Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

The Government supplied the following information:

At the request of the Committee of Experts, the Government submitted resolution No. 1 of 5 January 1993 passed by the Minister, President of the State Labour and Social Security Committee after having consulted trade union organizations throughout the country. This resolution repealed resolution No. 590 of 1980, which had been the subject of an observation by the Committee of Experts. It emphasized that resolution No. 1, in addition to repealing the previous resolution, provided improved details on this matter, removing from the labour records the lists of merits and demerits of workers that were recorded in accordance with repealed resolution No. 590 of 1980.

It also recalled that in the written information presented by the Government at the 79th Session of the International Labour Conference there was included as an appendix the text of section 82 of the Draft Regulation on Employment Policy, with an example of the new form of labour record setting out its current content, in which it was stressed that the list of merits and demerits instituted by the repealed resolution No. 590 of 1980 was not a part of such record.

With regard to the penultimate paragraph of the observation of the Committee of Experts, the criteria already stated were repeated with regard to the non-existence in the country of any form of forced labour within the terms of the Convention. The work day was clearly limited under the Labour Code. No worker was forced, either by the legislation or in daily practice, to work beyond the work day established in his workplace, nor was any type of pressure exerted on workers to carry out voluntary labour. The rights of workers were established in the labour legislation with the guarantees that were necessary for them to be exercised, without the conditions invoked by some worker or employer members with regard to voluntary labour.

In addition, a Government representative stated that she did not understand why the Committee of Experts had reiterated the observations made in 1991 on the basis of the evidence of poor credibility provided by the biased persons who were not really concerned with human rights. The Government had already submitted oral and written replies and five investigations had been carried out on the different cases in Cuba. Without presenting any new elements it was declared that the consideration of this case should continue on the basis of resolution No. 590 of 1980 and the allegations that Cuban workers were under pressure to exercise voluntary labour. In its written replies submitted to the ILO, the Government indicated that resoluton No. 590 of 1980, which referred to the lists of merits and demerits, had been repealed by resolution No. 1 of 1993, a copy of which had been provided. This amounted to more than a formal repeal because the lists of merits and demerits would be taken out of the labour records of workers. This demonstrated the Government's engagement to eliminate from the labour legislation any ambiguous provision which could be misinterpreted and exploited for political purposes. The Labour Code laid down very precise conditions as to the working day, leisure time, vacations, in conformity with ratified Conventions. The workers were not subjected to any form of pressure.

The Workers' members, recalling the discussion in this Committee in 1992 and the requests formulated by the Committee of Experts, took note of the oral and written information supplied by the Government. The repeal of resolution No. 590 of 1980 constituted a first step to ensure that there was no implicit pressure on the workers to accept voluntary labour. It was therefore appropriate to follow developments in the situation, as was in fact requested by the Committee of Experts.

The Employers' members associated themselves with the declaration of the Workers' members. As the system of merits and demerits existed in Cuba for some time, it may in fact be systemic even without the resolution No. 590 of 1980. Some follow-up was required here to determine whether in fact the repeal of this resolution was really meaningful. The Government should provide information as to what was being done to assure that employers were not keeping informal records that would relate to transfers and promotions and other benefits due to workers.

The Workers' member of the United States, joining with the statements of the Workers' and the Employers' members, declared that the repeal of resolution No. 590 of 1980 was but a first step. The question was to know whether, beyond the formal action taken, there existed some underlying systemic problems. Certain rights, privileges and advantages, whether or not job related, were assigned by the degree to which a worker was willing to do compulsory, unpaid overtime work. The official sources indicated that an impressive number of workers had worked overtime. The Government asserted that no worker was punished, harassed or deprived of any right for failure to volunteer and confirmed the changes in law. The change in practice was needed on a par with the changes in law and the Government should provide information required to confirm its intention to respect the Convention.

The Workers' member of Cuba declared that Cuban workers had accepted the repeal of resolution No. 590 of 1980 and the elimination of the list of merits and demerits from the labour records. The voluntary labour was eminently voluntary in nature which had its origin in the social conscience and in the spirit of solidarity of the workers' collective who voluntarily undertook to contribute to the construction of social works for the benefit of the workers themselves. This voluntary work, which contributed to the solution of social problems, was supported by the unions and did not include any aspect of coercion.

The Government representative recalled that provisions concerning the working day, overtime and the workers' rights were contained in the Labour Code and workers could have recourse to the tribunals against violation of their rights. The decision to repeal the resolution was based on the fact that the administration had no interest in supervising, directing or organizing any type of work which was over and beyond the standard working hours approved by the workers in each centre of work in accordance with the Labour Code. The files containing merits and demerits had not been utilized as an indirect form of pressure on the workers or for the acquisition of consumer goods. She expressed the hope that, with the repeal of the resolution, the Committee of Experts would close this matter which certain persons had misused for propagandistic and political purposes. A union recognised as trade union activity those workers who had demonstrated an attitude of solidarity, without this having any other significance.

The Workers' member of Paraguay, referring to the declarations that the work was essentially voluntary and did not contain any element of coercion, estimated that the situation should be studied in a profound manner and that the ILO should, with the agreement of the Government, carry out an investigation in the field to verify the validity of these allegations. It would not be justified to close the case without the necessary guarantees and legal and practical elements and without verifying the existence of a violation of the will of the Cuban workers to undertake this so called voluntary labour.

The Employers' member of Cuba stated that the voluntary labour was indeed voluntary and was carried out in dignity. It was carried out by the workers themselves in order to resolve their problems of housing, health and education.

The Committee took note of the oral and written information provided by the Government representative and of the discussion on the issues raised in the report of the Committee of Experts on voluntary labour. The Committee noted that the adoption of resolution No. 1 of 5 January 1993 which repealed resolution No. 590 of 11 December 1980 and provided for the elimination of the lists of merits and demerits of workers from the labour records was an important step in the solution of the problem in question. The Committee hoped that this first step would be followed in practice by new progress that would contribute to the complete elimination of any form of coercion involved in voluntary labour and that the Government would provide detailed information in this regard.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

A Government representative indicated that Chapter 3 of the Labour Code contained provisions in force on working hours and rests. The regulation on working days and overtime was very precise. The working hours were eight per day and 44 per week. Under the Labour Code, the workers were not obliged to work overtime and in the case in which overtime was permitted, daily or weekly limits were prescribed. On the legal point of view, voluntary work was recognised as the expression of the individual or collective social consciousness, but no worker was obliged either on legal grounds or on the viewpoint of government policy to perform the voluntary work. The voluntary work exercised by workers in Cuba was strictly voluntary, and nobody could be sanctioned, prosecuted or deprived of any rights for not performing voluntary work. The labour legislation contained a guarantee of necessary procedures to permit the worker to submit a complaint if he considered his right was hindered. The process of accumulating merits and demerits of the workers realised under the direction of trade unions by virtue of resolution No. 590 of 1980 was a way of recognition and moral stimulation of workers who accomplished the voluntary work, and was not an indirect form of compulsion to work in terms of the Convention. This procedure had been for a few months the object of consultations with the workers' and employers' organisations concerned, and a draft resolution which would repeal resolution No. 590 of 1980 was about to be adopted; this draft resolution also provided for the elimination of work books and records of merit and demerit which had been accumulated under the resolution. Workers' rights depended on regulation in the Labour Code and supplementary legislation; no provision conditioned the exercise of rights upon the accomplishment of voluntary work.

The Workers' members stated that they would have appreciated more information from the Government representative whether, as noted in the report of the Committee of Experts, resolution No. 590 of 1980 was still in the process of being examined with a view to making the necessary amendments in the light of the particular circumstances of the country. Nobody argues against voluntary work; many people in many countries devote an enormous amount of time and effort, for example, to charitable work without pay. The voluntary work in Cuba appears to be different from such voluntary work; it is enshrined in the Labour Code; there are work books of merit, although it has been argued nobody takes any account of them. If the records exist, either expressly or implicitly, for the purpose of awarding a promotion, or other privileges, trips, access to goods and materials which other people cannot obtain, it would bring the situation into contravention of Convention No. 29. The Workers' members expressed a fear that the emphasis upon voluntary labour, and the amount of voluntary labour undertaken, seemed to imply that there was a measure of compulsion somewhere or other. If the Government could eliminate from its laws references to voluntary work that would be a start. Then the next stage would be to ensure that there was not tacit or implied pressure on workers to perform this function. The Workers' members expressed their concern about the references to voluntary work, and the establishment of quotas for voluntary work, which seemed to imply a situation slightly different from what was conveyed by the Government, both in its reply noted by the Committee of Experts and in the statement by the Government representative today.

The Employers' members fully associated themselves with the Workers' members. The issue here is the question of voluntary labour and it seems that the Government representative, in her own way, essentially acknowledged that there is a problem in Cuba with respect to this issue because the Government is going to make some amendments to resolution No. 590 as regards the registers of workers who participate or fail to participate in "voluntary" labour. If these registers are maintained, there is an implicit, if not explicit, compulsory labour in Cuba, particularly because the annual assemblies consider the reports of trade unions on this subject. The Convention defines forced or compulsory labour as "all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily". When registers are kept on participation in voluntary labour programmes, the persons concerned seem to be under the menace of some kind of penalty to the extent that they may be deprived of some right or of some privilege if they failed to participate in the programme. Article 9(c) of the Convention citing the conditions under which forced or compulsory labour may be exacted, provides that the authorities have to satisfy themselves in the first place "that it has been impossible to obtain voluntary labour for carrying out the work or rendering the service by the offer of rates of wages and conditions of labour not less favourable than those prevailing in the area concerned for similar work or service". That, in the context of the Convention, is what voluntary labour is meant to mean. The Employers were surprised that the Experts did not see this as a case under Convention No. 105 as well, particularly when the CTC acknowledges that voluntary work benefits economic and social development. But that is not before this Committee now. It is therefore clear that there is a fundamental problem in Cuba with respect to voluntary labour which cannot be viewed as anything less than forced labour; at the very least the existing registers should be abolished in law and in practice. The Government should be invited to supply a complete report on the situation in this respect indicating in detail how this system of registers functions, explaining how merits and demerits are determined, as well as giving all other pertinent information in order that the Committee could once again examine the case next year in full knowledge of the facts.

Another Government representative, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, stated that sufficient information had been presented to the Conference Committee to show that there is no legislation which establishes voluntary labour. As it seemed that some form of suspicion exists in this respect, judging from the statements made by the Workers' members in particular, the speaker had to reaffirm without any ambiguity that in Cuba there is no form of voluntary labour which is regulated by legislation, nor is it exercised under the pressure of anybody: the voluntary work is done on a voluntary basis. In regard of resolution No. 590 the Government had two reasons for amending it: first, because although it had been modified in 1980, it was adopted 15 years ago, and secondly, because well-intentioned persons could make a link with voluntary labour. His Government had their own methods of providing incentives for efficient and productive labourers and what had been insinuated by the Workers' spokesman could not be accepted. If one continues to represent voluntary labour as a form of forced labour, one runs the risk that one day his Government will be accused, here, of imposing forced labour by the fact that hundreds and perhaps thousands of youth coming from other countries, including the United States, are organised into brigades to perform voluntary labour in Cuba, joining in work with Cuban youth and workers in a gesture of solidarity which the Government appreciated. It is moreover necessary to clearly reaffirm that no-one is forced to work voluntarily in Cuba. Cubans, and notably workers, are freedom-loving and they would not accept any form of constraint

After the discussion on the wording of the conclusions of the Committee and, in particular, on the question of whether they reflected the content of the discussion on the Convention - in which participated two Government representatives of Cuba, Employers' members, Workers' members and the Workers' member of Chile - the Committee adopted its conclusions.

The Government representative requested that the reservation of her Government on this conclusion be reflected.

The Committee noted the information given by the Government, explaining what it called allegations, that no forced labour exists in Cuba. The Committee, however, felt the response of the Government to the observations of the Committee of Experts not satisfactory. It therefore asked the Government to send the full report at its earliest convenience to the ILO and decided to review the situation at its next session.

The Government representative requested that the reservation of her Government on this conclusion be reflected.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) in a communication dated 10 July 2006, as well as the message of the Cuban Workers’ Central of 11 September 2006, transmitted by the World Federation of Trade Unions in a communication dated 14 November 2006. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply, dated 26 October 2006.

In their comments, the ICFTU and the WCL allege that, according to information received from the Unitary Council of Cuban Workers, a workers’ organization affiliated to the WCL, Cuban workers are legally obliged to participate in workdays outside their occupation as section 16(c) and (e) of the Labour Code empowers the Cuban Workers’ Central to organize voluntary work that is necessary to improve economic efficiency in general and to increase production and productivity.

The Committee notes that in its communication the Cuban Workers’ Central indicates that the Unitary Council of Cuban Workers is not a trade union and that no worker has her or his rights withdrawn for not participating in voluntary workdays. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in its reply to the comments of the ICFTU–WCL. According to the Government, socially useful work is strictly voluntary in nature and no worker is penalized for not participating in any voluntary work organized in the country.

The Committee observes that section 16(e) of the Labour Code refers to the organization of voluntary work. In these circumstances, allegations of forced labour practices in disregard of the legally established criteria of the voluntary nature of work would have to be supported by facts allowing the Committee to assess the application of the above provision in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide practical information on the organization of the voluntary work envisaged in the Labour Code, with an indication of its volume, including the number of workers, the hours of worked and frequency of the work; arrangements, including the manner of request and rights of refusal; and any other information enabling it to ascertain the voluntary nature of this practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

In its 1992 direct request the Committee referred to section 73(2) of the Penal Code, under which persons who live as social parasites on the work of others are considered to be in a dangerous condition by reason of anti-social behaviour, and may be subject to security measures (section 76(2)). The Committee also noted that the security measures applying to anti-social persons are rehabilitation measures (section 80(2)), namely, internment in a specialized work or educational establishment (section 81(a)) or assignment to a labour collective (section 80(1)(b)); the duration of these measures is a minimum of one year and a maximum of four years (section 80(3)).

In order that the Committee could ascertain the practical scope of section 73(2), it asked the Government to provide a copy of any court decisions handed down under the above-mentioned provisions.

The Committee noted from the Government's indication in the report for the period ending 30 June 1991 that the Government had administrative difficulties in locating and obtaining copies of such decisions but that they would be forwarded as soon as possible.

The Committee asks the Government to provide the texts requested.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the discussion that took place at the Conference Committee.

The Committee notes with satisfaction that Resolution No. 590 of 11 December 1980, which provided for inclusion in workers' labour records of their accumulated merits awarded, amongst other things, for two categories of voluntary work, namely participation in permanent activities and in voluntary labour organized by the trade union, has been repealed by Resolution No. 1 of 5 January 1993 provided by the Government with its report in October 1993.

The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the applicatiin in practice of article 3 of resolution No. 1 of 5 January 1993 according to which the procedure to be followed for the recognition of the workers' merits will be continued by the trade union movement through its own methods of work in conformity with its statutes and regulations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes that, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee decided in 1992 to re-examine the problems relating to the application of the Convention at its next session.

The Committee notes the Government's report and the discussion in the Conference Committee.

The Committee referred in its previous observation to the allegations made in January 1991 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), according to which:

The system known in the country as voluntary labour is, in practice, forced labour under the terms of the Convention, since refusal to do such labour results in the loss of certain rights, benefits and privileges. In its comments the ICFTU describes this system as follows: the "quotas" for voluntary labour are formally adopted at the workers' assembly of each enterprise, although in practice they are predetermined by the trade unions, which are responsible for organizing voluntary labour. Once the quota has been established, managers of enterprises prepare lists of the workers who are to perform the work; 120 hours of voluntary labour give entitlement to a certificate while, in contrast, in the event of repeated unjustified absences the worker is described as "counter-revolutionary".

The trade union organization also refers to resolution No. 590 of 1980 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which establishes merits for two categories of voluntary work, namely participation in permanent activities (sugar harvest, housing construction, microbrigades) and in voluntary labour organized by the trade union (section 5(e) and (f)). Annual assemblies to consider merits and demerits discuss the report of the trade union chapter on the merits achieved by the workers, which include participation in voluntary work, and propose their inclusion in the labour record ("expediente laboral") (section 3).

The ICFTU alleges that certain benefits, rights and privileges, such as promotion, transfer, access to new employment, the acquisition of certain consumer goods, housing or participation in university programmes, depend on the merits that have been accumulated and noted in the worker's work book.

In its reply to the ICFTU's allegations, the Government stated that voluntary work in Cuba is strictly voluntary and that no-one can be punished, harassed or deprived of any right for not participating in it.

With regard to resolution No. 590 of 1980, which establishes inclusion in the work book of the merits accumulated by the workers, the Government states that this practice reflects the encouragement and recognition given to individuals by all the workers and has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights guaranteed equally to all workers.

The Committee also noted that resolution No. 590 of 1980 was in the process of being examined with a view to making the necessary amendments in the light of the particular circumstances of the country.

The Committee notes the concern expressed by the Worker members in the discussion in the Conference Committee with regard to the volume and emphasis placed on voluntary work and the establishment of quotas, which appear to imply a measure of compulsion. In their opinion, the elimination of references to voluntary work in the law would be a first step towards guaranteeing that there was no implied pressure on workers to perform voluntary work. The Employer members emphasized that the existence of work books in which voluntary work was registered and the annual assemblies which considered the reports of trade union chapters concerning merits proved the existence of compulsory labour, and they expressed the wish that the Government should supply information on the operation of the system of work books.

The Committee notes the information supplied orally by the Government representatives to the Conference Committee and in written form in the Government's last report, according to which the draft resolution to repeal resolution No. 590 of 1980, which provides for the registration in the work book of merits, is still under consultation with the trade union organizations and will be adopted soon. Furthermore, the Government states that the new regulations on employment policy have also been submitted for consultations; these regulations do not contain provisions for controlling the registration of merits, through which the voluntary work performed by the worker was reflected. The Government states that "this information has been given to avoid erroneous interpretations relating to voluntary work and as an expression of the will of the Government to ensure that, if such work is performed, it is of a strictly voluntary nature".

The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the resolution to repeal resolution No. 590 of 1980 and the new regulations on employment policy when they have been adopted and to supply information on any other measure which is taken to ensure that the Convention is respected.

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

1. The Committee referred previously to section 73(2) of the Penal Code, under which persons who live as social parasites on the work of others are considered to be in a dangerous condition by reason of anti-social behaviour, and may be subject to security measures (section 76(2)). The Committee also noted that the security measures that are applicable to anti-social individuals are rehabilitation measures (section 80(2)), mainly: internment in a specialised work or educational establishment (section 80(1)(a)) or assignment to a labour collective (section 80(1)(b)); the duration of these measures is a minimum of one year and a maximum of four years (section 80(3)).

In order that the Committee could ascertain the practical scope of section 73(2), it requested the Government to provide a copy of any court decisions made in implementation of the above provisions.

The Committee notes that the Government has had administrative difficulties in locating and obtaining copies of such decisions but that they will be forwarded as soon as possible.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide the texts requested.

2. The Committee requested the Government to supply a copy of the Regulations governing the military service of officials, which are referred to in section 3 of the General Military Service Act (No. 1255), which relate to the termination of the service of career members of the armed forces.

The Committee notes the communication from the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, provided by the Government, which states that "the Regulations establish that officers who do not wish to continue serving in the Revolutionary Armed Forces may leave the forces by applying to do so".

The Committee observes that it has not been possible to examine the regulatory provisions concerning the termination of the service of members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces.

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

In its previous observation, the Committee asked the Government to comment on the allegations submitted in January 1991 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) (transmitted to the Government in February 1991) concerning the application of Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, in which the above organisation alleges that the system known in the country as voluntary labour is, in practice, forced labour under the terms of the Convention, since refusal to do such labour results in the loss of certain rights, benefits and privileges. It also indicates that the system of voluntary labour is widespread and growing. In its comments, the ICFTU describes this system as follows: the "quotas" for voluntary labour are formally adopted at the workers' assembly of each enterprise, although in practice they are predetermined by the trade unions, which are responsible for organising voluntary labour. Once the quota has been established, managers of enterprises prepare lists of the workers who are to perform it; 120 hours of voluntary labour give entitlement to a certificate while, in contrast, in the event of repeated unjustified absences the worker is described as "counter-revolutionary".

The ICFTU also refers to resolution No. 590 of 1980 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which establishes merits for two categories of voluntary work, namely participation in permanent activities (sugar harvest, housing construction, micro brigades) and in voluntary labour organised by the trade union (section 5(e) and (f)). Annual assemblies to consider merits and demerits discuss the report of the trade union chapter on the merits achieved by the workers, which include participation in voluntary work, and propose their inclusion in the labour record ("expediente laboral") (section 3).

The ICFTU alleges that certain benefits, rights and privileges, such as promotion, transfer, access to new employment, the acquisition of certain consumer goods, housing or participation in university programmes, depend on the merits that have been accumulated and noted in the worker's work book. It adds that persons who refuse to perform voluntary labour are subject to harassment and psychological abuse and that data on participation in voluntary labour are included in the "guía del informante" (informers guide) a document that is used by the state security police.

In its reply to the ICFTU's allegations, the Government states that voluntary work in Cuba is strictly voluntary and that no-one can be punished, harassed or deprived of any right for not participating in it. It states that voluntary work is recognised in the Constitution and the Labour Code not as a condition for the enjoyment of employment-related rights but as a means of forming the communist conscience of the people, of which it is the highest expression. It also refers to the various provisions in the national legislation on normal working hours and overtime.

With regard to resolution No. 590 of 1980 which establishes inclusion in the work book of the merits accumulated by the workers, the Government states that this practice reflects the encouragement and recognition given to individuals by all the workers and has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights guaranteed equally to all workers.

In this connection, the Committee observes that the ICFTU's allegations also refer to the burden, in terms of working hours, placed on the worker who has to perform voluntary labour in addition to a normal day's work and the repercussions that voluntary work has on the periods of rest guaranteed to workers in the labour legislation.

As regards the allegations concerning the loss of rights, advantages or privileges for avoidance of voluntary labour, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government and the Cuban Workers' Central (CTC), to the effect that work merits are not taken into account for access to a new job or a promotion, which are governed by resolution No. 18 of 1990.

The CTC also states that voluntary work in Cuba takes place in the strictest observance of the will of those performing it; it adds that the proposals on voluntary labour were adopted by a large majority in the various national congresses of the CTC. It indicates that voluntary labour is an effective means of speeding up both the completion of hospitals, schools, crèches, sports centres and workers' housing and economic and social development for the benefit of the masses. In addition, it quotes numerous examples of the achievements to which voluntary labour has contributed and refers to the incentives for workers with outstanding records in voluntary labour, which include the moral recognition of trade union assemblies, as well as days off in seaside resorts and rest houses, and holidays abroad.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that resolution No. 590 of 1980 is in the process of being examined with a view to making the necessary amendments in the light of the particular circumstances of the country.

The Committee asks the Government to continue to report on the matter and to provide a copy of the amended text of resolution No. 590 of 1980.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any other measures taken to ensure that the system of voluntary labour is genuinely voluntary, taking into account the volume of work involved, effects on observance of labour standards, supervision of the workers' participation and consequences of refusal and, more generally, to ensure that the system of voluntary labour cannot lead to a person being obliged to work by indirect forms of coercion.

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

The Committee notes the comments made on 31 January 1991 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) concerning the application of Convention No. 29. A copy of these comments was transmitted to the Government so that it could make the observations that it considered appropriate.

In its comments, the ICFTU alleges that the system known in the country as voluntary labour is, in practice, forced labour under the terms of the Convention, since refusal to do such labour results in the loss of certain rights, benefits and privileges. It also indicates that the system of voluntary labour is widespread and growing. In its comments, the ICFTU describes this system as follows: the "quotas" for voluntary labour are formally adopted at the workers' assembly of each enterprise, although in practice they are predetermined by the trade unions, which are responsible for organising voluntary labour. Once the quota has been established, managers of enterprises prepare lists of the workers who are to perform it; 120 hours of voluntary labour give entitlement to a certificate while, in contrast, in the event of repeated unjustified absences the worker is described as "counter-revolutionary".

The ICFTU also refers to resolution No. 590 of 1980 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which establishes merits for two categories of voluntary work, namely participation in permanent activities (sugar harvest, housing construction micro-brigades) and in voluntary labour organised by the trade union (section 5(e) and (f)). Annual Assemblies of Merits and Demerits discuss the report of the trade union chapter on the merits achieved by the workers, which include participation in voluntary work, and propose their inclusion in the labour record "expediente laboral" (section 3).

The ICFTU alleges that certain benefits, rights and privileges, such as promotion, transfer, access to new employment, the acquisition of certain consumer goods, housing or participation in university programmes, depend on the merits that have been accumulated and noted in the worker's labour record. It also adds that persons who refuse to perform voluntary labour are subject to harassment and psychological abuse and that data on participation in voluntary labour are included in the "guía del informante" (informer's guide), a document that is used by the state security police.

In its comments, the ICFTU also refers to the employment of conscripts and young persons in development work. It alleges that these persons are obliged to work on a regular and massive basis for economic objectives.

The Committee requests the Government to make its observations on the allegations submitted by the ICFTU.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. The Committee has referred previously to section 73(2) of the Penal Code, under which persons who live as social parasites on the work of others are considered to be in a dangerous condition by reason of anti-social behaviour, and may be subject to security measures (section 76(2)). The Committee also noted that the security measures that are applicable to anti-social individuals are rehabilitation measures (section 80(2)), namely: internment in a specialised work or educational establishment (section 80(1)(a)) or assignment to a labour collective (section 80(1)(b)); the duration of these measures is a minimum of one year and a maximum of four years (section 80(3)).

In order that the Committee could ascertain the practical scope of section 73(2), it requested the Government to provide a copy of any court decisions made in implementation of the above provisions.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report that the condition that determines anti-social behaviour is not abstaining from work but using the work of others as a means of subsistence. The Government adds that no sentences have been handed down under sections 73(2) and 76(2) of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes that, by being applicable to a person for the mere fact of living off the work of others, sections 73(2), 76(2) and 80 of the Penal Code appear to be applicable to persons undertaking a non-remunerated activity or who live off the freely provided assistance of the members of their family or their friends.

The Committee recalls that in paragraphs 45 to 48 of its General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour it indicated that laws which deal with the manner in which persons who do not work ensure their means of subsistence, which are not restricted in scope to unlawfully acquired income, give too extensive a definition of vagrancy and are liable to become a means of compulsion to work.

The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to give a more limited definition of vagrancy so that the imposition of penalties is confined to those who by begging, procuring or some other defined activity infringe upon the rights of others or disturb the public order.

2. In its previous direct request, the Committee requested the Government to supply a copy of the Regulations governing the military service of officials, which are referred to in section 3 of the General Military Service Act (No. 1255).

The Committee notes that, according to the Government's indications, the above Regulations cannot be communicated since they refer to internal matters of the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces.

The Committee requests the Government to supply only the provisions of the above Regulations which relate to the termination of the service of career members of the armed forces.

3. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the termination of the employment relationship of senior public employees.