ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2019, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Portugal (Ratification: 1956)
Protocole de 2014 relatif à la convention sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Portugal (Ratification: 2020)

Autre commentaire sur C029

Demande directe
  1. 2019
  2. 2017
  3. 2014
  4. 2013
  5. 2012
  6. 2009
  7. 2008
  8. 2005
  9. 1990

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP–IN) and the General Workers’ Union (UGT) communicated with the Government’s report.
Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Impact of refusal to perform socially necessary work on entitlement to unemployment benefit. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption by the Governing Body at its 327th Session (June 2016) of the recommendations of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation made by the National Federation of Unions of Workers in the Public and Social Services (FNSTFPS) against Portugal alleging non-observance of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). The Committee noted that the representation referred to the requirement for the unemployed to undertake socially necessary work under the penalty of losing their entitlement to unemployment benefits. It recalled, as observed by the tripartite committee, that the purpose of unemployment compensation schemes is to provide persons who have lost their jobs with income replacement for a certain period so that they can seek suitable and freely chosen employment. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide information on any consultations undertaken with the social partners with a view to evaluating all the terms and conditions for the implementation of employment insertion contracts (CEI), their effectiveness and impact, as suggested by the tripartite committee. It also requested information on the conditions for the implementation of CEIs, with an indication of the number of the unemployed receiving unemployment benefits who have been requested to undertake socially necessary work, the number who have refused and the reasons for their refusal, and the number whose entitlement to unemployment benefits has been suspended. In order to assess whether the requirement to perform socially necessary work is reserved for unemployed persons who have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefits, or to those whose entitlement is coming to an end, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the time from which CEIs are proposed to the unemployed who are receiving unemployment benefit. Finally, it requested the Government to indicate whether persons who have just lost their job have a reasonable period to seek on a full-time basis and to freely choose a suitable job, without fear of losing their entitlement to unemployment benefits.
The Committee notes the observations of the CGTP–IN and the UGT that no changes have occurred in the regulation of CEIs regarding the performance of socially necessary work by unemployed persons. The CGTP–IN refers once again to the pressure exerted on the unemployed to accept socially necessary work and alleges that the Government has taken no initiative to engage in negotiations with the social partners regarding the conditions in which unemployment benefit recipients are asked to perform socially necessary work under CEIs. It estimates that the number of CEIs has been diminishing due to the reduction in unemployment, but alleges that no information is publicly available on the issue. The UGT refers again to its previous observations, in which it considered fundamental for the question of socially necessary work imposed on the unemployed to be analysed rapidly and for consultations to be held with the social partners so that this active employment measure can be assessed and eventually redesigned. The Government indicates in its report that the legal framework applicable to the CEI is stabilized and therefore, since 2014, there were no legislative changes that would require formal consultations with the social partners on that issue. Persons receiving unemployment benefits may be exempted to undertake socially necessary work under a CEI for a period of 30 consecutive days and they are entitled to up to four days per month off to actively seek a job. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that the CEI is one of the activation measures available for unemployment benefit recipients and that the Institute for Employment and Vocational Training (IEFP) must monitor and follow regularly the implementation of the CEI. It notes, however, that the Government’s report does not contain any information on the implementation of this measure. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the conditions for the implementation of employment insertion contracts (CEI), notably the number of the unemployed receiving unemployment benefits (“subsídio de desemprego”) who have been requested to undertake socially necessary work, the number who have refused and the reasons for their refusal, and the number whose entitlement to unemployment benefits has been suspended. Recalling that entitlement to unemployment benefit (“subsídio de desemprego”) arises out of their previous work and the contributions made to the unemployment insurance scheme, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the time from which CEIs are proposed to unemployed persons who are receiving such unemployment benefits, so that the Committee can assess whether the requirement to perform socially necessary work is reserved for unemployed persons whose entitlement to unemployment benefits is coming to an end. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments regarding consultations undertaken with the social partners with a view to evaluating the terms and conditions for the implementation of CEIs, as suggested by the tripartite committee.
Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee welcomed the action taken by the Government to combat trafficking in persons, and requested the Government to provide information on the final implementation report of the third National Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings (PNPCTSH III), indicating areas in which obstacles have been noted and measures envisaged to overcome them. The Committee encouraged the Government to continue reinforcing the means of action of the various competent authorities, and requested information on the measures taken to facilitate cooperation and the exchange of information between them. The Committee further requested information on judicial procedures under section 160 of the Penal Code, as well as on the protection and assistance afforded to victims of trafficking.
1. Implementation of the National Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings. The Committee takes note of the final implementation report of PNPCTSH III provided by the Government, which provides details on the 48 (of 53) measures implemented referring to prevention, training, protection, investigation and cooperation. The Committee also notes the adoption of the IV National Plan of Action for the Prevention and Combat of Trafficking in Human Beings 2018–2021 (PACTSH IV) which aims: (i) to raise awareness on trafficking in persons; (ii) to ensure that victims have access to their rights; and (iii) to promote the fight against organised crime networks. The PACTSH IV foresees, among others, measures to: improve data collection and increase awareness on trafficking in persons; reinforce inter-institutional cooperation; strengthen the involvement of municipalities and local networks; promote a better monitoring of the formal and informal labour market and of recruitment agencies; promote the prevention of and combat trafficking in supply chains and in public procurement; and improve victims’ access to their rights such as compensation. The Committee encourages the Government to continue its efforts to prevent and combat trafficking in persons and requests it to provide information on the implementation of the PAPCTSH IV, with an indication of the areas in which obstacles have been noted and the measures envisaged to overcome them.
2. Identification and protection of victims, and penalties. The Committee notes that the UGT expresses concerns about the regular identification of cases of workers, mainly foreign, in situations of labour exploitation. It also notes the observations by the CGTP–IN that labour exploitation and forced labour related to trafficking in persons are serious issues that would justify a specific action plan targeting their elimination, with its own means and instruments. This would require the reinforcement of the human and material means available to the competent authorities, notably the Labour inspectorate (ACT) and police authorities.
The Government indicates in its report that Law No. 71/2018, of 23 December 2018, which approves the budget for the year 2019 foresees the reinforcement of human resources for combating trafficking in human beings. Competitions are ongoing for the recruitment of 122 labour inspectors for ACT. Efforts have been developed in recent years to increase joint monitoring operations on trafficking in persons with the police forces and other entities, such as social security and tax authorities. Law No. 96/2017, of 23 August 2017, which defines priorities in criminal policy for 2017–19 foresees the collaboration of ACT with police forces in the development of plans of action to prevent trafficking for labour exploitation (section 11(2)), and the cooperation and information sharing between police forces to prevent and investigate trafficking in persons. ACT has undertaken joint inspections with the Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF) whenever the existence of foreign workers was probable. In 2017, inspections were carried out by ACT with SEF and the National Guard (GNR) in big scale agricultural exploitations in the Alentejo region. ACT also cooperated and exchanged information regularly with the Observatory on Trafficking in Human Beings (OTSH) and the members of the Support and Protection to Victims of Trafficking Network (RAPVT). The National Plan for the implementation of the Global Compact on Migration adopted in August 2019 foresees measures to facilitate fair and ethical recruitment, namely through the capacity-building of SEF and labour inspectors and ensuring migrants working in the informal economy have access to protection and complaints mechanisms in cases of exploitation or violation of their labour rights. In this respect, the Committee also notes the adoption of Law No. 28/2016, of 23 August 2016, which aims to combat modern forms of forced labour and introduces changes to sections 174 and 551 of the Labour Code, to section 16 of the Law on the promotion of occupational safety and health and to section 13 of the Law regulating private employment agencies and temporary agency work companies, extending the liability and the payment of fines for violations occurred in the supply chain.
The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government on court decisions relating to trafficking in persons and notes the Government’s indication that between June 2016 and 31 December 2017, 16 persons were convicted of that crime. The Committee notes that, according to the 2018 report on trafficking in persons published by the Observatory on Trafficking in Human Beings (OTSH) in March 2019, the number of reports of presumed victims in 2018 was 203 (compared with 175 in 2017), with 168 reports on Portuguese territory and 35 reports concerning Portuguese citizens abroad. Of these reports, 105 were related to trafficking in persons for labour exploitation. Of the reported cases, 37 were considered “confirmed cases” by the judicial police following a criminal investigation, while 27 were still under investigation. The Committee notes the information on the assistance provided to victims in 2018, including legal, medical and psychological assistance, education and training. 40 victims were accommodated in specialized centres in 2018, 12 benefited from support or were integrated in the labour market, and nine received residence permits. The Committee also takes note of the information provided regarding the missions of the five specialized multidisciplinary teams (EME) operating throughout the national territory and of the plans to create a new one in Madeira. A translation service was created in 2018 to support the RAPVT and the multidisciplinary teams in cases of assistance to foreign victims. Additionally, Normative Order 3/2019 of 8 February foresees the allocation of a part of the proceeds of social games to multidisciplinary teams and to specialized centres to support and protect victims of trafficking in persons. The Committee encourages the Government to continue its efforts with regard to the identification of victims of trafficking for purposes of both sexual and labour exploitation, and to ensure that appropriate protection and assistance is provided to such victims. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken and results achieved, the number of victims who have been identified and who have benefited from protection in order to prevent them falling back into a situation of vulnerability in which they might once again become victims. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the measures to reinforce the capacities of the competent authorities, including the Labour Conditions Authority, to identify and act against trafficking in persons, particularly for the purpose of labour exploitation. Please continue providing information on prosecutions, convictions and penalties under section 160 of the Penal Code.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer