. The FENTTRAHOP further indicates that the “Emergency Women’s Centres” and the “Línea 100” (telephone 100) of the Ministry for Women and Vulnerable Populations do not address complaints received from domestic workers and that the “Trabaja sin Acoso” web page only addresses complaints of cases of sexual harassment, and not the other forms of violence and harassment. Regarding the possibility of participation by trade union organization in the cases of sexual harassment (section 53(1)), the FENTTRAHOP maintains that the participation of trade union organizations should also be permitted in cases where so requested by the worker, whether or not the worker is affiliated to those organizations. The Committee also notes that the FENTTRAHOP indicated that cases of abuse, violence and harassment increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic and includes in its observations accounts of workers of the sector that were victims of violence, detailing the grave impact that such acts on their physical and mental health. The Committee observes that neither the LTTH nor the RLTTH contain provisions specifically to prevent, address and eliminate all forms of abuse harassment and violence, with the exception of sexual harassment, and emphasizes that express protection must be afforded to domestic workers against all forms of abuse harassment and violence, not only sexual harassment. Such action would ensure wider protection and a safer working environment. The Committee consequently requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the proactive measures adopted or envisaged, including amendments to legislation, to effectively promote and guarantee the right of domestic workers to a workplace free from all forms of abuse, harassment and violence, including physical and psychological violence; and (ii) the number of complaints received, as well as the inspection or verification visits initiated for cases of abuse, harassment and violence, within the framework of the domestic work employment relationship, and the results of those investigations.

Article 7. Easily understandable terms and conditions of employment. Measures to promote formalization. The Committee notes that section 5 of the LTTH and section 5 of the RLTTH establish the requirement of a written domestic work contract, to be registered within three working days on the MTPE web application. Both provisions establish that, in the absence of a written domestic work contract, or of its registration on the web application, it is presumed that there is an employment relationship. Section 5 of the LTTH and section 6 of the RLTTH provide for the minimum content of the employment contract and the presumption that it is of unlimited duration. With regard to the requirement for the employer to enter the domestic employment contract and for the domestic worker to register in the Domestic Work Registry, section 9 of the RLTTH sets out in detail the time-limits and requirements that must be followed for registration, modification, updating and deregistration of the domestic worker. The Committee observes, from the information available on the Government’s website, using the web platform of the Domestic Work Registry that the process of registering the domestic employment contract and of paid domestic workers’ payslips has been unified. The Committee notes that as at 11 March 2024, a total of 4,517 women and 783 men domestic workers were registered in the Domestic Work Registry. The Committee further observes that reference model formats for domestic work contracts are available on the MTPE website for “with residence”, “without residence” and “part time without residence” variants, and for the payslip (updated under Directorial Decision No. 0001-2021-MTPE/2/15, of 14 September 2021). The Government indicates that on 10 and 12 November 2020, two workshops were held to evaluate whether the two reference models were understood and useful, aimed respectively at the representatives of domestic workers’ organizations and five employment agencies. The Committee observes, nevertheless, according to the National Household Survey of 2022, only 820 domestic workers had open-ended contracts, and 20,486 had fixed-term contracts, while 385,132 had no contracts.

Regarding the minimum content of the employment contract required by law, the Committee notes that the FENTTRAHOP indicates that not all the terms referred to under Article 7 of the Convention are recognized, in particular the terms and conditions relating to the termination of the contract, the period of probation and the terms of repatriation, if applicable. The FENTTRAHOP further indicates the existence of different applications to complete the various formalities that must be fulfilled in respect of paid domestic work. In this regard, it emphasizes the need to create a single platform for domestic work, to facilitate registration, the payment of social protection contributions, quick and simple access to information for both employers and workers, and the registration of private employment agencies. The FENTTRAHOP maintains that it is also necessary to establish advisory and support services for employers, with a view to ensuring compliance with paid domestic work regulations.

Finally, the FENTTRAHOP states in its observations that paid domestic work is among the sectors with the highest level of informality. The Committee observes, on the basis of the Permanent Survey of National Employment, 2022–2023, that 96.6 per cent of domestic workers are in a situation of informality. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government, in its reply, reiterates the measures adopted that aim to promote formalization in the paid domestic work sector, and indicates that the legislative amendments introduced require time before their results will be revealed in terms of statistics. The Committee considers that combatting informality in the domestic work sector is crucial for the protection of labour rights, and to reduce the situation of vulnerability in which domestic workers are frequently placed. In this connection, the Committee recalls that informality is one of the main causes of the decent work deficits present in the sector, since domestic workers in the informal economy are not recognized or protected under the legal and regulatory framework and do not benefit from its effective implementation. That gives rise to a high degree of vulnerability. There is also a strong overlap between informality and poverty (see the General Survey of 2022, paragraph 1097(p)). In consequence, while welcoming the measures adopted by the Government to address the alarming rate of informality in the sector, the Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts regarding collaboration with the social partners, including the organizations of domestic workers, and to provide information on: (i) the nature and impact of the specific measures adopted to promote formalization in the sector, including updated statistical information, disaggregated by sex, on the number of domestic workers registered in the of Domestic Work Registry; (ii) the nature and impact of the measures adopted to ensure in practice that domestic workers are informed of the terms and conditions of employment – including the period of probation and the terms of repatriation, if applicable, as well as the terms and conditions relating to the termination of employment, including any period of notice to be respected by either the domestic worker or the employer – in an appropriate, verifiable and easily understandable manner. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the guidance given in the Transition from the Informal to the Formal Economy Recommendation, 2015 (No. 204) in this regard, which stresses the need to pay special attention to those who are especially vulnerable to the most serious decent work deficits in the informal economy, including domestic workers.

Article 8. Migrant domestic workers. The Committee notes that section 63(1) of the RLTTH establishes that: “foreign immigrants and refugees that are in regular status in the country and who undertake work within the scope of application of the law (…) shall have the same rights and obligations as a national domestic worker”. Section 21 of the LTTH provides that “domestic workers in a situation of internal or external migration, shall be entitled to the protection of the law to prevent labour exploitation or trafficking, to which end compliance with the present Act and cooperation between national and/or local governments must be guaranteed (…)”. The Committee observes that the FENTTRAHOP expresses concern with regard to the above-mentioned section 63(1), as it covers only those paid domestic workers that are in regular status, leaving migrant workers in irregular status without protection. In this regard, the FENTTRAHOP indicates the existence of cases of paid domestic workers that are nationals of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela or of Colombia, working in Lima in irregular status and in precarious conditions. It also denounces the situation of begging of migrant domestic workers in the Tumbes frontier zone. In this connection, the Committee recalls that migrant domestic workers, the vast majority of whom are women and young persons, are at particular risk of certain forms of exploitation, abuse and slavery-like practices. The Committee emphasizes that their vulnerability stems mainly from their dependence on the job and employer because of migration-related debt, and the reliance of family members remaining in the country of origin on remittances sent by the migrant. These risks are aggravated for undocumented and migrant domestic workers or those in an irregular situation, as fear of deportation may deter them from attempting to seek help from national authorities when faced with abuses by an employer (see the General Survey of 2022, paragraph 644). Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that no measures of cooperation between States have been adopted to ensure the effective application of the present Convention for migrant domestic workers, nor are there provisions in the law regulating their right to repatriation (Article 8(3) and (4)). In light of the observations of the FENTTRAHOP, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the complaints received and inspections undertaken in relation to the living and working conditions of migrant domestic workers, including nationals of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and of Colombia and those working in the Tumbes frontier zone. Recalling that the requirements established under Article 8(3) of the Convention to take measures to cooperate with other States to ensure the effective application of the provisions of the Convention to migrant domestic workers, and taking account of the high number of migrant workers in this sector, the Committee urges the Government to consider the possibility of cooperating proactively with other States Members in this respect. It also requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to specify the conditions under which migrant domestic workers are entitled to repatriation on the expiry or termination of the employment contract for which they were recruited, in conformity with Article 8(4) of the Convention.

Article 9(c). Entitlement to keep possession of travel and identity documents. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 31(6) of the Regulation of the General Labour Inspection Act, approved by Supreme Decree No. 019-2006-TR (version amended by the RLTTH), the withholding on the part of private employment agencies of whatever type of national or foreign personal identity document, personal items, items of value or similar, criminal records, or letters of reference, is considered a very serious offence. The prohibition thereof is also established under Supreme Decree No. 020-2012-TR on the functioning of private employment agencies and constitutes one of the grounds for cancellation of the registration of the employment agency in the National Registry of Private Employment Agencies (RENAPE) (sections 7(c) and 15(e)). The Committee observes, however, that the prohibitions indicated refer solely to private employment agencies and not to employers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which protection is ensured, in law and in practice, of the right of all domestic workers to keep in their possession their travel and identity documents, as well as information with regard to possible abuse on the part of employers of this right.

Article 10. Normal working hours. The Committee notes that under section 10 of the LTTH, normal maximum working time is eight hours a day and 48 hours a week, which may be reduced by agreement between the parties, by collective agreement, or by law. The Committee observes that the normal weekly limits applied are equivalent to those established in the legislation for all other workers. For its part, section 25 of the RLTTH provides that the employer in the home may establish and modify daily and weekly hours of work, without exceeding the indicated limits, as well as working hours. In this regard, the FENTTRAHOP points to a contradiction between section 10 of the LTTH and section 25 of the RLTTH, with the former providing that the maximum daily and weekly hours of work may be reduced by agreement between the parties, by collective agreement or by law, while the latter allows the employer to reduce or increase daily working time and hours of work unilaterally.

The Committee also observes that the FENTTRAHOP denounces in its observations allegations of domestic workers working long working hours without rest periods, particularly in those cases where the tasks include childcare, and care of the sick or elderly. The FENTTRAHOP indicates that, according to the Annual Employment Report in Peru for 2019, working hours exceeded 49 weekly hours for 37.7 per cent of domestic workers. It also affirms, on the basis of the results of a survey of 286 domestic workers in 2020, that 10.4 per cent of persons surveyed worked over 54 weekly hours. Similarly, the CGTP and the FENTTRAHOP state that domestic workers, especially those living in the household for which they work, frequently do not enjoy weekly rest of at least 24 consecutive hours, as required under Article 10(2) of the Convention.

Regarding periods during which domestic workers are not free to dispose of their time as they please (Article 10(3) of the Convention), FENTTRAHOP emphasizes the need to adopt measures to guarantee in practice the implementation of the regulations that provide that such hours are considered as hours worked and, where appropriate, as overtime hours (section 10, third paragraph, LTTH and section 27(4) of the RLTTH), such as implementing a registry or note book for hours of work. In this connection, the Government indicates in its report that it is necessary to continue to make all efforts, with the support of the trade union and civil society organizations, to raise the awareness of all relevant actors of the obligations related to working hours established in the LTTH and RLTTH, and also to guide employers in that regard. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the nature and impact of the specific measures adopted with a view to ensuring that domestic workers enjoy the limits on normal working hours and working time established by the law, including domestic workers living in the households for which they work; (ii) The manner in which section 25 of the RLTTH is applied, especially with regard to the faculty afforded to the employer to fix and modify working time and hours of work; and (iii) the specific measures adopted to ensure that the periods during which the domestic worker is at the disposal of the employer are counted as hours worked and, where appropriate, as overtime hours.

Overtime hours. The Committee notes that the LTTH establishes that overtime hours are voluntary and are paid in accordance with rules set out in the general labour regime governing the private sector (section 6, third paragraph, and section 10, fourth paragraph). For its part, section 27(1) of the RLTTH provides that “(…) the employer may not oblige the domestic worker to perform overtime hours except in the case of a fortuitous event of force majeure that puts at risk the health or integrity of children and young persons, adults, sick or persons with disabilities, or other dependent persons belonging to the household.” The Committee observes that section 27(1) defines the term “fortuitous events of force majeure” as “(…) an event that is unavoidable, unforeseeable and overwhelming in nature that makes necessary the continued performance of work beyond the normal working hours of the domestic worker.” The Committee notes, however, that the CGTP and the FENTTRAHOP, in their observations, denounce the faculty afforded employers under section 27(1) of the RLTTH to require domestic workers to perform overtime hours in case of a “fortuitous event of force majeure”, as such a faculty could give rise to abuse on the part of the employer. The FENTTRAHOP affirms that during the process of formulating the regulations, it rejected that provision and indicated the need to establish specific grounds. The Government, in its reply, indicates that the provision is also in the general regime governing the private sector. The Committee observes that section 9 of Legislative Decree No. 854 of 1996, the Act on working time, working hours and overtime, regulates overtime hours in similar terms for all other workers.

With regard to compensation for work performed during weekly rest periods, section 28(3) of the RLTTH provides that such work shall be compensated by a replacement period on another day of the same week, or through payment of the amount payable for the work provided, increased by a surcharge of 100 per cent. In conformity with section 27(2) of the RLTTH, overtime hours of work are counted from the end of period fixed for remuneration and are recorded on the payslip provided to the domestic worker. In this regard, the FENTTRAHOP emphasizes that overtime hours should give rise to adequate compensatory rest, irrespective of any financial compensation, in conformity with Paragraph 12 of Recommendation No. 201, which provides for adequate compensatory rest, irrespective of any financial compensation. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which section 27(1) of the RLTTH is applied in practice, with particular regard to the right of the employer to require a domestic worker to perform overtime hours in cases of fortuitous events and events of force majeure. In this connection, the Committee requests the Government to specify what are considered to be “fortuitous events” and “events of force majeure” and to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that this provision does not lead to abusive practices by the employer.

Article 11. Minimum wage. The Committee notes that, in conformity with section 6, first paragraph, of the LTTH, the remuneration of the domestic worker shall not be less that the minimum living wage (RMV) for a full working day of eight hours a day or 48 hours a week. As concerns domestic workers who work by the hour, section 6, second paragraph, of the LTTH provides that they shall receive proportional remuneration. The Committee also notes that under Supreme Decree No. 003-2022-TR, as from 1 May 2022, the RMV for workers subject to the labour regime for the private sector was fixed at 1,025 Peruvian soles (approximately US$275.16). The Committee observes, however, that the FENTTRAHOP indicates, on the basis of the 2020 National Household Survey of the National Institute of Statistics (INE) that 54.3 per cent of domestic workers were paid less than the RMV, while the figure for 2019 49.9 per cent. Moreover, according to a survey conducted by the FENTTRAHOP in 2020, of the 268 domestic workers surveyed, 228 were paid less than the RMV. The CGTP also denounces cases identified by the FENTTRAHOP of paid domestic workers performing a full working day for wages varying between 80 soles (approximately US$21.48) and 400 soles (approximately US$107.38), It also denounces cases of migrant domestic workers in Tumbes city working without pay in exchange for a meal. On the other hand, the FENTTRAHOP refers to the adoption of Emergency Decree No. 026-2020 in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, establishing the requirement for employers to grant paid leave to workers whose work could not be performed remotely. In this regard, the organization affirms that out of the 306 paid domestic workers surveyed by FENTTRAHOP, only ten indicated that their employer had complied with this requirement. Finally, the Committee notes that FENTTRAHOP emphasizes that there should not only be a requirement for the remuneration to be at least equal to the minimum wage, but that it should be adjusted according to the different levels of difficulty and responsibility of the work performed by domestic workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the nature and impact of the measures adopted to ensure that domestic workers effectively benefit from the regime of the minimum living wage (RMV) established; (ii) wage trends for domestic workers; and (iii) court decisions in respect of failure to comply with the requirement of the employer to pay the RMV to the domestic worker. It also requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure that domestic workers’ remuneration is established free from gender discrimination.

Article 12(2). Payment in kind. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that neither the LTTH nor the RLTTH include specific provisions on payment of wages in kind, and accordingly the rules of the general labour regime governing the private sector apply. The Government adds that the general rules do not set forth maximum limits for payment of wages in kind. In this regard, the Government refers to section 15 of the consolidated text of the Act on compensation for length of service (approved by Supreme Decree No. 001-97-TR), which establishes that the payment of wages in kind shall be subject to agreement, and in this case, shall be valued by mutual agreement or, in the absence of such agreement, at market value. The Government indicates that the purpose of this provision is to avoid excessive valuation of the in-kind payments to the detriment of the worker’s income. In this connection, the Committee notes that the FENTTRAHOP states that the regulation of payment in kind under the general regime not only does not set limits for such payment, but neither does it establish criteria for the valuation and characterization of authorized payment in kind. The FENTTRAHOP emphasizes that this could lead to situations of abuse, given the high degree of subordination and dependency of domestic workers, which affects their ability to negotiate with the employer. On the other hand, the Committee notes that section 10(3) of the RLTTH prohibits deductions to be taken from the wage for the cost or value of food, accommodation, uniforms, protective equipment, instruments or tools for performance of work, as well as biosecurity implements, and disinfection articles required for personal protection. Section 11(1) of the RLTTH also establishes that accommodation and food are not part of remuneration. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures to establish maximum limits for the proportion of paid domestic workers’ remuneration that may be paid in kind. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures adopted to ensure that payments in kind are agreed by the domestic worker, are for their personal use and benefit, and that the monetary value attributed to them is fair and reasonable. In this connection, the Committee refers to paragraph 14 of Recommendation No. 201, which offers guidance on possible measures to adopt in this regard, such as establishing an overall limit on the proportion of the remuneration that may be paid in kind and calculating the monetary value of payments in kind, by reference to objective criteria such as market value, cost price or prices fixed by public authorities, as appropriate.

Article 13. Specific and effective measures to guarantee safety and health. The Committee notes that section 20 of the LTTH establishes the right to safety and health (OSH) of domestic workers, in conformity with the general labour regime for the private sector. Chapter XIII of the RLTTH contains specific provisions related to this right and establishes: (i) the general requirement for the employer to adopt measures, with due regard for the specific characteristics of domestic work, to ensure occupational safety and health (section 57); (ii) specific requirements for the employer, such as ensuring that the worker, as a minimum, undergoes training on the risks and hazards associated with the work, as well as the requirement to provide special protective equipment (section 58); (iii) the rights and duties of the domestic worker, including the right not to undertake work putting his or her safety and health at risk, and the requirement to comply with safety instructions and regulations imparted by the employer of the household (section 59); (iv) the requirement for the worker to inform the employer and the requirement for the latter to inform the MTPE of any occupational accident or disease or risk for the domestic worker (section 60); and (v) the requirement for the employer to take prevention measures (section 61). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the “Occupational Safety and Health Guide for Domestic Workers” is available on the MTPE web page, which provides detailed information on the most common tasks carried out inside and outside the household, the potential risks associated with those tasks, the injuries or diseases that the domestic workers may sustain or contract, and the measures or procedures that they should adopt to prevent possible injuries and/or diseases during work. The Committee notes, however, that the Government’s indication that, in 2021, no sanction was imposed in respect of OSH in the context of the labour inspection visits undertaken in the sector.

The Committee notes that the FENTTRAHOP maintains that the above-mentioned provisions on OSH do not pay due regard to the specific characteristics of domestic work. Thus, the organization emphasizes the need to establish the shared responsibility of the State in care work and the adoption of an OSH regulation for domestic work that would address the specific characteristics of the sector and would include a list of occupational diseases. The regulation should pay due regard, inter alia, to the following aspects: the devaluation of domestic work and the perception that women have an innate aptitude for such work, and that the work entails no risks of any kind; the nature of the employer, often unaware both of the risks and hazards and of the prevention measures to ensure a safe and healthy workplace; the obstacles that confront domestic workers, including the education gap, the digital or language barrier; and the lack of OSH investigation in the area. For its part, the FENTTRAHOP indicates that: (i) the requirement to undergo training should not apply solely to the worker, but also to the employer and to other members of the household; (ii) information on the risks and hazards at the workplace should be given at the beginning of the employment relationship and should be appended to the employment contract; (iii) the State should provide a risk and hazard assessment service for the adoption of appropriate prevention measures at the workplace, as well as a specialized advisory service to support the employer in complying with OSH requirements; and (iv) domestic work should be included in the list of jobs with risks.

Finally, the FENTTRAHOP denounces that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, sickness from COVID-19 was not considered an occupational disease in the domestic work sector, and no measures were taken to protect workers in that sector, despite their being essential, first line workers during the pandemic. The FENTTRAHOP denounces cases of paid domestic workers who suffered illness or death from COVID-19. It emphasizes the need to adopt a mandatory COVID-19 prevention protocol in the domestic work sector. In its reply, the Government refers to the publication of the “Occupational Safety and Health Guide for Domestic Workers to avoid propagation of COVID-19,” and other related information guides available in Spanish, Aymara and Quechua. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the nature and impact of specific measures adopted to ensure the occupational safety and health of domestic workers in practice, with due regard for the specific characteristics of the domestic work sector, in particular with regard to the aspects identified by the FENTTRAHOP in its observations; and (ii) the number of occupational accidents and diseases recorded in the paid domestic work sector.

Article 14. Social security. The Committee observes that section 19 of the LTTH establishes that the domestic worker is a regular affiliate of the Social Health Insurance (ESSALUD) for health coverage, is a regular insured person under the compulsory pension system and may freely choose to join either the National Pension System or the Private Pension System. Under Chapter XII of the RLTTH, domestic workers have the right to social security under the same conditions as all other private sector workers. With respect to membership of the health insurance system, section 55(1) of the RLTTH provides that the contributions shall be paid by the employer. As regards the pension system, section 56(1) establishes that affiliation is mandatory and shall be paid by the domestic worker, while it is for the employer to register, retain and pay the contribution to the social security system chosen by the worker. Both provisions establish that in the case of domestic workers who work for two or more employers, the corresponding contributions are made by each employer (sections 55(2) and 56(4)). Regarding maternity benefit, the RLTTH regulates, among other aspects, the right of the pregnant domestic worker to 49 days of prenatal leave and to 49 days of postnatal leave (section 43(3)), and provides that the MTPE, in coordination with the ESSALUD, shall take measures to guarantee maternity protection and to timely access to the financial and assistance benefits for domestic workers (Seventh Final Supplementary Provision).

The Committee also notes, from their observations, that the CATP, the CTP, CGTP and CUT-Peru and the FENTTRAHOP denounce the lack of access of domestic workers to social security in practice. The FENTTRAHOP maintains that although the National Welfare Office (ONP) has undertaken awareness-raising activities to encourage domestic workers to make pension contributions, they had very little effect. The FENTTRAHOP also points out that employers contribute nine per cent of wages to the health system, while the workers pay 13 per cent to the pensions scheme, making it excessively burdensome and possibly discouraging such workers from making contributions and also affecting their formalization. The organization maintains that measures should be adopted to ensure that paid domestic workers are covered by life insurance and insurance for hazardous work. For their part, the trade union centres propose the use of public or shared financing mechanisms to pay for the benefits. In its reply, the Government reiterates that the legislation ensures that domestic workers enjoy conditions that are not less favourable than those applicable to workers generally in respect of social security protection, including with respect to maternity. The Government adds that, in accordance with section 63(1) of the RLTTH, the said rights are also applicable to migrant and refugee domestic workers who have regular status in the country. Finally, FENTTRAHOP denounces that, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, no measures to assist domestic workers were implemented, such as vouchers, leaving them without protection while confronted with dismissal or the suspension of work without pay. In light of the observations of the FENTTRAHOP highlighting the high informality rate in the paid domestic work sector, which results in a large proportion of domestic workers remaining without social security protection, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the nature and impact of the measures adopted with a view to promoting the affiliation of domestic workers to the social security system. Such measures could include information campaigns on their right to social security and also inspection campaigns to monitor employers’ compliance with the requirement to register and pay their workers’ contributions to the Social Health Insurance (ESSALUD) and to the pension system chosen by the workers. In this regard, the Committee wishes to call the Government’s attention to the ILO 2022 report entitled: “Making the right to social security a reality for domestic workers: a global review of policy trends, statistics and extension strategies”, which contains comparative best practices regarding extending social security to domestic workers.

Article 15. Private employment agencies. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following the adoption of the new regulations on paid domestic work, amendments were introduced to Supreme Decree No. 202-2012-TR on regulating the activities of employment agencies. That Decree establishes a series of requirements and prohibitions for employment agencies, such as the prohibition to charge fees to workers, as well as empowering the labour inspection services to impose sanctions. The Committee observes that section 14 of the LTTH provides that employment agencies shall have the sole objective of recruiting domestic workers in exchange for a payment to be made by the employer of the household and prohibits employment placement or outsourcing of services related to paid domestic work. Similarly, section 2(2), second paragraph, of the RLTTH establishes that private employment agencies or any type of legal person cannot be household employers. In this regard, the FENTTRAHOP maintains that, while supporting such prohibition, in practice enterprises do offer this type of service, and no regulatory measures have been put in place. The FENTTRAHOP therefore maintains that it is necessary to adopt measures for cases where workers, prior to the adoption of the above-mentioned prohibition, were already undertaking domestic work through an enterprise. Finally, the FENTTRAHOP maintains that the amendment to Supreme Decree 020-2012-TR is inadequate to ensure appropriate protection of paid domestic workers, insofar as it does not regulate such aspects as recruitment protocols for employment agencies in the sector, or the inclusion of more rigorous requirements for the functioning of the sector which would have promoted the role of private employment agencies as agents of change supporting the rights of domestic workers. In their observations, the CGTP and the FENTTRAHOP emphasize the absence of monitoring mechanisms for private employment agencies. They denounce the deduction of part of the first wages of the domestic worker as a generalized practice among private employment agencies, despite its prohibition in law. They also denounce cases of private employment agencies withholding identity documents and failing to provide copies of employment contracts to domestic workers. In this connection, the Committee notes that the Government reports, according to information available as at 11 August 2021, that between 2020 and 2021, only 19 inspection orders were issued regarding employment agencies. However, the Committee observes that the Government does not specify which of those inspections were undertaken in the domestic work sector. In light of the concerns expressed by the FENTTRAHOP and the low number of inspections undertaken in respect of the activities of private employment agencies, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to reinforce monitoring of the activities of such agencies in the domestic work sector. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the manner in which protection is extended to those workers who, prior to the adoption of the prohibition of employment placement or outsourcing established in section 14 of the LTTH, were already undertaking domestic work through a private employment agency or enterprise; and (ii) the number of complaints submitted for alleged abuses and fraudulent practices related to the activities of private employment agencies in respect of domestic workers, the violations identified and the penalties imposed.

Article 16. Effective access to the courts. The Government refers to section 139 of the Constitution, which recognizes the right to due process and effective jurisdictional protection. The Government adds that both the LTTH and the RLTTH recognize the possibility of bringing the various disputes that can arise within the framework of the employment relationship in the domestic employment sector before the courts. In this regard, the Committee observes that the LTTH establishes: (i) the following may act in defence or protection of the fundamental rights of domestic workers: the domestic worker, the trade union organization that represents the domestic worker; the Office of the Ombudsman, or the Attorney-General (section 23, third paragraph); and (ii) the presumption of the truth of the worker’s version of certain facts, in the event of the material impossibility of obtaining evidence due to obstruction, negligence or bad faith on the part of the household employer (section 25). Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is not aware of any ordinary court decisions on issues related to the present Convention during the period covered by the report.

The Committee also notes that the FENTTRAHOP denounces the existence of a series of obstacles that in practice complicate the effective access of domestic workers to justice, including the officials’ lack of knowledge of regulations governing domestic work, the insufficient number of professionals in the legal advisory service and the difficulties in accessing the virtual MTPE services. In this regard, the FENTTRAHOP indicates that there are services within the administration of justice that could promote effective access of domestic workers to justice, such as legal advisory services and free legal aid services, as well as the conciliation and arbitration services of the MTPE. On the other hand, the FENTTRAHOP indicates that, in conformity with national practice, before initiating legal proceedings, domestic workers are required to go before the inspection services. The FENTTRAHOP considers this practice to be dilatory and prejudicial to paid domestic workers, who are obliged to wait for months before receiving a reply from the inspection services, which may delay the initiation of legal action against arbitrary or unjustified dismissal, since the legislation establishes a limit of 30 calendar days for initiating action against dismissal. The organization also asserts that the officials responsible for providing free legal representation frequently refuse to accept cases where the inspection services have not provided a report, or notification of a violation. In light of the observations of the FENTTRAHOP, and in view of the lack of court decisions on questions related to domestic workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the specific measures adopted to ensure the effective access of paid domestic workers to the courts, including mechanisms for legal advice and information on available procedures which are accessible and in a format and language that is comprehensible to all paid domestic workers; and (ii) statistics, disaggregated by gender, on the number of complaints submitted by domestic workers to the various competent authorities, the penalties imposed on the perpetrators and the compensation awarded.

Article 17(1). Accessible complaint mechanisms. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that domestic workers may lodge labour complaints in person or virtually, using the website of the National Superintendence of Labour Inspection (SUNAFIL). The Government reports that, in 2021, the SUNAFIL: (i) issued 158 inspection orders resulting from the submission of complaints related to domestic workers; and (ii) participated in 31 consultations related to domestic work by means of the “SUNAFIL Responde” page on its website. The Committee also notes that the FENTTRAHOP maintains that the SUNAFIL digital complaints form requires information that domestic workers often do not possess, such as the employer’s identification number, or a taxpayer’s registry number. The FENTTRAHOP emphasizes the need to establish complaints mechanisms that have due regard for the characteristics of the domestic work sector. In consequence, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the specific measures adopted to ensure that the complaints mechanisms are accessible to all domestic workers; and (ii) the number of complaints submitted by domestic workers to the SUNAFIL and their outcomes, the penalties imposed on perpetrators and the compensation provided in case of violations.

Article 17(2). Labour inspection. Strengthening of the inspection services in case of forced or child labour. Urgent protective measures. The Committee observes that section 22 of the LTTH provides for the strengthening of inspection in cases of forced or child labour in the context of domestic work relationships. In this regard, it provides that the Administrative Labour Authority may adopt provisional measures to ensure the effectiveness of the final decision. Furthermore, section 24 of the LTTH allows for the adoption of urgent protective measures by providing that, in the event of risk to the physical, psychological safety and health of the domestic worker, the competent authorities may ensure the protection of these rights, without the need for judicial authorization. The Committee notes, however, that the CATP. The CTP, the CGTP, CUT-Peru and the FENTTRAHOP maintain that the RLTTH regulates neither the specific protocols to be followed by the labour inspection in the cases set out in section 22 of the LTTH, nor the use of urgent protective measures provided under section 24. The CGTP and the FENTTRAHOP indicates, as a consequence of this, that the general inspection procedures are applied, which results in situations of impunity. The FENTTRAHOP maintains that the situations and/or grounds on the basis of which the inspection services may enter workplaces without judicial authorization should be made clear. In its reply, the Government refers to a series of protocols that included specific guidelines for the domestic work sector and which are mandatory for the labour inspection services: (i) Protocol for monitoring the requirements of the domestic workers’ regime, approved by the SUNAFIL (Protocol No. 001-2017/INII, version 2, of 8 April 2022); (ii) Protocol for action in case of forced labour (Protocol No. 001-2016-SUNAFIL/INII, version 2 of 9 October 2020); and (iii) Protocol for action in case of child labour (Protocol No. 002-2017-SUNAFIL/INII). The Government reports that, as at 18 October 2021, the Labour Inspection System closed 91 inspection orders in the paid domestic work sector issued over the course of 2021, and imposed the penalty of a fine in only one case. The Government also provides statistical information on inspection orders closed between 2020 and 2021 in respect of child labour, hazardous work for young persons and forced labour, but without specifying which were undertaken in the domestic work sector. Finally, the Government indicates that, in 2021, action undertaken by the investigation services focused on providing guidance to employers and workers rather than on the imposition of penalties, since awareness of the new provisions needed to be raised if their objectives were to be achieved. In that regard, the Government indicates that: (i) in 2021, the National Directorate for Prevention and Advice (INPA) provided 17 domestic work guidance sessions, attended by 881 persons; (ii) 19 guidance campaigns were conducted on the labour rights of domestic workers, benefitting 1,240 persons, and (iii) four information sessions were held, with 152 participants.

For its part, the FENTTRAHOP indicates that, according to information from the SUNAFIL, between 2019 and July 2021, 382 inspection orders were issued in the sector, with only two penalties imposed. The FENTTRAHOP adds that the low number of inspection visits in the sector is the result, among other factors, of the lack of means to disseminate and raise awareness of domestic workers’ right to access the inspection system; the complexity of the SUNAFIL digital complaints form, which requires the entry of information that domestic workers do not possess; the lack of a labour inspection protocol and regulatory measures that have due regard for the particularities of the sector. Finally, it emphasizes that the inspection services, in coordination with the trade union organizations, should conduct monitoring and diffusion operations on rights in areas where there is a high concentration of paid domestic work.

In this context, the Committee wishes to emphasize that by strengthening the labour inspection, governments are able to implement and ensure greater compliance with the legal framework intended to protect domestic workers, guaranteeing that they are accorded fair treatment, and that their working conditions are safe, discouraging violations. In this regard, the Committee recalls, in conformity with Article 17(2) of the Convention, labour inspection in domestic work must pay due regard to its special characteristics, including through the adoption of specific measures in the sector. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the nature and impact of the specific measures adopted to provide tools and training to the labour inspectors in respect of regulations related to paid domestic work, including the number of beneficiaries; and (ii) the number of inspection visits carried out in the paid domestic work sector, including those related to forced labour and child labour, the number of violations detected and the penalties imposed.