Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO348, November 2007

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 119. The Committee examined this case at its March 2007 meeting [see 344th Report,
   • paras 88–92]. On that occasion, it once again requested the Government: (1) to amend the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act (TNESMA) so as to ensure that public servants, other than those engaged in the administration of the State, enjoy collective bargaining rights, that priority is given to collective bargaining as the means of settling disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment of public service, and that teachers are able to exercise the right to strike; (2) to return the office building to the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Association; (3) to provide information on the complainants’ request concerning monetary compensation to the families of the 42 employees who had lost their lives; and (4) to indicate whether thorough consultations with trade unions have been held in respect of pension benefits, previously unilaterally suspended by the Government, and whether any final agreement has been reached in this regard.
2. 120. In its communication dated 19 April 2007, the Government submits information provided by the Tamil Nadu Government in reply to the Committee’s recommendations. In particular, the Government indicates that the TNESMA, which restricted the right of public servants to agitate in support of their grievances, was repealed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Government considers, however, that in the interest of the public, Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules should not be repealed. With regard to the Committee’s request to give priority to collective bargaining when determining the terms and conditions of employment, the Government indicates that its approach towards the employees has now become cordial. Whenever necessary, public employees are permitted to meet the ministers and officials to discuss their problems. Furthermore, the Government has taken an initiative to give several concessions in order to settle the demands, which previously unsettled, prompted public employees and teachers to resort to strike in July 2003. The Government submits a list of concessions made on pension benefits, recruitment, deletion of Rule 40-A of the General Rule of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service, etc. According to the Government, in view of this initiative taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu, many outstanding demands of the employees have been conceded.
3. 121. The Government further indicates that the Office Building of the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service Association was handed over to its President when the Association gained back its recognition. With regard to the complainant’s request concerning monitory compensation to the families of the 42 employees who had lost their lives, the Government indicates that an order have been issued to treat the period of absence of government employees and teachers who lost their lives during the strike as “duty”, therefore, the relief and terminal benefits to which the workers were entitled, have been granted to their families.
4. 122. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government, in particular, the repeal of the TNESMA. It regrets however that Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules prohibiting the right to strike for government employees has not been amended. The Committee refers to its first examination of this case when it recalled that public servants should enjoy the right to strike, provided that the interruption of services does not endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The right to strike may however be restricted or prohibited for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fourth edition, 1996, paras 532 and 534]. In public service of fundamental importance and services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term but where the extent and duration of a strike might be such as to result in an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population, a certain minimum service may be requested, but in this case, the trade union organizations should be able to participate, along with employers and the public authorities, in defining the minimum service [see Digest, op. cit., paras 556 and 557]. The Committee noted that by virtue of Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, the right to strike was prohibited for government employees, including teachers. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules so as bring them in line with the above freedom of association principles [see 338th Report, para. 975]. Arguments that civil servants do not traditionally enjoy the right to strike because the State as their employer has a greater obligation of protection towards them have not persuaded the Committee to change its position on the right to strike of teachers. The Committee considers that the possible long-term consequences of strikes in the teaching sector do not justify their prohibition [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 589 and 590]. The Committee expects that the necessary measures will be soon taken in order to repeal Rule 22 and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
5. 123. Furthermore, noting the list of concessions made by the Government to settle the demands for which the strike was conducted in July 2007, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether these concessions came about as a result of free and voluntary negotiations with trade unions concerned.