Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2000, Publicación: 89ª reunión CIT (2001)

The Committee notes the Government’s reports.

1.  With regard to the need to amend provisions that afford a privileged position to registered associations, without providing objective and pre-established criteria for determining the most representative association (section 24(3) of the Civil Service Act, sections 26 and 28 of the Prison Service Act), the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Tripartite Committee appointed to review the Civil Service and Prison Service Acts has recommended to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel that section 24 of the Civil Service Act be amended and that work is being carried out to prepare such amendments. Moreover, section 26 of the Prison Service Act has already been amended: the Prison Service Amendment Act, 2000 was passed in both Houses and is now awaiting assent by the President. The Committee takes due note of this information and requests the Government to supply, along with its next report, a copy of the Prison Service Amendment Act, 2000 and of the Act amending section 24 of the Civil Service Act, once adopted.

2.  With regard to the necessity of amending section 34 of the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 88:01, in order to allow a union whose members constitute the largest number of workers in a bargaining unit even if it is unable to reach a membership of 50 per cent of the workers in that bargaining unit, to negotiate collectively employment conditions, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Tripartite Committee set up to review this issue has considered that this provision should not be amended since it is believed that multiple bargaining agents will create industrial conflict in the context of the culture of the country. In this regard, the Committee would point out that the requirement that a union obtain the support of an absolute majority of workers in the bargaining unit to be granted bargaining rights in practice means that there is a risk in many cases that employees will be deprived of the benefits of collective bargaining. The Committee therefore requests that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure this provision is amended so that when no union represents an absolute majority of workers, the union which represents a relative majority of workers in the bargaining unit can carry out negotiations for a collective agreement, at least on behalf of its own members. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

3.  With regard to the need to establish an appropriate mechanism to deal with the grievances of the Central Bank’s employees, the Committee understands that section 20 of the Central Bank Act, Chapter 79:02 as amended by Act No. 23 of 1994, establishes a mechanism for the settlement of disputes between the Central Bank and its employees according to which the Minister of Labour has the power to refer disputes to a special tribunal whose decision is final (see sections 20E and 20F of Act No 23 of 1994). The Committee had found it difficult to reconcile such ministerial intervention with the principle of the voluntary nature of negotiation recognized by Article 4. The Government indicates in this regard that the Tripartite Committee established by Cabinet has concluded that there is no need to amend this aspect of the law since the unions likely to represent these workers can pursue the option of recognition and have the right to collective bargaining under the law. In this respect, the Government adds that the General Workers’ Trade Union was granted recognition as the bargaining agent for Central Bank employees on 8 May 2000. Since then, the union has submitted proposals to the bank for a new collective agreement. The Committee takes note of this recent development and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of negotiations, and in the event of agreement between the Central Bank and the union, to transmit a copy of the new collective agreement.