Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 1995, Publicación: 82ª reunión CIT (1995)

1. For a number of years the Committee has been referring to the conditions imposed by Legislative Decree No. 150 of 1981, under which (section 44(d)) the right to unemployment benefit is lost if the unemployed person refuses to carry out the relief work for the community provided for by section 43 of the Decree. The right to the benefit is subject to the payment of contributions for 52 weeks or 12 months over the two years prior to the date of the termination of employment.

On several occasions, the Committee has observed that the loss of the right to benefit under these conditions is equivalent to a penalty within the meaning of the Convention and it requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the Convention in this respect. In its last report, the Government stated that workers who have lost their job for reasons outside their control are entitled to the benefit without having to comply with the requirements of sections 43 and 44 of the above Decree and that these provisions have never been applied. In its previous report, the Government stated that it would consider the desirability of an explicit waiver to the above provisions, which were not given effect in practice.

The Committee notes that in the general report supplied in December 1994, with regard to the application of the Unemployment Convention, 1919 (No. 2), the Government stated that unemployment benefit is provided in accordance with the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 150 of 1981.

The Committee considers it necessary to emphasize the advantage in terms of clarifying the legal situation of repealing sections 43 and 44 of Decree No. 150 which, according to the Government, continues to be applied.

The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to indicate in its next report that the above provisions have been repealed, thereby ensuring compliance with the Convention on this point.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the provisions relating to termination of the professional career of members of the armed forces laid down in Legislative Decree No. 1 of 1968 and in the Organic Act respecting the armed forces. In its previous direct request, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the conditions under which resignations tendered by members of the armed forces must be accepted (section 58 of the Organic Act respecting the armed forces).

The Committee notes that Decree No. 204, issuing supplementary regulations under Legislative Decree No. 1, provides in section 553 that staff may be retained for up to five years from their return to the national territory, completion of a course or the period during which an individual is needed for a specific function in the case of members of the armed forces who have studied abroad for more than nine months, followed specialization courses in the country of at least one year's duration or acquired qualifications as a polytechnic military engineering or in a specialization related to the navy or the air force. Once this period has elapsed, the corresponding authority has to accept the resignation.

The Committee notes the lack of proportionality between the duration of the training and the period for which members of the armed forces can be retained, and requests the Government to indicate whether the above regulations provide for the possibility of the proportional reimbursement of the training received as a means of terminating the service relationship.

3. In previous comments, the Committee has referred to sections 305 and 306 of the Penal Code, under which "all persons who have no fixed address or means of subsistence, who do not habitually practice any lawful profession, job or occupation and who have the capacity to work are vagrants" (section 305). Under section 306, vagrants are liable to minimum sentences of ordinary imprisonment and are placed under the supervision of the authorities.

The Committee notes with interest that Title I and section 61, 64, 65 and 67 of Act No. 11625 on anti-social situations and security measures have been repealed by Act No. 19313 of July 1994 and it requests the Government to inform it of the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to repeal or amend sections 305 and 306 of the Penal Code so as to ensure that the only persons who are liable to a penalty are those who, in addition to refusing to exercise a profession or job, commit acts which disturb the law and order.