CMNT_TITLE

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and of the conclusions reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the context of Case No. 1622 (284th Report of the Committee, paras. 686-705, approved by the Governing Body in November 1992).

1. Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had stressed the need to adopt specific measures, particularly through legislation, to guarantee adequate protection (accompanied by sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions) to workers' organizations against any act of interference by employers or their organizations. The Committee notes the Government's statement that no amendments have been made so far, but that the change needed would be kept in mind when the law is amended next.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures at the earliest possible opportunity, and it asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in that matter.

2. Article 4. Further to its previous comments on the restrictions on collective bargaining imposed by the Counter-Inflation (Remuneration) (Cap. 73, revised in 1985) Act, the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement that economic recovery (which was aimed at by the restrictive legislative measures) has since been realized and that the restriction was lifted on 31 July 1991, thus allowing full collective bargaining to function freely. The Committee also notes that various restrictive orders have been revoked. The Committee notes for example that the Counter-Inflation (Remuneration) (Control) Order, 1990, has been revoked.

However, the Counter-Inflation (Remuneration) Act itself does not seem to have been repealed or amended. Section 10 of the Act allows for the restriction or regulation, by order, of remuneration of any kind, and stipulates that any agreement or arrangement which would not respect these limitations would be illegal and deemed to be an offence.

The Committee considers that the powers vested under the Act in the Prices and Incomes Board, as recalled above, do not meet the criteria for acceptable limitations on voluntary collective bargaining. As it has already stressed, the Committee holds that restrictions imposed on free collective negotiations, for imperative reasons of national interest, should be applied as an exceptional measure, only to the extent necessary, they should not exceed a reasonable period and accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect effectively the standard of living of the workers concerned, in particular those who are likely to be the most affected (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 260).

The Committee therefore asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Board, if it should take any order in future under section 10 of the Act, will observe the above-mentioned principles. It asks the Government to keep it informed of any application of section 10 of the Act.

3. Articles 3 and 4. In relation to the previous comments of the Fiji Trade Union Congress (FTUC) on the situation of the workers in the free trade zones, and especially the garment workers where the Garment Manufacturers' Association apparently unilaterally set the employment conditions of the workers without discussion with the Garment Workers' Association, the Committee notes the Government's information according to which the Garment Industry Wages Council (as is the case in seven other Industry Wages Councils), is made up of three persons, with one representative for employers and one for workers. All decisions on the conditions of employment are discussed and the conclusions reached by consensus. The discussions of the Council have resulted in the Wages Regulations (Garment Industry) Order, 1991.

With regard to the FTUC's comments that the Tripartite Forum had not been reactivated for some time, the Committee notes the Government's explanation that it formed the National Economic Strategy Committee as a substitute to deal with all labour matters which were handled by the Tripartite Forum before.

With regard to the FTUC's comments indicating that bargaining was hampered by employer refusal to recognize independent unions and giving the example of the Vatukoula Joint Mining Company refusing to recognize a registered Fiji Mineworkers' Union, the Government states that a Compulsory Recognition Order was issued by the Permanent Secretary for Labour and Industrial Relations on behalf of that union on 11 September 1992, and that it was challenged by the company in the High Court, which invalidated the Order by judgement of 2 April 1993.

Noting that the Committee on Freedom of Association had observed in Case No. 1622, paragraph 695, that the Trade Union (Recognition) Act is silent as to the position of a majority union which does not cover 50 per cent of the employees in a bargaining unit, the Committee recalls that if under a system of nominating an exclusive bargaining agent there is no union covering more than 50 per cent of the workers, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in this unit, at least on behalf of their own members (see 1994 General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 241).

The Committee considers that the application of restrictive conditions such as stipulated in the Act is not conducive to voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. It would ask the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken or contemplated to promote collective bargaining in the case of the Fiji Mineworkers' Union and the Vatoukula Joint Mining Company and to send copies of any collective agreements reached.