Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2002, Publicación: 91ª reunión CIT (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s reports. In its previous comments, it noted that a draft Labour Code was being prepared and that a copy thereof would be provided by the Government as soon as adopted by the competent authority. The Committee would appreciate receiving information in this connection.

1. Article 2(1) of the Convention. Domestic workers and similar categories. The Committee refers to its earlier comments concerning the conditions under which domestic servants can leave their employment (in particular their freedom to terminate employment) and their possibility to have recourse to courts if necessary.

The Committee noted that the contract concluded between the employer and the domestic servant is subject to the provisions of civil law and that conflicts are settled by civil courts. It notes from the Government’s 2000 report the information concerning the establishment of an independent administration at the Ministry of Interior to which is entrusted the supervision of domestic service agencies. The latter are required to pay a deposit worth 5,000 Kuwaiti dinars at one of the local banks in the Ministry’s account for the repatriation of a domestic worker in specific cases instead of him/her assuming the travel costs.

The Committee had previously asked the Government to indicate whether it was possible to derogate from the model contract attached to Ordinance No. 617 of 1992 on domestic service agencies. In its reply, the Government indicates that nothing prevents either party from amending the terms of the contract if there were more advantageous terms for the domestic worker. The Committee again asks the Government to supply sample copies of such contracts.

The Committee had also asked the Government to indicate whether the procedures before the civil courts were ordinary procedures or if there existed simplified procedures and to give examples of cases brought to the civil courts. It notes the Government’s indication in its 2000 report that, in the private sector, it is better to resort to civil courts rather than to apply the Labour Code provisions as the former are competent in examining conflicts relating to the rights of domestic workers. The Government also indicates that the Ministry of Justice has provided a sufficient number of officers who are responsible for drafting proceedings to be instituted by plaintiffs, at no cost. The Committee again asks the Government to give examples of cases brought to the civil courts.

The Committee noted in its previous comments that the Labour Code currently in force excludes domestic workers and that, pursuant to section 5 of the draft Labour Code, the competent Minister would make an order specifying the rules governing the relationship between domestic servants and employees regarded as such by their employers. It had asked the Government to provide any ministerial order or any other legislative text to specify the rules governing the relationship between domestic workers and their employers. Having received no information in this connection, the Committee repeats its previous request on this point.

2. Article 25. The Committee had noted that the legislation does not contain any specific provision under which the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour is punishable as a penal offence, and invited the Government to take the necessary measures, for example by introducing a new provision to that effect in the legislation, and to provide information on any measures taken. The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government refers to section 49 of Law No. 31 of 1970 amending a few provisions of the Penal Code. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government’s report, the abovementioned section provides that "any public official, employee, or worker employing by force workers in work for the State or for any public body, or retains part or the whole of their wages without justification shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years, and to a maximum fine of 225 dinars or by either of these two penalties". The Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the abovementioned Law and to indicate whether similar provisions exist in the private sector. In case such provisions do not exist, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to introduce a new provision to that effect in its legislation.

3. Reply to the general observation of 2000. The Committee notes that in reply to its general observation made in 2000 respecting the measures taken or contemplated to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons for the purpose of exploitation, the Government refers to the provisions of the Labour Code and the Penal Code that prohibit and punish the use of forced or compulsory labour. It also notes the Government’s statement that the victims of forced labour have the right to refer to the authorities, though without them being allowed to stay in the country during the civil action unless their legal residence allows them to do so. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures it intends to take, if any, to allow the victims of forced labour to stay in the country at least for the duration of court proceedings.

The Committee also addresses a direct request to the Government on another point.