Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2016, Publicación: 106ª reunión CIT (2017)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - República Árabe Siria (Ratificación : 1957)

Otros comentarios sobre C098

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes the Government’s comments in reply to the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2013, stating in particular that the absence of collective bargaining agreements signed in recent years is due to the fact that there was no request by the social partners to this end. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations to regulate the terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining agreements.

Scope of the Convention. The Committee had previously noted that sections 1 and 5(1), (2) and (4)–(7) of Labour Act No. 17 of 2010 exclude certain workers from the scope of the law (independent workers, civil servants, agricultural workers, domestic servants and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers whose hours of work do not exceed two hours per day). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) workers who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Act are covered by other laws which regulate their work; (ii) there is no legal impediment for them, via unions, to engage in collective bargaining; (iii) section 17 of the Trade Union Organization Act which governs all employees in the Syrian Arab Republic specifies that a trade union enjoys the right to carry out collective bargaining and conclude collective agreements with employers on behalf of workers; (iv) the abovementioned laws regulating the work of workers excluded from the Labour Act have reiterated that right for trade unions and workers; and (v) for example, section 25 of Act No. 56 of 2004 concerning agricultural relations defines collective bargaining as a set of negotiations which is carried out between one or several employers or one or several employers’ organizations on the one hand, and one or several workers’ federations on the other, with a view to finalizing a collective labour contract. While duly noting that agricultural workers enjoy the right to bargain collectively, the Committee requests the Government to specify and provide details concerning the legislative provisions affording to all categories of workers excluded from the Labour Act the rights enshrined in the Convention, in particular the right to collective bargaining and the right to adequate protection against anti-union discrimination.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee had previously underlined the need to provide for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against anti-union dismissal. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Act provides for dissuasive sanctions in the case of dismissal on the grounds of practising trade union activity or being involved in an electoral activity, in particular: (i) section 67(b) provides for reinstatement of the worker and reimbursement of wages in full for the interruption period; and (ii) in the case that reinstatement is not possible, section 67(c) imposes as sanction the payment of compensation equalling two months’ wages for each year of service, provided that the sum of the overall compensation does not exceed 200 times the minimum wage (normally, in case of dismissal on unjustified or illegitimate grounds, the compensation shall not exceed 150 times the minimum wage). The Committee takes note of this information.

Furthermore, the Committee had previously noted that the Labour Act does not prohibit acts of interference on the part of employers or organizations of workers in each other’s affairs, in accordance with the Convention. Noting that the Government does not provide information in response to this point, the Committee once again requests the Government to take measures with a view to adopting clear and precise provisions prohibiting acts of interference, accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee had previously noted that section 187(c) of the Labour Act states that, during the 30-day period between filing the collective agreement and approval by the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry may object to and refuse to register the agreement and inform contracting parties, by registered letter, of such objection or refusal and the reasons thereof. The Committee had underlined that such objection or refusal to register a collective agreement may only be made on the basis of a procedural flaw or non compliance with the minimum standards laid down in the labour legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry does not refuse the registration of any collective agreement unless its provisions are not in conformity with international labour standards or the national labour legislation. While observing that, according to the Government, the Ministry does not use its powers in practice except for the reason mentioned above, the Committee considers that, as it stands, section 187(c) grants during the 30-day period after filing the collective agreement an excessive power to the Ministry to object or refuse to register a collective agreement on any grounds that it deems appropriate. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to align the wording of this provision with the described practice in order to fully guarantee the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in the Convention.

The Committee had previously noted that under section 214 of the Labour Act, if mediation fails, either party may file a request to initiate dispute settlement through arbitration, and had emphasized that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is only acceptable in limited circumstances. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Arbitration Act defines an arbitration agreement as an agreement of two parties to a dispute who resort to arbitration so as to settle some or all of the disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them, with respect to a specific legal relationship, be it contractual or not. The Committee observes, however, that the 2008 Arbitration Act containing the above definition governs commercial disputes, whereas collective labour disputes are governed by the Labour Act, which contains distinct provisions, in particular concerning the recourse to arbitration, the arbitration procedure and the arbitration tribunal. The Committee reiterates that compulsory arbitration is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), essential services in the strict sense of the term, and acute national crises. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the compulsory recourse to arbitration can only take place in the circumstances mentioned above.

Arbitration bodies. The Committee had previously noted that, according to section 215 of the Labour Act, arbitration tribunals are composed of a chairperson and one member appointed by the Ministry of Justice, one member appointed by the Ministry of Labour, one member appointed by the General Federation of Trade Unions and one member appointed by the Federation of Chambers of Industry, Commerce and Tourism, or the Contractors Association at the governorate level. The Committee had underlined that the composition of the arbitration tribunal could raise questions concerning its independence and impartiality. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that according to section 215, the composition of the arbitration body (a chairperson who is a judge at a councillor’s grade and members who are representatives of the three social partners) reflects a harmonious balance in line with ILO principles and tripartism. The Committee considers that the appointment by the Minister of three (two members and the chairperson) out of five members of the arbitration tribunal, taking into account that arbitration awards are rendered by majority vote of the panel (section 219(a)), calls into question the independence and impartiality of such a tribunal, as well as the confidence of the concerned parties in such a system. The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to amend section 215 of the Labour Act so as to ensure that the composition of the arbitration tribunal is balanced and has the confidence of the parties in the arbitration mechanism.

While acknowledging the complexity of the situation prevailing on the ground due to the presence of armed groups and armed conflict in the country, the Committee trusts that the Government will make all efforts to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention.