Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 1990, Publicación: 77ª reunión CIT (1990)

See under Convention No. 55, as follows:

A Government representative asked the Committee to defer consideration of the cases concerning Conventions Nos. 55, 87 and 98 until 1991 because of the difficult and serious political situation prevailing in his country which had meant that the whole Liberian delegation to the International Labour Conference had not yet arrived and that many documents were not available, in particular those enabling a reply to be made to the observations of the Committee of Experts. He also informed the Committee that the Ministry of Labour had been busy preparing a Labour Code which had just been adopted by both Houses, approved by the President and was now before the Foreign Ministry for codification. A copy of the new Code had been sent to the ILO.

A Workers' member of Liberia noted with satisfaction that, after 20 years of discussions in the present Committee concerning the adoption of a new Labour Code which would bring an end to all violations of the ratified Conventions, the President of Liberia had just signed the new Labour Code. He himself had explained to the Senate the divergencies between earlier legislation and the Conventions. When the Committee of Experts received a copy of the new Labour Code, it would be able to see the positive result of its observations on all the ratified Conventions. Finally, he supported the wish expressed by the Government representative that consideration of the cases be deferred.

The Employers' members stated that they understood the difficult situation prevailing in the country, but noted that they would have wished the Government representative to provide more substantive information. As regarded Convention No. 55, they recalled that, in 1987, the present Committee had noted that the Government had for 22 years been repeating that a draft labour code would be drawn up to amend the legislation. No copy of the new Labour Code that had just been adopted had yet been received and it was thus not possible to determine whether it solved the problems concerning application of Conventions Nos. 55, 87 and 98. As for Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98, the Committee of Experts had asked that provisions be included in the legislation providing for civil remedies and penal sanctions in cases of acts of discrimination and interference against trade unions by employers and their organisations. In 1987, however, in relation to the case of Morocco, the Committee of Experts had called for the adoption of civil remedies "or" penal sanctions and not civil remedies "and" penal sanctions, as in the present case of Liberia. Convention No. 98 provided that "Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination" and that wording showed that it was left to member States to determine what constituted adequate protection. The Committee of Experts and the present Committee could assess, in the light of the legal provisions of each country, whether or not protection was adequate, but could not require the imposition of civil remedies and penal sanctions. The Employers' members therefore asked the Committee of Experts to reconsider its observations in the light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.