ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Qatar (Ratification: 1998)

Other comments on C029

Observation
  1. 2020
  2. 2019
  3. 2016
  4. 2015
  5. 2014
  6. 2004
  7. 2002
Direct Request
  1. 2020
  2. 2019
  3. 2016
  4. 2015
  5. 2014
  6. 2013
  7. 2011
  8. 2009
  9. 2008
  10. 2005
  11. 2004
  12. 2002

Display in: French - SpanishView all

Complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning non-observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81)

The Committee notes that at the 103rd Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) in June 2014, 12 delegates to the ILC, under article 26 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Constitution filed a complaint against the Government of Qatar relating to the violation of Convention No. 29 and Convention No. 81.
At its 322nd Session (November 2014), the Governing Body had before it a report by its Officers regarding the complaint. The complainant alleges that the problem of forced labour affects the migrant worker population of roughly 1.5 million. From the moment migrant workers begin the process of seeking work in Qatar; they are drawn into a highly exploitative system that facilitates the exaction of forced labour by their employers. This includes practices such as contract substitution, recruitment fees (for which many take out large, high interest loans) and passport confiscation. The Government of Qatar fails to maintain a legal framework sufficient to protect the rights of migrant workers consistent with international law and to enforce the legal protections that currently do exist. Of particular concern, the sponsorship law, among the most restrictive in the Gulf region, facilitates the exaction of forced labour by, among other things, making it very difficult for a migrant worker to leave an abusive employer.
At its 323rd Session (March 2015), the Governing Body decided to request the Government to submit to the Governing Body for consideration at its 325th Session (November 2015), information on action taken to address all issues raised in the complaint.
The Committee notes that at its 325th Session (November 2015), the Governing Body decided to request the Government to receive a high-level tripartite visit, before the 326th Session (March 2016), to assess all the measures taken to address all issues raised in the complaint, including measures taken to effectively implement the newly adopted law relating to the regulation of the entry and exit of expatriates and their residency. It also requested the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to support an integrated approach to the annulment of the sponsorship system, the improvement of labour inspection and occupational safety and health systems, and giving a voice to workers.
The Committee notes that an invitation was extended by the Minister of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs on behalf of the Government of Qatar in a communication of 4 February 2016 to the ILO to undertake a high-level tripartite visit to the country. This high-level visit was undertaken by the Chairperson and Vice- Chairs of the Governing Body from 1 to 5 March 2016.  1
At its 326th Session (March 2016), recalling its November 2015 decision and taking into account the Assessment contained in the report of the high-level tripartite visit, the Governing Body decided to: (a) request the Government of Qatar to follow up on the assessment of the high-level tripartite delegation, particularly with respect to the most vulnerable migrant workers; (b) request the Government of Qatar to report on the follow-up to the assessment of the high-level tripartite delegation to be discussed at the 328th Session (November 2016) and on the implementation of Law No. 21 of 2015 upon its entry into force to the 329th Session (March 2017).
The Committee notes that at its 328th Session (November 2016), the Governing Body, recalling the decisions adopted in its 325th Session (November 2015) and 326th Session (March 2016) and taking into account the reports submitted by the Government on its follow-up to the high-level tripartite visit’s assessment, decided to: (a) request the Government of Qatar to provide information to the Governing Body at its 329th Session (March 2017) on measures taken to effectively implement Law No. 21 of 2015 relating to the entry, exit and residence of migrant workers upon its entry into force; (b) in light of the discussions that took place at its 328th Session (November 2016), request the Government of Qatar to report to the Governing Body at its 329th Session (March 2017) on further follow-up to the assessment of the high-level tripartite delegation; (c) request the Government of Qatar to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to support an integrated approach to the annulment of the sponsorship system, the improvement of labour inspection and occupational safety and health systems, and giving a voice to workers; and (d) defer further consideration on the appointment of a commission of inquiry until its 329th Session (March 2017), in light of the information referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above.

Follow-up to the recommendations of the tripartite committee (representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution)

The Committee previously noted that, at its 320th Session (March 2014), the Governing Body approved the report of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) alleging non-observance of Convention No. 29 by Qatar. This tripartite committee concluded that certain migrants in the country might find themselves in situations of forced labour on account of a number of factors such as contract substitution, restrictions on their freedom to leave their employment relationship or the country, the non-payment of wages and the threat of retaliation. The Governing Body adopted the tripartite committee’s conclusions and called upon the Government to:
  • -review without delay the functioning of the sponsorship system;
  • -ensure without delay access to justice for migrant workers, so that they can effectively assert their rights;
  • -ensure that adequate penalties are applied for violations.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 104th Session, June 2015)

The Committee notes the detailed discussion which took place at the 104th Session of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) in June 2015, concerning the application by Qatar of the Convention.
Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. 1. National legal framework for migrant workers. The Committee notes the Government’s report dated 23 September 2016. It also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2016.

(i) Functioning of the sponsorship system (kafala)

In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that the recruitment of migrant workers and their employment are governed by Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system. Under this system, migrant workers who have obtained a visa must have a sponsor. The law forbids workers to change employer, and the temporary transfer of the sponsorship is only possible if there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the sponsor. The Committee took due note of the Government’s indication that a bill has been drafted to repeal the system of sponsorship and to replace it by work contracts and trusted that the new legislation on migrant workers would be drafted in such a way as to protect them against any form of exploitation. The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to abolish the kafala system and replace it with a work permit that allows the worker to change employer.
The Committee notes the ITUC’s statement that section 21 of the new law (Law No. 21 of 27 October 2015) allows migrant workers, with the permission of the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Labour, to switch employers at the end of his/her labour fixed-term contract; thus, workers will still be tied to the employer for the duration of the contract. Further, there appears to be no limit to the duration of a fixed-term contract. In the case of an indefinite term contract, the worker cannot change jobs for the first five years of that contract. It is still not possible during the duration of the contract to change jobs without the permission of the employer (and the Ministry of Interior). Section 22 provides that the Ministry of Interior may allow a worker to transfer jobs temporarily in case there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the recruiter, and if the Ministry of Labour also approves. Again, it is unstated on what basis either Ministry could refuse such a request. It appears from the law that they have absolute discretion.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, the Law of 2015, which will enter into force in December 2016, will repeal the kafala system by a system where the labour contract would regulate the labour relationship between parties and this would mean that workers will be able to change employers following the completion of an employment contract of definite duration. As for contracts of indefinite duration, the Law of 2015 authorizes a migrant worker to transfer to a new employer after five years of employment in the previous job.
The Committee takes note of Law No. 21 of 2015 which regulates the entry, exit and residence of migrant workers and which enters into force in December 2016. The Committee observes that section 22 allows for the temporary transfer of an expatriate worker to another employer if there is a pending lawsuit between the worker and the employer (section 22(1)), or if there is evidence of the employer’s abuse (section 22(2)). The Committee also notes that pursuant to section 21(1), an expatriate worker may transfer to another employer before the end of the labour contract upon the approval of the employer, the competent authority and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. The Committee notes that similar provisions already exist under Law No. 4 of 2009 regulating the sponsorship system. The Committee observes that the main new feature introduced by the Law of 2015 consists of the fact that workers may change jobs without the employer’s consent at the end of a contract of limited duration or after a period of five years if the contract is of unspecified duration (section 21(2)) without the employer’s consent; whereas under the Law of 2009, the worker could not return to work in Qatar for two years in case the sponsor refused such transfer. However, it observes that the Law of 2015 does not seem to foresee termination by the expatriate worker before the expiry of the initial contract (that is with a notice period) without approval of the employer nor does it set out reasons and conditions for termination generally, other than in a few very specific cases. Lastly, it notes that according to section 48 of the Law of 2015, the Minister of the Interior shall issue regulations to implement it.
The Committee expresses the firm hope that the new legislation will remove all the restrictions that prevent migrant workers from terminating their employment relationship in the event of abuse and will enable migrant workers to leave their employment at certain intervals or after having given reasonable notice during the duration of the contract and without the employer’s permission. It requests the Government to ensure that the Regulations implementing Law No. 21 of 2015 contain clear and objective criteria on the grounds and reasons for termination of employment. It also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of Law No. 21 of 2015, including data on the number of employment transfers that have taken place following the entry into force of Law No. 21 of 2015 in December 2016, disaggregated on the basis of contracts of limited duration and contracts of unspecified duration and also on the basis of gender.

(ii) Procedure for issuing exit visas

The Committee previously noted that, workers may not leave the country temporarily or permanently unless they have an exit permit issued by the sponsor.
The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to work towards abolishing the exit permit system in the shortest possible time and in the interim, make exit permits available as a matter of urgency.
The Committee notes the ITUC’s statement that under section 7 of Law No. 21 of 2015, a worker no longer directly asks the employer for the exit permit but rather a competent government authority (72-hours in advance). However, the law provides that the employer can still object to the granting of an exit permit to the worker. If the employer refuses to grant permission, the worker can appeal to a government-sanctioned Committee on Alien Departure Grievances. The Law provides no guidance whatsoever as to what may be the legitimate basis for an employer to object to the exit permit. It is also left unstated how and on what basis the worker may appeal the employer’s decision. The law leaves these important issues to a ministerial decree to be developed at some future point.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Law of 2015 allows workers to apply directly to the Government for an exit permit without going back to the employer. If the employer objects to the departure from the country of the expatriate worker, the latter shall have the right to appeal to an Appeals Committee, the Permanent Committee on Grievances which was established by a ministerial decree in February 2016. This Permanent Committee will be presided by the Ministry of Interior and its membership includes the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and the National Human Rights Committee. In accordance with section 48 of the Law, the Minister of Interior has established a committee to draft the by-laws necessary to give effect to this law.
The Committee notes that Law No. 21 of 2015 removes the obligation to have the exit permit signed by the sponsor to leave the country, which was required by Law No. 4 of 2009. The Law of 2015 requires migrant workers to notify the competent authority at least three days prior to the departure date (section 7(1) of the Law of 2015). The Committee nevertheless observes that even under the new law, the employer may object to the departure from the country of the expatriate worker in which case the latter shall have the right to appeal to an Appeals Committee (section 7(2) and (3)). The Committee further observes that the Law does not enumerate the specific grounds on which the employer may object to the departure of the migrant worker from the country. The Committee expects that the new legislation will remove the obstacles that limit the freedom of movement of migrant workers and requests the Government to ensure that the regulations implementing Law No. 21 of 2015 contain clear criteria on the grounds for which the employer may object to a worker’s departure from the country, and on the time frame by which a worker may appeal the employer’s objection. Moreover, such grounds should not amount to restrictions which may prevent workers who might be victims of abusive practices from leaving the country.

(iii) Recruitment fees and contract substitution

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee urged the Government to work with sending countries to ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to workers and to ensure that contracts signed in the sending countries are not altered in Qatar.
The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that although the matter of recruitment fees is outside its jurisdiction, it has adopted a few measures to regulate the process of recruitment of workers from abroad through signing a few agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with labour-sending countries. Through the meetings of the joint committees set out in the bilateral agreements and MoUs, and which exceed 35 agreements and five MoUs, the Government has also encouraged such countries to use the services of recruitment agencies which are certified in both labour-sending and receiving countries. The Ministry has communicated lists of names of certified and operational recruitment agencies to the embassies of the labour-sending countries in order to safeguard workers’ rights. The Government also encouraged such countries to be guided by the model employment contracts attached to such agreements. Moreover, to ensure that contracts are not modified after the workers’ arrival in Qatar, the Labour Code obliges the competent authority at the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs to certify all employment contracts. In 2015, the Ministry certified 467,639 employment contracts. The Ministry will also be soon working with an electronic contract system. This will facilitate the approval of contracts and enable workers to obtain a copy of their contract, which would allow them to be cognizant of their rights. Furthermore, no entry visa will be granted to a migrant worker for the purpose of work, except under a contract signed directly between the recruiting party and the new expatriate worker, in accordance with section 4 of Law No. 21 of 2015.
The Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs monitors the work of labour recruitment agencies and inspects them periodically or through unannounced visits. To this end, the competent department at the Ministry carried out 1,815 inspection visits in 2015, which resulted in the following penalties:
  • -182 warnings;
  • -the preparation of four infringement reports to recruitment agencies;
  • -the withdrawal of 15 permits of recruitment agencies for their violation of the law;
  • -the revoking of permits of 80 recruitment agencies based on the requests of their owners. It is to be recalled that there were 286 foreign labour recruitment agencies by the end of 2015, and 302 recruitment agencies in 2016.
The Government also indicates that it signed a contract with VFS Global, which provides technological services to governments and diplomatic missions throughout the world, through its 2,251 centres which process entry visas and its operational centres in 125 countries. The company services approximately 50 contracting governments. This company will work with the Ministry of the Interior. The company will also provide the various services at specific centres in the destination country which include obtaining a general visa; submitting an electronic request; reception service at visa centres; data entry; receiving fees; registering biometric data in accordance with the specifications of the Ministry of the Interior; and checking the status of visas. All these services will help in facilitating the procedures which govern the issue of entry visas.
Moreover, the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs will implement the electronic linking project with a number of labour-sending countries through VFS Global. This project aims to provide additional protection to workers before their recruitment abroad in addition to improving the monitoring of recruitment practices in labour-sending countries. VFS Global shall also verify the soundness of documents related to workers’ certificates and qualifications. Consequently, the project will ensure that labour contracts signed by a worker in his/her home country are not tampered with, in addition to avoiding any fictitious labour contracts.
The Committee notes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that while acknowledging the various recent measures taken by the Government, the tripartite delegation heard on several occasions that migrant workers had, prior to their arrival, been subject to high recruitment fees by recruitment agencies in their country of origin, which in turn contributes to the vulnerability of these workers. In addition, the tripartite delegation observed that contract substitution is widespread in Qatar especially for workers working for small companies and manpower companies (paragraphs 59 and 62 of the Report).
Taking due note of the recent initiatives taken by the Government, the Committee strongly encourages it to expand the scope of these measures so as to ensure that recruitment fees are not charged to migrant workers, especially the most vulnerable workers, and that contracts signed in the sending countries are not altered in Qatar, especially for the most vulnerable workers. It requests the Government to provide information on progress made in this regard, including the results achieved through the application in practice of the electronic contract system.

(iv) Passport confiscation

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee urged the Government to vigorously enforce the legal provisions on passport confiscation.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that in addition to Law No. 21 of 2015 which prohibits passport confiscation and includes criminal penalties against this practice, there is coordination between the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior in order to avoid confiscating workers’ passports. Thus, in 2015 the Human Rights Department at the Ministry of the Interior received 168 complaints related to passport confiscation. The complaints were all referred to the Public Prosecutor, the majority of which were examined. This investigation resulted in obliging the employers found in violation to return the confiscated passports, and a few judgments were handed down so as to arrest persons in violation, resulting in the imprisonment of a few. In 2015, there were 40 convictions compared to 67 in 2014. The Government indicates that there were a lower number of convictions in 2015 due to the positive impact of the dissuasive measures taken in 2014.
Moreover, the National Committee for Human Rights also received 338 complaints relating to passport confiscation, during the period from January 2016 to April 2016 (91 complaints in January, 84 in February, 83 in March and 80 in April. In the Government’s view, the number of monthly complaints have decreased in view of the Human Rights’ Committee’s referral to public prosecution when an employer is found in violation.
The Committee also notes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that, while noting the measures taken to punish employers who confiscate passports of migrant workers, as well as to introduce stiffer penalties in new Law of 2015, the tripartite delegation observed that the number of complaints processed are much smaller than the number of instances of passport confiscation taking place in the country. In effect, the tripartite delegation had the opportunity to meet with a large number of workers working in small enterprises who indicated that employers systematically confiscated their passports upon their arrival in Qatar. Many stated that in addition to having their passports confiscated, their identity cards were frequently not renewed by their employer, leaving them undocumented and vulnerable to deportation. While acknowledging the legislative measures taken by the Government to protect migrant workers against these practices, the tripartite delegation was of the view that efforts to enforce these legislative prohibitions need to be considerably stepped up to guarantee effective protection to migrant workers against these abusive practices (paragraph 60 of the Report).
The Committee recalls that the practice of passport retention is a serious problem that may increase migrant workers’ vulnerability to abuse, by leaving workers undocumented, reducing their freedom of movement and preventing them from leaving an employment relationship. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to strengthen its efforts to ensure that legislation is regularly monitored, to investigate such abuses and to sanction employers who are in breach of the legislation. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of complaints regarding the issue of passport confiscation, as well as the number of penalties that have been applied in practice.

(v) Late payment and non-payment of wages

With respect to the issue of the protection of wages, the Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that Law No. 1 of 2015 which amends several sections of the Labour Code promulgated by Act No. 14 of 2014 has been promulgated. It provides for dissuasive penalties on employers who are in violation of this Code. Order No. 4 of 2015 taken by the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, and which relates to the rules of the wage protection system of workers who are prescribed by the Labour Code was also promulgated. A Wage Protection Unit was set up by virtue of Order No. 19 of 2014 taken by the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs. This unit monitors the implementation of the wage protection system (WPS) for workers prescribed by the Labour Code. The WPS will oblige employers to transfer a worker’s wages to the financial institution within seven days as of the day of its entitlement. In the event of a violation, the Minister will be granted the authority of refusing any new work permit or all transactions between the Ministry and the employer found in violation of this order. This system ensures full monitoring of the transfer of wages of all workers covered by the Labour Code to their bank accounts, in addition to detecting any person found in violation. The Government describes how the WPS has evolved and provides statistics on the evolution in the number of undertakings which joined the WPS from April 2016 (24,323) to 30 July 2016 (34,940) as well as the evolution in the number of workers included in the WPS from April 2016 (1,271,730) to 30 July 2016 (1,675,097).
The Committee also notes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that it is mostly the large companies that are implementing the WPS which does not appear to be implemented vis-à-vis the workers working for small companies which are subcontracted by larger companies, or for workers of manpower companies (that sponsors a large number of workers and then contract out these workers to other companies). While acknowledging that the WPS is a recent measure and will take time to function effectively, the tripartite delegation considers it essential that the WPS be implemented by all companies including SMEs, joint ventures and foreign-owned companies so as to benefit all migrant workers in Qatar (paragraph 55 of the Report).
Considering the establishment of the WPS to be a positive measure which, if implemented effectively, could contribute to address the recurring issue of the non-payment or delayed payment of wages, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that Law No. 1 of 2015, Order No. 4 of 2015, Order No. 19 of 2014 and the WPS are effectively implemented, so that all wages are paid on time and in full, and employers face appropriate sanctions for the non-payment of wages. It also requests the Government to provide information on the penalties applied for the non-payment of wages.

(vi) Migrant domestic workers

The Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken from the legislative and practical standpoint to provide effective protection for domestic workers. The Committee noted that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to ensure that domestic workers have equal labour rights. The Committee also noted the ITUC’s observations of 2015 that more than half of all female migrant workers in Qatar are employed in private homes. Migrant domestic workers are excluded from the legal frameworks which mean that they are denied the protections provided to all other workers under the Qatar Labour Law and cannot lodge claims at the Labour Court or complain to the Ministry of Labour in the event they find themselves in an abusive or exploitative situation. The ITUC points out that the abuse of domestic workers can involve physical and sexual abuse. Moreover, multiple investigations have revealed that migrant domestic workers are subject to forced labour conditions, with many having their passports confiscated and being denied wages, rest periods, annual and sick leave and freedom of movement.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs certifies the employment contracts of domestic workers in spite of their exclusion from the provisions of Qatar’s Labour Code, in order to safeguard their rights specified in such contracts. The Ministry also monitors the work of the domestic workers’ recruitment agencies, and inspects them periodically through unannounced visits in order to verify the non-exploitation of such workers and safeguard their rights. A few domestic workers’ recruitment agencies were shut down because they violated the provisions of the Labour Code and the Ministerial Order which regulate the work of such agencies. Moreover, migrant domestic workers are currently regulated by the provisions of the national civil law, as they fall outside of the scope of the Labour Law. However, a draft bill on migrant domestic workers is under preparation and is being reviewed to verify its conformity with the provisions of ILO Convention No. 189 concerning decent work for domestic workers.
In this regard, the Committee recalls the importance of taking effective action to ensure that the system of employment of migrant domestic workers does not place the workers concerned in a situation of increased vulnerability, particularly when they are subjected to abusive employer practices, such as retention of passports, non-payment of wages, deprivation of liberty, and physical and sexual abuses. Such practices might cause their employment to be transformed into situations that could amount to forced labour. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in law and in practice, to ensure that migrant domestic workers are fully protected from abusive practices and conditions that amount to the exaction of forced labour. In this regard, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the draft Bill on Domestic Workers will be in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and will be adopted in the very near future. Pending its adoption, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft Bill on Domestic Workers to the Office.

2. Access to justice and law enforcement

(i) Access to the complaints mechanism

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions adopted in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to facilitate access to the justice system for migrant workers, including providing them with assistance with language and translation, the elimination of fees and charges related to bringing a claim, and disseminating information about the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. It also requested that these cases be processed expeditiously.
The Committee notes that in its 2015 observations, the ITUC refers to the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers which highlights obstacles to access justice of migrant workers, especially in the construction industry or domestic service. These obstacles include language as a barrier to getting information and registering a complaint. Migrant workers also very frequently fear the police, institutions and retaliation from their employers.
The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs has played an important role in awareness raising. For instance, it makes field visits to large companies where it meets workers at their workplaces and at their homes so as to inform them of their rights and obligations as well as receive any complaint or observations they may have so as to remedy them without delay. Furthermore, the Ministry has held information symposia intended for employers and workers so as to raise their awareness of their rights and obligations. It has also ensured the translation into five languages, printing and distribution of newsletters, and the distribution of the Migrant Workers’ Manual among workers and the labour sending embassies. The Ministry also launched the Best Communication Programme in 2014 in collaboration with the Ministry of Transport and Communications in order to achieve a comprehensive digital strategy. The first phase of the programme was completed successfully in partnership with government bodies and civil society. Over 100 such centres are now operational in the country. The programme seeks to enable employers to provide tools of information technology, communications and the Internet at workers’ temporary accommodation where workers are trained by volunteers in basic computer skills in order to enable them to access key work-related rights and other information in different languages, and to familiarize themselves with the use of ATMs and money transfer options with a view to ensuring the safe withdrawal and handling of wages.
In addition, the National Human Rights Committee, as well as the Human Rights Department and the Search and Follow-Up Department at the Ministry of the Interior and the Labour Relations Department at the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs help expatriate workers to submit their grievances, as well as process their complaints. In this regard, the Government provides statistics on the number of complaints submitted, the types of complaints as well as their outcome in 2014, 2015 and the first half of 2016:
  • -Complaints in 2014: 9,401 complaints were submitted by workers against employers to the Labour Relations Department at the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs. 6,787 complaints were settled which represents 72.19 per cent through settlement agreements between workers and employers. Some 1,822 complaints were shelved,  2 representing 19.38 per cent. Some 782 complaints were referred to court, which represents 8.32 per cent.
  • -Complaints in 2015: 6,111 complaints were submitted to the Labour Relations Department. 4,176 were settled which represents 68.3 per cent through settlement agreements between workers and employers. 1,313 complaints were shelved, representing 21.5 per cent. 614 complaints were referred to the courts, representing 10 per cent.
  • -Complaints from 1 January 2016–31 July 2016: 2,407 complaints were submitted to the Labour Relations Department. Some 1,312 were settled which represents 54.5 per cent through settlement agreements between workers and employers. Some 731 complaints were shelved, representing 30.4 per cent. 362 complaints were referred to the courts, representing 15 per cent.
While noting the above information, the Committee also notes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that the tripartite delegation recognized that the various initiatives taken by the Government can contribute to making the complaints system more accessible to migrant workers. At the same time, the tripartite delegation learned that large numbers of migrant workers, especially those working in small companies who are subcontracted by larger companies, as well as workers of manpower companies, do not in practice access these complaints mechanisms and some are not even aware of their existence. The tripartite delegation was therefore of the view that these initiatives should be complemented by a range of actions, including awareness-raising measures developed and implemented in collaboration with representatives of migrant communities, to sensitize the most vulnerable migrant workers with a view to closing the operational gaps between these mechanisms and the persons that should be using them (paragraph 58 of the Report).
The Committee strongly encourages the Government to continue to take measures to improve the functioning of the available complaints mechanisms so that migrant workers, especially the most vulnerable migrant workers, can have rapid and effective access to these mechanisms with a view to enabling them, in practice, to approach the competent authorities and seek redress in the event of a violation of their rights or abuse, without fear of reprisal. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to sensitize the general public and competent authorities on the issue of migrant workers subject to forced labour and to educate employers on their responsibilities and their obligations so that all the actors concerned might be able to identify cases of labour exploitation and to denounce them, and to protect the victims. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that victims receive psychological, medical and legal assistance, and to provide information on the number of persons receiving such assistance from shelters or other institutions as well as the number of shelters that exist for such purposes.

(ii) Monitoring mechanisms for infringements of the labour legislation

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee urged the Government to continue to hire additional labour inspectors and increase material resources available to them necessary to carry out labour inspections, in particular in workplaces where migrant workers are employed.
The Committee notes the detailed information in the Government’s report on the measures taken to strengthen the labour inspection services, as well as to increase the number of labour inspectors, on the total number of labour inspection visits carried out, on the number of judicial proceedings and sentences concerning wage arrears, holiday pay and overtime. The Committee underlines the important role of labour inspection in enforcing the labour rights of migrant workers and strongly encourages the Government to continue strengthening mechanisms monitoring the working conditions of migrant workers and to ensure that penalties are effectively applied for the infringements registered. In this regard, it requests the Government to refer to its detailed comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

(iii) Imposition of penalties

The Committee had previously asked the Government to provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated and the penalties applied to employers who impose forced labour. The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee urged the Government to ensure that the penalties applicable under law for serious exploitation of workers, including the crime of forced labour as specified in the Penal Code, and penalties for violations of the Labour Law are adequate, and that these laws are effectively enforced. The Committee notes that in its 2015 observations, the ITUC refers to the 2014 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers according to which prosecution services are influenced by high-level persons and powerful businesses and have complete discretion as to whether cases are pursued. The Special Rapporteur also noted significant allegations of impartiality and bias by judges including allegations of discrimination against migrants in favour of Qataris. According to the ITUC, guaranteeing the effective enforcement of penalties for forced labour would be assisted by judicial reform of the type recommended by the Special Rapporteur.
The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that article 130 of the Constitution recognizes that the judicial authority shall be independent and shall be vested in the courts which shall make their judgments according to the law. Moreover, the Public Prosecution is an independent and impartial judicial authority which is responsible for the investigation of most complaints and verifies the sound enforcement of the law. The Government points out that the State has set up workers’ circuits within the structure of the labour relations department specialized in examining workers’ lawsuits. Four workers’ circuits will be added to the current ones. They will be based in the Ministry of Administrative Development, Labour and Social Affairs, whose aim is to help workers to initiate their lawsuits before the courts, which will help expedite the procedures, as well as take quick decisions in their respect. Two more workers’ circuits specialized in implementing the provisions related to workers’ issues will also be added to ensure that workers obtain without delay their rights, after the judgments have been handed down. An office affiliated to the Ministry has also been set up in the State’s tribunals. Its aim is to help workers who would like to initiate legal proceedings to obtain their rights, free of charge. In this case, workers do not assume any expenses or fees for the lawsuits submitted by them before the courts. The office is also equipped with qualified staff and translators who are proficient in the workers’ most prevalent languages so as to communicate with them, irrespective of their nationalities and languages.
In this regard, the Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government on workers’ lawsuits as well as judgments handed down. In 2014, the workers’ circuit (full bench) at the court handed down 603 judgments in workers’ lawsuits which were before it with 231 lawsuits withdrawn. Meanwhile, there are 1,478 lawsuits which are under deliberation at the court’s sessions. The workers’ circuit (partial bench) also handed down 1,513 judgments in workers’ lawsuits which were before it and 2,364 lawsuits were annulled.  3 Meanwhile, there are 5,400 lawsuits being discussed at the court’s sessions. In 2015, the workers’ circuit (full bench) at the court handed down 793 judgments in workers’ lawsuits which were before it with 222 lawsuits withdrawn. Meanwhile, there are 1,607 lawsuits which are under deliberation at the court’s sessions. The workers’ circuit (partial bench) also handed down 1,219 judgments in workers’ lawsuits which were before it. Moreover, 3,556 lawsuits were annulled. At present, there are 6,772 lawsuits which are before the court’s sessions.
The Committee notes that a certain number of judgments were handed down in 2014, 2015 and the first quarter of 2016 pursuant to workers filing lawsuits. However, it notes an absence of information on the outcome of these judicial decisions and whether penalties of fines and/or imprisonment were imposed subsequently.
The Committee also observes from the report of the high-level tripartite visit to Qatar of March 2016 that the tripartite delegation had the opportunity to meet with several groups of migrant workers, mostly of Philippine and Nepalese origin including those in the Sailiya Workers’ Accommodation which is housing thousands of workers working for small companies who are subcontracted by larger companies, as well as for workers of manpower companies (a company that sponsors a large number of workers and then contracts these workers out to other companies). Concerns raised by migrant workers related to the payment of wages (non-payment, late payment and/or reduction of agreed wages), passport confiscation, long hours of work, refusal by employers to give a no-objection certificate to workers (even after their contract had expired), the non-renewal of their identity cards by the employer and difficulty in transferring sponsorship. They indicated that the complaints process was not easily accessible and that courts’ processes were lengthy. Some workers had faced retaliation by their employers after filing complaints, including one who was sent to the deportation centre after the employer filed a criminal complaint against her.
The tripartite delegation spoke with several workers who had filed complaints to the labour courts or to the High Court where decisions were pending for several months, often because the employer was not present during the proceedings. These workers had been waiting for a decision for several months for their salaries to be paid and for their passports to be returned so that they could return home, relying on their community solidarity as they are left with no income (paragraph 43 of the Report).
While noting that victims of forced labour have access to justice, the Committee considers that any act of retaliation for accessing justice mechanisms must be swiftly sanctioned and workers provided a full and effective remedy. Moreover, underlining the importance of effective and dissuasive penalties being applied in practice to those who impose forced labour practices, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that thorough investigations and robust prosecutions of those suspected of exploitation are carried out and that in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention, effective and dissuasive penalties are actually applied to persons who impose forced labour on migrant workers, especially the most vulnerable migrant workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the judicial proceedings instigated as well as the number of judgments handed down in this regard. Lastly, it requests the Government to provide concrete information on the actual penalties applied, indicating the number of cases in which fines were imposed, the number of cases in which sentences of imprisonment were imposed as well as the time served.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

End Note

  1. 1 - The report of the high-level tripartite visit is contained in Appendix II to GB.326/INS/8(Rev.).
  2. 2 - “shelved” means that both parties did not follow up on the complaint with the Department or that the complainant was not entitled as a result of his/her complaint.
  3. 3 - The annulment of a lawsuit does not mean it has been deleted and the resulting legal consequences have been removed. It means that it has been taken off the list of lawsuits, without a final decision taken thereon. However, the lawsuit will remain pending the adoption of procedures for the renewal of its examination.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer