Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters.

The Committee has noted the report of the Commission of Inquiry on conditions of detention in prison establishments in France, which was set up under a resolution adopted by the Senate on 10 February 2000.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(c), of the Convention. Prisoners working for private enterprises. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with section D.103(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, work in prison establishments is performed principally under one of the following three forms: general service work (intended to discharge the various types of work or tasks necessary for the operation of the prison establishment); the hiring of prison labour; and work for the Industrial Board of Prison Establishments (RIEP). Where labour is hired, prisoners work for a private enterprise in the event that the hiring enterprise is in the private sector, which is most frequently the case. Furthermore, in the few cases in which the prison establishment itself is administered by a private enterprise, detainees assigned to general tasks in the prison establishment are thereby in the service of a private enterprise.

Free consent and conditions of employment approximating a free labour relationship. With reference to its general observation under the Convention, the Committee recalls that since the adoption of the Act of 22 June 1987, convicted persons are no longer in principle compelled to work. Under section D.99(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

Detainees, irrespective of their penal category, may request that work be proposed to them.

Under the terms of section D.102(2):

The organization, methods and remuneration of work shall be as close as possible to those of external occupational activities with a view, inter alia, to preparing detainees for the normal conditions of free work.

According to section D.106(2):

Such remuneration shall be subject to employers’ and workers’ contributions under the terms established, for sickness, maternity and old-age insurance, by sections R.381-97 to R.381-109 of the Code of Social Security.

Prisoners thus benefit from social security in the same way as other workers. Reasonable deductions from remuneration are furthermore envisaged in sections D.112 and D.113 to share in the costs of maintenance, indemnify civil parties and for alimony payments.

According to section D.108:

Working time by day and by week, determined by the internal rules of the establishment, shall approximate the hours of work in the region or in the type of work concerned; in no case may they be higher. Observance of weekly rest and national holidays shall be ensured; working schedules shall foresee the time required for rest, meals, exercise and educational and leisure activities.

The Committee also notes with interest, further to its previous comments on this point, that under section D.109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Decree No. 98-1099 of 8 December 1998:

The safety and health measures provided for in Book II, Title III of the Labour Code and the decrees issues thereunder … shall be applicable to work performed by detainees within and outside prison establishments …

and the intervention of the labour inspection services is envisaged in this respect by section D.109-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, incorporated by the above Decree No. 98-1099, and regulated by a joint circular of the Ministries of Justice and of Employment and Solidarity of 16 July 1999, which was attached to the Government’s report.

Finally, under section D.110:

The right to compensation for employment accidents and occupational diseases shall be recognized for detainees performing work, in accordance with the special scheme established by Decree No. 49-1585 of 10 December 1949 (codified text, cf. sections D.412-36 to D.412-71 of the Code of Social Security) respecting the application to detainees of Act No. 46-2426 of 30 October 1946 on the prevention and compensation of employment accidents and occupational diseases.

What remains to be done. It appears from the above provisions that the guiding principles of French legislation governing prison work respond on a number of essential points, and in an exemplary fashion, to the criteria set forth by the Committee so that work performed by a prisoner for a private enterprise can be assimilated to a free labour relationship and not come under the prohibitions set out in Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(c), of the Convention. However, in certain respects, already noted in the Committee’s previous comments, the legislative provisions governing prison work still require amendments to this effect: firstly, with regard to the elimination of "the menace of any penalty", within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, in the event of refusal to work; and secondly, amendments are necessary to ensure that the relationship between a prisoner working for a private enterprise and her or his employer is always covered by an employment contract, and not only in the case of certain categories of detainees. Furthermore, with reference also to its previous comments concerning remuneration for work and safety and health conditions, the Committee notes that the report of the Commission of Inquiry on the conditions of detention in prison establishments in France found a number of serious deficiencies in practice, some of which have a bearing on the observance of conditions under which the work of a prisoner can be assimilated to a free labour relationship. In all these respects, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s statement in its report that the Prime Minister committed the Government in November 2000 to two series of measures: a vast programme for the renovation of prisons with a view to a substantial improvement in the conditions of detention of prisoners, and the formulation of major legislation on the discharge of sentences. The Committee hopes that account will be taken in this exercise of the points mentioned above, which it develops in greater detail in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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