Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Dominican Republic (Ratification: 1964)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report and the attachments thereto. Referring to comments it has made in an observation, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

1. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that the National Wages Commission approved new minimum wage rates in 2002. The Committee again observes that minimum wages in all regulated sectors, occupations or branches of activity, have in general undergone an increase higher than the one applied in the industrial export processing zones. Noting that a large percentage of minors and women work in these zones, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the main causes of this trend and on the measures adopted or envisaged to place minimum wages in the export processing zones on a par with those of the other sectors of the economy.

2. The Committee again notes that, according to the Government’s report, the contracts of apprenticeship concluded - in this case by the National Institute of Vocational Technical Training (INFOTEP) - were mainly for men and that only 13 per cent of them were granted to women. The Committee notes that the Government provides no information on the number of women who benefited from the 190 contracts of apprenticeship concluded by the Labour Training Department of the Secretariat of State for Labour. The Committee requests the Government to consider the possibility of increasing the percentage of women who have access to such contracts. It again asks the Government to provide more detailed information on INFOTEP’s vocational training courses for workers in export processing zones which took place in 2000.

3. With reference to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) to which it referred in its observation, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, under section 47(9) of the Labour Code, employers may not carry out any action against workers which may be regarded as sexual harassment, or support or fail to intervene in any such action carried out by their representatives. The Committee observes that there is no definition of sexual harassment in the Labour Code and requests the Government to envisage the possibility of adopting a definition that takes into account the elements mentioned in its general observation of 2002. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, no complaints of sexual harassment have been filed with the labour courts.

4. The Committee would be grateful if in its next report the Government would supply information, or further details, on the following points:

-  the coverage of the persons protected, ranging from applicants for courses or jobs to full-time workers;

-  the scope of the protection, for example vocational education and training, access to employment, conditions of employment and work in the various occupations;

-  the administrative machinery for dealing with sexual harassment, including procedures for the protection of the victims and of those accused of harassment;

-  measures for education and awareness raising;

-  cooperation with organizations of employers and workers to deal with sexual harassment through policies and collective agreements.