CMNT_TITLE

1. For several years the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to section 2 of Law No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, which subjects the legal existence of a trade union or professional association of public servants to the prior approval of the Minister of Territorial Administration.

In its report, the Government points out that in the absence of a trade union organisation for public servants this provision is not applied and that, when public servants wish to organise a trade union, the texts in question will be revised and adapted to the Convention.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that this provision of the legislation is not compatible with Article 2 of the Convention, by virtue of which workers, without distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government, even in the absence of an organisation of public servants, to bring its legislation into conformity with this provision of the Convention.

2. With regard to the banning of foreign workers from holding trade union office (section 10(3) of the Labour Code), the Government once again indicates that this provision could be made more flexible within the framework of the current review of the Labour Code.

While noting this information, the Committee trusts that the revision of the Labour Code which the Government has been announcing for several years will be completed in the near future and that measures will be taken in order to permit foreign workers to hold trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the country.

3. For several years, the Committee has been pointing out that section 165(3) of the Labour Code and sections 2 and 3 of Decree No. 74/969 of 3 December 1974, which empower the authorities to requisition workers involved in a strike called in a vital sector of economic, social or cultural activity, are such as to restrict the right of workers' organisations to call a strike to defend their occupational interests.

In its report, the Government points out that the right to strike is not prohibited in Cameroon and that a solution is found to many disputes during the procedures of conciliation and arbitration.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and defence of their economic and social interests. However, the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services would become meaningless if the legislation defined these services too broadly. Prohibitions should therefore be confined to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

In these circumstances, the Committee once against requests the Government to take measures to confine the prohibition of the right to strike to the cases set out above. It also requests the Government to indicate in its next report the circumstances in which the authorities may have used the procedure of requisitioning.