Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2004, publiée 93ème session CIT (2005)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Afrique du Sud (Ratification: 1997)

The Committee has noted the Government’s report. It has noted, in particular, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, No. 105 of 1997, communicated by the Government. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of legislation governing the press and other media, as well as public assemblies, meetings and demonstrations, so that the Committee could ascertain its conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee has noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, under section 37(1)(b) of the Correctional Services Act, 1998) may be imposed on a seafarer under the following provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, as amended:

-  under section 174(2)(c), read in conjunction with section 313(2), if a seafarer is guilty of continued wilful disobedience to lawful commands or continued wilful neglect of duty;

-  under section 174(2)(d), read in conjunction with section 313(2), if a seafarer combines with any of the crew to disobey lawful commands, or to neglect duty, or to impede the navigation of the ship or retard the progress of the voyage.

Sections 321 and 180(2)(b) of the Merchant Shipping Act provide for the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship to perform their duties.

The Committee refers to the explanations in paragraphs 117-119 and 125 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, where it pointed out that only sanctions relating to acts that are likely to endanger the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons do not come within the scope of the Convention. The Committee observes that provisions of section 174(2)(c) and (d) are not limited to acts or omissions leading to the immediate loss, destruction or serious damage of the ship, or endangering the life of or causing injury to persons on board, as is section 174(1), which does not come under the purview of the Convention. On the contrary, section 174(2)(c) and (d) provides for the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline (and possibly as a punishment for having participated in strikes) and is thus incompatible with Article 1(c) (and, in so far as applicable in case of strikes, to Article 1(d)) of the Convention.

As regards provisions of sections 321 and 180(2)(b) concerning forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship to perform their duties, the Committee points out, referring to paragraph 110 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that measures to ensure the due performance by a worker of his service under compulsion of law (in the form of physical constraint or the menace of a penalty) constitute forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and are thus incompatible with the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken to bring the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will supply information on the measures taken or contemplated.