Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2005, Publicación: 95ª reunión CIT (2006)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It further notes the comments received from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the reply of the Government thereon.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted the comments made by the ICFTU with regard to frequent cases of anti-union discrimination handled in the framework of lengthy legal procedures which could take up to six years (before regional and national labour disputes resolution and the State Administrative Court on appeal). The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that it expected Act No. 2 of 2004 concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement to improve the speed with which labour disputes would be processed.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that so far, there have been no anti-union discrimination cases judged by the court and no proposal, complaint, permission or dismissal because of workers’ membership in a trade union. The Committee also notes that the implementation of Act No. 2 of 2004 concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement, which was supposed to enter into force in January 2005, has been postponed to January 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the steps taken by the labour inspectorate in order to prevent and redress acts of anti-union discrimination in practice (number of visits, types of violations found, steps taken including penalties imposed, etc.). It also requests the Government to keep it informed of any cases brought to the judicial bodies against alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and the decisions reached. The Committee expresses the hope that Act No. 2 of 2004 concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement shall strengthen the effectiveness of the current mechanism of protection against anti-union discrimination upon its entry into force, and requests the Government to provide information in this respect in its next report.

Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous observation, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 122 of the Manpower Act so as to discontinue the presence of the employer during a voting procedure held in order to determine which trade union shall have the right to represent the workers in an enterprise. Furthermore, noting that the ICFTU referred to an important number of acts of interference in trade unions’ affairs, the Committee had requested the Government to supply statistics on the number of complaints lodged and the most frequent problems examined.

The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any statistical information and has not considered yet the amendment of this provision. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the steps taken to amend section 122 so as to exclude the presence of the employer during voting procedures and to supply statistics on the number of complaints of interference by employers in trade union affairs lodged in the last two years and the most frequent problems examined.

Article 4. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend sections 5, 14 and 25 of Act No. 2/2004 which enable either of the parties to an industrial dispute to file a legal petition to the Industrial Relations Court for final settlement of the dispute if conciliation or mediation failed.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Act promotes bipartite deliberations and that before going ahead, the mediator, conciliator, arbiter as well as the Industrial Relations Court have to ask whether the dispute has been bipartitely deliberated. Moreover, the Act is the result of intensive discussions between the Government and members of the legislature after having received inputs from employers’ and workers’ organizations. Thus, the Government states that it has not given consideration to the amendment of sections 5, 14 and 25 of the Act.

The Committee once again recalls that compulsory arbitration at the initiative of one of the parties to an interests dispute raises problems from the point of view of Convention No. 98 as it cannot be considered to promote voluntary collective bargaining. Compulsory arbitration should be possible only: (i) if it is at the request of both parties to the dispute; (ii) in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State; or (iii) in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated to amend sections 5, 14 an 25 of Act No. 2/2004 in accordance with the above principles, so as to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and, in the meantime, to provide information on the practical application of these provisions.

Export processing zones (EPZs). In its previous observation, the Committee had requested the Government, pursuant to allegations of violent intimidation and assault of union organizers, and dismissals of union activists in the EPZs, to provide information on the number of collective agreements in force in the EPZs and the percentage of workers covered. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information in this respect and reiterates its request for information on the promotion of collective bargaining in EPZs.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.