ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

Other comments on C087

Observation
  1. 2022
  2. 2019
  3. 2018
  4. 2015
  5. 2013

DISPLAYINFrench - SpanishAlle anzeigen

The Committee recalls that, in reply to the International Trade Union Confederation’s observations of 2012 and 2013 relating to allegations of restrictions to freedom of assembly imposed by the Public Order Management Act 2013, the Government had indicated that the Act was applied so as to ensure that public gatherings take place in harmony and peace. The Committee recalls that the Act provides that organizers of public meetings, who fail to comply with the requirements of the Act (including time frames for giving notice of the meetings and time limits during which public meetings can take place), commit an act of disobedience of statutory duty which is punishable under the Penal Code with imprisonment. The Committee recalls that: (i) the right to organize public meetings and processions constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights; (ii) the authorities should resort to calling in the police in a strike situation or demonstration only if there is a genuine threat to public order; (iii) no penal sanction should be imposed on workers for having carried out a peaceful strike or demonstration; and (iv) the implementation of the Public Order Management Act should not impair the exercise of the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee had expressed its trust that the Government would ensure respect for these principles and, to that end, it had requested the Government to discuss with the social partners the application and impact of the Act 2013. The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information in this regard. It therefore once again requests the Government to discuss with the social partners the application and impact of the Public Order Management Act, and to provide information on the outcome of the discussions.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Legislative matters. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take measures to amend or repeal the following provisions of the 2006 Labour Unions Act (LUA) and the 2006 Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act (LDASA):
  • -Section 18 of the LUA (process of registration of a labour union shall be completed within 90 days from the date of application). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that that 90 days is the maximum duration anticipated for the whole process to be completed before a certificate is issued to the applicant. Recalling that registration procedures that are overly lengthy may constitute serious obstacles to the establishment of organizations, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 18 of the LUA so as to shorten the time frame for registration of a trade union.
  • -Section 23(1) of the LUA (interdiction or suspension of union officers by the Registrar). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the intention of section 23(1) of the LUA is to remove the officer in question to allow investigations to take place and justice to prevail. The Committee recalls once again that any removal or suspension of trade union officers, which is not the result of an internal decision of the trade union, a vote by members, or normal judicial proceedings, seriously interferes with the right of trade unions to elect their representatives in full freedom, enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention. Provisions which permit the suspension and removal of trade union officers by the administrative authorities are incompatible with the Convention. The Committee further recalls that only the conviction on account of offences, the nature of which is such as to prejudice the aptitude and integrity required to exercise trade union office may constitute grounds for disqualification from holding such office. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to take steps to amend section 23(1) of the LUA so as to ensure that the Registrar may only remove or suspend trade union officers after conclusion of the judicial proceedings and only for reasons in line with the principle cited above.
  • -Section 31(1) of the LUA (eligibility condition of being employed in the relevant occupation). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its intention to contact the trade unions so that they can express their views on this issue. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 31(1) of the LUA in conjunction with such consultations so as to introduce flexibility either by admitting as candidates for union office persons who have previously been employed in that occupation, or by exempting from that requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.
  • -Section 33 of the LUA (excessive regulation by the Registrar of an organization’s annual general meeting; contravention subject to sanction under section 23(1)). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its intention to discuss this matter with the trade unions so as to bring section 33 of the LUA into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding the steps taken to repeal section 33 so as to guarantee the right of organizations to organize their administration.
  • -Section 29(2) of the LDASA (responsibility for declaring a strike illegal lies with the Government). The Committee recalls that the Government has previously indicated that the responsibility for declaring a strike illegal lies with the Labour Officer, who is an officer of the Government, and that therefore any action by such officer is an action of the Government. The Committee regrets that the Government’s report does not contain any information on the measures taken to amend section 29(2) of the LDASA. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend this provision so as to ensure that the responsibility for declaring a strike illegal does not lie with the Government, but with an independent body that has the confidence of the parties involved.
Concerning Schedule 2 of the LDASA (list of essential services), the Committee recalls that the Government had previously indicated that the harmonization of the list of essential services in the LDASA with that in the 2008 Public Service Act (Negotiating, Consultative and Disputes Settlement Machinery) was going to be undertaken by the new Labour Advisory Board, which was appointed in October 2015. In the absence of any new information on this point, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer