Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Tunisia (Ratification: 1959)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes with interest that Act No. 99-89 of 2 August 1999 has amended section 13 of the Penal Code under which persons sentenced to imprisonment were forced to work. This means that persons sentenced to imprisonment in application of the provisions of the Labour Code on illegal strikes or in application of the provisions on freedom of the press, freedom of association and of gathering will no longer be subject to compulsory prison labour.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Further to its observation, the Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reply to its previous direct request. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised as follows:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that under sections 51 and 56 of the Disciplinary and Penal Maritime Code, refusal to obey or resistance to an order concerning service either at sea or in a port other than a Tunisian port, and subsequent serious disciplinary misconduct during the same voyage may be punished by a six months' prison sentence (involving compulsory labour).

The Committee also noted that under sections 53 and 54 of the same Code, participation in an unlawful strike in a Tunisian port may be punished by a prison sentence of three months, or six months in the event of participation or incitation to strike at sea or in a foreign port.

The Committee asked the Government to provide full information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the application of penalties (involving compulsory labour) is limited to acts endangering the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, this information will be provided as soon as it is available, and hopes that it will be sent with the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the Government's detailed report and the information supplied on the application of the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the persons to whom the Convention affords protection, particularly with regard to the freedom to express opinions in the press and freedom of association and assembly, may not be subjected to penalties involving the obligation to work. In its latest report, the Government states that article 8 of the Constitution guarantees the freedoms of opinion, expression, the press, publication, assembly and association, as well as the right to organize, and that these freedoms and rights are exercised under the conditions determined by the law. The Government states that the penalty of forced labour was abolished in Tunisia by Act No. 89-23 of 17 February 1989.

The Committee notes this statement. Nevertheless, it recalls that several provisions in the national legislation (sections 7, 8, 12, 24, 25 and 26 of Act No. 69-4 of 24 January 1969) place limits on the protection afforded by the Convention to persons who express opposition to the established political order. The Committee recalls that sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work must not be imposed as a punishment for expressing political views and it requests the Government to indicate whether Act No. 69-4 has been amended and, if so; to supply copies of the relevant texts.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of sections 44, 45, 48, 61 and 62 of the Press Code of 1975 and sections 21, 24 and 30 of Act No. 59-154 of 7 November 1959 (as amended by basic Act No. 88/90 of 2 August 1988). It trusts that the Government will make every effort to provide the requested information in its next report.

3. The Committee recalls that Act No. 94-29 of 21 February 1994 provides that compulsory arbitration and requisitioning can only be imposed in essential services. It once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the list of services considered to be essential under this Act as soon as it has been adopted.

4. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 13 of the Penal Code provides for sentences of imprisonment involving the obligation to work for persons who participate in an illegal strike and that the legality of the strike is conditional on its approval by the Central Workers' Organization (section 376bis(2) of the Labour Code). The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour may not be imposed for participation in a strike on the sole ground that it has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization. In its latest report, the Government once again states that participation in an illegal strike may expose the worker to a penalty of imprisonment which may involve normal prison work. The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that, according to paragraphs 120-132 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, penalties including normal prison labour can be imposed for participation in illegal strikes only where the strikes are illegal because they have been called in essential services. In this respect, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour may not be imposed for participation in a strike on the sole ground that it has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that under sections 51 and 56 of the Disciplinary and Penal Maritime Code, refusal to obey or resistance to an order concerning service either at sea or in a port other than a Tunisian port, and subsequent serious disciplinary misconduct during the same voyage may be punished by a six months' prison sentence (involving compulsory labour).

The Committee also noted that under sections 53 and 54 of the same Code, participation in an unlawful strike in a Tunisian port may be punished by a prison sentence of three months, or six months in the event of participation or incitation to strike at sea or in a foreign port.

The Committee asked the Government to provide full information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the application of penalties (involving compulsory labour) is limited to acts endangering the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, this information will be provided as soon as it is available, and hopes that it will be sent with the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee has been pointing out for many years that under the Labour Code participation in a strike is unlawful and may be punished by imprisonment (involving compulsory labour under section 13 of the Penal Code) where it has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization (section 376bis(2); 387 and 388); and where the Government imposes arbitration, considering that a strike might endanger the national interest (section 384 to 388); similarly, workers may be requisitioned under penalty of imprisonment when a strike is considered to endanger the vital interest of the nation (section 389 and 390). The Committee pointed out that compulsory arbitration and requisitioning, enforceable by penalties involving compulsory labour, should be limited to essential services. It also observed that penalties involving compulsory labour should not be imposed for participating in a strike merely because it has or has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization. With regard to recourse to compulsory arbitration and requisitioning, the Committee notes with interest Act No. 94-29 of 21 February 1994 amending certain provisions of the Labour Code, under which arbitration is imposed only in the case of disputes affecting an essential service in the strict sense of the term (i.e. the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or a part of the population). The list of essential services is established by decree. The Committee asks the Government to provide the list of essential services as soon as it has been adopted. With regard to the provisions of sections 376bis(2), 387 and 388 of the Labour Code, under which participation in an unlawful strike (i.e. one which has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization) may be punished by imprisonment (involving compulsory labour under section 13 of the Penal Code), the Committee notes that, in its last report, the Government confirms that a worker who participates in an unlawful strike is liable to a penalty involving prison labour, but considers that it is not forced labour. Referring again to the explanations in paragraphs 128 to 132 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee observes that certain formal requirements concerning the circumstances in which a strike may lawfully be declared fall within the scope of the Convention in so far as they are enforced with sanctions involving compulsory labour. In this connection, the Committee refers to its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in which it points out that the provision of section 376bis(2), under which a strike is unlawful unless it has been approved by the Central Workers' Organization, could restrict the right of first-level trade unions to organize their activities and promote and defend the workers' interests. The Committee observes that the amendments introduced by Act No. 94-29 of 21 February 1994 to certain provisions of the Labour Code are not sufficient to remove all the discrepancies between the national legislation and Article 1(d) of the Convention, and asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour may not be imposed for participation in a strike on the sole ground that it has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization. Article 1(a). (a) For 20 years the Committee has been asking the Government to provide information on the application, in practice, of the penal provisions contained in sections 44, 45, 48, 61 and 62 of the Press Code of 1975. It noted previously that by virtue of the Law of Amnesty, No. 89-63 of 3 July 1989, persons sentenced or on trial for violation of the provisions of the press law, other than the provisions concerning privacy of the individual, had been released, and asked the Government to indicate all cases where the above-mentioned provisions of the Press Code had been applied and to include copies of judicial decisions handed down since the entry into force of the Law of Amnesty, so that it could ascertain that the practical application of these provisions was not affecting the implementation of Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, such information will be provided as soon as it is available. (b) The Committee noted previously that under section 24 of Act No. 59-154 of 7 November 1959, as amended by basic Act No. 88-90 of 2 August 1988, the Minister of the Interior may request the dissolution, by judicial decision, of an association whose activities have a political object. Under sections 21 and 30 of the Act, whoever facilitates meetings of an association that has been dissolved or participates in maintaining or re-establishing such an association is liable to a penalty of imprisonment of from one to six months and from one to five years respectively. The penalties of imprisonment involve compulsory labour. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application, in practice, of these provisions and to enclose copies of judicial decisions defining or illustrating their scope. (c) The Committee notes the provisions of Act No. 69-4 of 24 January 1969 relating to public meetings, processions, parades, demonstrations and gatherings, supplied by the Government. The Committee observes that under section 7 of this Act, the competent authorities may ban, by order, any meeting likely to disrupt the public order and safety, and that the only available remedy is appeal to the Secretary of State for the Interior, whose ruling is final. The penalty for offending against this provision is one to two months' imprisonment which is doubled in the event of a second offence (section 24). Section 8 bans meetings on the public highway under penalty of imprisonment of up to six months; the same penalty applies in the event of direct incitement to hold a meeting on the public highway, whether or not the meeting is held (section 25). Under section 12 of the same Act, the competent authorities may ban, by order, any demonstration likely to disrupt the public order and safety. This section provides for no means of resisting the decision, and the penalty is imprisonment of from three months to one year, to be doubled in the event of a second offence (section 26). The Committee stresses the importance, for effective observance of the Convention, of statutory guarantees of the rights of assembly, expression, demonstration and association, and the direct effects that the restriction of these rights can have on the application of the Convention. Often, the exercise of these rights is an expression of political opposition to the established order, and by ratifying the Convention, a State undertakes to guarantee the protection afforded by the Convention to persons who demonstrate such opposition peacefully. The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, that the persons to whom the Convention affords protection, particularly with regard to the freedom to express opinions in the press, and freedom of association and assembly, may not be subjected to penalties involving the obligation to work, and asks the Government to provide information on all progress made.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that under sections 51 and 56 of the Disciplinary and Penal Maritime Code, refusal to obey or resistance to an order concerning service either at sea or in a port other than a Tunisian port, and subsequent serious disciplinary misconduct during the same voyage may be punished by a six months' prison sentence (involving compulsory labour).

The Committee also noted that under sections 53 and 54 of the same Code, participation in an unlawful strike in a Tunisian port may be punished by a prison sentence of three months, or six months in the event of participation or incitation to strike at sea or in a foreign port.

The Committee asked the Government to provide full information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the application of penalties (involving compulsory labour) is limited to acts endangering the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, this information will be provided as soon as it is available, and hopes that it will be sent with the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee has been pointing out for many years that under the Labour Code participation in a strike is unlawful and may be punished by imprisonment (involving compulsory labour under section 13 of the Penal Code) where it has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization (section 376bis(2); 387 and 388); and where the Government imposes arbitration, considering that a strike might endanger the national interest (section 384 to 388); similarly, workers may be requisitioned under penalty of imprisonment when a strike is considered to endanger the vital interest of the nation (section 389 and 390). The Committee pointed out that compulsory arbitration and requisitioning, enforceable by penalties involving compulsory labour, should be limited to essential services. It also observed that penalties involving compulsory labour should not be imposed for participating in a strike merely because it has or has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization.

With regard to recourse to compulsory arbitration and requisitioning, the Committee notes with interest Act No. 94-29 of 21 February 1994 amending certain provisions of the Labour Code, under which arbitration is imposed only in the case of disputes affecting an essential service in the strict sense of the term (i.e. the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or a part of the population). The list of essential services is established by decree. The Committee asks the Government to provide the list of essential services as soon as it has been adopted.

With regard to the provisions of sections 376bis(2), 387 and 388 of the Labour Code, under which participation in an unlawful strike (i.e. one which has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization) may be punished by imprisonment (involving compulsory labour under section 13 of the Penal Code), the Committee notes that, in its last report, the Government confirms that a worker who participates in an unlawful strike is liable to a penalty involving prison labour, but considers that it is not forced labour.

Referring again to the explanations in paragraphs 128 to 132 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee observes that certain formal requirements concerning the circumstances in which a strike may lawfully be declared fall within the scope of the Convention in so far as they are enforced with sanctions involving compulsory labour. In this connection, the Committee refers to its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in which it points out that the provision of section 376bis(2), under which a strike is unlawful unless it has been approved by the Central Workers' Organization, could restrict the right of first-level trade unions to organize their activities and promote and defend the workers' interests.

The Committee observes that the amendments introduced by Act No. 94-29 of 21 February 1994 to certain provisions of the Labour Code are not sufficient to remove all the discrepancies between the national legislation and Article 1(d) of the Convention, and asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties involving compulsory labour may not be imposed for participation in a strike on the sole ground that it has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organization.

Article 1(a). (a) For 20 years the Committee has been asking the Government to provide information on the application, in practice, of the penal provisions contained in sections 44, 45, 48, 61 and 62 of the Press Code of 1975. It noted previously that by virtue of the Law of Amnesty, No. 89-63 of 3 July 1989, persons sentenced or on trial for violation of the provisions of the press law, other than the provisions concerning privacy of the individual, had been released, and asked the Government to indicate all cases where the above-mentioned provisions of the Press Code had been applied and to include copies of judicial decisions handed down since the entry into force of the Law of Amnesty, so that it could ascertain that the practical application of these provisions was not affecting the implementation of Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, such information will be provided as soon as it is available.

(b) The Committee noted previously that under section 24 of Act No. 59-154 of 7 November 1959, as amended by basic Act No. 88-90 of 2 August 1988, the Minister of the Interior may request the dissolution, by judicial decision, of an association whose activities have a political object. Under sections 21 and 30 of the Act, whoever facilitates meetings of an association that has been dissolved or participates in maintaining or re-establishing such an association is liable to a penalty of imprisonment of from one to six months and from one to five years respectively. The penalties of imprisonment involve compulsory labour. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the application, in practice, of these provisions and to enclose copies of judicial decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

(c) The Committee notes the provisions of Act No. 69-4 of 24 January 1969 relating to public meetings, processions, parades, demonstrations and gatherings, supplied by the Government. The Committee observes that under section 7 of this Act, the competent authorities may ban, by order, any meeting likely to disrupt the public order and safety, and that the only available remedy is appeal to the Secretary of State for the Interior, whose ruling is final. The penalty for offending against this provision is one to two months' imprisonment which is doubled in the event of a second offence (section 24). Section 8 bans meetings on the public highway under penalty of imprisonment of up to six months; the same penalty applies in the event of direct incitement to hold a meeting on the public highway, whether or not the meeting is held (section 25). Under section 12 of the same Act, the competent authorities may ban, by order, any demonstration likely to disrupt the public order and safety. This section provides for no means of resisting the decision, and the penalty is imprisonment of from three months to one year, to be doubled in the event of a second offence (section 26). The Committee stresses the importance, for effective observance of the Convention, of statutory guarantees of the rights of assembly, expression, demonstration and association, and the direct effects that the restriction of these rights can have on the application of the Convention. Often, the exercise of these rights is an expression of political opposition to the established order, and by ratifying the Convention, a State undertakes to guarantee the protection afforded by the Convention to persons who demonstrate such opposition peacefully.

The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Convention, that the persons to whom the Convention affords protection, particularly with regard to the freedom to express opinions in the press, and freedom of association and assembly, may not be subjected to penalties involving the obligation to work, and asks the Government to provide information on all progress made.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. For many years, the Committee has been asking the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the penal provisions contained in sections 44, 45, 48, 61 and 62 of the Press Code of 1975. In its previous direct request, the Committee pointed out that by virtue of the Law of Amnesty No. 89-63 of 3 July 1989, persons sentenced or on trial for violation of the provisions of press law, other than the provisions concerning privacy of the individual, had been released and asked the Government to indicate all cases where the above-mentioned provisions of the Press Code had been applied and to include the texts of judicial decisions handed down since the entry into force of the Law of Amnesty, so that it could ascertain that the practical application of these provisions was not affecting the implementation of Article 1(a) of of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that this information will be provided as soon as it is available, and hopes that the Government will provide the information in question.

2. The Committee notes that under section 24 of Act No. 59-154 of 7 November 1959, as amended by basic Act No. 88-90 of 2 August 1988, the Minister of the Interior can require that associations whose activities have a political object to be dissolved by law. Under sections 21 and 30 of the Act, persons encouraging meetings of an association that has been dissolved or who participate in maintaining or re-establishing such an association are liable to a penalty of imprisonment of from one to six months and from one to five years respectively (involving compulsory labour).

The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of these provisions, and to enclose copies of any judicial decisions, defining or illustrating their scope.

3. The Committee again requests the Government to provide copies of the texts in force concerning public meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1(c) and (d). 4. The Committee notes that under sections 51 and 56 of the Disciplinary and Penal Maritime Code, refusal to obey or resistance to an order concerning service either at sea or in a port other than a Tunisian port, and subsequent serious disciplinary misconduct during the same voyage can be punished by a six months' prison sentence (involving compulsory labour).

The Committee refers to paragraphs 110, 117 and 118 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced or compulsory labour, and asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be applied only to acts that endanger the safety of the vessel or the life and health of persons on board.

The Committee notes that under sections 53 and 54 of the same Code, participation in an illegal strike in a Tunisian port can be punished by a prison sentence of three months, or six months in the event of participation in or incitation to strike at sea or in a foreign port.

The Committee also refers to its observation concerning the application of the Convention, and requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the application of penalties (involving compulsory labour) is limited to acts endangering the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons on board.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee has been pointing out for many years that under the Labour Code participation in a strike is illegal and can be punished by imprisonment involving, by virtue of section 13 of the Labour Code, compulsory labour, where it has not been approved by the central workers' organisation (section 376bis (2); 387 and 388), and where the Government imposes arbitration, considering that a strike might endanger the national interest (sections 384 to 388); similarly, workers may be requisitioned under penalty of imprisonment when a strike is considered to endanger the vital interest of the nation (sections 389 and 390).

The Committee pointed out that recourse to compulsory arbitration and requisitioning, enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour should be limited to essential services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population, and that penalties involving compulsory labour should not be imposed for participation in a strike merely because it has or has not been approved by the central workers' organisation.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that, in the context of the review of the Labour Code, a tripartite cooperation committee was set up in January 1990, inter alia, to examine the Bill to amend the provisions on the settlement of collective labour disputes.

The Committee trusts that the provisions in question will be re-examined in the light of the Convention and that the Government will provide full information on progress made in bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. In its previous requests, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the effect given in practice to the penal provisions contained in sections 44, 45, 48, 61 and 62 of the Press Code. The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no information on this matter. It reports that persons sentenced or on trial for violation of the provisions of press law other than the provisions concerning privacy of the individual, have been released by virtue of the Law of Amnesty No. 89-63 of 3 July 1989. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report any cases where the above-mentioned provisions of the Press Code have been applied, and to include the texts of judicial decisions handed down since the entry into force of the Law of Amnesty, so that the Committee may ascertain that the practical application of these provisions is not affecting the implementation of Article 1(a) of the Convention.

2. The Committee asks the Government to supply a copy of the texts in force concerning public meetings and associations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

Article 1(d) of the Convention. The Committee notes the provisions of the Act (No. 89-63) of 3 July 1989 issuing an amnesty, which was enclosed with the Government's report and which grants amnesty in particular to persons sentenced or on trial for violation of sections 387, 388 and 390 of the Labour Code, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years.

1. The Committee pointed out previously that under the Labour Code participation in a strike is illegal and can be punished by imprisonment involving, by virtue of section 13 of the Penal Code, compulsory labour in cases where the Government imposes arbitration, considering that a strike might endanger the national interest (sections 384-388 of the Labour Code); similarly, in cases where a strike is called in such circumstances, the workers may be requisitioned under penalty of imprisonment involving compulsory labour (sections 389 and 390 of the same Code). The Government stated that consultations were under way on a Bill to revise the Labour Code and that the proposal to replace the reference to the vital interest of the nation (section 384 of the Code) by the concept of services that are essential for the safety and well-being of the population had met with no objection from the departments concerned or the employers' and workers' central organisations.

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no information on the progress of this work. It also notes that employees of the Tunisian Airports Office have been made liable for requisition by Decree No. 89-398 of 7 April 1989. The Committee reiterates the hope that recourse to compulsory arbitration and requisitioning, enforced by penalties involving compulsory labour, will be restricted to essential services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government will be able to report in the near future that the Labour Code has been amended to this effect.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee also noted that by virtue of section 376bis of the Labour Code, inserted by Act No. 76-84 of 11 August 1976, read in conjunction with sections 387 and 388 of the same Code, strikes must be approved by the Central Workers' Organisation and that, in the event of this requirement not being fulfilled, the strike is deemed illegal and any person calling for its continuance or participating in it shall be liable to imprisonment involving, in accordance with section 13 of the Penal Code, compulsory labour. The Committee referred to the explanations in paragraphs 128-132 of its General Survey of 1979 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, in which it observes that certain strict requirements as regards the procedures for declaring or conducting a lawful strike fall within the scope of the Convention when they are enforced by sanctions involving compulsory work, and in which it refers in particular to legislation requiring a vote by a qualified majority vote before a strike is declared or authorising a single trade union to decide on the strike.

The Committee again trusts that the provisions in question will be re-examined in the light of the Convention and that the revised Labour Code will cease to allow penalties involving compulsory labour to be imposed for participation in a strike merely because it has not been approved by the Central Workers' Organisation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will shortly be able to report that progress has been made in this regard.

The Committee notes the provisions of Act No. 89-23 of 27 February 1989 to abolish the penalty of forced labour, which the Government enclosed with its report.