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

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

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.