National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
DISPLAYINEnglish - French - Spanish
A Government representative emphasized that her country had established the legal foundations to ensure full equality for all persons, upholding the human rights of citizens, whether or not they were Dominicans. Article 38 of the Constitution and Principle VII of the Labour Code established the equality of persons. Moreover, Principle IV of the Labour Code provided that labour laws were of a territorial nature and applied without distinction to Dominicans and foreign nationals, and the migratory situation of workers was therefore irrelevant. Dominican case law and legislation had been constant in reaffirming equality between Dominicans and non-Dominicans. Mention could be made here of the Supreme Court ruling of 2 June 2002 and Act No. 135-11 of 7 June 2011 penalties applicable in cases of discrimination against persons living with HIV and AIDS. The measures taken by the Government included the following: the establishment of the Department of Equal Opportunities and Non-Discrimination with an independent budget coordinated by the Minister of Labour; the signature of memoranda on the dissemination of labour rights; the organization of workshops on labour discrimination, including the themes of gender, equal opportunities and non-discrimination; the provision of technical assistance to workers living with HIV and AIDS; the publication of a handbook concerning equal opportunities and non-discrimination; distribution of more than 8,000 pamphlets translated into Creole to provide information on free services provided by the Department of Judicial Assistance of the Ministry of Labour, which had catered for 748 migrants; the establishment of a gender equality label as certification for enterprises making organizational changes with a view to closing the gender gap; and training for enterprises that were committed to implementing anti-discrimination policies. The supervisory measures that had been taken included: 263 visits to enterprises by the Technical Unit for Comprehensive Care (UTELAIN) for the provision of training on HIV-related issues; ten follow-up meetings in enterprises export processing zones with the participation of the Safety and Health Directorate at the Ministry of Labour, various trade union organizations, the ILO and the Dominican Association of Export Processing Zones (ADOZONA); and 81,319 inspections conducted during the previous 12 months. In collaboration with the ILO, the Government had held workshops on the HIV and AIDS policy in the workplace for the export processing sector in the Dominican Republic with the coordination of the ILO Subregional Office and had implemented the Decent Work Agenda in the 16 most important commercial and tourist municipalities, with the inclusion of the themes of equality and non-discrimination. Regarding the ruling of the Constitutional Court of September 2013 interpreting the constitutional provisions on nationality, Parliament had adopted Act No. 169-14 of 16 May 2014 which established a special regime for persons born on the national territory whose registration in the Dominican civil register had been irregular, and which also dealt with naturalization. The Act envisaged a definitive decision for persons covered by this ruling. Her Government prohibited, condemned and rejected any act of discrimination or inequality. She asked the ILO to continue providing technical assistance with a view to strengthening the institutions responsible for applying and monitoring the policies planned for combating discrimination. The Government undertook to maintain the exchange of information with the ILO with regard to any measures adopted for strengthening institutions and the application of the Convention and to address the subject of discrimination in the Advisory Labour Committee.
The Worker members recalled that the Committee had closely examined this case in 2013, 2008 and 2004, and that for more than ten years the report of the Committee of Experts had contained comments on the same points as those raised today. These recurring issues related to discrimination in employment and occupation against Haitians and dark-skinned Dominicans, discrimination based on sex, including mandatory pregnancy testing and sexual harassment, and discrimination in the form of mandatory testing to establish HIV status. As in 2008 and 2013, the key issue was not the content of the legislation itself, but its application in practice and the means of redress available to the workers, as well as the interpretation of the law by the courts, in particular the Constitutional Court, which constituted an additional problem. In 2013, the Committee’s conclusions, which had been nuanced and paid attention to the various initiatives taken by the Government, had focused on three main areas: the taking of firm steps to ensure that workers were protected against discrimination in practice; the continuation of efforts to raise awareness among the population on these issues; and the guarantee of the efficacy and accessibility to all workers of monitoring and enforcement to combat discrimination. Nevertheless, the Government, which had requested technical assistance from the Office, had not provided the Committee of Experts in 2013 with the report demanded on the three above points. Given the number of years this case had been examined, the failure to submit a report was inexcusable. The Worker members added that since then, the Government was reported to have submitted a Bill to the Chamber of Deputies “establishing a special regime for persons born on the territory of the Dominican Republic incorrectly entered in the civil register and on naturalization”. According to the Government, the Bill was the outcome of a long process of consultation and attempts to reach a consensus with different sectors of society. However, the trade unions had not been included in these consultations, although the ongoing procedure with the Committee fully warranted this, and they regretted that they were not aware of the content of the Bill. Furthermore, in a long reply to the direct request made by the Committee in 2013, the Government had committed itself to transposing the provisions of the Convention into domestic legislation to the best of its ability. Nonetheless, this initiative did not respond adequately to the situation that had been criticized for many years, which primarily involved the implementation of the law in practice, particularly in relation to discrimination based on sex, compulsory pregnancy testing, violence against the women at the workplace, a person’s origin and skin colour, and HIV status. Tolerance and laxity in the face of discrimination at work constituted a violation of human rights. In addition, discrimination constituted a waste of human resources, undermining both enterprises and social cohesion.
Given a situation in which legislation existed but was not applied and in which the perpetuation of discriminatory attitudes was the product of history and the failure of education systems, it was of prime importance to provide the workers who were victims of discrimination with support so that they could finally enjoy the protection provided under the Convention. Furthermore, various ILO instruments might be useful in this respect, such as the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), which called for a continuous dialogue with the social partners, which had not yet occurred and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), as that the social partners were in the best position to understand the strong cultural component characterizing discriminatory behaviour because they were the closest to the actual realities of the working world. The Government should also undertake to set up a standing committee on all forms of discrimination in occupation and employment, within the Ministry of Labour, which would not only propose improvements in the application of the legislation, but would also provide specific support in proceedings launched by the workers, who were victims of discrimination, and would take part in educational and cultural awareness-raising campaigns in this area. The Worker members denounced the illegal nature of the ruling of the Constitutional Court issued in September 2013, which had been referred to by the Committee of Experts. This ruling concerning the retroactive application of the law denying Dominican nationality to a person born in the country of parents of foreign migrants (Haitians) considered to be in transit or transitionally resident was contrary to the principles of the Convention ratified in 1964 by the Dominican Republic. The Government should follow the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and take all the specific measures needed to guarantee that full effect was given to the existing legislation.
The Employer members recalled that the case had been on the Committee’s agenda since 1990 and thanked the Government for supplying information that showed the progress made in terms of legislation and in the functioning of the country’s institutions. They were however deeply concerned at the lack of any information that might enable them to assess the extent of the problem. The Government had not provided all the information that had been requested by the Committee of Experts on discrimination in employment and occupation, to which Haitians and dark-skinned Dominicans in particular were subjected, on discrimination between men and women, on discrimination based on HIV status and on compulsory pregnancy tests. Consequently, it was difficult to assess the extent of the issue and to determine whether it concerned just a few exceptional cases, or whether the problem was widespread. Since the Constitution and legislation, including the Labour Code, contained provisions relating to equality and non-discrimination, the problem was not one of legislation, but rather of application of national laws and regulations.
The Employer members emphasized that the law adopted in May 2014, to which the Government representative had referred, was designed to resolve the problem of whether the children of Haitian workers in an irregular situation should be granted or denied Dominican nationality. It should provide a satisfactory response to the consequences of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of September 2013 on Haitians living in the Dominican Republic (between 700,000 and 1.2 million persons). Discrimination was a cultural phenomenon, the Worker members had observed laws existed and they needed to be applied, and the focus should be on training and education to correct discriminatory practices. Labour inspectors, who had a role to play in terms of prevention, should also receive appropriate training. The Government had adopted a series of measures, but it still needed to do more to give full effect to the national legislation and to begin to change cultural attitudes.
A Worker member of the Dominican Republic emphasized that the national trade union movement condemned any kind of discrimination that affected the fundamental rights of any person, whether or not they were Dominican Nationals. The Dominican Republic had constitutional and legal provisions that explicitly recognized protection against discrimination, but regrettably there was a strong culture of non-compliance with the legislation and a very weak justice system. Furthermore, the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), had been ratified in 2013, but for reasons that were unclear, the official instrument of ratification had not been communicated to the ILO and was still in the hands of the Ministry of External Affairs. Consequently, for both his country and the ILO, it was as if the Convention had not been ratified. The report of the Committee of Experts’ highlighted discrimination against Haitian workers and the violation of the fundamental rights of Dominicans of Haitian origin. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had concluded in March 2013 that there was structural discrimination against persons of African origin, who suffered clear exclusion and whose fundamental rights and opportunities for development were restricted. Several calls had been made for a mechanism for the protection of vulnerable workers, in the present case migrant workers who were excluded from the scope of Act No. 87-01 establishing the Dominican social security system. The country’s three trade union confederations, and the trade union movement in general, had strongly condemned the ruling of the Constitutional Court, which had opened up the possibility of retroactively denying Dominican nationality to persons born in the Dominican Republic whose parents were foreign migrants in an irregular situation, a problem that particularly affected workers of Haitian origin. The ruling was morally unjust and legally incompatible with the international human rights treaties signed by the Dominican Republic. The ruling of the Constitutional Court affected more than three generations, who would be deprived of the acquired right of nationality without any valid reason. That violated a number of constitutional principles, including the right of the child to identity and nationality, the principle of non-retroactivity of laws, the binding nature of the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the principle of equality. In early 1952, the Governments of the Dominican Republic and Haiti had signed an agreement to regularize the temporary immigration en masse of Haitian daily labourers working in the sugar cane harvest. Haitian labour had become indispensable to the booming Dominican sugar industry. It was unjust that people who had been born in the country should be deprived of the nationality of the Dominican Republic, that they were exposed to labour exploitation and were without social protection. With the aim of tackling that situation, the Government had recently adopted a national plan for the regularization of foreign nationals in an irregular migratory situation and also a law on naturalization. Consultations on that law had been held with various civil society organizations, but the trade unions had been excluded from the consultations. It was not just a problem of legislation or of adoption of new provisions to address the situation, but it was a problem of efficacy and control by the part of the State. The systems of inspection and control had failed to adopt specific measures for the elimination of discrimination. Discrimination affected various sections of the population, particularly the most vulnerable, such as migrants, young people, persons over the age of 35, women and workers in export processing zones. The practice of gender-based discrimination, particularly sexual harassment against women workers and mandatory pregnancy testing to fund employment was widespread, and effect was not given to the protective legislation. Discrimination against persons living with HIV and AIS also persisted, and was one of the most serious problems facing the country. In conclusion, he called for the setting up of a special committee to reinforce the technical committee, the establishment of which had been decided at the 102nd Session of the Conference, which would have the function of following up on practical compliance with the legislation relating to discrimination. The participation in this committee of the representatives of the workers from Haiti and the Dominican Republic would have a very positive impact on the dialogue.
Another Worker member of the Dominican Republic added that the national trade union movement should work with the Haitian trade union confederations, and therefore called for the technical committee to be strengthened with the participation of the Haitian trade union confederations. This was the only way to ensure that the Haitian migrant workers would not be subject to discrimination, or have their rights undermined. Strengthening the working relationship between the trade unions from the Dominican Republic and Haiti would give more impetus to the call for the inclusion in the Social Security Act of all types of work carried out by Haitian workers in agriculture, domestic work and construction and in the informal economy. Haitian workers needed to be adequately protected, without encouraging exploitation by businesses and human traffickers in forced labour, which would have a downward effect on the wages of national workers. Finally, he indicated that the demands of the trade union movements of the Dominican Republic and Haiti must be addressed both to the countries of origin and of destination. Effective measures should also be adopted to prevent the trafficking of persons for profit by civilians and by the military in both countries. He therefore requested ILO support for the creation of a special committee to provide follow up for the fulfilment of commitments in this area.
The Employer member of the Dominican Republic said that the employers in his country rejected all acts of discrimination and supported and respected the national legislation. Article 39 of the Constitution covered the right to equality. All people were born free and equal before the law, received the same protection and treatment from institutions, authorities and other persons, and enjoyed the same rights, freedoms and opportunities without any discrimination on the basis of gender, colour, age, disability, nationality, family relations, language, religion, public or philosophical opinion, or social or personal status. Equality and equity therefore existed for men and women in the exercise of the right to work, and also equality in access to employment. The Dominican Republic recognized the international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Act No. 135-11 concerning HIV/AIDS, guaranteed the dignity of people living with HIV and AIDS. Section 6 of the Act provided that human beings were born free and equal in dignity and rights and were therefore entitled to equal protection against discrimination or incitement to discrimination. As a result, mandatory testing for HIV and its antibodies for people to secure or retain employment was prohibited. In the same spirit of justice, acts of discrimination or exclusion were prohibited. Moreover, all persons were guaranteed access to the judicial system. Efforts had also been made to strengthen labour inspection by increasing the number of labour inspectors. It was planned to recruit a further 75 labour inspection officials in the near future. A national policy on HIV and AIDS would also be developed in export processing zones. Around 25,500 workers had received training related to the elimination of the stigma of HIV in the workplace. The second phase of the project was expected to start this year. In September 2014, the Ministry of Labour would carry out awareness-raising workshops on gender and equal opportunities. He then expressed his perplexity at the term “dark-skinned Dominicans”. Eighty-five per cent of Dominicans were black and mixed race, and he therefore considered the term “dark-skinned” to be discriminatory. Employers in the Dominican Republic advocated a zero-tolerance policy towards discrimination and wished to play an active part in all aspects relating to the implementation of Convention No. 111.
The Government member of Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), said that GRULAC had duly noted the measures adopted by the Government in relation to Convention No. 111 with a view to ensuring protection against discrimination of workers of foreign origin, dark-skinned Dominicans, migrant workers in an irregular situation, women and persons living with HIV and AIDS. GRULAC wished to highlight certain measures taken by the Government, such as the Migration Regulations adopted under the Migration Act, the continued functioning of the Labour Migration Unit of the Ministry of Labour and the Committee on the Promotion of Equal Opportunities and the Prevention of Discrimination at Work, with the aim of guaranteeing compliance with migrants’ rights through inspection procedures, which allowed for the monitoring of compliance with labour laws applicable to foreign nationals, as well as the dissemination of information and awareness raising on their rights. GRULAC noted with interest the recently approved Act No. 169-14 of 23 May 2014 establishing a special regime for persons born on national territory and irregularly registered in the civil registry and concerning naturalization. The objective of this Act was to address the problems arising from the September 2013 ruling of the Constitutional Court for persons born in the country who were children of migrants in an irregular situation, which demonstrated the Government’s commitment on the subject. GRULAC reaffirmed its commitment to the protection and promotion of equality of opportunity, non-discrimination at work and the defence of fundamental human rights, which must be guaranteed and protected without any type of restriction whatsoever. GRULAC appreciated the efforts undertaken by the Government and encouraged it to pursue the measures initiated so as to achieve full compliance with Convention No. 111.
The Worker member of Uruguay emphasized the ruling of the Constitutional Court which denied Dominican nationality to a person born in the country who was the child of Haitian migrants who had been long-term residents in the Dominican Republic, and which ordered the retroactive re-examination of the Dominican nationality granted to children of Haitian immigrants between 1929 and the date of the ruling. The ruling had caused “deep concern” as it represented a clear case of discrimination against a section of the Dominican population (migrant workers, dark-skinned persons and persons of Haitian origin). It was a denial by the Dominican Republic of the essential rights of every person (the rights to identity, personality and nationality), and was a grave violation of the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in universally applicable legal instruments. It should be recalled that member States of the ILO, by the very fact of their membership, had an obligation to respect, to promote and to realize the fundamental principles and rights at work set out in the ILO Constitution and fundamental Conventions, in particular the elimination of discrimination. In the present case, the Constitutional Court, in addition to ignoring fundamental principles of international law on the rank of domestic law, such as the principles of pacta sunt servanda, which provided that international law prevailed over domestic law, and pro homine, under which international and national standards must be interpreted and applied in the manner most advantageous to the human being, failed to recognize essential human rights-related obligations assumed by the Dominican Republic. The Constitution had been amended on 3 January 2010, introducing the principle of parenthood, or jus sanguinis; for the granting of nationality, instead of jus soli, or the granting of nationality to those born on the national territory, the principle that had applied under the previous constitutions, from 1929 to 1966. On 23 May 2014, Act No. 169 had been adopted, which established special rules for children born on Dominican soil to foreign “non-residents” during the period between the adoption of the 1929 Constitution and that of the Constitution of 28 April 2007. The new rules were based on the ruling of the Constitutional Court, reflecting a passage that referred to “deficiencies in migratory policy and in the working of the civil register” that dated from the period immediately after the adoption of the 1929 Constitution. Although Act No. 169 acknowledged that the “Dominican State had been responsible” for the supposed irregularities in civil registration, it virtually obliged those born on Dominican territory and not entered in the civil register, to register within a short time period as “foreign nationals”, thereby abruptly and retroactively divesting them of their acquired rights to nationality, which the 1966 Constitution had granted. Accordingly, persons born in the Dominican Republic had been stateless, by the law, and were condemned to apply, within a very short 60-day period, to be registered as “foreign immigrants in an irregular situation”.
The Government member of the United States expressed concern about the Constitutional Court and its consequences for persons born to “in transit” parents in the Dominican Republic, including the difficulty of accessing social security benefits and services, risks involved in reporting violations of national labour law and a potential financial burden entailed in applying for resident status under the Government’s regularization plan for foreigners in an irregular situation. She looked forward to the publication of the enabling regulations under the Naturalization Act and the processes it would establish, which should ensure its transparent, accessible and comprehensive implementation. She endorsed the request by the Committee of Experts’ for the Government to ensure that court rulings and Government policies did not increase discrimination against workers of Haitian origin, dark-skinned Dominicans or migrant workers in an irregular situation. The Government must ensure that such workers were not subject to exploitative labour practices due to their precarious status. Limited education significantly increased children’s vulnerability to labour exploitation, and the Government should therefore also guarantee that all children received the identity documentation necessary to attend school. The Constitution of the Dominican Republic, as amended in 2010, expressed commitment to the fundamental rights and human dignity of every person, and to the elimination of all kinds of discrimination. The Government must make that commitment a reality for all workers. It should continue to seek and to use technical assistance to address discrimination, as well as to specifically address discrimination based on sex and real or perceived HIV status.
The Worker member of the United States said that the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), to which the Dominican Republic was a party, required it to comply both with its own national laws and with ILO standards (including Convention No. 111). Nevertheless, the Government had long delayed promised actions to address workplace discrimination faced by women. For example, there was no effective Government policy to combat economic discrimination against women, who received approximately 44 per cent less pay than men for comparable jobs requiring equal skills. Women workers were the first to lose their jobs when the economy slowed and female unemployment was double male unemployment in the Dominican Republic. Women were discriminated against even when looking for work, and for instance it was common for advertisements to state that employers were only looking for women below a certain age and who looked a certain way. Such discrimination illustrated the serious need for the Government to develop effective policies to promote women’s place in the workforce as being equal to that of men. Women continued to report that pregnancy tests comprised part of mandatory medical examinations, the results of which were sent to potential employers. While discrimination based on such tests was illegal on paper, employers often did not hire pregnant women, and often fired women already working for them who became pregnant. Women in certain sectors, such as domestic work, were particularly vulnerable to discrimination. Following pressure from labour unions, a bill that would have extended social security benefits to domestic workers had been introduced in Congress, but had failed to pass. Substantial evidence supported the argument that an increase in employment and incomes of women workers impacted very positively on social and economic development. The Government should therefore strengthen its commitment and capacity to eliminate discrimination against women.
The Worker member of Chile expressed support for the denunciation by the Worker members of the Dominican Republic concerning the persistent sexual harassment to which thousands of workers were prey. Sexual harassment was one of the worst forms of discrimination against women and was a form of extreme violence against women in the workplace. It was a violation of the fundamental human right to mental well-being, limited women’s opportunities of progress and personal development and excluded them from political and social life. Sexual harassment was an abuse of power that occurred most when employment relationships were unequal, and when workers, individually and collectively, lacked the protection that should enable them to work in safe conditions, because employers did not fulfil their responsibility to intervene and outlaw such discrimination. The serious threat that sexual harassment represented to workers’ integrity was one of the most difficult scourges to eliminate, and not only in the Dominican Republic, given that it was rooted in macho cultural stereotypes. It was an aggression faced daily by thousands of women workers, especially in export processing zones. An unfavourable cultural environment, the back of a functional justice system and inefficient state mechanisms left women feeling unprotected and unlikely to log complaints, as doing so led to them being dual victims: they suffered not only institutional violence, and were likely to be victims of domestic violence, as they were frequently blamed for having initiated or provoked the harassment. She proposed: the establishment of a tripartite committee on gender equality; the establishment of a justice system better equipped to address discrimination, with more severe sanctions for sexual harassment; more campaigns against sexual harassment in businesses and workplaces; permanent and preferably tripartite cooperation against sexual harassment and discrimination; training for judicial personnel and all the actors who influenced or were involved in handling sexual discrimination, particularly those who interacted directly with victims; more thorough information on harassment at work, explaining how it affected women both at work and at home; workplace campaigns on women’s reproductive and gender-based rights; and a greater voice for migrant women in the country.
The Worker member of Spain, focusing on the issue of HIV and AIDS, considered it vital to adopt a gender perspective to the labour and social discrimination suffered by people living with HIV, as 49 per cent of the people infected with HIV throughout the world were women. HIV and AIDS did not affect women in the same way as men. Women were vulnerable to sexual harassment at work, and more generally to gender-based violence for a number of reason; they were in the majority in the informal economy, where they worked for low wages, without rights or benefits; poverty clearly increased vulnerability to AIDS; they were normally the ones who cared for the sick; and they were exposed to unprotected sex work. The situation in the Dominican Republic regarding HIV and AIDS and the world of work revealed the stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV that limited their employment prospects. A social pact on the issue should be negotiated rapidly between the Government, the social partners and social organizations, with the establishment of action plans, and efforts should be multiplied and resources increased with a view to taking concrete action. Lastly, she expressed the hope that the demands and proposals of the trade unions of the Dominican Republic would be well received and that women workers in the country would soon have the protection and security to which they were entitled so that they could benefit from decent work.
The Government representative stated that, following the discussion in the Committee, he would return to his country with optimism and willingness to continue to move forward towards increased inclusiveness and equality for all workers in the Dominican Republic, including migrant workers. He reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to continue to implement labour policies seeking to achieve compliance with provisions relating to equality and non-discrimination. The Government had declared decent work as a priority goal and was currently taking specific measures at national level with the assistance of the ILO Regional Office in all ILO subject areas, including non-discrimination. A programme of preventive labour inspection had recently been launched in the agricultural sector, where there was a significant presence of foreign workers. The Ministry of Labour, with the support of the ILO and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), had lately developed an electronic database to register labour contracts of migrant workers to render transparent all information normally compiled within a labour relationship (such as hours of work, wages, etc.), with a view to facilitating the compilation of accurate statistics and improving the monitoring of working conditions of migrant workers. This tool was supplemented by the electronic system of labour registration under which employers were required to register their workers with the Ministry of Labour, and which also validated the registration of migrant workers without requiring the types of visa envisaged by the Migration Act. As part of the Ministry of Labour’s plan of action to combat discrimination and equality of opportunity, 14 new labour inspectors had been recruited the previous month, and 60 more inspectors would soon be recruited, which would result in better monitoring of compliance in the area of non-discrimination. With regard to the ruling of the Constitutional Court, he regretted the mistaken direction taken by the discussion in the Committee, emphasizing that both prior to and following the decision, all workers (both men and women), irrespective of nationality and migration status, were guaranteed their labour rights without discrimination. He also referred to the establishment of the Tripartite Committee to Promote Equal Opportunities and Prevent Discrimination at Work under the Ministry of Labour. The national debate triggered by the ruling had resulted in the adoption of Act No. 169-14, which had been the outcome of a broad consensus at national level involving the social partners and civil society, and had been welcomed by the Prime Minister of Haiti. The Act sought to ensure that all workers affected by the ruling would benefit from more participatory and fair measures. The Government had also sought to resolve the problems affecting Dominicans lacking identity documents. To this end, a tripartite committee had recently been set up which had encouraged the various sectors to reach agreement with the social partners so as to ensure that workers without identity documents would be able to benefit from social security. In conclusion, he emphasized that the national labour legislation applied to all workers. A clear distinction therefore needed to be made between two issues, namely, the legal provisions which he assured were fully applied and, on the other hand, the issues related to migrants, which the Government was strived to address in full respect of the human rights of the persons concerned.
The Worker members noted that the present issue concerned the effective implementation of the law, the solution to which depended on the adoption of concrete measures in the three following areas: strengthening penalties against acts of discrimination; guaranteeing free and easy access to dispute settlement mechanisms, particularly labour inspection services and the courts; and act on to combat sexual harassment, mandatory pregnancy tests for recruitment and discrimination on the grounds of HIV and AIDS status. Government agencies, judges, labour inspectors and society as a whole also needed to be made aware of the unacceptable nature of discrimination. They encouraged the Government to establish, in cooperation with the social partners, a standing commission in the Ministry of Labour to deal with questions of discrimination, particularly against workers of Haitian origin. The commission’s functions would be to: monitor and improve the application of the law in practice to eliminate all forms of discrimination in employment and occupation; provide workers who were victims of discrimination, in cooperation with the workers’ organizations, free assistance to institute and complete legal proceedings and ensure enforcement of the final decision; and participate in awareness-raising and education campaigns against discrimination in employment and training. The social partners should also be encouraged to provide tangible and practical solutions through collective bargaining. They recalled that in 2013 the Government had requested ILO technical assistance and they proposed, in order to support that request, the sending of a direct contacts mission, the objectives of which would be to ascertain the conformity of the law and practice with the provisions of the Convention and to carry out, with the Government and the social partners, including representatives of the Haitian workers concerned, any training, awareness-raising and promotion activities necessary with a view to eliminating discrimination.
The Employer members once again welcomed the efforts made by the Government, especially for its handling of the legal consequences arising out of the ruling of the Constitutional Court concerning the granting or refusal of Dominican nationality to the children of Haitian nationals living in the country. Particular mention should also be made of the efforts made to give a tripartite dimension to the institutional solutions identified to deal with the problems of the application of the legislation in practice. This was an important issue. However, it was still difficult to gauge the extent of the problem, in view of the lack of adequate data. The Employer members requested the Government to provide all the information requested since 2013, as well as statistics, broken down by gender and occupation, which would make it possible to carry out an objective evaluation of discrimination in the country, measure women’s difficulties of access to employment and assess the measures adopted in the context of the policy of equality between men and women. These data were indispensable to measure the extent of the problem and assess any progress made in these areas. They called upon the Government to adopt, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, a national policy designed to promote equality of opportunity and treatment with a view to eliminating all discrimination in employment and occupation. To ensure its full application, this policy should be the outcome of a social dialogue covering not only the world of work, but also education, with a view to addressing social and cultural stereotypes encountered by children at a very young age. Furthermore, labour inspection needed to be strengthened and inspectors should be able to benefit from appropriate training. They also hoped that the Government’s request for ILO assistance would be granted in order to implement the legislation and eliminate all forms of discrimination.
Conclusions
The Committee noted the oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.
The Committee recalled that it had examined this case in 2008 and 2013, and that it raised issues with respect to discrimination in employment and occupation against Haitians and dark‑skinned Dominicans, discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment, mandatory pregnancy testing and also mandatory testing to establish HIV status. It also recalled that, in its last observation, the Committee of Experts had noted with deep concern Constitutional Court ruling No. TC/0168/13 of 23 September 2013 which retroactively denied Dominican nationality to foreigners and children of foreigners, particularly affecting Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin.
The Committee noted the information provided by the Government in relation to the legislative and practical measures taken to address discrimination and promote equality in employment and occupation, including Decree No. 327-13 of 20 November 2013, which established the National Plan for the regularization of foreign nationals and Act No. 169-14 of 23 May 2014, which aimed at resolving the situation of Dominicans of Haitian origin. The Committee also noted the information on legal assistance available to migrant workers; the training for judges and awareness-raising activities in enterprises relating to non-discrimination and gender equality; as well as the Government’s commitment to address the issue of discrimination in the tripartite Advisory Labour Council.
While welcoming the information on the recent legislative steps taken, the Committee stressed the importance of their effective application in practice highlighting the important role of labour inspection in this respect. The Committee therefore urged the Government to strengthen its efforts, in full cooperation with the social partners, to effectively implement the existing legislation addressing discrimination, to reinforce penalties and to ensure that existing complaints procedures were effective and accessible to all workers, including workers of Haitian origin, migrant workers and workers in export processing zones. In this context, the Committee urged the Government to take specific steps, including through educational programmes, to address existing social and cultural stereotypes contributing to discrimination in the country. The Committee also urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective application of the legislation that prohibits mandatory pregnancy and HIV testing to gain access and to keep a job, and to adopt appropriate provisions prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace. With a view to assessing the full nature and extent of discrimination in the country, the Committee requested the Government to provide statistical information, disaggregated by sex, origin and age, on access to employment and occupation and vocational training. Emphasizing the importance of tripartite consultations, the Committee encouraged the Government to establish a standing tripartite committee to address all matters relating to equality and non-discrimination, including those relating to workers of Haitian origin. The Government was also encouraged to develop awareness-raising campaigns on equality issues.
The Committee invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance with a view to ensuring the effective application and monitoring of anti-discrimination law and policy. The Committee requested the Government to provide a report to the Committee of Experts, including detailed information regarding all the issues raised by the Committee and the Committee of Experts, for examination at its next meeting.