Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |95
by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive
and accessible to persons with disabilities”10
In addition, state parties are obliged to forbid all disability-based discriminations related to employment,
especially in matters concerning “conditions of recruitment, hiring and employment, continuance of
employment, career advancement and safe and healthy working conditions”.11 It could be argued that
Article 27 of the CRPD provides the guideline of what should be done by the state to ensure equality
for PWDs at the work place.
The significance of the right to work for PWDs was further highlighted by the Committee on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) through various Concluding Observations on
state reports. For instance, in its Concluding Observations on Hungary (2012),12 the CRPD Committee
expressed its concern at the low level of employment of PWDs and called for the development of
“programmes to integrate persons with disabilities into the open labour market and the education
and professional training systems”.13 Similarly, in the case of Argentina, while the CRPD Committee
was happy for the adoption of the labour law which allocates a minimum quota of 4 per cent for the
employment of PWDs in the public sector,14 and numerous programmes adopted for the inclusion of
PWDS at the work place, it expressed concern on the cultural barriers and prejudices that close access
to the labour market to PWDs.
Moreover, in a CRPD Committee decision – Gröninger v Germany,15 the Committee observed that the
CRPD in Article 27 enshrines the rights of PWDs to benefit from appropriate measures of promotion of
employment opportunities such as real access to general placement services as well as support or help
in finding and obtaining employment. This is to say that the CRPD Committee is useful in providing
10
CRPD, Art 27, para 1.
11
CRPD, Art 27 1(a)
12
Concluding Observations on Hungary (2012), para 43.
13
Ibid, para 44
14
Public Sector [Act 25].689.
15
Liliane Gröninger v. Germany (Communication No. 2/2010)
Select target paragraph3
Add to table of contents