Social Fieldwork Research (FRANET) Severe forms of Labour Exploitation Supporting victims of severe forms of labour exploitation in having access to justice in EU Member States Portugal, 2014 FRANET contractor: Centro de Estudos para a Intervenção Social Author: Ana Cardoso, Josefina Leitão, Ana Brázia DISCLAIMER: This document was commissioned under contract as background material for a comparative analysis by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) for the project ‘Severe forms of labour exploitation’ . The information and views contained in the document do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA. The document is made publicly available for transparency and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. 1 Contents Categories of interviewees: ............................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4 2. Legal framework ............................................................................................................ 8 3. Labour exploitation and the institutional setting ............................................................ 12 3.1 Tasks of institutions involved in preventing labour exploitation and in enabling victims to access justice .............................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Forms and frequency of incidents of labour exploitation encountered by experts in their work; economic areas affected ........................................................................................ 17 4. Risks and risk management ......................................................................................... 25 4.1 Identification of common risk factors for labour exploitation ....................................... 25 4.2 Prevention measures aimed to reduce the risks of labour exploitation and the obligations of specific organisations in this area .............................................................. 33 4.3 Protection against (repeat) victimisation: actions undertaken by the police to protect victims against the risk of repeated victimisation, including how the police conduct investigations ................................................................................................................... 37 5. Victim support and access to justice: ........................................................................... 44 5.1 Victim support, including available support services .................................................. 44 5.2 Access to Justice and other mechanisms to empower victims ................................... 48 6. Attitudes ....................................................................................................................... 54 7. Conclusion and any other observations, including contentious issues from interviews/focus groups ....................................................................................................... 64 2 Categories of interviewees: Nine categories of experts working in the context of labour exploitation took part in the interviews and focus groups: M – Monitoring bodies (such as labour inspectorates, health and safety bodies) P – Police and law enforcement bodies S – Victim support organisations J – Judges and prosecutors L – Lawyers R – Recruitment and employment agencies W – Workers’ organisations, trade unions E – Employers’ organisations N – National policy experts at Member State level. FG – Focus Group Throughout this report, references to these groups as ‘M’, ‘P’ etc. are to be understood as referring to the above-named 9 categories. Where [M(X)] appears, this denotes the group from which the referenced interviewee came, in addition to the number of interviewees from that group referenced (for example, if a statement is supported by references to three interviewees from the M group, two from the S group and one from the J group, the reference will read ‘[M(3); S(2); J(1)]. Likewise, if a statement is supported by statements from interviewees who participated in focus groups (in the following example, a lawyer), the reference will read ‘[FG(L)]’. For data protection reasons, no names of interviewees have been mentioned. 3 1. Introduction INTERVIEWS Within the sphere of the present study, a total of 31 interviews were held in Portugal, 30 of which were face-to-face and only one carried out by telephone. The telephone interview was owing to the fact that the interviewee was not in Lisbon and when permission came through to grant the interview, the study was already in its final stages. The interviewing was conducted between October 2013 and February 2014 and involved 16 female and 15 male interviewees. Throughout the field work, contacts were established with the entities listed as per the team’s initial list; the purpose of the study was explained to each organisation and a representative willing to be interviewed was requested. Owing to the organisational structure of some of these entities, our request for an interview frequently had to obtain permission from the respective leaderships. This formal procedure when establishing contact resulted in significant delays in obtaining the answers of the invited organisations, some of which declined to take part in the study. The reasons for refusing to accept our invitation basically lay in their weak or inexistent knowledge about the situation under study. Given the number of refusals and the lack of replies from some of the organisations initially contacted, the work team found another a dozen and a half entities that would be relevant to include in the study. On the other hand, as the interviews were being conducted, the participants suggested other organisations that might be useful to include. This allowed us to replace the organisations that had declined our invitation, or had not answered, with some of the entities suggested by the different interviewees. Bearing in mind the number of interviews that had been planned according to their target groups, the interviews that were held were grouped in the following way: TARGET PLANNED HELD GROUP M 3-6 5 P 3-6 4 S 4-7 8 J 3-6 2 L 1-3 1 R 1-3 2 W 1-3 4 E 1-3 3 N 1 1 - - 1 4 Total 30 31 In most of the cases, the established lower limits for each target group were complied with. However, the upper limit was exceeded with regard to Group S – “Professionals working for victim support services” and Group W – “Representatives of organisations representing migrant workers, or organisations advocating the rights of workers”. In terms of the Public Prosecutor’s Offices and the Judges dealing with this subject, it was only possible to hold two interviews, which is below the required limit. This was, without a doubt, the most difficult group to deal with. This means that a lot of effort was involved in approaching and applying to all the institutions that were able provide information on the project issues, and getting them to take part in the interviews. The interviews were conducted in facilities indicated by the various interviewees and were mostly located in their work places. Interviews were held in five different regions of Portugal: the North; the Ribatejo region, the Lisbon area, the Centre and the Alentejo. Some of the people who were interviewed had quite a few years of experience working with this subject; the average number of years experience was 12.5 with a maximum of 30 years (Groups W and M). On the other hand, some of the interviewees admitted that they had no experience whatsoever in this field (Groups E and J). In terms of this last point, it is important to mention that finding judges to interview was one of the major difficulties in this project. The interviews lasted an average of 85.5 minutes, which is a lot more than the 45-60 minutes suggested by the FRA. Owing to the experience of the interviewees and the pertinence and quantity of information they transmitted, the interviewers found it hard to cut down the time in some of the interviews. The interview that lasted the longest, reached 165 minutes (Group M) while the shortest lasted 6 minutes (Group R). Constraints experienced when holding the interviews: As was mentioned above, the delay in receiving the answers from some of the organisations, together with a complete absence of any reply in a few cases, was one of the problems that complicated and delayed the progress of the study. Apart from this, there were a few problems in recording some of the interviews (two of the interviews were not recorded and others suffered from gaps which meant that more than one tape was used). Furthermore, one of the interviewees refused to allow a recording to be made of the interview. FOCUS GROUP The Focus Group discussion took place in the CESIS facilities and lasted 171 minutes. Six people, 2 men and 4 women from Groups M, S and P took part in it. All the participants had been previously interviewed. Although Groups L, N and W had been invited to take part in the discussion, they did not show up, despite the fact that two of the people in these Groups had confirmed their presence. Last minute professional engagements were the reasons for not coming. 5 TG Representatives M 2 S 3 P 1 L - W - The Focus Group discussion was held in a quiet atmosphere which helped to promote an open exchange about this subject among the different participants. Some of the questions raised