Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

With reference to its observation, the Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the new Labour Code, No. 12 of 2003.

Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 19(f) of the Trade Union Act, No. 35 of 1976 as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995 so that all workers are able to join more than one organization, if they so wish, in order to be able to defend their occupational interests in cases where they are engaged in more than one occupation. The Government recalls that Egyptian legislation does not prohibit a combination of affiliation to trade unions and professional organizations at the same time by the worker. On the other hand, trade unions in Egypt find double membership inappropriate. The Government points out that the worker will always enjoy the benefits obtained by trade unions, in particular, through collective agreements, whether the worker is a member of a trade union or not. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 2, workers have the right to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. In the view of the Committee, this issue relates to the importance of ensuring that workers who hold more than one job are able to join more than one union, if they so wish, to defend their occupational interests in each job category or occupation in which they work. Recalling that under the terms of section 19(f) a worker must not be a member of a general union even if he or she is engaged in more than one occupation, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which combining affiliation to unions is actually possible as stated in its report.

Article 3. The Committee notes that under section 28 of Act No. 83 of 2003 promulgating the Law on economic zones of special nature, the provisions of the Labour Law shall apply to work relations in the zone in the absence of any special provisions under Act No. 83. Further, Chapter 4 of the Act establishes a disputes settlement centre which deals in particular with collective labour disputes through conciliation. On the other hand, the Committee notes that, under section 52, the authority of the zone may accept to resort to arbitration whatever the nature of the dispute may be. Recalling that any restrictions or prohibition on the right to strike should be confined to essential services in the strict sense of the term, the Committee requests the Government to specify in its next report the conditions under which the authority can have recourse to arbitration in cases of collective disputes, having regard, in particular, to the right of workers to have recourse to industrial action to defend their occupational interests in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee notes that under section 4 of the new Labour Code, the following categories of workers are excluded from its scope: (1) public servants of state agencies, including the local government units and the public authorities; (2) domestic workers and the like; (3) workers who are members of the employer’s family and supported by the latter. These workers, under section 2 of the Trade Union Act, No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995), enjoy the right to organize; their exclusion from the Labour Code means that they are excluded from the right to strike as provided in the Code. The Committee recalls that the only workers who can be deprived of the right to strike are public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the right to strike is guaranteed to workers mentioned in section 4, with the exception of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee notes that under section 192 of the new Labour Code, the notification of strike action shall specify the duration of that action. The Committee considers that such mandatory specification of the duration of strike action would restrict the right of workers’ organizations to freely organize their activities and formulate their programmes in a manner contrary to Article 3. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 192 so as to ensure that there is no legal obligation for workers’ organizations to specify the duration of a strike.

The Committee notes that under section 69(9) of the new Labour Code, workers who have participated in strike action that infringes section 192 may be dismissed on the ground of a serious error. Recalling that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the provisions of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers who have participated in legitimate strike action are not sanctioned on the account that the strike notice does not specify the duration of the strike.