Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Switzerland (Ratification: 1975)

Other comments on C087

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.

Article 3 of the Convention. The right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee’s previous comments addressed the need to provide for Confederation personnel, which is excluded from the right to strike, particularly persons exercising authority in the name of the State or providing essential services under federal law, compensatory procedures for the settlement of disputes, such as impartial conciliation or arbitration procedures seen to be reliable by the parties concerned. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the amendment of the Act on Confederation Personnel, which entered into force on July 2013, did not introduce compensatory measures for the settlement of disputes. The Committee requests the Government to indicate situations, if any, in which section 24 of the Act on Confederation Personnel or section 96 of the Ordinance on Confederation Personnel have been used, and to specify the possible avenues for redress that serve as compensatory guarantees for the settlement of disputes.

Furthermore, the Committee’s previous comments addressed the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service in two cantons. Noting that the right to strike is recognized both in the federal Constitution, and in all other cantons and all communities for public officials, the Committee requested the Government to indicate any initiative by the competent authorities of the cantons concerned to ensure that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service is limited strictly to public officials exercising authority in the name of the State. In its reply, the Government indicates that it referred the issue to the two cantons concerned but that it has not received a reply in return. The Government reiterates that on the basis of the federal Constitution and the case law of the federal court, the two cantonal laws would be declared void in the event of a review procedure before a court. However, given the principle of the separation of powers, it is not incumbent on the Government to intervene, since the cases in question are directly ruled on by the courts. The Committee notes these indications and requests the Government to provide information on any new developments, including any applications for review by the courts on this subject.