Labour in places of deprivation of liberty

Labour is an important element of prison life.

The Penal Code contains contradictory regulations regarding the labour of convicts. On one hand, convicts, according to Article 107 of the Penal Code, have the right to work. On the other hand, according to Article 118 of the Penal Code, convicts are obliged to work. However, a right cannot be an obligation. It is precisely this contradiction in the regulations of the Penal Code that sometimes gives rise to misunderstandings.

It should be noted that amendments to the Penal Code, which came into force in February 2010, provide in this same Article 118 that “the administration is obliged to create conditions that enable convicts to engage in socially useful paid labour.”

That is, the administration is obliged to provide convicts with work. It is understood that a lack of work is by no means always the fault or failure of the institution’s administration, but the requirement of the law does not always take into account the administration’s actual capabilities.

Misunderstandings in the interpretation of the mandatory nature of labour sometimes arise because two types of labour are not distinguished.

The first is work involving the cleaning of the institution’s premises and grounds. Such labour is mandatory; it is not considered ‘forced’. And international standards confirming the mandatory nature of labour refer to this specific type of work. Refusal of such labour can be grounds for the imposition of penalties.

It is another matter regarding paid labour in production. Not long ago, it was considered that this labour was also always strictly mandatory. And the regulation of Article 118 of the Penal Code can indeed be understood that way. However, it is not uncommon for the administration to be unable to offer any work, and even those convicts who wish to work are refused. Furthermore, even the aforementioned regulation stating that the administration is obliged to create conditions for work does not help in such cases.

What questions arise most often for those convicts who work in production?

The first problem is remuneration. A person has worked all month, even two shifts, but was paid a pittance. Is it possible to obtain adequate remuneration for labour?

Firstly, any work must be documented. And if a convict agrees to work, and his hours are for some reason not documented anywhere, that is wrong. At the same time, ensuring that all hours worked and the work itself are documented is, first and foremost, the concern of the convict himself. He must ensure that his working hours are documented in a proper manner. And only in that case can there be a discussion about adequate remuneration for labour.

The amount of payment for work performed depends on its volume and rates. From the earned money, the administration has the right to make deductions for the maintenance of the convict in the institution (food, utilities) and to make other deductions (alimony, repayment of a court judgement). But in any case, all these deductions together cannot exceed 85% of the earned sum. No less than 15% of the earned money (and for certain categories of convicts, no less than 25%) must be credited to the convict's personal account.

Sometimes convicts claim that they work for free altogether. For this, they supposedly, at the insistence of the administration, write statements expressing a desire to work without pay. It is unlikely that such a practice can be considered legal. In the end, whether to write such a statement or not is the convict's choice.

Two more important points should be noted in the sphere of labour relations. When calculating a convict's remuneration, the colony does not transfer contributions to the Pension Fund. Therefore, when the time comes to consider the issue of calculating his pension, the time worked in places of deprivation of liberty will not be counted towards his employment record until the citizen, having already been released, makes the necessary payments to the Pension Fund himself. In our opinion, such an approach can hardly be considered fair, yet it currently exists.

And the second point: if a convict becomes entitled to a pension – whether by age, disability, or other reasons – while already serving a sentence, the pension is not processed until he is released. And although the discriminatory nature of such an approach is obvious, this is precisely the procedure established by the Penal Code.

A number of questions regarding labour relations are covered in the information brochure ‘We Have the Right’, published by the human rights organisation ‘Donetsk Memorial’ and sent to the libraries of all penal institutions, as well as several other information publications. In addition, convicts and their relatives can receive free legal consultations on various legal issues at the Public Reception by writing to P.O. Box 4836, Donetsk, 83092.