Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2005, publiée 95ème session CIT (2006)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It notes with interest that Act No. 19.591 of 1998 has extended to domestic workers (trabajadoras de casa particular) the protection against dismissal laid down by the Labour Code applicable during pregnancy and until expiry of a period of one year from the end of maternity leave. The Committee also notes with interest the Government’s indication that, in 2003, the Contraloría General de la República considered that the rules of the Labour Code concerning maternity protection are applicable to all women employed in state service, regardless of the statutory system to which they are affiliated.

The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that section 30, paragraphs 2 and 4, of Act No. 18.469 of 1985 does not provide full application of this provision of the Convention. In fact, section 30 establishes the State’s participation rate in the cost of medical care during confinement at 75 per cent for beneficiaries whose income exceeds a certain amount (categories C and D), whereas the Convention guarantees ipso jure, for all women within its scope fulfilling the required conditions, free medical benefits including prenatal, confinement and postnatal care. In its latest report, the Government states that Ministry of Health resolution No. 1.717 of 1985, as modified, has increased the percentage financed by the State for categories C and D to 90 and 80 per cent respectively. While noting this information with interest, the Committee is bound to urge the Government to re-examine the matter in order to ensure, in conformity with the Convention, that free medical benefits for confinement are available to all women within its scope, regardless of their income level. The Committee also requests the Government to supply with its next report a copy of resolution No. 1.717 referred to above.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that an insured person who opts for the institutional system chooses to receive care in the public health system establishments. The Committee understands, in the light of this information, that in the public system insured persons have freedom of choice of doctor and hospital among those affiliated to the system. The Committee requests the Government to specify in its next report if this is in fact the case and to indicate the relevant legislation or regulations. The Committee recalls that the purpose of this provision of the Convention is to guarantee, inter alia, the principle of freedom of choice of the doctor and medical establishment by insured persons.

Article 4, paragraph 5. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are no assistance benefits in cash for women who fail to qualify as a matter of right for cash benefits (section 4 of DFL No. 44 of 1978). The Committee recalls that under this provision of the Convention, women who fail to qualify for benefits as a matter of right shall be entitled to adequate benefits out of social assistance funds, subject to the means test required for social assistance. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the application of this provision of the Convention for women who, since they do not fulfil the requirement of six months’ affiliation and of three months’ contributions during the prescribed period, are not entitled to cash benefits.