Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2015, publiée 105ème session CIT (2016)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Aruba

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Réponses reçues aux questions soulevées dans une demande directe qui ne donnent pas lieu à d’autres commentaires

2021

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to organize their activities. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take measures to amend or repeal section 374(a)–(c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, which appeared to sanction, with imprisonment, the exercise of the right to strike by public employees. The Committee duly notes that, on repeated occasions, the Government has denied having any legislation prohibiting public employees from exercising their right to strike. The Government has stated that the right to strike is guaranteed by the Constitution of Aruba, that section 374 of the Penal Code does not prohibit public employees from striking but only from certain acts while on strike like stagnation (for example, of the traffic), and that section 82 of the Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 sets out penalties for public employees who neglect or refuse to perform labour but has no impact on strike action. The Government indicates that, considering that these sections have no bearing on the question of strikes by public employees, no changes have been introduced to them. The Committee invites the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to confirm in a legal text that public employees may exercise the right to strike and that no criminal penalties may be imposed for their peaceful participation in strikes.

As to the concerns of stagnation, the Committee observes that, in consultation with the organizations of public employees concerned, the Government may provide for the establishment of minimum services for essential services in the strict sense of the term (the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), services in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration could cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence of the population, or public services of fundamental importance.

Freedom of assembly. In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to take any necessary measures to ensure that the authorization for holding public meetings in specific areas could be denied only when it is feared that serious disturbances might occur and public order is threatened and that, in such cases, the authorities responsible for public order take the necessary measures to reach an agreement with the organizers of a meeting concerning the place where it can be held and the manner in which it can take place. The Committee notes that the Government responds to its request by stressing that, pursuant to section 5 of State Ordinance AB 1999 No. GT2, the right to demonstrate can be limited when public order is disturbed or there exists a severe threat of said disturbance. The Government adds that, in such cases, the responsible authorities suggest other times and places. The Committee notes that employers’ and workers’ organizations have not made any comments on these statements of the Government.