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

Display in: French - Spanish

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

The Government representative recalled that his country had been the subject of comments concerning the application of Convention No. 87 for some years. The trade unions' rights were not violated in practice but there existed a legal discrepancy between certain provisions of the legislation in the Congo and provisions in the Convention. His Government had taken note of the observations of the Committee of Experts in this regard. He reaffirmed that the present situation of trade union unity was established by the workers themselves in the particular historical circumstances that his country had known. Therefore it was the task of the workers to change this situation if they so desired.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for his brief but disappointing explanation. They recalled that this case concerned two problems, one concerning the question of the check-off system and the other concerning the ministerial Decree adopted on 21 December 1976. With regard to the first point, the Workers' members hoped that the Government representative would indicate the progress which had been accomplished in this respect. With regard to the revision of legislative provisions concerning trade union monopolies, the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to reexamine the provisions and to bring the legislation into line with Article 2 of Convention No. 87. The Workers' members were not able to subscribe to the argument of the Government that the trade union unity had been introduced at the request of the workers because, as underlined by the Committee of Experts, a factual situation of trade union monopoly should not be institutionalised by the law. The workers should be able to safeguard for the future the free choice to create trade unions outside an established structure. The Workers' members hoped to receive clarification from the Government representative on these two questions.

The Employers' members supported the comments which had been made by the Workers' members. This Committee had dealt with this question in 1985 and, despite the fact that time had passed, the situation had not changed, The Government had only repeated the statements which it had made a few years ago, and the Employers' members felt that the Government had not shown any willingness to translate the provisions of the Convention into the national legislation in order to guarantee workers' freedom to create trade unions. They were not opposed to trade union unity but they felt that a system of trade union monopoly imposed by legislation constituted a violation of the Convention and that the Government did not indicate any intention to revise that system.

The Government representative recalled what he had said earlier, that his Government had taken note of the observations which had been made and that it was up to the workers' organisations with regard to the revision of the system. He stated that his Government was prepared to continue discussions with the ILO in the form of direct contacts.

The Committee noted with regret that the report of the Government had not been received. Taking into account the information provided by the Government representative, the Committee noted with regard to the legislation, which the Committee of Experts has been examining for a long time and which this Committee dealt with in 1985, that no progress had been made since then. The Committee noted that there are a number of points contained in the legislation which were in contradiction to Convention No. 87, ratified by the Congo. The Committee hoped that the report of the Government will be received in the very near future and that it would contain information on the progress which had been made in order to bring the legislation into conformity with Convention No. 87.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the Government’s information that it received the technical assistance of the Office in 2023, involving two parts: (i) a technical assistance mission in the field with a view to helping the Government to meet its constitutional obligations under article 22 of the ILO Constitution; and (ii) a memorandum of technical comments from the Office on the 2023 version of the draft Bill on the revision of the Labour Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has welcomed the comments contained in the memorandum and that they will be fully taken into account as part of the finalization of the legislative revision process.
Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes. In its previous comments, the Committee welcomed the amendment of the provisions of section 248-15 of the current Labour Code, in that section 536 of the draft Bill (section 539 of the 2023 version of the draft Bill) specifies that the minimum service to be maintained in the public service in the case of a strike is henceforth limited to “operations strictly necessary for safeguarding public interest and fulfilling the community’s essential needs.” However, the Committee noted that the minimum service was still organized by the employer after “consultation” with the trade union delegates, whereas pursuant to Article 3 there must be “negotiation” of a minimum service. Noting that the Government does not refer to this issue in its report, the Committee trusts that section 539 of the draft Bill will be amended as indicated.
The Committee also highlighted the need to amend sections 532 and 533 of the draft Bill (sections 535 and 536 of the 2023 version), so that: (i) the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises; and (ii) such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against people or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. Noting the Government’s indication that it will duly take into account these recommendations, the Committee trusts that the above-mentioned provisions will shortly be amended as indicated.
The Committee trusts that the revised version of the Labour Code will be adopted in the near future and that the provisions therein will be in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Labour Code as soon as it is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in response to the allegations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 2014 concerning the situation of Mr Dominique Ntsienkoulou, a member of the Dialogue Group for the Redevelopment of the Teaching Profession (CRPE), in particular the certificate of attendance attesting to Mr Ntsienkoulou’s presence in his workstation, dated 5 October 2016.
The Committee also notes the draft Bill issuing the Labour Code provided by the Government with its report, as well as the information that the Government has started the process with the ILO Kinshasa office to request an expert opinion in order to ensure the conformity of the provisions of the draft Bill with labour standards.
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes. The Committee welcomes the fact that section 536 of the draft Bill amends the provisions of section 248-15 of the current Labour Code, in that it specifies that the minimum service to be maintained in the public service in the case of a strike is henceforth limited to “operations strictly necessary for safeguarding public interest and fulfilling the community’s essential needs.” However, the Committee notes that the above section of the draft Bill provides that the minimum service is organized by the employer after “consultation” with the trade union delegates, whereas pursuant to Article 3 there must be “negotiation” of a minimum service.
The Committee also notes with regret that section 532 of the draft Bill does not reflect the recommendation the Committee has been making for many years, because the reference to the occupation of premises during a strike continues to be included in the list of acts constituting serious misconduct. The Committee recalls that the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. In addition, the Committee notes that the participation in an unlawful strike is still qualified as serious misconduct under section 532 of the draft bill and remains liable to criminal penalties under section 533. The Committee emphasizes once again that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers simply because they have gone on strike, and that such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against people or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code.
The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the Code, once adopted, is in full conformity with the Convention, particularly by amending the above-mentioned provisions as indicated. The Committee firmly urges the Government to continue to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office to this end.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report, due since 2016, has not been received. In light of its urgent appeal launched to the Government in 2020, the Committee proceeds with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of whatever information is at its disposal. The Committee recalls that it has been raising issues concerning the observance of the Convention in an observation and a direct request, including a request to investigate serious allegations of arrests and detentions of trade unionists in the context of a teachers’ strike in 2013, as well as longstanding recommendations to bring the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention concerning limitations on strike action (minimum services and sanctions) that unduly restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes. Not having received any additional observations from the social partners, nor having at its disposal any indication of progress on these pending matters, the Committee refers to its previous observation and direct request adopted in 2020 and urges the Government to provide a full reply thereto. To this end, the Committee recalls that the Government may avail itself of the ILO’s technical assistance.
[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2021, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.
Repetition
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes. The Committee previously requested the Government to take measures to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises from the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles whereby the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 248-11 is amended as part of the revision of the Labour Code that is under way, as indicated in its report, in order to take full account of the above principles.
In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, and to guarantee that it is a negotiated minimum service. The Committee recalls that the Government undertook to take account of these principles in the process of the current revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
The Committee also previously observed that, under sections 248-11 and 248 12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that these penalties consist of paying the cost of the damage caused to the enterprise and to non-striking workers. The Committee emphasizes that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers who have gone on strike and that such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against persons or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure observance of this principle.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2021, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.
Repetition
The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the allegations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2014 concerning a strike by teachers that reportedly resulted in: (i) the arbitrary arrest of teachers who are trade unionists by the Directorate-General for Territorial Surveillance (DGST); and (ii) the abduction in June 2013 of Mr Dominique Ntsienkoulou, a member of the Dialogue Group for the Redevelopment of the Teaching Profession (CRPE), by officials of the Provincial Directorate for Territorial Surveillance (DDST) and his subsequent disappearance. The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (i) the Directorate-General of the Police (and not the DGST) summoned the leaders of the CRPE to explain the reasons for their excessive action during the strike; and (ii) Mr Ntsienkoulou left his home on his own initiative and was never arrested, abducted or investigated by the national police services. In light of the divergent information provided by the ITUC and the Government, the Committee wishes to recall that the public authorities must not interfere in the legitimate activities of trade union organizations by subjecting workers to arrest or arbitrary detention, and that the arrest and detention of trade unionists, without any charges being brought or without a warrant, constitute a serious violation of the trade union rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that these principles are fully respected and urgently requests it to further investigate the situation of Mr Ntsienkoulou, particularly as to his safety and whereabouts and to provide information in this respect.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
The Committee expects that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2020, then it will proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.
Repetition
The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2016.
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes. The Committee previously requested the Government to take measures to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises from the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles whereby the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 248-11 is amended as part of the revision of the Labour Code that is under way, as indicated in its report, in order to take full account of the above principles.
In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, and to guarantee that it is a negotiated minimum service. The Committee recalls that the Government undertook to take account of these principles in the process of the current revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
The Committee also previously observed that, under sections 248-11 and 248 12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that these penalties consist of paying the cost of the damage caused to the enterprise and to non-striking workers. The Committee emphasizes that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers who have gone on strike and that such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against persons or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure observance of this principle.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2020, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.
Repetition
The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the allegations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2014 concerning a strike by teachers that reportedly resulted in: (i) the arbitrary arrest of teachers who are trade unionists by the Directorate-General for Territorial Surveillance (DGST); and (ii) the abduction in June 2013 of Mr Dominique Ntsienkoulou, a member of the Dialogue Group for the Redevelopment of the Teaching Profession (CRPE), by officials of the Provincial Directorate for Territorial Surveillance (DDST) and his subsequent disappearance. The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (i) the Directorate-General of the Police (and not the DGST) summoned the leaders of the CRPE to explain the reasons for their excessive action during the strike; and (ii) Mr Ntsienkoulou left his home on his own initiative and was never arrested, abducted or investigated by the national police services. In light of the divergent information provided by the ITUC and the Government, the Committee wishes to recall that the public authorities must not interfere in the legitimate activities of trade union organizations by subjecting workers to arrest or arbitrary detention, and that the arrest and detention of trade unionists, without any charges being brought or without a warrant, constitute a serious violation of the trade union rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that these principles are fully respected and urgently requests it to further investigate the situation of Mr Ntsienkoulou, particularly as to his safety and whereabouts and to provide information in this respect.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
The Committee expects that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2016.
Repetition
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes. The Committee previously requested the Government to take measures to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises from the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles whereby the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 248-11 is amended as part of the revision of the Labour Code that is under way, as indicated in its report, in order to take full account of the above principles.
In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, and to guarantee that it is a negotiated minimum service. The Committee recalls that the Government undertook to take account of these principles in the process of the current revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
The Committee also previously observed that, under sections 248-11 and 248 12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that these penalties consist of paying the cost of the damage caused to the enterprise and to non-striking workers. The Committee emphasizes that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers who have gone on strike and that such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against persons or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure observance of this principle.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments initially made in 2016.
Repetition
The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the allegations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2014 concerning a strike by teachers that reportedly resulted in: (i) the arbitrary arrest of teachers who are trade unionists by the Directorate-General for Territorial Surveillance (DGST); and (ii) the abduction in June 2013 of Mr Dominique Ntsienkoulou, a member of the Dialogue Group for the Redevelopment of the Teaching Profession (CRPE), by officials of the Provincial Directorate for Territorial Surveillance (DDST) and his subsequent disappearance. The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (i) the Directorate-General of the Police (and not the DGST) summoned the leaders of the CRPE to explain the reasons for their excessive action during the strike; and (ii) Mr Ntsienkoulou left his home on his own initiative and was never arrested, abducted or investigated by the national police services. In light of the divergent information provided by the ITUC and the Government, the Committee wishes to recall that the public authorities must not interfere in the legitimate activities of trade union organizations by subjecting workers to arrest or arbitrary detention, and that the arrest and detention of trade unionists, without any charges being brought or without a warrant, constitute a serious violation of the trade union rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that these principles are fully respected and urgently requests it to further investigate the situation of Mr Ntsienkoulou, particularly as to his safety and whereabouts and to provide information in this respect.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
The Committee expects that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2016. The Committee also notes that the Government had been requested to provide information to the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference for failure to supply reports and information on the application of ratified Conventions.
Repetition
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes. The Committee previously requested the Government to take measures to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises from the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles whereby the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 248-11 is amended as part of the revision of the Labour Code that is under way, as indicated in its report, in order to take full account of the above principles.
In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, and to guarantee that it is a negotiated minimum service. The Committee recalls that the Government undertook to take account of these principles in the process of the current revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
The Committee also previously observed that, under sections 248-11 and 248 12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that these penalties consist of paying the cost of the damage caused to the enterprise and to non-striking workers. The Committee emphasizes that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers who have gone on strike and that such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against persons or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure observance of this principle.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments initially made in 2016. The Committee also notes that the Government had been requested to provide information to the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference for failure to supply reports and information on the application of ratified Conventions.
Repetition
The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the allegations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2014 concerning a strike by teachers that reportedly resulted in: (i) the arbitrary arrest of teachers who are trade unionists by the Directorate-General for Territorial Surveillance (DGST); and (ii) the abduction in June 2013 of Mr Dominique Ntsienkoulou, a member of the Dialogue Group for the Redevelopment of the Teaching Profession (CRPE), by officials of the Provincial Directorate for Territorial Surveillance (DDST) and his subsequent disappearance. The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (i) the Directorate-General of the Police (and not the DGST) summoned the leaders of the CRPE to explain the reasons for their excessive action during the strike; and (ii) Mr Ntsienkoulou left his home on his own initiative and was never arrested, abducted or investigated by the national police services. In light of the divergent information provided by the ITUC and the Government, the Committee wishes to recall that the public authorities must not interfere in the legitimate activities of trade union organizations by subjecting workers to arrest or arbitrary detention, and that the arrest and detention of trade unionists, without any charges being brought or without a warrant, constitute a serious violation of the trade union rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that these principles are fully respected and urgently requests it to further investigate the situation of Mr Ntsienkoulou, particularly as to his safety and whereabouts and to provide information in this respect.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
The Committee expects that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.
Repetition
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes. The Committee previously requested the Government to take measures to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises from the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles whereby the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 248-11 is amended as part of the revision of the Labour Code that is under way, as indicated in its report, in order to take full account of the above principles.
In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, and to guarantee that it is a negotiated minimum service. The Committee recalls that the Government undertook to take account of these principles in the process of the current revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
The Committee also previously observed that, under sections 248-11 and 248 12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that these penalties consist of paying the cost of the damage caused to the enterprise and to non-striking workers. The Committee emphasizes that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers who have gone on strike and that such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against persons or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure observance of this principle.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016 which are of a general nature.
The Committee notes however that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.
The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the allegations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2014 concerning a strike by teachers that reportedly resulted in: (i) the arbitrary arrest of teachers who are trade unionists by the Directorate-General for Territorial Surveillance (DGST); and (ii) the abduction in June 2013 of Mr Dominique Ntsienkoulou, a member of the Dialogue Group for the Redevelopment of the Teaching Profession (CRPE), by officials of the Provincial Directorate for Territorial Surveillance (DDST) and his subsequent disappearance. The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (i) the Directorate-General of the Police (and not the DGST) summoned the leaders of the CRPE to explain the reasons for their excessive action during the strike; and (ii) Mr Ntsienkoulou left his home on his own initiative and was never arrested, abducted or investigated by the national police services. In light of the divergent information provided by the ITUC and the Government, the Committee wishes to recall that the public authorities must not interfere in the legitimate activities of trade union organizations by subjecting workers to arrest or arbitrary detention, and that the arrest and detention of trade unionists, without any charges being brought or without a warrant, constitute a serious violation of the trade union rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that these principles are fully respected and urgently requests it to further investigate the situation of Mr Ntsienkoulou, particularly as to his safety and whereabouts and to provide information in this respect.
The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not reply to its previous comments. It expresses its concern in this regard. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes. The Committee previously requested the Government to take measures to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises from the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles whereby the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 248-11 is amended as part of the revision of the Labour Code that is under way, as indicated in its report, in order to take full account of the above principles.
In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, and to guarantee that it is a negotiated minimum service. The Committee recalls that the Government undertook to take account of these principles in the process of the current revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
The Committee also previously observed that, under sections 248-11 and 248-12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that these penalties consist of paying the cost of the damage caused to the enterprise and to non-striking workers. The Committee emphasizes that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers who have gone on strike and that such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against persons or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure observance of this principle.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the allegations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2014 concerning a strike by teachers that reportedly resulted in: (i) the arbitrary arrest of teachers who are trade unionists by the Directorate-General for Territorial Surveillance (DGST); and (ii) the abduction in June 2013 of Mr Dominique Ntsienkoulou, a member of the Dialogue Group for the Redevelopment of the Teaching Profession (CRPE), by officials of the Provincial Directorate for Territorial Surveillance (DDST) and his subsequent disappearance. The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (i) the Directorate-General of the Police (and not the DGST) summoned the leaders of the CRPE to explain the reasons for their excessive action during the strike; and (ii) Mr Ntsienkoulou left his home on his own initiative and was never arrested, abducted or investigated by the national police services. In light of the divergent information provided by the ITUC and the Government, the Committee wishes to recall that the public authorities must not interfere in the legitimate activities of trade union organizations by subjecting workers to arrest or arbitrary detention, and that the arrest and detention of trade unionists, without any charges being brought or without a warrant, constitute a serious violation of the trade union rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that these principles are fully respected and urgently requests it to further investigate the situation of Mr Ntsienkoulou, particularly as to his safety and whereabouts and to provide information in this respect.
The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:
Repetition
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to conduct their activities in freedom and formulate their programmes. The Committee previously asked the Government to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises from the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles whereby the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 248-11 is amended as part of the revision of the Labour Code that is under way, as mentioned in its report, in order to take full account of the abovementioned principles.
The Committee also previously observed that, under sections 248-11 and 248 12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that these penalties consist of paying the cost of the damage caused to the enterprise and to non-striking workers. The Committee emphasizes that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers who have gone on strike and such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against people or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure observance of this principle.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 1 September 2014. The Committee notes with concern the allegations relating to the abduction in June 2013 of Mr Dominique Ntsienkoulou, a member of the Dialogue Group for the Redevelopment of the Teaching Profession (CRPE), by officials of the Provincial Directorate for Territorial Surveillance (DDST) and his subsequent disappearance. The Committee urges the Government to launch an investigation into this matter without delay and to send its comments on these serious allegations and on the allegations of the arbitrary arrest of teachers who are trade unionists by the Directorate-General for Territorial Surveillance (DGST) in April 2013.
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to conduct their activities in freedom and formulate their programmes. In its previous comments the Committee referred to the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. The Committee recalls that the Government undertook to take account of the principles reiterated in the process of the current revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any new developments in this respect.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:
Repetition
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to conduct their activities in freedom and formulate their programmes. The Committee previously asked the Government to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises from the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles whereby the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 248-11 is amended as part of the revision of the Labour Code that is under way, as mentioned in its report, in order to take full account of the abovementioned principles.
The Committee also previously observed that, under sections 248-11 and 248 12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that these penalties consist of paying the cost of the damage caused to the enterprise and to non-striking workers. The Committee emphasizes that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers who have gone on strike and such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against people or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure observance of this principle.
Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the body responsible for deciding whether or not a strike is illegal is the labour tribunal, which bases its decision on information from the labour inspectorate.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2013 concerning serious violations of the Convention and requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.
The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation.
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to conduct their activities in freedom and formulate their programmes. In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the adoption of the revised Code was envisaged for the second quarter of 2012. The Committee also noted the Government’s undertaking to take account, in the context of this revision, of the principles which it recalled in its previous comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the progress of the work to revise the Labour Code and reminds the Government of the possibility of seeking technical assistance from the International Labour Office as part of this work.
The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to conduct their activities in freedom and formulate their programmes. The Committee previously asked the Government to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises from the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles whereby the occupation of premises, in the event of a strike, should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases where the action loses its peaceful nature, or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, or the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the formulation of section 248-11 of the Labour Code takes account of these principles but that it is prepared to specify what constitutes misconduct in the occupation of premises during a strike. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 248-11 is amended as part of the revision of the Labour Code that is under way, as mentioned in its report, in order to take full account of the abovementioned principles.
The Committee also previously observed that, under sections 248-11 and 248-12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the criminal penalties which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these penalties consist of paying the cost of the damage caused to the enterprise and to non-striking workers. The Committee emphasizes that criminal penalties must not be imposed on workers who have gone on strike and such penalties may only be considered if, at the time of the strike, violence against people or property or other serious offences under criminal law are committed, pursuant to the legislative provisions that punish such actions, particularly the Penal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure observance of this principle.
Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the body responsible for deciding whether or not a strike is illegal is the labour tribunal, which bases its decision on information from the labour inspectorate.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the arrest of a number of trade union representatives on 27 October 2005. The Committee also notes the new comments from the ITUC dated 4 August 2011 concerning points already raised by the Committee.
Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to conduct their activities in freedom and formulate their programmes. In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the work of revising the Labour Code, which had been suspended in 2008, resumed in 2010 and the adoption of the revised Code is envisaged for the second quarter of 2012. The Committee notes the timetable for the execution of the work, included in the Government’s report, according to which a draft revised Labour Code was due to be produced in the first quarter of 2011, on the basis of which the ministries concerned, the social partners and the ILO were due to be consulted. The Committee also notes the Government’s undertaking to take account, in the context of this revision, of the principles which it recalled in its previous comments, namely that since the definition of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161). The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the progress of the work to revise the Labour Code and reminds the Government of the possibility of seeking technical assistance from the International Labour Office as part of this work.
The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 248-11 of the Labour Code, certain action during a strike, such as the occupation of premises, constitutes serious misconduct. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the occupation of premises in the event of a strike should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases in which the action loses its peaceful nature or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, and the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises in the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike so as to bring it into conformity with the principles recalled above. The Committee also recalls that the freedom to work for non-strikers and the freedom of the management of the enterprise to enter into the premises should be granted.

The Committee observes that, by virtue of sections 248-11 and 248-12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. In this respect, the Committee considers that no one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. The Committee also wishes to emphasize that the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations and, if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all, they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 177). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the penal sanctions which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers by virtue of section 248-12 of the Labour Code.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the body entrusted with deciding whether a strike is unlawful.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the comments from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC comments, dated 26 August 2009 and 24 August 2010.

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it requested the Government to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. In this regard, the Committee noted that the Government had indicated that section 248-15 had indeed been amended but that it was not in a position to produce the copy of the text amending the provisions of the said section. The Committee recalls that, since the definition of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161). The Committee again expresses the hope that the text amending section 248-15 of the Labour Code takes account of these principles and requests the Government to send a copy of the text as soon as possible.

The Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the draft revised Labour Code.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 248-11 of the Labour Code, certain action during a strike, such as the occupation of premises, constitutes serious misconduct. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the occupation of premises in the event of a strike should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases in which the action loses its peaceful nature or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, and the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to amend section 248-11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises in the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike so as to bring it into conformity with the principles recalled above. The Committee also recalls that the freedom to work for non-strikers and the freedom of the management of the enterprise to enter into the premises should be granted.

The Committee observes that, by virtue of sections 248-11 and 248-12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. In this respect, the Committee considers that no one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. The Committee also wishes to emphasize that the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations and, if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all, they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 177). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the penal sanctions which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers by virtue of section 248-12 of the Labour Code.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the body entrusted with deciding whether a strike is unlawful.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the comments from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC comments.

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it requested the Government to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. In this regard, the Committee noted that the Government had indicated that section 248-15 had indeed been amended but that it was not in a position to produce the copy of the text amending the provisions of the said section. The Committee recalls that, since the definition of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161). The Committee again expresses the hope that the text amending section 248-15 of the Labour Code takes account of these principles and requests the Government to send a copy of the text as soon as possible.

The Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the draft revised Labour Code.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 248-11 of the Labour Code, certain action during a strike, such as the occupation of premises, constitutes serious misconduct. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the occupation of premises in the event of a strike should only be deemed as constituting serious misconduct in cases in which the action loses its peaceful nature or in the event of failure to respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, and the right of the enterprise management to enter the premises. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to amend section 248–11 of the Labour Code to remove the reference to the occupation of premises in the list of acts constituting serious misconduct during a strike so as to bring it into conformity with the principles recalled above.

The Committee observes that, by virtue of sections 248-11 and 248-12 of the Labour Code, read in conjunction, participation in an unlawful strike constitutes serious misconduct and those concerned may be liable to criminal prosecution. In this respect, the Committee considers that no one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. The Committee also wishes to emphasize that the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations and, if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all, they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 177). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the penal sanctions which could be imposed under these conditions on striking workers by virtue of section 248–12 of the Labour Code.

The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the body entrusted with deciding whether a strike is unlawful.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the comments from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 29 August 2008 on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has still not provided its observations on the ITUC comments, dated 10 August 2006, concerning the arrest for 24 hours of eight trade union representatives on 27 October 2005. In this regard, the Committee would like to remind the Government that the arrest and detention, even for short periods, of trade union leaders and members engaged in their legitimate trade union activities, without any charges being brought and without a warrant, constitute a grave violation of the principle of freedom of association (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 31).

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not contain any information on the issues it has been raising for a number of years. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it requested the Government to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. In this regard, the Committee noted that the Government had indicated that section 248-15 had indeed been amended but that it was not in a position to produce the copy of the text amending the provisions of the said section. The Committee recalls that, since the definition of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 161). The Committee again expresses the hope that the text amending section 248-15 of the Labour Code takes account of these principles and requests the Government to send it a copy of the text as soon as possible.

The Committee had also requested the Government to indicate any developments in the revision of the Labour Code in its next report and to send it a copy of any draft amendment to that Code in order to ensure its conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication that the revision work had been completed and that the draft had been submitted for opinion to the National Labour Advisory Commission. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the draft revised Labour Code.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound once again to reiterate its earlier observation, which read as follows:

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. In this respect, the Committee noted that, according to the Government, section 248-15 had been amended, but that it was not able to provide a copy of the text amending the provisions of this section. The Committee recalls that, since the definition of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowerment to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161). The Committee expresses the hope that the text amending section 248-15 of the Labour Code takes these principles into account and requests the Government to send it a copy of the text as soon as possible.

Finally, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the revision of the Labour Code in its next report and to send it a copy of any draft amendment to that Code in order to ensure its conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the revision process had been completed and that the draft text had been submitted to the National Labour Advisory Commission for its opinion. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the draft revised Labour Code and to continue to keep it informed in this regard

The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not sent its comments on the observations of 10 August 2006 of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – International Trade Union Confederation) concerning the eight trade union representatives arrested on 27 October 2005 and remanded for 24 hours. It again asks the Government to send its comments on this matter.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. In this respect, the Committee noted that, according to the Government, section 248-15 had been amended, but that it was not able to provide a copy of the text amending the provisions of this section. The Committee recalls that, since the definition of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 161). The Committee expresses the hope that the text amending section 248-15 of the Labour Code takes these principles into account and requests the Government to send it a copy of the text as soon as possible.

Finally, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the revision of the Labour Code in its next report and to send it a copy of any draft amendment to that Code in order to ensure its conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the revision process had been completed and that the draft text had been submitted to the National Labour Advisory Commission for its opinion. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the draft revised Labour Code and to continue to keep it informed in this regard.

Finally, the Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) made in a communication dated 10 August 2006 concerning the arrest for 24 hours of eight trade union representatives on 27 October 2005. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the ICFTU’s comments.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must, therefore, repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer, to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. The Committee recalls that, since the definition of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 161). The Committee expresses the hope that the text amending section 248-15 of the Labour Code takes account of these principles and requests the Government to send it a copy of the text as soon as possible.

Finally, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the revision of the Labour Code in its next report and to send it a copy of any draft amendment to that Code in order to ensure its conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the draft revised Labour Code and to continue to keep it informed in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend the legislation on the minimum service organized by the employer, to be maintained in the public service that is indispensable for safeguarding the general interest (section 248-15 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population, within the framework of a negotiated minimum service. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that section 248-15 has indeed been amended but that it is not in a position at this stage to produce the copy of the text amending the provisions of the said section. The Committee recalls that, since the definition of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 161). The Committee expresses the hope that the text amending section 248-15 of the Labour Code takes account of these principles and requests the Government to send it a copy of the text as soon as possible.

As regards its previous comments concerning the deduction of trade union dues from workers’ wages, the Committee will continue its discussion with the Government during the regular supervisory cycle relating to the application of Convention No. 98.

Finally, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the revision of the Labour Code in its next report and to send it a copy of any draft amendment to that Code in order to ensure its conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government’s report indicates that the revision work has been completed and that the draft was submitted for opinion to the National Labour Advisory Commission at its ordinary session held in Brazzaville from 22 to 29 December 2003. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the draft revised Labour Code and to continue to keep it informed in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that its previous comments focused on the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service "indispensable to safeguard the general interest" to be maintained in the public service, which is organized by the employer, wherein refusal to participate constitutes serious misconduct (section 248-16 of the Labour Code). The Committee noted that the definition of the minimum service should be limited to those operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population and that workers’ organizations should participate in the determination of such a service. The Committee noted that the Government confirms its intention to review this provision in consultation with the social partners. The Committee again asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this area and to provide a copy of the text amending the provision.

The Committee also noted that the Labour Code contains no provisions authorizing workers and employers to include in collective agreements a clause on the deduction of trade union dues from the wages of workers with the latter’s consent. The Committee asks the Government to state in its next report whether procedures exist, in practice, for deducting trade union dues from workers’ wages.

The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of progress in the revision of the Labour Code in its next report and provide copies of any draft amendments to the Code so that their conformity with the provisions of the Convention may be ascertained.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement that work had begun on revising the Labour Code.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments focused on the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service "indispensable to safeguard the general interest" to be maintained in the public service, which is organized by the employer, wherein refusal to participate constitutes serious misconduct (section 248-16 of the Labour Code). The Committee noted that the definition of the minimum service should be limited to those operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population and that workers’ organizations should participate in the determination of such a service. The Committee noted that the Government confirms its intention to review this provision in consultation with the social partners. The Committee again asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this area and to provide a copy of the text amending the provision.

The Committee also noted that the Labour Code contains no provisions authorizing workers and employers to include in collective agreements a clause on the deduction of trade union dues from the wages of workers with the latter’s consent. The Committee asks the Government to state in its next report whether procedures exist, in practice, for deducting trade union dues from workers’ wages.

The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of progress in the revision of the Labour Code in its next report and provide copies of any draft amendments to the Code so that their conformity with the provisions of the Convention may be ascertained.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report. It notes in particular the Government’s statement that work has begun on revising the Labour Code.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments focused on the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service "indispensable to safeguard the general interest" to be maintained in the public service, which is organized by the employer, wherein refusal to participate constitutes serious misconduct (section 248-16 of the Labour Code). The Committee noted that the definition of the minimum service should be limited to those operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population and that workers’ organizations should participate in the determination of such a service. The Committee notes that the Government confirms its intention to review this provision in consultation with the social partners. The Committee again asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this area and to provide a copy of the text amending the provision.

The Committee also noted that the Labour Code contains no provisions authorizing workers and employers to include in collective agreements a clause on the deduction of trade union dues from the wages of workers with the latter’s consent. The Committee asks the Government to state in its next report whether procedures exist, in practice, for deducting trade union dues from workers’ wages.

The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of progress in the revision of the Labour Code in its next report and provide copies of any draft amendments to the Code so that their conformity with the provisions of the Convention may be ascertained.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation:

The Committee recalls that its previous comments focused largely on the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service "indispensable to safeguard the general interest" to be maintained in the public service, which is organized by the employer, wherein refusal to participate is deemed to constitute serious misconduct (section 248-16 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population and within the framework of a negotiated minimum service.

The Committee noted that the Government had undertaken to review this provision in consultation with the social partners with a view to modifying it or adopting an implementing text. It once again asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this matter and to provide a copy of the text amending the provision in the near future.

With regard to the fact that the Labour Code contains no provisions authorizing workers and employers to include in collective agreements a clause on the deduction of trade union dues from the wages of workers with the latter’s written consent, the Committee noted that, according to the Government, this question was on the agenda of the National Labour Advisory Commission and that, in cooperation with the social partners, a procedure would be adopted which took account of the requirements of the Convention. The Committee once again asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this matter in its future reports.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes that the Government's report reiterates the information sent in 1996.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments focused largely on the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service "indispensable to safeguard the general interest" to be maintained in the public service, which is organized by the employer, wherein refusal to participate is deemed to constitute serious misconduct (section 248-16 of the Labour Code), in order to limit the minimum service to operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population and within the framework of a negotiated minimum service.

The Committee noted that the Government had undertaken to review this provision in consultation with the social partners with a view to modifying it or adopting an implementing text. It once again asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this matter and to provide a copy of the text amending the provision in the near future.

With regard to the fact that the Labour Code contains no provisions authorizing workers and employers to include in collective agreements a clause on the deduction of trade union dues from the wages of workers with the latter's written consent, the Committee noted that, according to the Government, this question was on the agenda of the National Labour Advisory Commission and that, in cooperation with the social partners, a procedure would be adopted which took account of the requirements of the Convention. The Committee once again asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this matter in its future reports.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government's report and the entry into force of Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996 amending and supplementing certain provisions of Act No. 45/75 of 15 March 1975 establishing the Labour Code. It also notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1850 and 1870 approved by the Governing Body in June and November 1996 (304th and 306th Reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association). The Committee notes with interest that the Labour Code establishes the possibility of trade union pluralism in that occupational unions have the right to organize freely in all enterprises in Congo (section 210-2). With regard to its previous comments, the Committee notes: -- as regards the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service "indispensable to safeguard the general interest" to be maintained in the public service, which is organized by the employer, wherein refusal to participate is deemed to constitute serious misconduct (section 248-16), in order to limit the minimum service to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population and within the framework of a negotiated minimum service, that the Government undertakes to review this provision in consultation with the social partners with a view to modifying it or adopting an implementing text. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this matter and to provide a copy of the text modifying this provision of the Labour Code; -- as regards the fact that the Labour Code contains no provisions authorizing workers and employers to include in collective agreements a clause on the deduction of trade union dues from the wages of workers with the written consent of the latter, that, according to the Government, this question is on the agenda of the next session of the National Labour Advisory Commission and that, in cooperation with the social partners, a procedure will be adopted which takes account of the requirements of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect in its future reports. Lastly, with regard to Cases Nos. 1850 and 1870, the Committee asks the Government to report on the progress of the draft amendment to the Act on the right to strike in the public service. It trusts that any amendment will be consistent with the principles of freedom of association and that restrictions, or prohibitions, of the exercise of the right to strike will be confined to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, health or safety of the whole or part of the population, which is not the case of the post and telecommunication services as such.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the entry into force of Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996 amending and supplementing certain provisions of Act No. 45/75 of 15 March 1975 establishing the Labour Code. It also notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1850 and 1870 approved by the Governing Body in June and November 1996 (304th and 306th Reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association).

The Committee notes with interest that the Labour Code establishes the possibility of trade union pluralism in that occupational unions have the right to organize freely in all enterprises in Congo (section 210-2).

With regard to its previous comments, the Committee notes:

- as regards the need to amend the legislation on the minimum service "indispensable to safeguard the general interest" to be maintained in the public service, which is organized by the employer, wherein refusal to participate is deemed to constitute serious misconduct (section 248-16), in order to limit the minimum service to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population and within the framework of a negotiated minimum service, that the Government undertakes to review this provision in consultation with the social partners with a view to modifying it or adopting an implementing text. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this matter and to provide a copy of the text modifying this provision of the Labour Code;

- as regards the fact that the Labour Code contains no provisions authorizing workers and employers to include in collective agreements a clause on the deduction of trade union dues from the wages of workers with the written consent of the latter, that, according to the Government, this question is on the agenda of the next session of the National Labour Advisory Commission and that, in cooperation with the social partners, a procedure will be adopted which takes account of the requirements of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect in its future reports.

Lastly, with regard to Cases Nos. 1850 and 1870, the Committee asks the Government to report on the progress of the draft amendment to the Act on the right to strike in the public service. It trusts that any amendment will be consistent with the principles of freedom of association and that restrictions, or prohibitions, of the exercise of the right to strike will be confined to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, health or safety of the whole or part of the population, which is not the case of the post and telecommunication services as such.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

Noting that the Government does not provide information concerning the Committee's previous direct request, the Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether seafarers enjoy the right to organize and, if so, under which legal provision and, if not, asks it not to adopt a specific provision to this effect.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

With reference to its previous direct request on the question of the right to organize of seafarers, the Committee notes with interest the content of the collective agreement dated 6 April 1991 setting out the terms and conditions of employment of seafarers in the commercial sector, which contains under Title II clauses relating to the exercise of the right to organize, and provides, in particular, that the contracting parties undertake to respect freedom of opinion and the right to join and belong to a trade union freely.

The Committee also notes with interest the draft Labour Code attached by the Government to its report which, inter alia, establishes the possibility of trade union pluralism (new section 19.2bis). The Committee nevertheless notes that certain provisions of the draft Code should be modified to bring them into greater conformity with the principles of freedom of association:

- as regards the requirement for an unemployed person of having to belong to a trade union in order to join a trade union while he is still unemployed (new section 190), the Committee is of the view that it is for the trade unions to decide in their by-laws on this matter;

- with regard to the minimum service "indispensable to safeguard the general interest" to be maintained in the public service, which is organized by the employer, wherein refusal to participate is deemed to constitute serious misconduct (section 248.16), the Committee considers advisable that such a service should be subject to negotiations between the parties and that it should meet two requirements. It should genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear. Secondly, the organizations of workers should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a minimum service, along with employers and the public authorities. In the event of disagreement between workers and employers on the scope of the minimum service, the parties should be able to establish a joint body or have recourse to an independent body responsible for examining rapidly the definition of such a minimum service;

- concerning the prohibition on the right to strike for political reasons (section 248-5), the Committee recalls that political strikes are not protected by the Convention; nevertheless, protest strikes against the economic and social policy of the Government should be allowed;

- with regard to sympathy strikes, which are unlawful when the employees undertaking the sympathy strike are not concerned in any way by the grounds for the strike (section 248.5), the Committee considers that workers should be able to call sympathy strikes provided that the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful;

- concerning the participation in illegal strikes which result in breach of contract (section 248-12), the Committee considers that such a provision should only be applied if a strike ceases to be peaceful.

In addition, the Committee has taken due note of the content of Decree No. 91-672 abolishing the check-off in favour of the sole Congolese Trade Union Confederation. However, it notes that the draft Labour Code currently being prepared does not contain a provision authorizing workers and employers to include a clause in collective agreements on the deduction of trade union dues from the wages of workers with the written consent of the latter.

The Committee requests the Government to envisage the possibility of making these modifications to the draft Labour Code with a view to bringing its provisions into greater conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any measure taken in this respect and to supply it with a copy of the text of the Labour Code once it has been adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether seafarers enjoy the right to organize and, if so, under which legal provision.

It also requests the Government to supply with its next report the text of Decree No. 91/672 of 8 June 1991, which was not attached to the report, and to state whether a collective agreement respecting the question of the collection of trade union contributions has been prepared by the representatives of workers and of employers.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee recalls that for several years it has been noting that the legislation provided for a system of trade union monopoly (section 173 of the Labour Code of 1975) reinforced by a check-off system established by legislative means in favour of the Congolese Trade Union Confederation (CSC) (Decree No. 73/167 MJT of 18 May 1973), which restricts the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing outside the existing trade union confederation.

The Committee notes with satisfaction that section 25 of the Constitution of 15 March 1992 guarantees all citizens the right to establish and join a party, a trade union and associations. It also notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that, to facilitate the establishment of pluralist democracy, Decree No. 73/167 of 18 May 1973 establishing the check-off system in favour of only the CSC has been repealed by Decree No. 911672 of 8 June 1991. The Government adds that together with trade union pluralism several trade union organizations have been established and are operating outside the existing trade union structure, and that section 173 of the Labour Code will be revised in line with the observations made by the Committee.

The Committee trusts that the new Labour Code which is currently being prepared will be in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. It requests the Government to keep it informed in its next report of any development in this respect and to supply the text of the draft Labour Code so that it can examine its conformity with the Convention.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government concnerning the right to organize of seafarers and the question of the check-off.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

With reference to its previous observations, the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement in its report that the Congo is engaged in a process of democratic pluralism and that as such the national debate on the question of the trade union monopoly laid down in the legislation could open the way for a revision of the legislation along the lines of the comments made by the Committee.

In these circumstances, the Committee trusts that the provisions of the Labour Code (section 173) and Decree No. 73/167 MJT of 18 May 1973, which establish a system of trade union monopoly reinforced by a check-off system in favour of a single trade union organisation designated by name - the Congolese Trade Union Confederation - will be repealed in the near future in order to guarantee all workers the right to establish trade union organisations of their own choosing outside the existing trade union structure, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention.

The Committee recalls that these provisions have been the subject of comments for several years and that, in previous reports, the Government indicated its intention of re-examining, among other matters, the question of the check-off system. The Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information in its next report on the measures that have been taken in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report merely indicates that the question of harmonising the national legislation with the provisions of the Convention will be the subject of a national debate, the conclusions of which will be transmitted in due course.

In the absence of any indication as to whether the situation has evolved in the light of its comments, the Committee must again draw the Government's attention to the following points.

For several years, the Committee has been noting that the legislation establishes a system of trade union monopoly (section 173 of the Labour Code of 1975) reinforced by the check-off system instituted by law to the benefit of a single organisation designated by name.

Under section 173, first-level unions and unions in undertakings are governed by the rules of "the trade union organisation", it being understood from the Government's report for 1979 that this means the Congolese Trade Union Confederation. Furthermore, under Decree No. 73/167 MJT of 18 May 1973, the Congolese Trade Union Confederation receives a percentage of the basic monthly wage, which each worker in the country must pay as trade union dues. As the Committee pointed out earlier, this situation under the law conflicts with Article 2 of the Convention, which guarantees the freedom of workers to establish and join organisations of their own choosing, even if, as the Government has repeatedly stated, the single trade union system results from the common will of the workers and from political, economic and historical development, which the Government has merely confirmed.

The Committee indicated in its 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, particularly in paragraphs 134, 136 and 137, that the principle of Article 2 is not intended as an expression of support either for the single trade union system or for that of trade union pluralism but it does at least imply that pluralism must be possible in all cases. The Committee stresses that a situation of de facto trade union monopoly as a result of the will of the workers must not be institutionalised by the law, since the workers must be able to safeguard their freedom to set up, should they so wish, in the future, unions outside the established trade union structure.The Committee trusts that the national debate on the question of trade union monopoly instituted by law will prepare the way for the legislation to be revised to take account of the Committee's comments. The Committee recalls that the Government has already stated its intention to review the question of the institution of the system of deducting trade union dues at source for the Congolese Trade Union Confederation.

The Committee urges the Government to provide information on the measures taken or under consideration to guarantee that all workers have the right to set up trade union organisations of their own choosing outside the existing trade union structure, should they so wish, in accordance with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. [The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 77th Session.]

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