ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2010, publiée 100ème session CIT (2011)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Eswatini (Ratification: 1978)

Autre commentaire sur C098

Demande directe
  1. 2023
  2. 2020
  3. 2018

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report, as well as the comments of the International Confederation of Trade Union (ITUC), which refer to issues already under examination, as well as to a number of acts of anti-union discrimination in the textile sector and in export processing zones (EPZs), and to the denial of collective bargaining to prison staff and problems in practice in the banking sector, demonstrating weaknesses in the collective bargaining machinery. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that the issue of anti-union discrimination in the textile sector was being addressed and a report would be submitted in due course. The Committee notes the Government’s response to these allegations. In particular, the Government states that there are two powerful trade unions in the EPZs: the Swaziland Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (SMAWU) and the Swaziland Processing Refining and Allied Workers Unions (SPRAWU) and that they are fully covered by the rights consecrated in the Constitution and the Industrial Relations Act, 2000, as amended. As the Government does not specifically address the allegations of anti-union discrimination in the EPZs in practice, the Committee requests it to provide any available information and statistics from the labour inspectorate in this regard, as well as any remedial measures eventually taken.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the following points:

–      the need to adopt specific provisions accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions for the protection of workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations (Article 2 of the Convention); and

–      the need to adopt a specific legislative provision so as to ensure that, if no union covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, this does not prevent the exercise of the collective bargaining rights of the unions in the unit at least on behalf of their own members (Article 4 of the Convention).

The Committee notes with satisfaction that section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) has been amended so as to provide that, where in an establishment employees are represented by more than two trade unions whose respective membership does not cover at least 50 per cent of the employees eligible to join the union, the employer shall grant collective bargaining rights to the unions to negotiate on behalf of their members (now published as the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act No. 6 of 2010).

The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had noted the Government’s indication that the issue of the adoption of specific provisions, accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, for the protection of workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations, as required by Article 2 of the Convention, was being addressed. The Committee regrets that the Government has not provided any information on the developments in this regard. It requests the Government to put this matter before the Labour Advisory Board or the Steering Committee on Social Dialogue so as to ensure that workers and their organizations are effectively protected against acts of interference and anti-union discrimination, in accordance with the Convention.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer