Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Lebanon (Ratification: 1977)

The Committee notes the communication from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 21 August 2013, as well as the Government’s report.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention Vulnerability of migrant domestic workers and the exaction of forced labour. The Committee previously took note of the Bill regulating the working conditions of domestic workers. It requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the abovementioned Bill was adopted in the very near future.

The Committee notes the statement in the ITUC’s communication that there are an estimated 200,000 migrant domestic workers employed in Lebanon, the majority of whom are women from African and Asian countries. The ITUC also points out that domestic workers are excluded from the protection of the Labour Law, have a legal status tied to a particular employer under the kafala (sponsorship) system, and legal redress is inaccessible to them. Furthermore, the ITUC provides certain examples in which migrant domestic workers are subjected to various situations of exploitation, including delayed payment of wages, verbal, and sexual abuse. They also experience poor living conditions, such as lack of a separate bedroom and inadequate food. However, the ITUC indicates that in 2009 the Ministry of Labour, in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the ILO released a Standard Unified Contract (SUC) for migrant domestic workers. A revised SUC has been drafted with the technical support of the ILO.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the guiding manual for domestic workers has been finalized and it is awaiting translation through the ILO Office in Beirut. With reference to Order No.1/1 of 3 January 2011 regulating the work of the recruitment agencies of female foreign workers, the Government states that there is ongoing collaboration between the Ministry of Labour, the Syndicate of Owners of Recruitment Agencies and the ILO in order to follow up on the implementation of a code of conduct for the Syndicate in addition to ongoing discussion with respect to a new legislative framework which regulates the work of such agencies. Moreover, the Government indicates that a SUC regulating the work of migrant domestic workers has been developed in collaboration with the ILO.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that Lebanon is participating in a ILO technical assistance programme, the Special Programme Account (SPA) project. This technical assistance resulted in the development of action plans to concretely address the comments of the Committee. In this regard, the Committee notes that the adoption of the previous draft law regulating the work of migrant domestic workers of 2009 has been suspended, due to several ministerial changes over the past four years, and that a new SUC has however been drafted with the technical support of the ILO and seems to have the approval of the Government and the social partners. The SUC is planned to be adopted within a year. The Committee notes that the SUC fills a few legislative gaps in the regulations related to the work of domestic workers. It also provides a minimum safeguard against forced labour pending the adoption of a special law regulating migrant domestic workers. Regarding the Bill regulating the working conditions of migrant domestic workers, it has been referred to the General Secretariat of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers for submission to the Council of Ministers, and subsequently, to Parliament for discussion.

The Committee recalls the importance of taking effective action to ensure that the system of the employment of migrant workers does not place the workers concerned in a situation of increased vulnerability, particularly where they are subjected to abusive employer practices, such as retention of passports, non payment of wages, deprivation of liberty and physical and sexual abuse. Such practices might cause their employment to be transformed into situations that could amount to forced labour.

The Committee observes that the Government appears to be taking a certain number of legislative and practical measures to prevent the exploitation of migrant domestic workers. The Committee therefore urges the Government to continue to take measures to ensure that migrant workers are fully protected from abusive practices and conditions that amount to the exaction of forced labour. In this regard, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Bill regulating the working conditions of migrant domestic workers, as well as the SUC regulating their work will be adopted in the near future and that they will provide adequate protection for this category of workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the progress made in this respect.

Article 25. Penal sanctions for the exaction of forced or compulsory labour. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that section 569 of the Penal Code, which establishes penal sanctions against any individual who deprives another of their personal freedom, applies to the exaction of forced or compulsory labour. It requested the Government to provide information on any legal proceedings which had been instituted to enforce section 569 as applied to forced or compulsory labour and on the penalties imposed, including copies of any relevant court decisions. The Committee also noted that section 8(3)(a) of Decree No. 3855 of 1 September 1972 provides that it shall be forbidden to impose forced or compulsory labour on any person, and sought information on any criminal penalties which may be imposed under this provision.

In this regard, the Committee notes the allegations in the ITUC’s communication that it was found that a lack of accessible complaint mechanisms, lengthy judicial procedures, and restrictive visa policies dissuade many workers from filing or pursuing complaints against their employers. Even when workers file complaints, the police and judicial authorities regularly fail to treat certain abuses against domestic workers as crimes. Moreover, no single example was found among the cases in which an employer faced charges for locking workers inside homes, confiscating their passports or denying them food. In all cases reviewed, sentences were found to be very lenient compared to the offence. In 2009, a criminal court sentenced an employer to imprisonment for repeatedly beating a Filipina domestic worker. However the sentence was only 15 days.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that although there is no specific provision in the national legislation punishing the exaction of forced labour, the judges may refer to section 569 of the Penal Code for such cases. However, no information is available on any legal proceedings instituted for the violation of both section 569 of the Penal Code and section 8(3)(a) of Decree No. 3855 of 1 September 1972 stipulating the prohibition on recourse to forced labour. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties are applied to persons who subject these workers to conditions of forced labour. It asks the Government to supply with its next reports copies of relevant court decisions, illustrating the penalties imposed in accordance with section 569 of the Penal Code, so as to enable the Committee to assess whether the penalties applied are really adequate and sufficiently dissuasive.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.