Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2017, Publication : 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Pologne (Ratification: 1958)
Protocole de 2014 relatif à la convention sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Pologne (Ratification: 2017)



A Government representative stated that ensuring conditions for decent and safe work for all employees in Poland was particularly important and that the national policy in that respect corresponded to the policy of the European Union (EU) and of the whole democratic international community. She considered that migrant workers should be particularly protected and believed that regulations in Poland allowed for preventing and combating forced labour, including as a specific form of trafficking in persons. Many institutions were involved in fighting the phenomenon, including the Ministry responsible for internal affairs, the police, the border guard, the Prosecution Office and the National Labour Inspection, and their activities were coordinated by the Inter-Ministerial Team for Combating and Preventing Human Trafficking (Inter-Ministerial Team). Furthermore, the National Action Plan against Human Trafficking was regularly updated, especially its part on the forced labour of migrants. In August 2016, the Council of Ministers had adopted the Plan for 2016–18 providing for the implementation of many activities aimed at securing the needs of Polish and foreign victims of trafficking in persons. Those activities included information campaigns aimed at raising awareness of the phenomenon of trafficking in persons for forced labour and of the associated risks, cooperation with employers’ organizations and temporary job placement agencies in terms of combating forced labour, developing the National Intervention and Consultation Centre for victims of trafficking in persons, as well as providing training and handbooks for employees of institutions dealing with the issue of trafficking in persons and forced labour. In 2017, as a result of the work of a group of experts for victim support of the Inter-Ministerial Team, the document “Practices of a labour inspector of the National Labour Inspection in case of suspected forced labour” had been updated and used for the training of labour inspectors. In 2016, in cooperation with the public television, the Ministry of the Interior and Administration had broadcast a prevention advertisement 72 times, and between October and December 2016, it had organized an outdoor information campaign in three cities on trafficking in persons for forced labour. A mobile exhibition entitled “Faces of trafficking in human beings” provided general information about the phenomenon of trafficking in persons, where to seek help, as well as about the forms of exploitation, including forced labour. Its content had been prepared in three language versions – Polish, English and Russian – and the exhibition had been presented in the majority of regions, particularly in regional government offices, schools, universities, bus and train stations and airports. The National Action Plan also provided for the preparation of an analysis of the feasibility of detailing the national provisions to facilitate swifter and more efficient identification of cases of forced labour, a task that had also been included in the National Action Plan for the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights for 2017–20. Apart from that, Poland had also adopted and implemented provisions ensuring equal treatment of foreigners in terms of employment. The number of controls of the legality of employment and working conditions of foreign nationals carried out by the competent authorities increased every year. For example, the National Labour Inspection had conducted 4,257 such controls in 2016, which was 44 per cent more than in 2015 and 90 per cent more than in 2014. She considered that any cases of serious infringements of migrant workers’ rights, such as infringements related to forced labour, could only be of a purely incidental nature and under no circumstances could such incidents be considered to occur systematically. However, she explained that Poland was becoming the country of destination for a steadily growing number of labour migrants, especially for short-term employment, and the Government was aware of the fact that the situation presented numerous challenges, including the need to adjust the existing provisions and to teach institutions which had not had frequent contacts with foreign nationals the practical methods of solving the emerging problems.

Recently, there had been some indications pointing to the employment of workers from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in Poland, which could have contained elements of forced labour. However, the Government had treated such signals with the utmost seriousness – steps had been taken to verify such allegations and carefully analyse the conditions of employment of DPRK citizens in Poland. Poland was not a party to any bilateral agreement with the DPRK, which would provide for any kind of cooperation in the field of the exchange of workers, and the Polish authorities, including the Embassy in Pyongyang, neither participated in any way in employing DPRK citizens nor carried out any promotional activities in that regard. Employment of DPRK citizens took place only as an activity of individual entities and their numbers in recent years had amounted to a dozen or several dozen a year. Foreign employees were, in principle, subject to the same labour law as Polish citizens and work by DPRK citizens in Poland was thus governed by the current Polish regulations. For a work permit to be issued to a foreign national staying in Poland, the worker must be offered a salary comparable to the salary of other employees in a similar position and the terms included in the agreement must be compatible with those specified in the work permit. The law provided for statutory sanctions for entities which had committed infringements in relation to employing foreigners and the relevant institutions were in charge of controlling, on a regular basis, the legality of the stay and employment of DPRK citizens and other foreign nationals in Poland. The border guard constantly monitored the activities of DPRK citizens and kept the national border guard headquarters informed of the appearance of entities employing DPRK citizens in the region under their jurisdiction and the control measures taken against entities employing DPRK citizens and against those citizens. Given the signals revealed in 2016, controls conducted by the National Labour Inspection and the border guard had in practice covered all entities employing DPRK citizens in Poland. The verifications had not confirmed infringements against DPRK employees related to forced labour and there had been no violations concerning non-payment of wages for DPRK citizens, involving both non-payment or payment of wages lower than those indicated in work permits. Nevertheless, the control authorities had paid attention to the fact that a lack of cooperation between them and the potentially affected DPRK citizens could be observed and could hamper control activities by preventing an objective assessment. She considered such a situation to be challenging and sensitive, especially if actions taken by the host country could pose a threat to the worker or his or her family residing in the country of origin, and expressed an interest in hearing the experience of other countries and the social partners on how to cope with such challenges. She further indicated that control authorities and institutions involved in the issuance of work permits to foreigners had increased their vigilance to worrying signals which could indicate suspected exploitation of DPRK nationals. She also underlined that each entity employing a DPRK national in Poland should be aware of the fact that it would receive attention of the competent institutions and each abuse observed would be punished in accordance with the applicable law. In conclusion, she emphasized that in 2016 and 2017 the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Pyongyang had not issued any visa for DPRK citizens to seek employment and the only persons currently working in Poland would be those who had been in the country earlier. Therefore, the level of presence of DPRK employees on the Polish labour market, which had already been marginal – below 0.1 per cent of all foreign nationals working in Poland – was gradually decreasing. On 1 January 2017, there had been 400 DPRK citizens in Poland with valid residence permits other than visas, including 368 temporary residence permits and 31 long-term EU residence permits, but not all of them worked in Poland. A general prohibition of arrival and taking up a job would have no basis in the applicable law, either at the national or EU levels. It would constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality and would also raise questions as to the best means of action in the case of countries known to disrespect fundamental civil rights. She questioned whether a total isolation of those countries, including a total prohibition of taking up a job, would be the best solution. Apart from the fact that probably not all the countries would agree to implement such a measure, the question remained as to whether such isolation would have any positive effects from the perspective of civil freedoms in such countries. She concluded by stating that the employment of DPRK citizens was a specific case that should not be generalized in the overall picture of the employment of foreign nationals in Poland, but that such cases should, due to their nature, be considered with particular care, on the basis of well-documented data, while maintaining a certain proportion to the scale of detected abuse.

The Employer members emphasized that Poland had ratified this fundamental ILO Convention nearly 60 years ago, thereby formally undertaking to suppress the use of all forms of forced or compulsory labour immediately and definitively throughout its territory. The national authorities therefore needed to remain proactive and ensure not only that the legislation was in conformity with the Convention, but also that it was enforced effectively throughout the national territory. The authorities needed to show special vigilance in identifying the changing and unknown forms that could be taken by forced labour. The necessary human and financial resources therefore needed to be allocated to the inspection services in order to guarantee the development of the professional competence and legal and ethical independence of the respective officials. It was also necessary to ensure that victims had easy access to justice to denounce any exaction, and that the perpetrators and their accomplices were systematically prosecuted and severely punished. The report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK referred to the situation of around 50,000 North Korean workers sent by their Government to work in several countries under conditions that amounted to forced labour. The Special Rapporteur referred to 18 countries, including Poland, which were reported to be implicated in this system of forced labour, without providing indications of the number of victims in each country. However, it appeared that the great majority of such workers were not engaged in Poland. The Special Rapporteur referred to the independent study conducted in 2014 by Shin Chang-Hoon and Go Myong-Hyun, according to which around 500 workers from the DPRK were victims of forced labour in Poland. While this figure had been corroborated by the Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union “Solidarnosc”, which reported several hundred North Korean workers in Poland, it had however been contested by the Government of Poland and the Organization of Polish Employers. The Government indicated that the labour inspectorate had not identified any form of forced labour by migrant workers from the DPRK. No evidence of specific irregularities had been found in the calculation or payment of wages or in the working conditions of DPRK workers in Poland. It was necessary to give credit to the investigations and findings of the labour inspectorate. In this regard, the Committee of Experts had welcomed several positive initiatives adopted by Poland to improve the quality and effectiveness of the labour inspection services, particularly in relation to the detection of situations of the trafficking of persons for forced labour. The Organization of Polish Employers also considered that the Polish legislation protected migrant workers through the specific obligations placed on employers. In practice, the labour inspectorate was focusing its efforts on the working conditions of Ukrainian migrant workers, who numbered around 1 million in Poland, and several thousand inspections were carried out each year. With regard to forced labour, according to a 2016 inspection report, only ten DPRK workers had been found in an irregular situation in Poland.

The Employer members also considered that the data provided by “Solidarnosc” relating to DPRK workers discovered in a plantation some ten years earlier did not offer serious grounds for the discussion in the Committee. In view of the lack of clarity in the allegations against Poland, it was rather surprising that such a situation had immediately been given a “double footnote” by the Committee of Experts. Under no pretext should forced labour be organized at the initiative of any government, public authority or enterprise. Nevertheless, in view of the contradictions between, on the one hand, the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, corroborated by “Solidarnosc” and, on the other, the point of view of the Government and Employers of Poland, the Government should be strongly encouraged to continue its investigations and to use all the necessary means to gain a better understanding of the situation experienced by DPRK nationals working in Poland. It was essential to assess fully and objectively whether the living and working conditions of these workers were in accordance with fundamental labour standards. If forced labour practices were detected, the victims would need to be identified and protected. Moreover, beneficiaries of such illegal practices would need to be identified and, following a fair trial, punishments would be imposed that were commensurate with the gravity of the offences. The Employer members finally considered that, if situations of forced labour organized by the Government of the DPRK were found in Poland, one of those principally responsible for such abuses would be the Government of the DPRK itself which, due to the fact that it was not a Member of the ILO, was voluntarily removing itself from international society, including the ILO supervisory machinery.

The Worker members welcomed the ratification by Poland of the Protocol of 2014 to Convention No. 29, which adapted that instrument to modern forms of forced labour. Poland was therefore joining the action taken to combat all forms of forced labour, including trafficking in persons, which was one of the most urgent problems of the twenty-first century. What was necessary in the present case was to assess the application of the Convention in practice and, in particular, the serious difficulties identified by the Committee of Experts relating to the vulnerability of migrant workers to the exaction of forced labour. These difficulties had led the Committee of Experts to insert a “double footnote” in its observation. The case also showed that forced labour was a phenomenon that affected all countries and which therefore required constant and generalized vigilance. In a context of significant migration flows, migrant workers were particularly vulnerable and were at greater risk of forced labour. Poland appeared to be a country of destination for those who exploited labour migrants, and particularly workers sent to Poland by the DPRK. However, migrant workers from other countries were also vulnerable to such practices. Although the Polish State was not directly imposing forced labour on these workers, it nevertheless had the duty and responsibility to prevent, bring an end to, and punish such practices. Inspections targeting establishments employing DPRK nationals had not identified situations of forced labour. That might seem surprising in light of the comments made by “Solidarnosc” and the United Nations Special Rapporteur concerning a system under which they were sent by their Government to work abroad, including in Poland. The pay of these workers was then largely sent back to the Government of the DPRK. The Polish Government should take measures to reinforce the capacities of the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the law and the labour inspection services, and to ensure that the penalties imposed were really effective and strictly enforced. For many years, the issue of the effectiveness of the resources allocated to combating forced labour had been the subject of repeated comments by the Committee of Experts. The efforts made by the Government up to now were insufficient and needed to be strengthened. It would also be desirable to explicitly criminalize forced labour in the legislation and no longer address the matter solely through the legislation on trafficking in persons. The latter concept did not necessarily cover all forms of forced labour. The Government also needed to continue taking measures to protect the victims of forced labour and to enable them to denounce their situation.

With regard to the possibility for prisoners to work for private employers, the Worker members recalled that the Convention excluded from the definition of forced labour work exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. Work imposed in this context had to be carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and the prisoner must not be hired to, or placed at, the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. However, the Committee of Experts considered that, where the necessary safeguards existed to ensure that the persons concerned offered themselves voluntarily, without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty, such work did not fall within the scope of the Convention. Nevertheless, the context in which such consent was given, namely imprisonment, made it difficult to assess the truly voluntary nature of the consent. That was why real safeguards were required in the legislation. The Committee of Experts had emphasized that conditions of work approximating those of a free labour relationship were the most reliable indicator of the voluntary nature of work. The free consent of workers therefore needed to be assessed in light of the various conditions of work, including the level of wages, social security and occupational safety and health. Polish legislation required prisoners to consent to work, without however requiring such consent to be noted formally. It was therefore essential to adopt provisions guaranteeing that prisoners gave, formally and beforehand, their free and informed consent to such work.

The Worker member of Poland noted that there could be no doubt that DPRK citizens were working in Poland, as reported by journalists and confirmed by inspection reports by the National Labour Inspectorate. However, inspectors had neither been able to confirm the limitations on the movements of DPRK citizens within Poland, nor the transferral of their remuneration to DPRK accounts, since payment of remuneration had been confirmed by the mention of the employees on the payment list. Similarly, in light of the limited information received, labour inspectors were not in a position to confirm that DPRK citizens were indeed supervised by a “guardian” or a representative of the government of their country of origin. While Poland had no legal definition of forced labour, applicable regulations provided for action against illegal work where work was performed under conditions of imprisonment, physical or psychological violence, deprivation of food or withholding of documents. Provisions in Chapter XXVIII of the Penal Code addressed offences against the rights of persons engaged in gainful employment, and relevant provisions were also contained in the Act of 15 June 2012 concerning the effect of employing foreigners residing illegally on the territory of the Republic of Poland (Text No. 769), and the Act of 10 June 2016 on the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (Text No. 868). In extreme cases, the provisions of the Penal Code criminalizing slavery could also apply. Nevertheless, media reports in recent years had pointed to cases of DPRK citizens being subjected to forced labour on Polish territory, including situations in the construction and shipbuilding sectors. The National Labour Inspectorate, while acknowledging possible violations of labour laws in some cases, could not confirm that work had been exacted under the threat of punishment or coercion. Nevertheless, the fate of DPRK workers remained a source of concern that would require continued monitoring. In conclusion, she noted that, while the possibility of the existence of forced labour in Poland could not be denied, the legal confirmation of its existence was difficult. She stated that an international debate on the situation of DPRK workers was needed. At the same time, the Polish Government needed to work on amending the legislation in order to provide for a legal definition of forced labour and, given the scale of DPRK workers’ employment in Poland, to provide a sufficient number of Korean sworn translators. Technical assistance by the ILO could help in the development of more effective national regulations and other instruments to support the formal proof of forced labour. The Polish Government was encouraged to seek ILO technical assistance in this area.

The Worker member of the Netherlands stated that the Dutch Federation of Trade Unions (FNV) had closely followed the case of DPRK workers in the EU and in Poland, in particular. In cooperation with the Leiden Asia Centre of Leiden University, research was being conducted into the DPRK’s practice of dispatching workers to the EU. Based on reports of the National Labour Inspectorate of Poland, in-depth interviews, company information and other relevant data, clear examples had been found of serious abuse of DPRK workers employed in Poland, which allowed the conclusion that there was reason for concern about forced labour. Given the difficulty encountered by the National Labour Inspectorate to prove forced labour, it was important for the National Labour Inspectorate to have full competence to investigate all aspects and indications of forced labour, and for all officials involved to receive proper training. It was also recalled that the National Labour Inspectorate had been able to report in detail on several cases of forced labour, where workers had been misled, illegally employed and taken advantage of, and had not received proper payment, holiday allowances or holiday leave, and that such infringements had been reported in at least 77 cases. The speaker provided details of one particular case – a fatal accident of a DPRK worker, Chon Kyongsu, in August 2014, in a shipyard in Gdynia – and indicated that the Polish Labour Inspectorate had subsequently looked into the case, and found a number of illegal practices.

In light of the Convention, at least a number of indicators for forced labour were met: DPRK workers, who had been sent from a country labelled by the UN as a country with unprecedented infringements of human rights, were likely targets for abuse of their vulnerability; the Labour Inspection had reported several cases of workers who had been misled or taken advantage of; passports were either kept at the embassy or with the managers; and workers did not know when and how much they would be paid. Considering that Dutch companies were buyers of products produced with the possible use of forced labour, both Dutch trade unions and the Dutch Government had a clear interest in the situation of DPRK workers in Poland and were of the view that companies must take responsibility in the supply chain. The Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs had also expressed his concern and his intention to follow the situation as well as the measures taken in this regard. She welcomed the timely ratification by Poland of the 2014 Protocol to Convention No. 29 and trusted that efforts to implement the Protocol would lead to better instruments to fight such practices. With a clear definition of forced labour, protection for victims and access to remedies, including compensation, deterrent fines for infringements, and the strengthening of the National Labour Inspectorate, the Government would be in a better position to address forced labour.

The Worker member of Italy indicated that over one million Ukrainians lived in Poland. Most of them had decided to migrate to Poland after the 2014 military conflict in eastern Ukraine, when the currency value had sharply declined and prices had risen. While the Committee of Experts only drew attention to Korean workers, the living and working conditions of migrants coming from nearby countries was also important. These issues were included in the direct request addressed by the Committee of Experts to the Government. The issue was of particular concern in light of the 2016 Global Slavery Index, which estimated that 181,100 people or 0.48 per cent of the total population, lived in conditions of modern slavery in Poland. According to those data, forced labour especially affects migrant populations. Data from the Walk Free Foundation indicated that construction, domestic work, other manual labour and manufacturing were the sectors most affected. Regionally organized crime organizations were implicated in forced begging. Roma mothers from poor communities in the Republic of Moldova and the Ukraine were offered jobs in the sales or care sectors in Poland, but had their passports confiscated upon arrival. Along with their children, they were forced to beg on the streets. According to estimates of the National Bank of Poland, 91 per cent of Ukrainian migrants in Poland had secondary or higher education, but as many as 70 per cent performed manual labour. According to information from the Foundation Nasz Wybór, in charge of helping Ukrainian citizens in Poland, selling fictional jobs was a serious issue, which increased undeclared work and left the labour rights of many workers unprotected. According to estimates of the Halina Niec Legal Aid Centre, the number of victims of trafficking in persons in Poland reached several hundred every year and included a growing number of Ukrainians. It was difficult to estimate how many cases of modern-day slavery including trafficking for forced labour remained unreported. A 2015 report by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights highlighted Poland as one of the EU countries in which workers in the grey economy were most vulnerable to being exploited. The Agency had looked at severe labour exploitation across the EU with particular emphasis on migrant workers. The Polish agricultural sector had been repeatedly mentioned, as no authority in Poland was permitted to monitor working conditions in private farms. According to the same report, Poland was one of the four European countries where less than 1 per cent of all employers were inspected. Immediate and concrete action was needed from the Government, to establish cross-border cooperation to stop trafficking networks, protect migrant workers from abusive practices, identify the victims of forced labour, and guarantee the prosecution of perpetrators.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the trade unions of the Nordic countries, stated that, according to reports from “Solidarnosc” DPRK workers were being exploited and used for forced labour in Poland. Those observations had been confirmed by reports from various United Nations and EU agencies dealing with human rights, as well as reports by Polish scientists, researchers and the press. A report by academics from the Leiden Asia Centre of Leiden University in the Netherlands claimed that DPRK workers’ salaries were paid to managers and sent back to Pyongyang. According to United Nations estimates, the DPRK earned as much as £1.6 billion a year from workers it sent overseas. Human rights activists further claimed that tens of thousands of DPRK citizens had been sent abroad to work in about 40 countries as “state-sponsored slaves”. According to the Leiden report, the workers in Poland received a “minimal livelihood allowance” while often working more than 12 hours a day, six days a week. She also noted that, according to a report by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Poland was one of the countries where workers in the grey economy were most vulnerable. Several incidents with migrant workers from many countries had been detected, and Poland was one of four EU countries in which fewer than 1 per cent of employers were inspected. It was thus difficult for labour inspectors to control employers or to force them to meet their obligations, with a resulting increase of the risk of abuses, including trafficking in persons. Limitations in the legal capacities of labour inspection were especially apparent in the case of migrant workers, where the employer was a foreign entity not formally operating in Poland. In such cases, the employer’s representative was responsible solely for documents confirming the legality of stay and the work permit, while inspectors had limited possibilities to communicate with workers because of restricted access to interpreters. As a result, labour exploitation of migrants could easily go unnoticed. Although there were no legal obstacles for the workers to receive salaries in their country of origin, some countries could use internal legal provisions to carry out deductions. This was a common practice used by the DPRK Government, which deducted so-called voluntary fees as contributions for the socialist revolution. In conclusion, she noted that forced labour was prohibited in Poland and that it was not a common phenomenon, although changes in the law needed to be made when such cases were reported, in order to effectively prevent and protect foreign workers from forced labour and labour exploitation. Awareness should be raised among labour inspectors, enforcement agents, prosecutors, judges and among the public, and the Government needed to improve monitoring of recruitment processes, while ensuring law enforcement.

The Government member of the Republic of Korea indicated that the issue of DPRK overseas workers had been a matter of concern for the international community not only from the standpoint of international labour standards, but also from other perspectives, including human rights and international security. Recent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council had expressed serious concern at the violation of DPRK overseas workers’ rights. The United Nations Security Council, through resolution 2321 in 2016, had also voiced serious concern that DPRK nationals were sent to work in other States for the purpose of earning money that the DPRK used for its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, and had called upon States to exercise vigilance over that practice. While recognizing the measures taken by the Government of Poland regarding the working conditions of DPRK workers, and having full confidence that the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts would be faithfully implemented, it was to be hoped that the Government of Poland and the ILO would continue to make efforts to ensure that the working conditions of DPRK workers in Poland were in accordance with relevant international standards.

The Worker member of Germany noted that the case at hand exemplified the fact that forced labour organized by the DPRK had gained a presence in the EU. There could be no doubt that the DPRK used forced labour to finance its military ambitions and maintain its system of oppression. That type of forced labour was systematically managed through enterprises such as those based in Poland. It should be taken for granted that this system did not only exist in the shipbuilding industry, and that Poland was not the only country in which the DPRK was gaining hard currency through the use of forced labour. She also drew attention to an additional dimension of these human rights violations, noting that the concerned enterprises were certified by NATO and thus eligible to participate in the public procurement of military contracts. At the same time, these enterprises had benefited from public funds, such as the European Regional Development Fund. Client companies of such enterprises that were located in different countries of the EU were also profiting from the particularly inexpensive labour cost.

Given that the prohibition of forced labour was part and parcel of universal human rights norms, and in light of the applicable United Nations, EU and ILO instruments, she noted that the protection of human rights was not only the responsibility of States, but also of companies, which had to ensure that they did not violate human rights in their business operations. In order to ensure that responsibility for the protection of human rights could be properly discharged, it was necessary to guarantee transparency and public access to information. Thus, it was essential for the results of labour inspection to be made accessible and for additional independent investigations to be conducted. Such a process should also be accompanied by the ILO. Furthermore, responsible enterprises and public entities needed to refrain from placing orders with companies associated with the violation of universal and fundamental human rights and should also abstain from participating in state-organized systems of forced labour, such as that established by the DPRK.

The Government member of Norway, also speaking on behalf of the Government member of Iceland, indicated that forced labour was always unacceptable, and that all member States were expected to do their utmost to eliminate forced labour in all its forms. There was concern about the situation of migrant workers from the DPRK, as described in the report of the Committee of Experts, including the information submitted by the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations. Therefore, all receiving countries needed to pay very close attention to the circumstances and conditions under which those workers worked and lived. The monitoring of compliance by the labour inspectorate could often be very difficult. In that context, it was important to promote more transparency in supply chains. Forced labour was a serious violation of fundamental rights. Hence, receiving countries were strongly encouraged to take all the necessary measures in order to prevent its occurrence.

The Worker member of the United States recalled, with regard to the situation of the forced labour of DPRK migrant workers in Poland and other countries, such as Ukraine, the efforts of the United Nations to ensure “safe, regular and orderly” migration. According to documents provided to researchers, such workers were documented and arrived with permits to work in Poland. On the other hand, the process by which the Government of the DPRK mobilized those workers was largely hidden. Independent researchers and the National Labour Inspectorate had documented inconsistencies in the complex chain of employment relationships in production by well-known shipbuilding and maintenance operations, as well as in other sectors at least one of which is certified by NATO and therefore can bid on public contracts using taxpayer money from numerous countries. In Poland, those workers lived and worked in a grey area. While their status as persons authorized to work in Poland was regular, according to Polish and EU rules, the conditions in which they lived and worked there and under which they were paid was less clear. More transparency and accountability all along the supply chains using such workers – from labour recruitment to health and safety issues to wages and conditions – was needed. Regardless of the fact that in their country of origin their rights were not respected, the countries and companies in which they worked had the obligation to protect and respect those rights. The Leiden report referred to the profit made all along these supply chains. The Government of Poland should take measures to improve the situation. The discussion in the Conference on labour migration should address those issues and should ensure that each worker was recognized as a person entitled to rights, not just as labour.

The Government representative thanked all participants in the discussion and considered that the comments and suggestions from different perspectives were extremely valuable. Having acknowledged that the increasing inflow of foreigners seeking jobs in Poland presented a great challenge in terms of ensuring safe and decent working conditions and, in particular, protecting them against exceptionally severe forms of abuse, she considered that the views expressed could help Poland to comprehensively approach the issue. Poland had always carefully listened to the voice of the ILO and she expressed full commitment to the implementation of the recommendations formulated by the Committee. Furthermore, updated information and well-documented statistical data would be provided in the 2017 report on the application of the Convention.

The Worker members welcomed the information provided by the Government representative, which demonstrated Poland’s willingness to continue working to improve the application of the Convention. To this end, the Government would have to:

– strengthen the capacities and competencies of the law enforcement authorities and labour inspection services, with a view to identifying and punishing forced labour practices;

– appoint interpreters, including from Korean;

– place particular emphasis on migratory flows that could result in situations of forced labour;

– pay specific attention to recruitment methods that trapped workers in forced labour situations, and establish control mechanisms to detect and punish abusive practices;

– strengthen the prosecution system to ensure that dissuasive criminal penalties were imposed on perpetrators of such practices;

– explicitly criminalize forced labour, to avoid the issue being addressed solely in the context of trafficking in persons;

– continue to strengthen, in accordance with the Forced Labour (Supplementary Measures) Recommendation, 2014 (No. 203), protection measures to enable victims to file a complaint with the authorities without fear; it was also important to provide for effective remedies and compensation mechanisms for victims; and

– establish better guarantees to ensure that prisoners working for private associations were able to formally give their prior, free and informed consent.

The Worker members considered that, in order to achieve these objectives, Poland should avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

The Employer members took due note of the many initiatives taken by the national authorities, particularly since 2016, to prevent all forms of forced labour in Poland and to punish abuses. In this context, it was necessary to recall that it was the collective responsibility of the ILO constituents to guarantee the respect of fundamental labour rights in the 21st century in all member States. Any complaint in that area must be thoroughly investigated by the national authorities, in particular by competent and independent officials and magistrates. In that context, forced labour needed to be immediately and permanently eradicated. Poland had shown its commitment to combating forced labour by ratifying the Protocol of 2014 to Convention No. 29 in March 2017. That engagement must be made a reality for all workers in Poland, regardless of their status or nationality. In this regard, national organizations of employers, including in Poland, undertook to assist enterprises to optimize working conditions, and to prohibit any abuse of workers. The Employer members supported the recommendations made by the researchers Shin Chang-Hoon and Go Myong-Hyun in their independent study which had considered that, to end the forced labour of migrant workers from the DPRK, receiving countries needed to monitor their actual working conditions, terminate the employment contracts of those who were subject to forced labour conditions imposed by the authorities of the DPRK, and tighten the controls on bank transactions linked to the payment of wages. However, taking into account the contradictions and lack of information available, it was deplorable that this case had been included on the list of the most serious violations of fundamental labour rights in 2017. Other countries cited by the United Nations Special Rapporteur had been left aside, which did not seem fair. In conclusion, they recommended that the Polish authorities should: (i) intensify efforts to ensure migrant workers were fully protected against abusive practices and working conditions that constituted forced labour; and (ii) provide information on the measures taken to identify situations of forced labour to which migrant workers might fall victim. Furthermore, where situations of forced labour were detected objectively, the authorities should provide information, including statistics, on the situation of DPRK nationals who were victims of forced labour; take immediate and effective measures to ensure that the perpetrators of these practices were prosecuted and dissuasive penalties were imposed on them; and afford adequate protection to the victims. Lastly, with regard to the issues raised in the direct request to Poland, the Employer members considered that these should not be the subject of specific discussions at the present Committee.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee called upon the Government of Poland to:

- increase its efforts to ensure that migrant workers are fully protected from abusive practices and conditions amounting to forced labour;

- provide information on the measures taken to identify cases of forced labour to the Committee of Experts paying particular attention to the situation of workers from the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea;

- take immediate and efficient measures so that the perpetrators of such practices, if they occur, are prosecuted and that dissuasive penalties are issued;

ensure that identified victims of forced labour have access to adequate protection and remedies.