Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1990, publiée 77ème session CIT (1990)

In its previous request, the Committee referred to a certain number of legislative provisions and asked the Government to indicate whether these were still in force and, if so, to supply information on their application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope. The Committee notes the Government's reply in its report that the provisions in question are still in force, and that there have been no court decisions regarding any of them since the last report was made. The Government is requested to include in its next report further information on the following points.

1. Emergency regulations. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the only changes made under the Public Safety Ordinance, Chapter 113 of the Laws of Belize, Revised 1980, have been increases in penalties under section 4 of Chapter 113. The Government indicates that no regulations have been made under section 2(a), (e) or (g) of Chapter 113 or under section 18(9) of the Belize Constitution. The Committee requests the Government to supply in future reports copies of any regulations made under these provisions.

Article 1(a) of the Convention

2. The Committee in earlier comments asked whether the replacement of the Criminal Code (Ch. 21), by the Criminal Code (Ch. 84) of the Laws of Belize, Revised 1980, had involved any change in the wording of the sections dealing with seditious acts (sections 217 and 218 of the new Code) or of other provisions of the Code. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the only modification in the wording of the sections in the 1980 revision is found in the statement in section 218 after subsection (1)(c) which states that "every person who contravenes subsections (1), (2) and (3) shall be liable on conviction or indictment to imprisonment for two years and on summary conviction to imprisonment for one year". Noting the Government's indication that no convictions were made in recent years, the Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application in practice of sections 217 and 218, including the number of convictions made thereunder as well as copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(c) and (d)

3. In previous comments, the Committee referred to section 35(2) of the Trade Unions Ordinance (Ch. 238), under which a penalty of imprisonment (involving, by virtue of section 66 of the Prison Rules, an obligation to work) may be imposed on any person employed by the Government, a municipal authority or by any employer in charge of supplying any city, town, village or place, or any part thereof, with electricity or water, railway, health, sanitary or medical services or communications or any other service that may by proclamation be declared by the Governor to be a public service, if he wilfully and maliciously breaks his contract of service, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to cause injury or danger or grave inconvenience to the community. The Committee indicated that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even if involving an obligation to perform labour) for breaches of labour discipline or participation in strikes in essential services, provided that such provisions are applicable only to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services where interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population and that, in such cases an effective danger must exist, not mere inconvenience. Section 35(2) of the Trade Unions Ordinance, while aimed to a large extent at the cases envisaged is not limited to essential services in the strict sense nor to situations endangering the existence or well-being of the population, since it may be applied to any person employed by the Government, a municipal authority or, inter alia, a railway or communications company, and in cases where the breach of contract causes no injury or danger but merely grave inconvenience to the community.

The Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that Statutory Instrument No. 92 of 1981 declared the National Fire Service, Postal Service, monetary and financial services (banks, treasury, Central Bank of Belize), airports (civil aviation and airport security services) and the port authority (pilots and security services) to be essential services, and Statutory Instrument No. 51 of 1988 declared the social security scheme an essential service. Here again, the functioning of the National Fire Service and security services in ports and airports would appear indispensable to the existence and well-being of the population, while in the case of most postal, monetary and civil aviation services, an interruption would not justify the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour under the Convention.

Noting also the Government's indication in its report that no penalties of imprisonment have been imposed in recent years, the Committee hopes that steps will be taken to bring section 35(2) of the Trade Unions Ordinance into conformity with the requirements of the Convention, and that pending such action, the Government will continue to provide information on the application of this provision in practice, including any cases in which penalties of imprisonment have been imposed under this provision.

4. The Committee notes the Government's indication that during the period covered by its report, no steps were being contemplated to bring the merchant shipping legislation into conformity with the Convention. Under sections 221 and 225(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, penalties of imprisonment (involving, by virtue of section 66 of the Prison Rules, an obligation to work) may be imposed for breaches of discipline such as desertion and absence without leave and disobedience, and sections 222 to 224 and 238 of the same Act as well as section 73(1) of the Harbours and Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Ch. 149) provide for the forcible return of seamen on board ship. The Committee hopes that the above-mentioned provisions will be re-examined in light of the Convention. As the provisions in question were based on the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the Government may wish to refer in its examination of the matter to the revised provisions on discipline in the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, in which account has been taken of the requirements of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report that action towards amendment has been initiated and what results were reached.