Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report as well as the observations made by the Danish Union of Journalists (DJ) dated 22 November 1994 and 14 November 1995, and by the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations (AC) dated 3 August and 8 December 1994 and 16 November 1995. It further notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1725 (292nd Report, paragraphs 197 to 229) and in Case No. 1641 (294th Report, paragraphs 39 to 77).

1. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 10 of Act No. 408 of 1988 limited the negotiating power of the Danish trade union organization to persons who were considered to be residents of Denmark, or who by virtue of international obligations were to be put on an equal footing with Danish citizens. It expressed regret that this section of the Act did not aim at encouraging and promoting voluntary negotiation between employers' and workers' organizations, and at allowing workers who were employed aboard Danish ships, but who were not residents of Denmark, to join the organization of their own choosing to defend their interests. The Government is asked once again to indicate in its next report any measures taken or contemplated to bring section 10 of the Act into full conformity, in this respect, with Article 4 of the Convention.

2. Concerning the issues raised in Case No. 1725, and the comments of the Danish Union of Journalists in relation to the extension of an agreement to the entire sector of activity contrary to the views of the organization representing most of the workers in the category covered by the extended agreement, the Committee notes the Government's intention to present a Bill to the next parliamentary session in this regard. It is essential that the legislation is amended at an early date so as to bring it into full conformity with Article 4.

3. The Committee notes the observations of the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations (AC) relating to the job offer scheme for unemployed persons participating in training programmes. This matter has already been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1641 which decided that the case did not call for further examination. The AC raises a number of reasons for its disagreement with this, all of which were taken into account by the Committee on Freedom of Association prior to the formulation of its conclusions. The present Committee therefore sees no reason to reopen the examination of the substantive elements in this case upon which the Committee on Freedom of Association has reached final conclusions.