Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2005, publiée 95ème session CIT (2006)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government’s first report with interest.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that according to section 210(1) of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996, employers shall not take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the grant of social benefits, disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also notes that section 210(3) of the Labour Code provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravenes subsections (1) and (2), will be treated as unjustified and giving rise to damages. The Committee reminds the Government that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference will be inadequate if they are not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are dissuasive enough to ensure their application. It requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, and particularly on the amounts of damages that have been granted to workers in redress for anti-trade union discrimination or interference by employers.

Article 4. 1. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there is no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee notes that the Government does not specify whether, as a result of the abolition of check-off in 1991, trade union organizations are barred from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and the transfer of dues to unions is not an issue that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining, and requests the Government to indicate whether the abolition of check-off in 1991 has led to such exclusion.

2. The Committee notes that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee must produce within seven days a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible. Furthermore, section 246 of the Labour Code provides that if it is not challenged by the parties to the dispute within four clear days of its notification to them, the report will become binding. The Committee requests the Government to specify what happens if one of the parties challenges the report within the prescribed time limit.

Article 6. The Committee notes that, according to section 2 of the Labour Code, persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code, and for contractual public employees exercise of the right to strike will be governed by special legislative provisions applying to the public administration. The Committee further notes that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of title VIII (settlement of labour disputes) of the Labour Code apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing workers governed by the Labour Code.

With regard to Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that a distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 200). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to provide the legislation applying to employees in the public administration who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in respect of the rights laid down in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.