Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1992, publiée 79ème session CIT (1992)

1. The Committee has taken note of the detailed information supplied by the Government in its report and in particular the statistics concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Articles 65 and 66, of the Convention (in conjunction with Articles 56 and 62).

2. Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Article 24 (in conjunction with Article 69(f)). In response to the Committee's previous comments concerning the practical application of section 14, subsection 1(b), of the Act of 1 June 1987 codifying the unemployment legislation, which provides that no unemployment benefit shall be due in the event of dismissal of the insured person on "serious grounds" (that is to say, any action or misconduct which makes the labour relationship immediately and definitively impossible), the Government has supplied a copy of certain judicial decisions in which the seriousness of the grounds relied upon warranted summary dismissal.

The Committee has taken note with interest of these decisions. It has learned from one of the judgements that habitual absenteeism for health reasons may, according to a consistent body of judicial decisions, constitute grounds for rescission of the labour contract under certain conditions irrespective of any misconduct on the part of the worker. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, in such a case, cancellation of the contract also leads to suspension of unemployment benefit: a situation that would conflict with Article 69(f), which authorises suspension of the benefit only in a case of wilful misconduct. Furthermore, the Committee has noted from another of these judgements that, where a wage-earner is unable to work owing to sickness or an accident, failure to notify his employer the same day and to produce a medical certificate to him within three days in accordance with section 35, subsections 1 and 2, of the Act of 24 May 1989 on the labour contract may afford grounds for his immediate dismissal. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether such an omission also leads to suspension of unemployment benefit when it is proved that the omission was not the worker's fault, otherwise than in the case prescribed in subsection 4(2) of the said section 35 in which the worker is admitted to hospital.