Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - France (Ratification: 1937)
Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 - France (Ratification: 2016)

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following point:

Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 720 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1987, under which all necessary arrangements are made in prison establishments to ensure that prisoners who so wish may engage in occupational activity. The Committee also noted that the employment relationships of prisoners are not covered by employment contracts (section 720, paragraph 3), except in the case of prisoners on semi-release, but that the work is generally remunerated. Referring more particularly to the work performed by prisoners for enterprises using prison labour, the Committee none the less noted that the average hourly rate of remuneration was less than half the minimum wage (SMIC) and that substantial deductions were made. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that the remuneration paid by hiring enterprises is of a comparable level to that paid to free workers and to state who is responsible for the payment of the employers' share of social contributions in the case of hired workers. 1. The Committee noted the detailed information supplied by the Government in its report for the period ending 30 June 1991, particularly concerning the different categories of activity (general service, Prisons' Industrial Board (RIEP), concession, vocational training and other), the distribution of jobs, developments in the methods and objectives of prison labour and the total wages of each category. With regard to the remuneration paid to prisoners, the Government stated that the principle whereby the remuneration of detainees was negotiated at the same level as that of free workers still applied, but that there were still difficulties arising from the quality of work performed in detention, the low skill levels of prison detainees and their lack of vocational training, and the organization of prison labour which precluded achievement of productivity level comparable to that of outside enterprises (short working days, frequent interruptions). The Government also indicated that owing to the economic situation outside prison, immediate alignment with wages paid outside would be unrealistic. The Committee noted however the Government's indications that the prison administration was aware of the overall inadequacy of the level of individual remuneration and is endeavouring to produce a policy to improve it. Since most work is paid at piece-rates, in negotiations with enterprises using prison labour the average productivity in the sector concerned outside the prison was used as the basis for calculation. Thus, a prisoner who attained the outside level of productivity would be paid at least the minimum wage, with upwards or downwards adjustment for any differential. The Government added that, for all prisoners, the employer's share of social contributions was paid by the employer and that for prisoners exercising an activity outside the establishment, ordinary labour law applied (work contract, automatic alignment with working conditions outside, including in respect of remuneration). 2. The Committee also noted the Government's indications concerning the construction of new prison accommodation for 13,000 inmates. It was managed partly by private enterprises, which are responsible for the "labour function". Minimum rates of remuneration had been fixed and these establishments had a "minimum prison wage" which was adjusted annually in keeping with the SMIC (60 per cent of the hourly SMIC rate). The Government pointed out that the methods of organizing prison labour had been reviewed and now included the keeping of files on the activities to be performed, jobs to be filled and the level of remuneration. It added that the prison working day was organized with a view to obtaining better returns on the investments (two five-hour shifts so that machines can be used for ten hours instead of the six hours under the former system); this should also enable the prisoners concerned to have access to other activities in the establishment (e.g. sports, education, social and cultural activities). The Committee recalls again that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention expressly prohibits persons from whom work is exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law from being placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. Only work carried out in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held not to be incompatible with this prohibition; this requires not only the formal consent of the prisoner, but also, in the light of the circumstances of this consent, guarantees and safeguards in respect of wages and social security that are such to justify the labour relationship being regarded as a free one. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on any developments and progress in this respect.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.