Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2003, publiée 92ème session CIT (2004)

Convention (n° 103) sur la protection de la maternité (révisée), 1952 - Sri Lanka (Ratification: 1993)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It also notes the comments made by the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers’ Union (LJEWU) and the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC) on the application of the Convention.

1. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that the study carried out by the Department of Labour to analyse the issue of payment of alternative maternity benefits has revealed that most of the estate hospitals do not provide alternative maternity benefits as specified by Maternity Benefits Ordinance No. 32 of 1939. It also specifies that this matter is being taken into consideration in order to amend the abovementioned legislation. In its comments, the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon refers to a collective agreement signed by this organization and representative unions in the plantation sector and providing for the payment of full maternity benefits without deductions. The EFC further states that much investment has been made to upgrade the quality of medical services in the plantation sector. The Lanka Jathika Estate Workers’ Union indicates in this respect that besides the state-owned plantations managed by private companies covered by this collective agreement, there is a state plantation sector and a private plantation sector to which it does not apply.

The Committee notes this information. Referring to its previous comments, it recalls that, while the collective agreement signed with several trade unions and 21 plantation management companies covers 585 estates and guarantees that, as of 1 January 1997, female workers are paid the maternity benefits laid down in the Maternity Benefits Ordinance without reduction, a certain number of plantations are not bound by this collective agreement. Thus, workers not covered by this collective agreement are still subject to the provisions of the regulations published under the Maternity Benefits Ordinance by virtue of which cash benefits amount to four-sevenths or six-sevenths of their previous wages, which is less than 49 per cent of their previous earnings, whereas under Article 4, paragraph 6, of the Convention, where cash benefits are based on previous earnings, they shall be at a rate of not less than two-thirds of these earnings. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will be able to take all the necessary and appropriate measures in order to make all women estate workers benefit from medical and cash benefits in conformity with the requirements of the Convention and report very shortly on any cases of progress made to this end.

2. Article 3, paragraphs 2 and 3. With reference to its previous comments establishing the need for the Government to carry out legislative amendments in order to ensure full application of this provision of the Convention to all female workers covered by the instrument, irrespective of the number of their children, the Committee notes that, although there have not been any legislative changes so far, the Government reassures that these concerns are being taken into consideration and declares it will report any progress made in this regard. Recalling that one of the main objectives of the Convention is to protect women workers’ health before, during and after confinement, the Committee deeply hopes that the Government will, as soon as possible, be in a position to undertake the necessary steps in guaranteeing the application of the legislation on maternity protection to all women workers regardless of the number of their children. In this respect, the Committee recalls that at present national legislation still provides for maternity leave not to exceed six weeks when the female worker gives birth to a third or subsequent child while under Article 3, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention, the period of maternity leave shall be at least 12 weeks, which shall include a minimum period of six weeks’ compulsory leave after confinement.

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

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2004.]