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

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Macau Special Administrative Region (RATIFICATION: 1999)

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - Spanish

CMNT_TITLE

Previous comments

The Committee notes the observations of the representative organizations of workers communicated with the Government’s report while observing that the Government does not provide the names of these organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s replies to previous observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
Legislative developments. The Committee previously recalled that while the Labour Relations Law adopted in 2008 contained some provisions that prohibit anti-union discrimination and provided sanctions for such acts, it did not include a chapter on the right to organize and collective bargaining, and that the draft Trade Union Law, which would give effect to these rights, had been pending adoption for fifteen years since 2005.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, subsequent to a public consultation undertaken in 2021, a draft law was passed in January 2023 by the Legislative Council after social partner consultations at the Standing Committee for Social Coordination. The Government indicates that the draft Trade Union Law is currently undergoing detailed review. The Committee notes with regret the Government’s indications that owing to a lack of societal consensus during the public consultation, the draft law, as it is currently, does not accommodate the right to collective bargaining. Recalling that the legislation of the Trade Union Law has been a protracted process which has been ongoing for 18 years since 2005, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures, whether through the Trade Union Law currently under review or otherwise, to ensure that collective bargaining rights as enshrined in the Convention are made explicitly available to all workers and employers without further delay. The Committee expects that the Government will provide, in its next report, specific information on the measures taken to ensure the adoption of a legislation that guarantees the right of collective bargaining to all workers under the Convention. The Committee recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this respect.
The Committee also previously requested the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the adoption of legislative frameworks regulating the rights of seafarers and part-time workers and expressed the expectation that any such instruments would, in full conformity with the Convention, allow these categories of workers to exercise their right to organize and to bargain collectively. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government and refers to its more detailed comments made under Convention No. 87.
Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. On several previous occasions, the Committee had noted that fines imposed by section 85(1)(2) of the Labour Relations Law for acts of discrimination against workers due to their union membership or the exercise of their rights might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises (from 20,000 to 50,000 patacas (MOP) which is equivalent to US$2,500–6,200). It also requested the Government to provide clarification on the use, if any, of sanctions provided for in the Penal Code, to which the Government made reference. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that the draft Trade Union law would ensure the right of trade unions to organize and carry out trade union activities. The Committee notes with regret that the Government reiterates its previous position on the issue that section 10(1) of the Labour Relations Law is applied for all illegal acts violating workers’ rights, including any act by an employer to treat adversely or deter an employee in the exercise of their rights. The Committee observes that the penalty amounts in the provision remain constant and therefore, still appear to be insufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises. In light of the above, the Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to strengthen the pecuniary sanctions applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their sufficiently dissuasive character. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress in this regard.
The Committee also previously noted the 2014 ITUC observations, that section 70 of the Labour Relations Law, which allows rescission of contract without just cause accompanied by compensation, was in practice used to punish union members when they take part in union activities or industrial actions, and requested the Government to take the necessary measures, including legislative, to ensure that this provision is not used for anti-union purposes. The Committee is bound to note that the Government has not elaborated on any measures taken to address the concerns raised by the ITUC in 2014. The Committee observes, based on the Government’s indications in its current report and its supplementary report, that the Labour Affairs Bureau has received no complaints of anti-union dismissals between June 2019 and May 2023. Recalling once again that anti-union acts may not, in practice, always result in the filing of complaints to the competent authorities, the Committee firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including of a legislative nature, to ensure that section 70 of the Labour Relations Law on the termination of employment contracts is not used for anti-union purposes.
Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that sections 10 and 85 of the Labour Relations Law did not explicitly prohibit all acts of interference as described in Article 2 of the Convention or guarantee adequate protection by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the Basic Law of the Macau SAR and the Regulation on the Right to Association provide adequate protection against acts of interference. The Government indicates that the draft Trade Union Law, which is currently under review, prohibits persons from obstructing or restricting the trade union rights of others. The Committee expects that the Trade Union Law will include provisions that align with Article 2 of the Convention and specifically and adequately protect workers’ and employers’ organizations against all acts of interference, including by providing sufficiently dissuasive sanctions accompanied by rapid and effective procedures. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.
The Committee also previously requested the Government to provide statistical information on the functioning, in practice, of the Labour Affairs Bureau and the Labour Tribunal, including the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference brought before them, the duration of the proceedings and their outcome. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that between June 2019 and May 2023, the Labour Affairs Bureau did not receive any complaints concerning any violation of trade union rights of employees. The Government adds that there were no Court judgements dealing with cases of anti-union discrimination and interference during this period. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the functioning, in practice, of the Labour Affairs Bureau, the Labour Tribunal and any Courts with regard to allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference brought before them, the duration of the proceedings and their outcome.
Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee previously observed that the General Provisions on the Personnel of the Public Administration did not contain any provisions against anti-union discrimination and interference and that the Government did not indicate any other specific provisions to this effect. The Committee notes the Government’s reiteration that the protection of civil servants against discrimination or interference in the exercise of their trade union rights is guaranteed. While noting the information provided by the Government on the protections afforded to ensure the participation of public servants in staff associations and other trade-union-like organizations, the Committee observes once again that it does not point to specific legislative provisions to this effect. In these circumstances, recalling that the scope of the Convention covers public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee once again firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including of a legislative nature, to explicitly prohibit acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and grant all public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, adequate protection against such acts.
Articles 4 and 6. Absence in legislation of provisions on collective bargaining for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention both for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, whether through the adoption of the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions or any other legislation. The Committee notes with regret the Government’s indications that the draft Trade Union Law, as it has been drafted currently, does not ensure the right to collective bargaining. The Committee further notes, with respect to collective bargaining rights in the private sector, that the Government reiterates that it always conducts discussions and consultations with the social partners, either through the tripartite consultation platform of the Standing Committee for the Coordination of Social Affairs which has become an essential platform to communicate, negotiate and reach consensus and helps construct stable and harmonious employer–worker relations, or through the permanent consultation mechanism established by the Civil Service Pay Review Council to formulate standards and procedures for pay adjustment in the civil service. The Government further indicates that section 27 of the Basic Law and the Regulation on the Right to Association is currently implemented to ensure that all employees enjoy their right to freedom of association, assembly, organization, and demonstration. While taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee observes that there have been no measures taken to incorporate into law the right to collective bargaining for employees in the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the state. Recalling once again that the Convention promotes bipartite negotiations of terms and conditions of employment and that the establishment of simple consultation procedures instead of real collective bargaining procedures is not sufficient, the Committee once again firmly requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the very near future to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention both for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, whether through the adoption of the draft Trade Union Law or any other legislation, and to provide information on any developments in this regard.
Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee once again notes that the Government has not conducted any relevant statistical analysis on collective agreements concluded. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide statistics as to the number of collective agreements concluded, specifying the sectors concerned, their level and scope, as well as the number of enterprises and workers covered.
The Committee recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in order to address the different points raised in this observation.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year (see legislative developments and Articles 1 and 2 below), as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.
In its previous comment, the Committee noted the observations of representative organizations of workers communicated with the Government’s report and collected through the Standing Committee for the Coordination of Social Affairs, whose members are appointed from the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations (currently the Macao Chamber of Commerce and the Macao Federation of Trade Unions). These referred to the need to adopt specific laws on freedom of association and point to anti-union practices in some enterprises. The Committee further noted the observations of the Macau Civil Servants’ Association received on 6 August 2019, also referring to the need to legislate on matters of freedom of association and collective bargaining, and the Government’s general reply thereto. The Committee also noted the Government’s additional reply to the 2014 observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) but observed that the Government had failed to address the concrete allegations of unfair dismissals of union members and teachers. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to provide its comments on those specific allegations.
Legislative developments. The Committee previously referred to its comments made under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in which it recalled that while the Labour Relations Law adopted in 2008 contained some provisions that prohibit anti-union discrimination and provided sanctions for such acts, it did not include a chapter on the right to organize and collective bargaining, and that the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions, which would give effect to these rights, had been pending adoption since 2005. Referring to its comments made under Convention No. 87, the Committee strongly encouraged the Government to intensify its efforts in order to achieve the adoption, in the near future, of a legislation that would explicitly grant the various rights enshrined in the Convention and address the Committee’s pending comments.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that a research study, initiated in 2016 to understand the social conditions required for initiating a discussion on a Trade Union Law, was finalized 2019. The Government indicates that, in light of the study’s recommendations, it will begin the early stage of the legislation process of the Trade Union Law and is planning to undertake a public consultation to allow ample discussion and provide a foundation for formulating a Law that is responsive to the societal needs.
While taking due note of the Government’s indications, the Committee recalls that the draft Law on Fundamental rights of Trade Unions has been pending adoption for fifteen years. Referring to its more detailed comments made in this regard under Conventions No 87, the Committee urges the Government to intensify its efforts to achieve the adoption, in the near future, of a legislation that will explicitly grant the various rights enshrined in the Convention and address the Committee’s pending comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.
The Committee also previously requested the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the adoption of legislative frameworks regulating the rights of seafarers and part-time workers and expressed the expectation that any such instruments would, in full conformity with the Convention, allow these categories of workers to exercise their right to organize and to bargain collectively. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government and refers to its more detailed comments made under Convention No. 87.
Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Having previously noted that fines imposed by section 85(1)(2) of the Labour Relations Law for acts of discrimination against workers due to their union membership or the exercise of their rights might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises (from 20,000 to 50,000 Macau patacas (MOP) equivalent to US$2,500–6,200), the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the existing pecuniary sanctions applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their sufficiently dissuasive character. It also requested the Government to provide clarification on the use, if any, of sanctions provided for in the Penal Code, to which the Government made reference. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) heavy penalties are already imposed for illegal acts violating workers’ rights and the Government will continue to carefully review and improve the laws and regulations in the field of labour; (ii) violations of the Labour Relations Law are divided into administrative violations and “minor violations”, which are more serious, have a criminal nature and to which the Penal Code applies; (iii) in case an employer deters an employee from exercising his or her rights or subjects the employee to any adverse treatment for exercising such rights (section 10(1) of the Labour Relations Law) and the act constitutes a criminal offence, the Labour Affairs Bureau will actively follow-up, institute a punishment procedure and impose a fine; and (iv) upon refusal by the employer to pay the fine, judicial proceedings will be initiated, in which the court can impose a fine under the provisions of the Penal Code. While taking due note of the information provided, the Committee observes that there do not seem to have been any concrete measures taken to increase the penalties foreseen for acts of anti-union discrimination, which therefore, still appear to be insufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises. The Committee notes in this regard that representative organizations of workers also emphasize the need to increase the amount of penalties and fines for anti-union discrimination in order to enhance the deterrence of such acts. They further consider that there is evidence of anti-union practices in some enterprises in which enterprise regulations require employees who join trade unions and assume trade union functions to inform the management. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to strengthen the pecuniary sanctions applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their sufficiently dissuasive character. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress in this regard.
The Committee also previously noted the 2014 ITUC observations, that section 70 of the Labour Relations Law, which allows rescission of contract without just cause accompanied by compensation, was in practice used to punish union members when they take part in union activities or industrial actions, and requested the Government to take the necessary measures, including legislative, if necessary, to ensure that this provision is not used for anti-union purposes. In its previous comment the Committee noted that the Government stated that between 2014 and May 2019, the Labour Affairs Bureau had not received any complaints of anti-union dismissals but did not elaborate on any measures taken to address the ITUC concerns. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that between June 2019 and May 2020 the Labour Affairs Bureau did not receive any complaint of antiunion dismissals. Recalling that anti-union acts may not, in practice, always result in the filing of complaints to the competent authorities, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures, including of a legislative nature, to ensure that termination of employment contract under section 70 of the Labour Relations Law is not used for anti-union purposes.
Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that sections 10 and 85 of the Labour Relations Law did not explicitly prohibit all acts of interference as described in Article 2 of the Convention, or guarantee adequate protection by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. In its previous comment, it therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the relevant legislation includes express provisions to this effect. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the procedure explained above relating to obstruction by the employer of the exercise of employees’ rights and states that it will continue its efforts to work towards the goals set by the Convention. Recalling once again that the applicable legislation (sections 10 and 85 of the Labour Relations Law and section 4 of the Regulation on the Right of Association) do not explicitly prohibit all acts of interference as described in Article 2 of the Convention, the Committee emphasizes the need for legislation to explicitly protect workers’ and employers’ organizations against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s members, including, for instance, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, and to make express provisions for rapid appeals procedures against such acts, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions. In light of these considerations, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to include in the relevant legislation provisions explicitly prohibiting acts of interference and providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures against such acts.
The Committee also previously requested the Government to provide statistical information on the functioning, in practice, of the Labour Affairs Bureau and the Labour Tribunal, including the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference brought before them, the duration of the proceedings and their outcome. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that between June 2016 and May 2019 one case was opened on the allegations that an employee had been suspended for participating in a procession but it was later found that it was due to poor performance, and that no decisions were found before the courts that would deal with cases of discrimination or interference. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that between June 2019 and May 2020 the Labour Affairs Bureau did not receive any complaints concerning the suspension of employees because of participation in demonstrations. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the functioning, in practice, of the Labour Affairs Bureau and the Labour Tribunal with regard to allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference brought before them, the duration of the proceedings and their outcome.
Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee previously observed that the General Provisions on the Personnel of the Public Administration in Macao did not contain any provisions against anti-union discrimination and interference and that the Government did not indicate any other specific provisions that would explicitly provide protection to public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so that it explicitly prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and grants public servants not engaged in the administration of the State adequate protection against such acts. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that protection of civil servants against discrimination or interference for participating in trade union activities is guaranteed but observes once again that it does not point to any specific legislative provisions to this effect. In these circumstances, recalling that the scope of the Convention covers public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures, including of a legislative nature, to explicitly prohibit acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and grant public servants not engaged in the administration of the State adequate protection against such acts.
Articles 4 and 6. Absence in legislation of provisions on collective bargaining for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention both for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, whether through the adoption of the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions or any other legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it always conducts discussions and consultations with the social partners, either through the tripartite consultation platform of the Standing Committee for the Coordination of Social Affairs in the private sector, which has become an essential platform to communicate, negotiate and reach consensus and helps construct stable and harmonious employer–worker relations, or through the permanent consultation mechanism established by the Civil Service Pay Review Council to formulate standards and procedures for pay adjustment in the civil service. The Government indicates that several laws and regulations on the conditions of work of civil servants are currently being revised and that through the different consultation channels, civil servants can express their opinions on relevant matters. Recalling that the Convention tends to essentially promote bipartite negotiations of terms and conditions of employment and that the establishment of simple consultation procedures instead of real collective bargaining procedures is not sufficient, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures in the very near future to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention both for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, whether through the adoption of the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions or any other legislation, and to provide information on any developments in this regard.
Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes that the Government has not conducted any relevant statistical analysis on collective agreements reached. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide statistics as to the number of collective agreements concluded, specifying the sectors concerned, their level and scope, as well as the number of enterprises and workers covered.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations of representative organizations of workers communicated with the Government’s report and collected through the Standing Committee for the Coordination of Social Affairs, whose members are appointed from the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations (currently the Macao Chamber of Commerce and the Macao Federation of Trade Unions). These refer to the need to adopt specific laws on freedom of association and point to anti-union practices in some enterprises. The Committee further notes the observations of the Macau Civil Servants’ Association received on 6 August 2019, also referring to the need to legislate on matters of freedom of association and collective bargaining, and the Government’s general reply thereto. The Committee further notes the Government’s additional reply to the 2014 observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) but observes that the Government fails to address the concrete allegations of unfair dismissals of union members and teachers. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these specific allegations.
Legislative developments. The Committee previously referred to its comments made under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in which it recalled that while the Labour Relations Law adopted in 2008 contained some provisions that prohibit anti-union discrimination and provided sanctions for such acts, it did not include a chapter on the right to organize and collective bargaining, and that the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions, which would give effect to these rights, had been pending adoption since 2005. Taking due not of the information provided by the Government in this regard and referring to its comments made under Convention No. 87, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to intensify its efforts in order to achieve the adoption, in the near future, of a legislation that will explicitly grant the various rights enshrined in the Convention and address the Committee’s pending comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.
The Committee also previously requested the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the adoption of legislative frameworks regulating the rights of seafarers and part-time workers and expressed the expectation that any such instruments would, in full conformity with the Convention, allow these categories of workers to exercise their right to organize and to bargain collectively. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government and refers to its more detailed comments made under Convention No. 87.
Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Having previously noted that fines imposed by section 85(1)(2) of the Labour Relations Law for acts of discrimination against workers due to their union membership or the exercise of their rights might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises (from 20,000 to 50,000 Macau patacas (MOP) equivalent to US$2,500–6,200), the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to strengthen the existing pecuniary sanctions applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their sufficiently dissuasive character. It also requested the Government to provide clarification on the use, if any, of sanctions provided for in the Penal Code, to which the Government made reference. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) heavy penalties are already imposed for illegal acts violating workers’ rights and the Government will continue to carefully review and improve the laws and regulations in the field of labour; (ii) violations of the Labour Relations Law are divided into administrative violations and “minor violations”, which are more serious, have a criminal nature and to which the Penal Code applies; (iii) in case an employer deters an employee from exercising his or her rights or subjects the employee to any adverse treatment for exercising such rights (section 10(1) of the Labour Relations Law) and the act constitutes a criminal offence, the Labour Affairs Bureau will actively follow-up, institute a punishment procedure and impose a fine; and (iv) upon refusal by the employer to pay the fine, judicial proceedings will be initiated, in which the court can impose a fine under the provisions of the Penal Code. While taking due note of the information provided, the Committee observes that there do not seem to have been any concrete measures taken to increase the penalties foreseen for acts of anti-union discrimination, which therefore, still appear to be insufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises. The Committee notes in this regard that representative organizations of workers also emphasize the need to increase the amount of penalties and fines for anti-union discrimination in order to enhance the deterrence of such acts. They further consider that there is evidence of anti-union practices in some enterprises in which enterprise regulations require employees who join trade unions and assume trade union functions to inform the management. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to strengthen the existing pecuniary sanctions applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their sufficiently dissuasive character. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress in this regard.
The Committee also previously noted the 2014 ITUC observations, that section 70 of the Labour Relations Law, which allows rescission of contract without just cause accompanied by compensation, was in practice used to punish union members when they take part in union activities or industrial actions, and requested the Government to take the necessary measures, including legislative, if necessary, to ensure that this provision is not used for anti-union purposes. The Committee notes that the Government states that between 2014 and May 2019, the Labour Affairs Bureau has not received any complaints of anti-union dismissals but does not elaborate on any measures taken to address the ITUC concerns. Recalling that anti-union acts may not, in practice, always result in the filing of complaints to the competent authorities, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures, including of a legislative nature, to ensure that termination of employment contract under section 70 of the Labour Relations Law is not used for anti-union purposes.
Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that sections 10 and 85 of the Labour Relations Law did not explicitly prohibit all acts of interference as described in Article 2 of the Convention, or guarantee adequate protection by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. In its previous comment, it therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the relevant legislation includes express provisions to this effect. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the procedure explained above relating to obstruction by the employer of the exercise of employees’ rights and states that it will continue its efforts to work towards the goals set by the Convention. Recalling once again that the applicable legislation (sections 10 and 85 of the Labour Relations Law and section 4 of the Regulation on the Right of Association) do not explicitly prohibit all acts of interference as described in Article 2 of the Convention, the Committee emphasizes the need for legislation to explicitly protect workers’ and employers’ organizations against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s members, including, for instance, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, and to make express provisions for rapid appeals procedures against such acts, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions. In light of these considerations, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to include in the relevant legislation provisions explicitly prohibiting acts of interference and providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures against such acts.
The Committee also previously requested the Government to provide statistical information on the functioning, in practice, of the Labour Affairs Bureau and the Labour Tribunal, including the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference brought before them, the duration of the proceedings and their outcome. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that between June 2016 and May 2019 one case was opened on the allegations that an employee had been suspended for participating in a procession but it was later found that it was due to poor performance, and that no decisions were found before the courts that would deal with cases of discrimination or interference. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the functioning, in practice, of the Labour Affairs Bureau and the Labour Tribunal with regard to allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference brought before them, the duration of the proceedings and their outcome.
Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee previously observed that the General Provisions on the Personnel of the Public Administration in Macao did not contain any provisions against anti-union discrimination and interference and that the Government did not indicate any other specific provisions that would explicitly provide protection to public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so that it explicitly prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and grants public servants not engaged in the administration of the State adequate protection against such acts. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that protection of civil servants against discrimination or interference for participating in trade union activities is guaranteed but observes once again that it does not point to any specific legislative provisions to this effect. In these circumstances, recalling that the scope of the Convention covers public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures, including of a legislative nature, to explicitly prohibit acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and grant public servants not engaged in the administration of the State adequate protection against such acts.
Articles 4 and 6. Absence in legislation of provisions on collective bargaining for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention both for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, whether through the adoption of the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions or any other legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it always conducts discussions and consultations with the social partners, either through the tripartite consultation platform of the Standing Committee for the Coordination of Social Affairs in the private sector, which has become an essential platform to communicate, negotiate and reach consensus and helps construct stable and harmonious employer–worker relations, or through the permanent consultation mechanism established by the Civil Service Pay Review Council to formulate standards and procedures for pay adjustment in the civil service. The Government indicates that several laws and regulations on the conditions of work of civil servants are currently being revised and that through the different consultation channels, civil servants can express their opinions on relevant matters. Recalling that the Convention tends to essentially promote bipartite negotiations of terms and conditions of employment and that the establishment of simple consultation procedures instead of real collective bargaining procedures is not sufficient, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures in the very near future to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention both for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, whether through the adoption of the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions or any other legislation, and to provide information on any developments in this regard.
Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes that the Government has not conducted any relevant statistical analysis on collective agreements reached. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide statistics as to the number of collective agreements concluded, specifying the sectors concerned, their level and scope, as well as the number of enterprises and workers covered.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations of workers’ organizations communicated with the Government’s report but observes that the Government does not indicate the names of these organizations. The Committee further notes the Government’s reply to the 2013 and 2014 observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) but observes that the Government fails to address most of the issues raised in the latter observations, including allegations of unfair dismissals of union members and teachers, anti-union measures in the gaming sector and absence of collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these specific allegations.
Legislative developments. The Committee refers to its observations made under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in which it recalls that while the Labour Relations Law, 2008, contains some provisions that prohibit anti-union discrimination and provide sanctions for such acts, it does not include a chapter on the right to organize and collective bargaining, and that the Legislative Assembly has not yet been able to adopt the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to intensify its efforts in order to achieve the adoption, in the near future, of a legislation that would explicitly grant the various rights enshrined in the Convention and address the Committee’s pending comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.
Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, after having observed that both seafarers and part-time workers were excluded from the Labour Relations Law, it had requested the Government to ensure that the legal frameworks to be adopted concerning these two categories of workers would allow them to exercise their right to organize and to bargain collectively. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft Seafarers’ Labour Relations Law is still under discussion to ensure its compatibility with the relevant international Conventions and that in March 2014 and November 2015, representatives of employers and workers provided written comments on the draft Part-Time Labour Relations Law, but their opinions on the subject remain divergent and the Government is, therefore, conducting a comprehensive study and analysis to readjust the text and proceed to adoption as soon as possible. In light of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the adoption of legislative frameworks regulating the rights of seafarers and part-time workers and expects that any such instruments will, in full conformity with the Convention, allow these categories of workers to exercise their right to organize and to bargain collectively.
Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Having previously noted that fines imposed by section 85(1)(2) of the Labour Relations Law for acts of discrimination against workers due to their union membership or the exercise of their rights might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises (from 20,000 to 50,000 Macau patacas (MOP) equivalent to US$2,500–6,200), the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the existing sanctions. The Committee notes in this respect that the workers’ organizations affirm in their observations that, especially in the context of the current social conditions, penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination and interference should be raised in order to enhance the intensity of deterrence and increase the costs of infringements. On the other hand, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) section 85 establishes three categories of fines for minor infractions depending on their severity; (ii) deterrence of employees from exercising their trade union rights is punishable by the highest fine; (iii) if an act constitutes a criminal offence, the Penal Code will also apply; and (iv) the Labour Affairs Bureau investigates and follows up any labour dispute cases and if labour rights are found to have been impaired it opens a case and initiates investigations, so as to effectively safeguard the legitimate labour rights of employees. While taking due note of the Government’s explanation, the Committee observes that the amount of fines which can be imposed for acts of anti-union discrimination has not been modified and, therefore, still appears to be insufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide clarification on the use, if any, of other sanctions provided for in the Penal Code, to which the Government makes reference. The Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to strengthen the existing pecuniary sanctions applicable to acts of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure their sufficiently dissuasive character.
The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that section 70 of the Labour Relations Law, which allows rescission of contract without just cause accompanied by compensation, was amended in 2015 by increasing the maximum amount on which compensation is calculated. The Committee also notes in this regard that according to the 2014 ITUC observations, this provision is in practice used to punish union members when they take part in union activities or industrial actions. Recalling that anti-union discrimination is explicitly prohibited by section 6 of the Labour Relations Law and Article 1 of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including legislative, if necessary, to ensure that section 70 of this Law is not used for anti-union purposes.
Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that sections 10 and 85 of the Labour Relations Law did not explicitly prohibit all acts of interference as described in Article 2 of the Convention, or guarantee adequate protection by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to include express provisions to this effect. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) section 4 of the Regulation on the Right of Association provides that any person who compels or intimidates another person to join or withdraw from an association can be subject to imprisonment of up to three years in line with section 347 of the Penal Code; (ii) workers may apply to court for protective or preventive measures if there is serious and irreparable damage to their rights (sections 25 and 26 of the Labour Procedure Code); (iii) labour proceedings triggered by unilateral termination of contract and requests for preventive measures are of an urgent nature allowing for prompt and effective handling of workers’ labour rights (section 5 of the Labour Procedure Code and section 327 of the Code of Civil Procedure); and (iv) a Labour Tribunal was established in 2013 to deal with civil and minor violations and issues arising from labour law relations. While taking due note of this information, the Committee emphasizes the need for legislation to explicitly protect workers’ and employers’ organizations against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s members, including, for instance, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, and to make express provisions for rapid appeals procedures against such acts, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions. In light of these considerations, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the relevant legislation includes provisions explicitly prohibiting acts of interference and providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures against such acts. The Committee also requests the Government to provide statistical information on the functioning, in practice, of the Labour Affairs Bureau and the Labour Tribunal, including the number of cases of anti-union discrimination and interference brought before them, the duration of the proceedings and their outcome.
Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. Having observed that the General Provisions on the Personnel of the Public Administration in Macao did not contain any provisions against anti union discrimination and interference, the Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate which provisions afford to public servants adequate protection against such acts and, if necessary, to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation accordingly. The Committee notes that the Government enumerates legislative instruments regulating the rights, obligations, rewards, penalties, promotion, appraisal and benefits of civil servants and indicates that participation of civil servants in trade union activities does not have any impact on their promotion, appraisal or benefits, let alone discrimination or interference. The Committee observes, however, that the Government does not point to any specific provisions that would explicitly provide protection to public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In these circumstances, recalling that the scope of the Convention covers public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so that it explicitly prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and grants public servants not engaged in the administration of the State adequate protection against such acts.
Articles 4 and 6. Absence in legislation of provisions on collective bargaining for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention both in the public and private sectors. Recalling that the Labour Relations Law does not contain a chapter on collective bargaining and that the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions is still pending adoption, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that despite the absence of legislation on collective bargaining, the Government will, in the formulation of relevant legislation and labour policies, consult and seek the views of the social partners, either through the tripartite coordination mechanism in the private sector or the permanent consultation mechanism established by the Civil Service Pay Review Council for civil servants. According to the Government, employers and workers also safeguard their respective rights and interests through the tripartite Standing Committee for the Coordination of Social Affairs. While recalling that collective bargaining referred to in the Convention is of a bipartite nature, the Committee notes the ITUC affirmation that this mechanism lacks transparency and fails to ensure balanced representation and consultation of independent trade unions. In light of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the very near future to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention both for the private sector and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, whether through the adoption of the draft Law on Fundamental Rights of Trade Unions or any other legislation, and to provide information on any developments in this regard.
Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics as to the number of collective agreements concluded, specifying the sectors concerned, their level and scope, as well as the number of enterprises and workers covered.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in communications dated 1 September 2013 and 31 August 2014. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.
The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.
Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken for the establishment of a legal system of labour relationship for employees working part-time and seafarers who do not fall within the scope of the Labour Relations Act (section 3.3(2) and (3)). The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that pending the entry into force of the special regime for part-time workers and seafarers, the provisions of the Labour Relations Act shall apply to these categories of employees. It further notes the Government’s indication that it is undertaking legislative studies in relation to establishing special labour relationship regimes for part-time workers and seafarers. The Committee trusts that any new framework will allow these categories of workers to exercise their right to organize and to bargain collectively. It requests the Government to provide information on any development in this regard.
Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had previously noted that sections 6 and 10 of the Labour Relations Act prohibit any acts of discrimination against workers due to their union membership or the exercise of their rights, and that section 85(1)(2) provides for sanctions in case of violation of these provisions (from 20,000 to 50,000 Macau patacas (MOP) equivalent to US$2,500–6,200). Considering that these fines might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises, the Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the existing sanctions in order to be more efficient in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes with regret that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. It therefore reiterates its request.
Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that sections 10 and 85 of the Labour Relations Act did not explicitly prohibit all acts of interference as described in Article 2 of the Convention, nor guaranteed adequate protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to include express provision for rapid appeal procedures, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference in order to ensure the application in practice of this Article. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. It therefore reiterates its request.
Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee had previously noted that according to sections 89(1)(n) and 132 of the General Provisions on the Personnel of the Public Administration in Macao, public servants have the right to take part in trade union activities, but that this law does not contain any provision against anti-union discrimination and interference. Thus, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate which provisions afford to public servants adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and that in the event that there is no such protection, to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation accordingly. The Committee notes that while indicating that public servants do enjoy the right of association by virtue of the above legislative provisions, the Government provides no information as to the protection afforded to public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request.
Article 4. Absence of provisions on collective bargaining in the private and public sectors. The Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention and to indicate any development concerning the adoption of the Act on the Fundamental Rights of the Unions or any provision regulating the right to collective bargaining in the private sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft law was once again defeated and that significant disagreement still exists on the issue of collective bargaining. The Government indicates that once the general social consensus will be reached regarding the legislation on trade union rights and collective bargaining, it will immediately begin the relevant legislative procedure, making efforts to consult all relevant parties when preparing any policy and measures concerning labour, and that it will continue to ensure the effective implementation of labour standards through active intervention and coordination between parties.
The Committee notes that the Government provides no information on the measures taken to recognize collective bargaining in the public sector.
The Committee further notes that the Government commits itself to work under the existing legislation to protect the rights of employees and to promote the implementation of the Convention.
The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the very near future to ensure the full application of Article 4 both in the public and private sectors and to provide information on any legislative development in this regard.
The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 1 September 2013. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.
Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken for the establishment of a legal system of labour relationship for employees working part-time and seafarers who do not fall within the scope of the Labour Relations Act (section 3.3(2) and (3)). The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that pending the entry into force of the special regime for part-time workers and seafarers, the provisions of the Labour Relations Act shall apply to these categories of employees. It further notes the Government’s indication that it is undertaking legislative studies in relation to establishing special labour relationship regimes for part-time workers and seafarers. The Committee trusts that any new framework will allow these categories of workers to exercise their right to organize and to bargain collectively. It requests the Government to provide information on any development in this regard.
Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had previously noted that sections 6 and 10 of the Labour Relations Act prohibit any acts of discrimination against workers due to their union membership or the exercise of their rights, and that section 85(1)(2) provides for sanctions in case of violation of these provisions (from 20,000 to 50,000 Macau patacas (MOP) equivalent to US$2,500–6,200). Considering that these fines might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises, the Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the existing sanctions in order to be more efficient in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes with regret that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. It therefore reiterates its request.
Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that sections 10 and 85 of the Labour Relations Act did not explicitly prohibit all acts of interference as described in Article 2 of the Convention, nor guaranteed adequate protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to include express provision for rapid appeal procedures, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference in order to ensure the application in practice of this Article. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. It therefore reiterates its request.
Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee had previously noted that according to sections 89(1)(n) and 132 of the General Provisions on the Personnel of the Public Administration in Macao, public servants have the right to take part in trade union activities, but that this law does not contain any provision against anti-union discrimination and interference. Thus, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate which provisions afford to public servants adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and that in the event that there is no such protection, to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation accordingly. The Committee notes that while indicating that public servants do enjoy the right of association by virtue of the above legislative provisions, the Government provides no information as to the protection afforded to public servants against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request.
Article 4. Absence of provisions on collective bargaining in the private and public sectors. The Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention and to indicate any development concerning the adoption of the Act on the Fundamental Rights of the Unions or any provision regulating the right to collective bargaining in the private sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft law was once again defeated and that significant disagreement still exists on the issue of collective bargaining. The Government indicates that once the general social consensus will be reached regarding the legislation on trade union rights and collective bargaining, it will immediately begin the relevant legislative procedure, making efforts to consult all relevant parties when preparing any policy and measures concerning labour, and that it will continue to ensure the effective implementation of labour standards through active intervention and coordination between parties.
The Committee notes that the Government provides no information on the measures taken to recognize collective bargaining in the public sector.
The Committee further notes that the Government commits itself to work under the existing legislation to protect the rights of employees and to promote the implementation of the Convention.
The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the very near future to ensure the full application of Article 4 both in the public and private sectors and to provide information on any legislative development in this regard.

CMNT_TITLE

Article 1 of the Convention Scope of application. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that new Labour Relations Act, Act 7/2008 (Labour Relations Act) is not applicable to public servants and that special legislations should regulate the rights of non-resident workers, seafarers and part time workers. The Committee requested the Government to communicate any special legislation which affords to non-resident workers, part-time workers, seafarers and public servants the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that: (i) non-resident workers are covered by Law No. 21/2009, Law on the Employment of Non Residents and that according to its article 20, the labour relationship established with the non-resident employee, especially in terms of rights, duties and protections shall be supplemented by applying the general system of labour relationship, i.e. the Labour Relations Law; (ii) it is considering establishing a legal system of labour relationship that is not entirely the same as that under the Labour Relations Law for part-time employees but in the meantime, the provisions of the Labour Relations Law shall apply to this category of employees; and (iii) public servants are covered by the General Provisions on the Personnel of the Public Administration in Macao. The Committee notes however that no information was provided regarding seafarers. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to communicate any special legislation which affords to seafarers the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on any development concerning the adoption of a special legislation for part-time employees and trusts that it will be in full conformity with the Convention.
The Committee takes note of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) comments submitted on 4 August 2011 stating that the new law on the Employment of Non-Residents from October 2009 remains discriminatory and too vague, that it imposes a levy on employers and that migrant workers are denied basic forms of protection and have no legal recourse in case of unfair dismissal. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that its statement concerning the application of the Labour Relations Law to non-resident workers means that migrant workers fully enjoy the rights enshrined by the Convention.
Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that articles 6 and 10 of the Labour Relations Act prohibit any acts of discrimination against workers due to their union membership or the exercise of their rights, and that article 85(1)(2) provides for sanctions in case of violation of these provisions (from 20,000 to 50,000 Macau patacas (MOP) equivalent to US$2,500 to 6,200). The Committee considers that these fines might, in some cases, not be sufficiently dissuasive, especially in large enterprises. The Committee recalls that legislation should make express provision for rapid mechanism and appeal procedures, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure the application in practice of Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the existing sanctions in order to be more efficient in cases of anti-union discrimination.
Article 2. Adequate protection against interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the Labour Relations Act does not contain any provision explicitly prohibiting acts of interference, or guaranteeing adequate protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that article 10 of the Labour Relations Act equally prohibits acts of interference by the employer and that these acts are also punishable by article 85. However, the Committee observes that section 10 does not explicitly prohibits all acts of interference, such as acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employer’s organizations. The Committee recalls that legislation should make express provision for rapid appeal procedures, coupled with effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference in order to ensure the application in practice of Article 2; moreover, to ensure that these measures receive the necessary publicity and are effective in practice, the relevant legislation should explicitly lay down these substantive provisions, as well as appeals and sanctions in order to guarantee their application (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 232). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.
Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference against public servants. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that according to articles 89(1)(n) and 132 of the General Provisions on the Personnel of the Public Administration in Macao, the public civil servants have the right to take part in trade union activities. However, the Committee observes that this law does not contain any provision against anti-union discrimination and interference. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Macau Civil Servants Association alleges, in its comments submitted on 21 April 2011, that for the past ten years, many of its members suffered discrimination of all kinds for belonging to a union and that they were kept aside from promotion and many suffered unjustifiable pressure and were subject to unfair treatment in their daily work, some were dismissed or their contract not renewed without any reason being given. In this respect, the Committee recalls that all workers should enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention, with the only possible exception of public servants engaged in the administration of the State, the armed forces and the police. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which provisions afford to public servants adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In the event that there is no such protection, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation accordingly.
Article 4. Absence of provisions for collective bargaining in the private sector. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the provisions that regulate the right of collective bargaining and had noted that new Act No. 7/2008 abrogating Decree-Law No. 24/89/M did not contain any provisions on collective bargaining. It had further taken note of a draft Law on the Fundamental Rights of the Unions which was subject to deep consultations. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that: (i) the draft Law on the Fundamental Rights of the Unions was once more defeated in 2009 and that therefore, there is at the moment no regulatory provisions governing the right to collective bargaining; (ii) albeit the momentary lack of regulations on the right to collective bargaining, both workers and employers are still free to conduct collective bargaining and such acts of collective bargaining will not meet with any obstructions or interference; and (iii) the mechanism of tripartite coordination actually in place proves to work well. In this regard, while recalling that collective bargaining referred to in the Convention does not refer to tripartite mechanism, the Committee notes that in its comments, the ITUC indicates that the legislation does not adequately guarantee collective bargaining rights between employers and workers organizations. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the very near future to ensure the full application of Article 4 of the Convention and to indicate any development concerning the adoption of the Law on the Fundamental Rights of the Unions or any provision regulating the right to collective bargaining in the private sector.
Article 6. Absence of provisions on collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee notes that the Law-Decree No. 87/89/M, approving the General Rules for the Public Administration Personnel of Macau does not contain any provision concerning the right to collective bargaining of public servants. The Committee recalls that, according to Article 4, civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy the right to bargain collectively. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to improve its legislation on public servants in respect of the rights enshrined in the Convention, including the right to collective bargaining for public servants not engaged in the administration of the State.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) by communications dated 26 August and 9 September 2009 concerning anti-union dismissals and blacklisting. The ITUC further refers to the poor bargaining power of workers vis-à-vis employers, due to the fact that many workers do not have a formal employment contract. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this respect.

Scope of the Convention. Domestic workers. In previous comments the Committee had noted that Act No. 2/99/MM provided for the right of association without authorization of domestic workers and requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the legislation also affords the guarantees set out in this Convention, including collective bargaining. The Committee reiterates its request.

Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in a previous comment, it requested the Government to indicate the provisions which guarantee the right of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State to collective bargaining as well as protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee reiterates its request.

Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it referred to sections 47 and 48 of Decree No. 74/89 on labour relations, which provided that the employer could have recourse to the unilateral termination of the employment of a worker irrespective of the reason, through the payment of compensation, and that in the case of unilateral termination of employment, the employer had to pay double compensation. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 7/2008 on labour relations that derogates Decree No. 74/89. The Committee notes that new Act 7/2008 is not applicable to public servants and apprentices and that a special legislation will regulate the rights of non-resident workers, seafarers and part-time workers. The Committee further notes that articles 6 and 10 of the Act prohibit any acts of discrimination against workers due to their union membership or the exercise of their rights, and provides for sanctions in case of violation of these provisions (from 20,000 to 50,000 patacas equivalent to US$2,500 to 6,200). In this respect, the Committee recalls that all workers (including public servants, apprentices, non-resident workers, seafarers and part-time workers) should enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention, with the only possible exception of public workers in the administration of the State, the armed forces and the police. The Committee requests the Government to communicate any special legislation which affords to public servants, apprentices, non-resident workers, seafarers and part-time workers, the rights enshrined in the Convention, including adequate protection against anti-union discrimination acts and the right to collective bargaining.

Article 2. The Committee notes that new Act 7/2008 does not contain any provision explicitly prohibiting acts of interference, or guaranteeing adequate protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that such protection is afforded by the legislation.

Article 4. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether, in cases where a trade union exists in the enterprise or the institution, a group of non-unionized workers could bargain collectively and whether there were other legislative provisions, in addition to section 6 of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M, which regulate collective bargaining. The Committee notes that new Act No. 7/2008 abrogates Decree-Law No. 24/89/M, but does not contain provisions on collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions that currently regulate the right of collective bargaining.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it had taken note of a draft Law on the Fundamental Rights of the Unions which was subject to deep consultations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the status of this draft Law and whether it will address all the issues dealt with by the Committee. The Committee further requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full application of the Convention and to provide information on any developments on these matters.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Unilateral termination of contracts based on legitimate trade union membership or activities. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, even though section 45 of Decree No. 74/89M of 3 April 1985 establishes that the exercise of trade union activities does not constitute a valid reason for unilateral termination of employment, according to section 47, the employer may have recourse to the unilateral termination of the employment of a worker irrespective of the reason, through the payment of compensation. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that section 48(1) establishes that, in the case of unilateral termination of employment, the employer must pay double compensation. The Government also indicated that, although the legal system does not provide for reinstatement, in case of unilateral termination of contract based on legitimate trade union membership or activities, workers may have recourse to the labour inspector in order to obtain rapid compensation. The Committee considered that legislation which allows the employer in practice to terminate the employment of a worker on condition that the compensation provided for by law in all cases of unjustified dismissal (or unilateral termination of employment) is paid, when the real motive is trade union membership or activity, was inadequate under the terms of Article 1 of the Convention.

Concerning other types of anti-union discrimination such as demotion and transfers, the Committee noted that, according to the Government’s report, these kinds of measures are not allowed, since they might go against the pre-established conditions of work. Should any of these situations take place, the worker will have the right to ask for reinstatement in the old post of work and the employer may be fined. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that under the current labour relations juridical system the exercise of legitimate rights by the employee is already guaranteed. The employer is prohibited from hindering the exercise by the employee of his legitimate rights or unilaterally terminating his labour relation or applying punishment to him (including transfer or demotion) for the same reason. The Government further indicates that all these provisions are maintained in the newly revised Labour Law and that any employer violating these provisions will receive the corresponding punishments, which include voluntary correction and criminal punishment for minor violations accompanied by a corresponding fine. The Committee considers that legislation should include, as the draft Labour Law does, provisions which address directly and specifically the protection against anti-union discrimination, through adequate sanctions.

2. Article 2 of the Convention. In a previous report, the Committee noted that the legislation did not contain provisions explicitly prohibiting acts of interference, nor guaranteeing adequate protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures and requested the Government to take measures to ensure that such protection was afforded by the legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the situation is the same as the one concerning anti-union discrimination. The Committee hopes that the draft Labour Law will expressly include this protection.

3. Scope of the Convention. Non-resident workers and domestic workers. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the legislation affords the guarantees set out in the Convention, including collective bargaining, to all workers including non-resident workers and domestic workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that non-resident workers and homeworkers are already covered by section 2(1) of Act No. 2/99/M, which provides for the general right of association without authorization, afforded to all persons in Macau independently of the fact of being residents or not. According to the Government, non-resident workers have, in practice, the right to affiliate to class organizations. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that the draft Labour Law will also include non-resident workers and domestic workers in its scope of protection. Although the situation of non-resident workers will be regulated by a special law, the relevant special law will make most of the new Labour Law applicable to non-resident workers including the provisions concerning the prohibition on firing workers for joining the groups that represent their interests or for taking part in the activities of these groups. The Committee recalls that the simple right of association does not fulfil by itself all the requirements of the Convention.

4. In its previous comment, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether, in cases where a trade union exists in the enterprise or the institution, a group of non-unionized workers can bargain collectively and whether there were other legislative provisions, in addition to section 6 of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M, which regulate collective bargaining. The Committee reiterates its request.

5. Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in a previous comment, it requested the Government to indicate the provisions which guarantee the right of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State to collective bargaining and protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference.

The Committee wishes to point out that in its previous observation it had taken note of the Government’s indication that a bill amending labour legislation and covering the right of association and of collective bargaining would soon be adopted and that it would address all the issues commented upon. However, the Committee notes that in its present report, the Government indicates that a draft new Labour Law has been approved by the plenary of the Legislative Assembly after having taken into account the views of the Standing Committee for the Coordination of Social Affairs, a tripartite consultative organ. The Government further indicates that the draft new Labour Law passed the first article-by-article examinations by the Third Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly and that a widespread consultation is currently taking place among citizens and groups, which was estimated to be completed by the end of July 2007. The article-by-article examination will continue after the consultation. The Committee notes, nevertheless, that the Government indicates that during the revision of the draft Labour Law, the chapter on the right to organize and collective bargaining was deleted due to the fact that a Law on Trade Unions had not been elaborated yet. The Government indicates that the chapter will be reflected in the form of a supplement to the Labour Law when the relevant law on labour unions will be in place.

Moreover, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Law on Trade Unions (draft Law on the Fundamental Rights of the Unions) proposed by some members of the Legislative Assembly in June 2005 was subject to deep and broad consultations and discussions among the social partners and gave rise to numerous reactions from different groups, in particular with respect to the influence that the transformation of the existing labour groups into union-like organizations would have on the development of Macau’s economy. Although neither the draft Labour Law nor the draft Law on the Fundamental Rights of the Unions were approved by the Legislative Assembly, the Government underlines its will to fully implement the Convention.

In these circumstances, noting that the legal initiatives reported by the Government in the past for a better application of the Convention have not been adopted, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to adopt in the near future the appropriate legislation so as to clearly ensure the full application of the Convention on the different points raised. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments on this issue. The Committee reminds the Government that the technical assistance of the Office is at its disposal.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Unilateral termination of contracts based on legitimate trade union membership or activities. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, even though section 45 establishes that the exercise of trade union activities does not constitute a valid reason for unilateral termination of the employment, according to section 47, the employer may have recourse to the unilateral termination of the employment of a worker irrespective of the reason, through the payment of compensation. The Committee notes that, in its present report, the Government further indicates that section 48(1) establishes that, in the case of unilateral termination of the employment, the employer must pay a doubled compensation. The Government also indicates that, although the legal system does not provide for any reinstatement, in case of unilateral termination of contract based on legitimate trade union membership or activities, workers may have recourse to the labour inspector in order to obtain rapid compensation.

The Committee considers that legislation which allows the employer in practice to terminate the employment of a worker on condition that the compensation provided for by law in all cases of unjustified dismissal (or unilateral termination of the employment) is paid, when the real motive is trade union membership or activity, is inadequate under the terms of Article 1 of the Convention, the most appropriate measure being reinstatement (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 220).

Concerning other types of anti-union discrimination such as demotion and transfers, the Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, these kinds of measures are not allowed, since they might go against the pre-established conditions of work. Should any of these situations take place, the worker will have the right to ask for reinstatement in the old post of work and the employer may be fined.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a Bill amending labour legislation, and covering the right of association and collective bargaining, is at an advanced stage, that it has already been discussed by the social partners and will be sent to the Legislative Assembly in the near future for discussion and approval. According to the Government, this new legislation will take into account the provisions of the Convention that forbid notably the anti-union dismissals.

The Committee hopes that the new Bill amending labour legislation and covering the right of association and of collective bargaining will be adopted in the near future. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation expressly protects all workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, during the employment relationship (including the unilateral termination of contract, transfers, demotion, etc.) for trade union membership or union activities, and that such protection is accompanied by rapid proceedings and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. It also requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this regard.

2. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new Bill amending legislation will include measures to ensure that workers’ organizations are adequately protected against acts of interference by employers or their organizations. The Committee expresses the hope that this Bill will be adopted in the near future and that workers’ organizations will be adequately protected against any act of interference and that dissuasive sanctions will be established.

3. Scope of the Convention. Non-resident workers and homeworkers. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the legislation affords the guarantees set out in the Convention, including collective bargaining, to all workers including non-resident workers and homeworkers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that non-resident workers and homeworkers are already covered by section 2(1) of Act No. 2/99/M, which provides for the general right of association without authorization, afforded to all persons in Macau independently of the fact of being residents or not. According to the Government, non-resident workers have, in practice, the right to affiliate to class organizations. Furthermore, the Government indicates that the new Bill amending labour legislation eliminates all distinction between resident and non-resident workers concerning in particular the rights of association and collective bargaining. The Committee hopes that this new legislation will be adopted in the near future and that it will afford to all workers the guarantees set out in the Convention, including collective bargaining.

4. In its previous report, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether, in cases where a trade union exists in the enterprise or the institution, a group of non-unionized workers can bargain collectively and whether there were other legislative provisions, in addition to section 6 of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M, which regulate collective bargaining, The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new Bill amending the labour legislation includes a chapter consecrated entirely to the right of association and collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the future Act will expressly address this issue and hopes that it will forbid collective bargaining by a group of non-unionized workers where a trade union exists in the enterprise or the institution. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect, as well as to provide information on the sectors of activity in which collective agreements have been concluded.

5. Article 6 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the provisions which guarantee the right of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State to collective bargaining and protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no specific legislation that covers public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. Nonetheless, the Committee notes with interest that the Government further indicates that, taking into account the importance of the issue, a new Bill regulating the fundamental right of freedom of association was sent to the Legislative Assembly. However, it could not be discussed because the necessary tripartite discussions could not be carried out within the Permanent Council for Social Partnership, but it will be examined at the next session of the Legislative Assembly. The Committee recalls that, while Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope, other categories should enjoy the guarantees of the Convention and therefore be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including wages (see paragraph 262 of the 1994 General Survey). The Committee hopes that the new legislation will soon be adopted and that it will cover the right of collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee notes in particular the Government’s indication that a Bill that will effectively regulate trade union activities is currently in the process of finalization in the Legislative Assembly.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate: (1) whether under the terms of section 47 of Decree-Law No. 24/89 on labour relations it is possible for the employer to terminate an employment contract unilaterally, even where such termination is for anti-union purposes; (2) whether in such cases of unilateral termination (which may be assimilated to dismissal), workers have access to rapid and effective recourse which can provide for compensation and possibly reinstatement; (3) whether there are sufficiently dissuasive sanctions; and (4) whether the legislation also protects workers against other prejudicial measures, such as transfers, demotion, etc., and the penalties and procedures applicable in such cases.

The Committee notes the Government’s comments on the protection afforded by Decree-Law No. 24/89 against anti-union dismissals. However, the Committee notes that even though section 45 establishes that the exercise of trade union activities does not constitute a valid reason for unilateral termination of the employment, according to section 47 the employer may have recourse to the unilateral termination of the employment of a worker irrespective of the reason, through the payment of compensation.

The Committee considers that legislation which allows the employer in practice to terminate the employment of a worker on condition that the compensation provided for by law in all cases of unjustified dismissal (or unilateral termination of the employment) is paid, when the real motive is trade union membership or activity, is inadequate under the terms of Article 1 of the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 220). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that legislation forbids any unilateral termination of the employment contract on the basis of legitimate trade union membership or activities.

The Committee further notes that the Government does not indicate whether workers have access to rapid and effective recourse procedures in which they can invoke the anti-union nature of the action taken and obtain redress and through which sanctions can be imposed. Moreover, the Committee observes that the Government does not indicate whether workers are protected against other prejudicial measures such as demotion, transfers, etc.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation expressly protects all workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, during the employment relationship (including the unilateral termination of contract, transfers, demotion, etc.) for trade union membership or union activities, and that such protection is accompanied by rapid proceedings and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the future Act amending the labour legislation will take these comments into account and to indicate any progress made in this regard.

2. Article 2. The Committee had requested the Government to take measures to ensure that workers’ organizations are adequately protected against acts of interference by employers or their organizations. The Committee notes with interest that according to the Government the Bill regulating trade union activities will adequately address this question and requests the Government to keep it informed of any development on this point. The Committee hopes that the future legislation will forbid interference acts and that dissuasive sanctions will be established.

3. Scope of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the legislation affords the guarantees set out in the Convention, including collective bargaining, to all workers including non-resident workers and homeworkers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these workers enjoy the right of association without restriction and that the limitation established in section 3(3) of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M only provides that special legislation is applicable to these categories of workers (in particular, they require prior administrative authorization to the recognition of the right of residence, and they provide for minimum national social standards). Furthermore, the Government refers namely to four non-resident workers’ associations in Macau. The Committee observes that Ruling No. 12/GM/88 and Ruling No. 49/GM/88 about non-resident workers reproduced by the Government, do not address the question of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Committee notes with interest that the new Bill to amend the labour legislation will address the issue of non-resident workers and hopes that it will ensure that the legislation affords the guarantees set out in the Convention to these workers.

4. Moreover, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether, in cases where a trade union exists in the enterprise or the institution, a group of non-unionized workers can bargain collectively and whether there were other legislative provisions, in addition to section 6 of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M, which regulate collective bargaining, and also to provide information on the sectors of activity in which collective agreements have been concluded. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are few collective agreements in Macau and observes with interest that the new Bill to amend the labour legislation will address the question of collective bargaining, taking into account the previous comments made by this Committee. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the future Act will expressly address this issue and hopes that it will forbid collective bargaining by a group of non-unionized workers where a trade union exists in the enterprise or the institution. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

5. Article 6. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the provisions which guarantee the right of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State to collective bargaining and protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that public servants, whether or not engaged in the administration of the State, enjoy full rights of association derived from article 27 of the Basic Law and Law No. 2/99 regulating the right of association. However, the Government does not make any specific reference to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that while Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope, other categories should enjoy the guaranties of the Convention and therefore be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including wages (see paragraph 262 of the 1994 General Survey). The Committee requests the Government to indicate, by referring to the relevant legal provisions, whether public servants not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the right to bargain collectively and if that is not the case to ensure that the future Act regulating trade union activities or other legislative texts will cover the right of collective bargaining of public servants.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that: (1) in accordance with section 4 of Law No. 2/99/M of 9 August 1999, which regulates the right of association, no one can be obliged to be a part of an association by any means whatsoever, or to continue to be a part thereof; (2) section 347 of the Penal Code provides for dissuasive sanctions for public authorities which force or coerce someone to enrol or give up enrolment in an association; and (3) section 45 of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M of 3 April prohibits the dismissal of workers on the grounds of their membership of trade unions or their trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate: (1) whether, under the terms of section 347 of the above Decree, it is possible for the employer to terminate an employment contract unilaterally, even where such termination is for anti-union purposes; (2) whether in such cases of unilateral termination (which may be assimilated to dismissal), workers have access to rapid and effective recourse which can provide for compensation and possibly reinstatement; and (3) whether there are sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the legislation protects workers against other prejudicial measures, such as transfers, demotion, etc., and the penalties and procedures applicable in such cases.

The Committee notes that the legislation does not contain provisions explicitly prohibiting acts of interference, nor guaranteeing adequate protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations by means of dissuasive sanctions and rapid and effective procedures. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take measures to ensure that such protection is afforded by the legislation.

The Committee notes that in accordance with section 3(3) of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M of 3 April 1989, respecting employment relations, the Decree does not apply to domestic employment relations, non-resident workers (for whom there are special regulations) nor workers who provide services in their own homes. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the Convention only permits the exclusion from its guarantees of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, and it requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the legislation affords these guarantees, including collective bargaining, to the categories of workers cited above. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation applicable to non-resident workers.

Article 4. The Committee notes that section 6 of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M provides that agreements concluded between employers and workers or the respective representatives shall be valid. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, in cases where a trade union exists in the enterprise or the institution, a group of non-unionized workers can bargain collectively.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether there are other legislative provisions, in addition to section 6 of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M, which regulate collective bargaining and to provide information on the sectors of activity in which collective agreements have been concluded, and on their coverage.

Article 6. The Committee notes that section 3(2) of Decree-Law No. 24/89/M provides that it does not apply to the public administration or to enterprises or entities subject to the conditions of service of the public service. In this respect, the Government states that the rights set out in the Convention are not diminished or restricted for public servants. In view of the general nature of this statement, the Committee recalls that, while Article 6 of Convention No. 98 allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope, other categories of workers should enjoy the guarantees afforded by the Convention and therefore be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including wages (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 262). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the provisions which guarantee the right of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State to collective bargaining and protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference.

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