Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2019, Publication: 108th ILC session (2019)



Written information provided by the Government

With reference to your letter attached with the preliminary list of individual cases to be discussed at the 108th Session of the International Labour Conference, which includes the case of Egypt in its application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), I have the honour to inform you of the actions taken by the Government of Egypt to address the comments made by the Committee of Experts, especially after the adoption of the new Trade Unions Law and the holding of trade union elections.

First: With regard to reducing the minimum of workers required for the formation of trade union organizations, and the abolition of penalties for imprisonment, we have submitted these comments to the Supreme Council for Social Dialogue, which approved the amendment of the law and transmitted it to the Council of Ministers on 22 May 2019. The Council of Ministers approved a draft law amending certain provisions of the Trade Unions Law and referred it to Parliament. The amendments include the following:

(a) Reducing the number of workers required to form a trade union committee to 50 instead of 150; reducing the number of union committees required to form a general union to 10 instead of 15; reducing the number of general unions required to form a federation to 7 instead of 10; the number of workers required to form a general union was reduced to 15,000 from 20,000; and the number of workers required to form a federation was reduced to 150,000 from 200,000. It should be noted that the labour force in Egypt is more than 30 million; these numbers represent no difficulties in practice.

(b) The abolition of penalties of imprisonment contained in the law, where the new law includes some of the penalties for imprisonment, which was amended by the Government to include only fines.

Second: The Committee of Experts emphasizes the importance of guaranteeing equal opportunities for all trade union organizations in the new law and in its application, especially in light of the fact that for a long time the previous law imposed a system of trade union monopoly.

– The Government affirms that the law guarantees equal treatment for all trade union organizations, treating all of them equally through reconciliation processes, and granting them equal legal status in all rights, duties, immunities and privileges necessary to carry out their trade union activities.

– In practice, the Government guarantees equal treatment for all trade union organizations. While the old unions are the most representative of workers, modern unions have been granted membership in the Supreme Council for Social Dialogue, and the Ministry of Manpower invites them to attend all events and activities of workers, and to attend meetings to elaborate national plans in the field of labour, and attend labour-related celebrations such as the celebration of Labour Day, holidays and national events, and provide the necessary technical support as required by them.

– The Government gives trade union organizations which are not affiliated with the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF) special attention with the aim of spreading the culture of freedom of association and reassuring all workers that the Government deals with all workers’ organizations on an equal footing and builds trust with trade union organizations.

– Modern trade union organizations participate in the official Egyptian delegation participating at the 108th Session of the International Labour Conference.

Third: With regard to the communications received by the Committee from some workers’ organizations regarding the deprivation of the practice of trade union activities, pressure to join the ETUF and other allegations, the Government confirms that these allegations are not specific and are not founded on evidence, and it has invited such organizations to provide more details about their concerns, so that the Ministry can examine and resolve them. Some organizations have already done so and the Ministry has resolved their problems. To date, many of them have not submitted any information and the Ministry continues to reiterate its invitation to them.

– The Egyptian Ministry of Manpower has invited the ILO Cairo Office to send a representative of the Office to attend the Ministry’s meetings with workers’ organizations and provide the necessary technical support for them.

– Finally, please be informed that an independent committee has been established by the Ministry of Manpower to examine any complaints submitted by trade union organizations or workers wishing to establish trade union organizations. The Ministry welcomes any comments or communications received, and is fully prepared to examine them in the presence of representatives of the ILO Cairo Office. The Ministry also welcomes the continuation of dialogue and technical cooperation between it and the Office to achieve the best results.

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative – The Egyptian Government has always warmly welcomed suggestions and modifications to our working methods as per document D.1. However, we hope that other wider ranging amendments will be made. We have mentioned these on a number of occasions along with others with a view to greater equity and transparency that would improve the ILO’s work further. One of those suggestions related to the criteria that are used to establish the list of individual cases. They remain very ambiguous and unfair in our opinion. We welcome the new proposal that has been made which relates to stressing cases of progress, among those that are looked at.

I would like to inform you that Egypt is one of the longest standing members of this Organization. We joined the ILO in 1936. Egypt has ratified 64 labour Conventions, including the fundamental Conventions and we have always striven to deliver our periodic reports in a timely fashion.

The political authorities in Egypt always called upon international labour standards in every field – health and labour, among others, so we do not fully understand why Egypt is on this list, however, we will take this opportunity to present examples of Egypt’s progress in applying Convention No. 87.

The Egyptian case has already been presented to this Committee and we took into account the Committee’s recommendations. We have begun to review our legislation in this area and continued to do so until 2011 when our region began undergoing a period of instability, which interrupted our work. However, we subsequently began preparing a new Labour Code and we now have a draft Labour Code which was prepared in April 2017. Since April 2017, the ILO has been supporting us. The draft new Labour Law was indeed submitted to the ILO and we later received comments on it from the ILO. We then reviewed the text further in light of the comments that had been made because the Egyptian State respects all international labour Conventions and we do want to ensure that all Egypt’s ratified Conventions are applied. The new Law was promulgated in 2017. After lengthy discussions with the ILO, we met with a representative of this Organization on more than one occasion. The Law was promulgated in 2017 and following that we did hear protests being made against the Law. The Law enabled all organizations, either new or old trade union organizations, and regardless of whether they were in contravention of the previous Labour Law, to exist. That is because the Egyptian Government absolutely wanted to establish a Trade Union Law that protected all workers and all trade union organizations and to ensure that the right to organize was fully enjoyed.

Secondly, we promulgated the Law on trade union elections. The trade unions had been waiting for this Law to be established for more than 12 years. However, following that, the Egyptian Government was attacked by a number of organizations that had nothing to do with trade union activity. We tried more than once to find the sources of those accusations and attacks. Some entities claim to have formed trade unions with more than 7,000 affiliates and yet they remain unable to set up a single trade union committee and that is despite having presented the necessary documentation on a number of occasions. The entity that I am talking about refused to present the documents and the person in question simply makes accusations against the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian State, accusing the Government of contravening international texts.

We appeared before this august assembly to tell you that we have a new law to regulate better the situation of trade unions. It enables independent trade unions and trade union committees to be set up. A number of trade unions and similar organizations are able to benefit from this Law. More than 75 unions are now legal whereas before, under the previous Law, they were considered illegal. These organizations are now cooperating with the Government and they are able to do that because they have been able to present full documentation in line with requirements and these organizations really have trade union members. The Government is still receiving documentation from various sources and anyone who wants to set up a trade union of any type can submit such documentation. Last month a new trade union came into being. This was a general trade union which managed to get together the necessary documentation relating to its trade union committees. Last month this trade union was able to come into being. It completed the process. We can therefore see that the Egyptian Government is helping trade union organizations and it is driven to do that by a firm desire to enable real and independent trade unions to be formed. For some years now, we have been following the path of transparency and credibility. Concerning the accusations lodged against the Government, I will leave those who have made those accusations to present evidence to back them up. It has been said that the Law contains some paragraphs that may restrict trade union activities. Those provisions have been submitted to the Supreme Council and a tripartite group has recently been formed to look at the different amendments that have been proposed. The tripartite group has already presented its recommendations to the recently created Supreme Committee for Social Dialogue and they have even been approved – that took place in May 2019. The Parliament has approved these amendments on 9 June 2019.

I will now move on to equal opportunities among all trade union organizations. The new Labour Code has taken into account the observations made by the Committee, on the occasion of the direct contact mission’s visit to Egypt. All existing trade unions that were in line with the Law are now being treated equally alongside all those that were not previously in line with the Law. All trade unions, regardless of which law they were created under, are treated equally and I can confirm that the Government does treat all trade union organizations in Egypt on an equal footing.

We also have evidence that shows that equal and fair participation has been enjoyed by all trade union organizations in the elections that have been held. That is regardless of whether candidates were members of the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF) or other trade unions. Each time a trade union event takes place, we invite all trade unions to that event regardless of which federation they are in. There are a number of independent trade unions in Egypt today that are not part of the ETUF. That said, the ETUF is still today the most representative workers’ organization and that is in line with the Convention; although it is a majority organization, we do invite other organizations regardless of size and affiliation to all trade union events.

Our wish is to take any measure that will enable us to apply this Convention and all international instruments fully. We stand ready to cooperate with this Organization in order to respect the conclusions of this Committee so that we can make the necessary changes and ensure full respect for international Conventions. We have insisted in the past and continue now to insist on the importance of social dialogue. We hold the principle and we ask this Committee to look at the complaint mechanism that we have, regardless of the party lodging complaints. The complaint should be accompanied by evidence, we cannot simply deal with allegations or unjustified claims.

I would also like you to take into account the case of States that make a great deal of effort. Perhaps we should sometimes thank those countries that put in a great deal effort. I think everybody is aware of what the Egyptian Government has done over the course of the past three years. And you know what forward steps Egypt has been able to make where labour law is concerned over the course of the past period.

We have taken every effort to ensure full conformity between our legislation and national and international instruments. The Egyptian Government is keen to respect all international instruments.

Worker members – The case of Egypt is back before our Committee. You will remember that we examined it at our last session but one, when we adopted very clear conclusions. The fact that the case is coming back means that unfortunately the situation has not improved much in the meantime.

Admittedly, as indicated by the Government in its speech, a new Law has been adopting regulating trade union activity. Amendments were again proposed last week, that is after Egypt was placed on the preliminary list. For those who still harbour doubts, that is clear proof of the effectiveness of the ILO supervisory machinery. Evidently, the prospect of the case being examined by our Committee gives rise to enthusiasm and redoubles ardour. Despite the adoption of the new Law, Egyptian legislation is still incompatible with Convention No. 87. This non-conformity is at several levels, as we will now set out in greater detail.

First, at the general level, the new Law, which has the number 213, is characterized by a strong intention to regulate in detail all aspects of trade union organization. Such detailed legislation is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, which provides that “Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.” It adds that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.

Without trying to be exhaustive, allow me to refer at this stage to several provisions that illustrate this incompatibility. Let us start with section 5 of the Law, which provides that a trade union may not be founded on a religious, ideological, political, partisan or ethnic basis. This requirement runs counter to Article 2 of the Convention, which guarantees workers the right to establish organizations of their own choosing. Freedom of choice means being able to establish an organization on the basis of one of these criteria and the right of workers to give their organizations the orientation that they wish. If all organizations had to follow a single unique line without any distinction, it would be the realm of uniform thought and the absence of any trade union pluralism. The fact that an organization takes a specific line does not in any way mean that it can discriminate between its members on this basis. It is merely affirming its identity and distinguishing itself from other organizations.

Section 7 of the Law empowers the Minister with the right to seize the competent jurisdiction for the dissolution of the executive committee of an organization in the event of a serious fault in its administrative or financial management. In so doing, the Law gives the authorities the right to control the administration of organizations, which is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, which guarantees organizations the right to organize their activities freely. If serious errors or faults were to be committed, it is only the members who should be able to go to court to challenge the responsibility of those engaged in their administration on condition, evidently, that they have done something wrong.

Similarly, section 58, which makes the accounts of organizations subject to the control of a central accounting body, also amounts to interference in their administration. The body is a public institution which is basically responsible for controlling public accounts, that is the accounts of the bodies that manage public finances. It is difficult to see why this body is empowered to control the accounts of trade unions, which do not administer public finances. It should be recalled in this respect that the Committee of Experts has recalled that the imposition of financial control of the accounts of trade unions by the public authorities is not in conformity with the Convention.

Section 41 of the Law sets out a series of eligibility conditions for trade union leaders. Once again, we are bound to note that this provision is not in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. For example, the requirement that a candidate for the executive committee must have a diploma, is not on leave without pay and is not a temporary worker constitutes interference in the freedom of workers to elect trade union officers.

I draw particular attention to the condition relating to the performance of military service. In practice, as this only applies to nationals, this requirement implies de facto that migrant workers cannot stand for trade union office, which is also incompatible with the Convention, as recalled by the Committee of Experts on several occasions.

We also note that section 30 contains very detailed provisions on the competences of executive committees. Section 35 also sets out in minute detail the election procedure for general assemblies. These two elements are important illustrations of the systematic interference by the authorities, which determine the essential functioning of trade union organizations by law.

Admittedly, section 61 endows them with autonomy in the drafting of their statutes and the election of their representatives. But what is left of this autonomy when all of these aspects are regulated by law? This pseudo-guarantee is left completely illusory in practice.

The Committee of Experts indicates in its report that the legislation still limits the right to join several unions. Contrary to the Government’s claims, this provision still exists in the legislation, as it is reproduced in section 21 of the new Law.

In its report, the Committee of Experts pointed to the persistent problem of the representativity threshold in Egyptian legislation. The legislation that I am reviewing here does not envisage any changes in this respect. We regret that this issue has not been resolved with the adoption of Law No. 213, as the Government is well aware that its requirements are not compatible with the Convention. Nevertheless, we learn that amendments are currently under discussion on this point in Parliament. We will examine the extent to which these changes are adopted in practice and the extent to which they are in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee of Experts also noted that the national legislation still establishes prison sentences and fines for a series of offences under the Law. The changes that are currently under discussion in Parliament appear to wish to remove the prison sentences, but nevertheless make the fines heavier. And it should be recalled that they are still penal sanctions. The desire to make them heavier shows that the intention is to take with one hand what is given by the other. A detailed examination of the provisions with which non-compliance gives rise to these penalties shows the intention of the authorities to establish an arsenal designed to limit freedom of association.

By way of illustration, failure to comply with section 5, which I referred to above, which relates to the establishment of a union on a political, religious or partisan basis, is punishable as a penal offence. The same applies to failure to comply with the procedure for the exclusion of a member of an executive committee, which opens liability to a penal sanction. And yet this is purely and simply a matter of trade union autonomy.

Let us refer finally to the section of the Law respecting the financial means of organizations. This provision enumerates a series of sources of financing and criminalizes anything that is not in the list. But the principle is that everything is lawful, unless it is prohibited. The Law reverses this principle be enumerating what is permitted, and anything that is not specified is by definition prohibited and even criminalized.

Our Committee is not only responsible for supervising the conformity of the law with Conventions, but also for examining such conformity in practice. In this regard, we are bound to observe that, as noted by the Committee of Experts, there are still many problems. For example, trade union elections were held within the context of the implementation of the new Law. And sadly they were tainted by many irregularities.

Indeed, despite all these imperfections, the new Law is not applied correctly. Several organizations have still not been registered on the pretext that their files were incomplete. In reality, the authorities continue to act arbitrarily in practice in the registration of unions. They are refusing to meet the 29 organizations that have lodged complaints. Other colleagues in the Workers’ group will have the opportunity to come back to this in greater detail.

Before concluding, it has to be said that in Egypt, both at the legislative level and, as we will also see, in practice, the situation is still far from being in compliance with ILO standards.

The title of the new law on which we have commented here is the Law on trade union organizations and the protection of the right to organize. In practice, a longer title would be more precise: “Law organizing the control of trade unions and preventing the right to organize”.

The aim of the State cannot be to confiscate trade union freedom or to control it. Its mission, on the contrary, is to preserve and develop fundamental freedoms.

In this respect, I would like to share with you a thought by the philosopher Spinoza, who wrote that: “The State’s purpose is not to change men from rational beings into beasts or automata, but rather to bring it about that they do not risk anything by fully using their mental and physical powers, they use their reason freely, they do not contend with one another in hatred, anger or deception, and they do not deal unfairly with one another. So the purpose of the State is really freedom.”

Employer members – I would like to thank the distinguished Government delegate for his submissions this evening, and in particular I was pleased to hear the Government’s indication that it comes to the Committee with the goal of full respect for international labour standards. I was pleased to hear the Government’s indication that it stands ready to accept the conclusions of the Committee in order to ensure full respect for international labour standards, and I was very pleased to hear the Government’s commitment to social dialogue. I think that this is a very positive way to begin this conversation, and so we welcome these introductory comments. The case of Egypt was most recently discussed in our Committee in 2017, when the Committee called on the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to assess progress in respect of its conclusions, namely, that the draft law on trade unions was prepared in conformity with Convention No. 87 and that all trade unions in Egypt were able to exercise their activities and elect their officers in compliance with the Convention and operate in that spirit, both in law and practice.

The Employers’ group was pleased to observe that the direct contacts mission took place in November of 2017, and we would note that that mission made a number of recommendations. We also note that the ILO implemented a Better Work pilot programme in Egypt in June 2017, with the purpose of paving the way for the establishment of a full Better Work programme, if and when the proper environment for such a programme existed. We understand that in March 2019 it was determined that the conditions were not yet there for a full Better Work programme.

The Employers’ group notes positive aspects of the Government’s effort and, in particular, positive aspects to promote a sustainable business environment and is encouraged by these efforts and this progress. The Employers’ group encourages the Government to continue its efforts with respect to social dialogue in this regard and continue efforts to promote a sustainable business environment, with the cooperation of the social partners.

The Employers’ group must also note, however, that in light of the Committee of Experts’ observations, there are ongoing issues that continue to exist in Egypt. In particular, issues continue to exist as far as we understand in respect of the obligations of the Government in relation to the Convention on the one hand, and Egypt’s national legislative framework regulating trade union organizations on the other hand. The Employers’ group understands that the new Trade Union Law, enacted in December of 2017, has given rise to concerns about its compatibility with the Government’s obligations under the Convention.

The Committee of Experts identified concerns related to obstacles in the new Trade Union Law in relation to the registration of independent or autonomous trade unions that would be trade unions that are independent from the ETUF. The Committee of Experts identified concerns that included allegations regarding the registration and election processes that in their observation excluded from elections certain unions where they were unable to reconcile their status, as well as requests for documentation for registration that went beyond what was appropriate, as well as issues in relation to postponement in accepting applications for registration, or delays in delivering certificates.

The Worker spokesperson noted in considerable detail the restrictions that the Workers’ group considers to be concerning in terms of interference with the free operation of trade unions. The Employers’ group noted with interest that the Government described an intention to establish and reconcile this new law to ensure that the issue of registration and elections came into compliance with the Convention.

Therefore, the Employers’ group at this moment would recall that the Convention provides that both workers’ and employers’ organizations are free to form and join organizations of their own choosing, and that the core of the issue before us today is the need for the Government to respect that freedom and autonomy of workers’ organizations to organize their activities.

As a result, the Employers’ group requests that the Government carefully consider these important issues and without delay implement measures which could include the revision of the Trade Union Law, in order to immediately address the issues and tackle this question of the regulation, and the improper regulation of internal union affairs and organization. Once measures are taken in this regard, we would ask that the Government report to the Committee of Experts at its November 2019 session on this expected progress.

To us, this is the core of this case in respect of the issues noted by the Committee of Experts regarding the draft Labour Code. The Employers’ group will not address those elements which deal with the prohibition of industrial action as, in our view that falls outside of the four corners of our consideration of this case.

Therefore in closing, we would focus on the commitment to social dialogue, the commitment to ensure that there is a full respect for the obligations under the Convention, and a full commitment to address these, hopefully limited, outstanding issues that continue to impede the ability for our Committee to find that there is full and complete compliance with these aspects of the Convention. We will certainly look forward to progress in this regard as well as full reporting on these measures.

Worker member, Egypt – We thank the ILO and the Committee for their interest in the circumstances of Egyptian workers and the need to ensure that they enjoy their trade union freedoms. We would have liked to have encouragement for Egyptian workers rather than having Egypt listed on the agenda of this Committee this year. We are members of the most representative workers’ organization, the ETUF, and we firmly believe in trade union freedoms. Workers are the beneficiaries of the new Egyptian Law on trade union activities, which has improved on Law 35 of 1976. We suffered under that Law, and we are not the only ones, because under Law 35, everyone was under the umbrella of the General Federation. Under the new Law, we have been able to strengthen our position and we are now able to work for trade union freedoms and the application of ILO Conventions. We believe that workers have the right to their own safety and their right to withdraw from federations, while also putting into practice the standards of the ILO. Our organization was the first one to request that Law 35 of 1976 be amended based on the observations that were presented in 2008. We can go back to the minutes of the ILO, the record of this Committee’s session that year. We were the ones that asked for that Law to be amended. Freedom of association has a pivotal role to play to ensure that investment pours into our country and leads to new work opportunities for Egyptian workers. We have read the Committee of Experts’ conclusions on Egypt as concerns the new law relating to the formation and registration of new unions. The Committee of Experts says that the new law is not in line with the Convention. However, the restrictions on trade union freedoms referred to by the Committee of Experts need to take into account the high level of representation from 2008 to 2017, and that clearly shows us that since the promulgation of the 2017 Law, the situation has been in line with the Convention. Things have greatly improved as against Law 35 of 1976. The previous Law made the authorities the highest representatives. That was amended in 2008, and if we compare this with the current Law, we see that the current Law is much better than the previous one. The new Law enables trade unions at all levels to exist. The new Law allows trade unions to present their lists and their statutes through their assemblies and enables them to hold free elections with no intervention from the administration or a high-level representation. This resolves the problems which existed under the previous legislation. The new Law criminalizes the elimination of any official through illegal means. There is a full freedom to join trade unions. There are articles on the registration of trade unions that takes place through the Supreme Council in all provinces, and this was accepted by the workers and approved by the Government. It was then submitted back to the Parliament and is currently being debated. It has also been accepted by the Labour Commission. Concerning the observations on the Labour Law, we have held dialogue and a new Law has been accepted by the Supreme Council. There is now an agreement between the social partners where real application of the Trade Union Law is concerned. There has also been an agreement to hold new elections in the next period, so that will enable trade union organizations that have not been able to register previously to do so in future. There are wide-ranging agreements with the social partners. A committee is also being set up to look at complaints relating to freedom of association and resolve those. In light of all of this, and the results of the most recent elections, we can see that improvements have been made on Law 35, almost 1,500 new committees have been set up and 145 of those would not have been able to exist under Law 35. New trade unions are being created then, particularly in the health and legal sectors. They have been able to join the ETUF. The same is true of an organization in the transport sector. So we can see that we have moved on to a new chapter where freedom of association is concerned. At the Federation level, more than one federation is registered, new entities have been set up with no intervention from the authorities and in some cases 80 per cent of members are women and young people, so we can see how freedoms are being extended across all sectors.

We feel that there is cooperation from the employers to bolster freedom of association and we assure that we will be able to reach an agreement between employers and workers in Egypt with a view to achieving all the goals and respecting all interests involved, so that Egyptian workers can protect their rights and enjoy new work opportunities while also boosting the economy in line with the two Conventions. We hope that the ILO will offer technical assistance so that we can meet the expectations of all Egyptian workers while applying the Conventions. There is no doubt that in light of all of this there are some very positive signs. The new law has brought great improvements, and further legislative changes are still being debated by the Parliament. We therefore hope that this Committee will take the necessary measures and that the conclusions drawn will bear in mind the progress being made. We also hope that Egypt will subsequently be removed from the shortlist. Egyptian workers have benefited a great deal from the new Law. We agree that certain articles could be amended in collaboration with the employers. That would help us to achieve our new vision for Egyptian workers.

Employer member, Egypt – I represent the Federation of Egyptian Industries which includes 60,000 employers. We believe that there is a very positive and progressive development occurring now in the field of freedom of association. Simply because after 50 to 60 years we now have a new Law. Is it a perfect law? Does this mean that we are in a perfect freedom of association in Egypt in a perfect situation? Of course not. But the question is are we on the right track? Yes. Are we now in a very satisfactory situation? Yes, but of course we all need to pull hand in hand in order to reach to our ultimate goal or almost perfect situation and in this regard we appreciate the efforts exerted by the Minister of Manpower in putting social dialogue mechanisms and social dialogue activities in order to negotiate together and discuss together the new amendments.

We believe also that there is political will and goodwill from the employers’ organizations. Within a few weeks we have managed to put a new legislative verification which means that within two years we action the rule and a new modification which is now in front of the Egyptian Parliament including adopting some of the recommendations required by the Committee of Experts.

Why are we in this situation? Simply because we cannot go from one extreme to the other extreme all of a sudden without any transition period. For that reason we say that we are on the right track. After 50 to 60 years of resistive stagnation we cannot implement everything correctly from day one. Of course each new legislation has people or parties who accept it or do not accept it. We are benefiting from the views and opinions and recommendations of the Committee of Experts in order to enhance our performance. Again, we are not in a perfect situation, this is very logic thinking. We are trying to enhance our implementing the recommendations, for that reason we have asked the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) for the necessary technical support in order to be more able to understand and to implement correctly the requirements of the Committee of Experts.

After the revolution in Egypt and after the enacting of this Law we have political, social and economic challenges. We need time to find appropriate solutions to those, otherwise there will be chaos. We are very pleased as employers from the current situation which we believe is not our ultimate objective or goal but we believe that we are on the right track.

Another Employer member, Egypt – I am not going to add anything to what the Government representative has said. I think it has been sufficient. My colleagues have also made good contributions but perhaps one or two quick messages.

The Constitution is the mother of the legislation and the last Constitution of Egypt provides for the establishment of trade unions without outside interference, so if there is any law that contradicts the Constitution it has to be considered null and void. The principle there is quite clear.

If the Vice-Chair of the Workers says that a law makes it impossible for a trade union to be established on a partisan, political or religious basis. My question is then, for example, would it be possible to have in a given sector, let us say in the production of oil, one trade union for Christians, another for Muslims or for example one trade union belonging to one political party or another political party. I think the existing approach is rational because trade unions have to serve the interest of workers, not in their capacity as socialists or capitalists or Muslims or Christians or any other ideology, but as workers. Our trade union cannot therefore be based on these particularities and this is something that needs to be recognized otherwise you are contravening common sense.

There has been a reference made to imprisonment. Here again, there are laws which have the contradictory meaning if somebody subjects documentation, which is not in accordance with the law, then they have to be subject to the power of the law in that regard.

The workforce in Egypt today is 13 million, 10 million of them are in trade unions. In the informal sector we would work together with the federation of workers and others to try and bring these informal activities into the formal sector. We are trying to get organizations that can protect workers to serve their interest, not the interest of the employers. Obviously there can be contradictory opinions sometimes between employers and workers and these organizations protect the interest of the workers. If we have 10,000 workers with five different trade union committees and each one of them wants to provide services for workers, I do not think that takes in the right direction when there is a single trade union committee, but that is different.

When we are dealing with a situation of public funds, the auditors’ court is the one that oversees the management of funds. Now he is not doing to serve the interest of the Government, but in order to ensure effective financial supervision. If there is no such control, then we can see cases of misuse of funds, which contravene laws.

These provisions have been drafted in order to serve the interests of the members of these organizations. The process simply involves an accounting report which can be put to the auditors’ court and they have experts which can assess whether the interests of the workers and the trade unions are being served. When you have a committee with 100 or 1,000 workers, they pay their dues and these need to be managed properly. The Government has to oversee these activities. We should not set out to completely dismantle such activities.

Government member, Senegal – Senegal welcomes the efforts made by Egypt, as described by the Government representative, to give full effect to the Convention. Reaffirming its commitment to the universal ideals and objectives of the ILO and the need for all member States to ensure respect for the trade union rights and freedoms of all workers within the meaning of the Convention, Senegal urges the Government of Egypt to maintain the progress achieved and the significant resources used to improve the situation of its national law and practice in relation to the protection of the trade union rights of workers.

Senegal invites the Government of Egypt to reinforce its close cooperation with the ILO with a view to giving full effect to the Convention.

Observer, Public Services International (PSI) – We are very concerned about the conditions imposed by the Trade Union Organization Law No. 213 of 2017 and the oppressive practices that accompanies its application since the end of 2017. We welcome the Minister’s decision to adopt a proposed bill that includes important amendments, granting it is approved by the Parliament. However, we affirm that this is not sufficient to correct the flaws of the law and the shortcomings it includes. Despite being a long-awaited step towards ensuring the right of independent unions to organize, the Trade Union Law has in its state come to stifle this right imposing the same buttons of governmental control and threatening the existence of strong independent unions.

The independent trade unions continue to make genuine efforts towards regulating their status based on the new Law and its provisions and within the allocated time required to do so. Attempts to regulate the union’s legal status have been marred by repressive practices in violation of the law itself. The Government has forbidden the regularization of many independent organizations (for example, the Real Estate Tax Authority General Union, the Trade Union Committee of Workers in Egypt Telecom and the Trade Union of Workers in the Bibliotheca Alexandria), disapproves the establishment of most of the independent unions created after the passing of the Law (for example, the Trade Union Committee of Workers in Alexandria Company for Garments, the Trade Union Committee of Workers in Leoni Company), as well as rejected the statutes submitted by unions and forced their members to replace them with guidelines issued by the Ministry of Manpower.

Accordingly, the situation of many trade union organizations remains unsettled. Their regularization or registration has been disapproved despite meeting the law condition and submitting all required documents. Most of these unions are facing reoccurring pressure from different governmental bodies to join the ETUF. The Ministry of Manpower oppresses the fundamental right of the union’s general assembly to settle their matters and elect their representatives freely. Governmental bodies intervene in several instances to prevent the union’s general assemblies from convening and in case of their meeting, the Manpower Ministry refuses to recognize the general assemblies’ decision no matter whether the concern is electing the executive council or a decision on other issues. As a result, statutes of many union organizations have been suspended (for example, the Trade Union Committee for Damietta Fishers, the Trade Union Committee of Workers in Suez Canal Clubs and the Trade Union Committee for Transportation Xervice in Qaluobia). Actually, throughout the last six months, 29 organizations made every effort to negotiate with the Government. They discuss with the Manpower Ministry, submit to it their petitions, address and appeal to different governmental bodies (Cabinet, the Ministry of Investment and the Ministry of Trade and Industry). Nevertheless, they have not met except hard intention to adopt the same course. The trade union election took place in 2018 under the new Trade Union Law, nevertheless, it is hard to assess whether those were real elections.

Government member, Zimbabwe – The Government of Zimbabwe would like to thank the Government of Egypt for updating the Committee on the progress it is making in addressing the legislative gaps, sighted by the Committee of Experts, as well as the practical steps it has put in place, to address the complaints raised by some of the trade unions in respect of the registration processes of workers’ organizations. It is pleasing to note that labour law reforms are ongoing in Egypt. To this end, the Government of Egypt should be commended for having brought to the attention of the Egyptian Parliament, in May 2019, a bill seeking to amend some provisions of its trading and law.

Furthermore, the Egyptian Government has informed about its engagement with the trade union organizations that have concerns about the registration and the recognition of trade unions, both in law and practice. This is also commendable, more so when the engagements are overseen by officials from the ILO Cairo Office.

Finally, we call upon ILO officials to continue working for the Government of Egypt and the trade unions across all sectors. The Government of Egypt has shown its sincerity to the issues raised by the Committee of Experts, to address through social dialogue.

Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – I would like firstly to state that the Arab Trade Union Confederation must show solidarity and defend trade union freedoms and for that reason I take the floor on behalf of the Egyptian Democratic Trade Union Federation to speak about the problems that are affecting activists of our trade union. We face many problems as an Egyptian working class and that is particularly true of those that are affiliated to the Egyptian Democratic Trade Union Organization. Actions are taken against us. Government officials working in the Ministry for Labour present obstacles to trade unions’ work and this is true even following the approval of the 2017 Law and the associated regulation of 2018. All of this has led to the imposition of obstacles to trade unions’ work.

Our trade union expressed reservations in relation to this Law. We tried to forge an agreement that might satisfy everybody, but that was not possible in the end because the Government representatives overlooked all our amendments. That includes those related to the minimum number of affiliates necessary to be able to found a trade union or a trade union committee.

In the preamble to the Law that I referred to before, there is a text which grants independence to trade unions and we all thought that that Law would encourage trade union independence; would give trade unions a certain legal status so that affiliates would be able to join trade unions or leave them without any intervention from the Administration. Unfortunately, the situation was quite different from that; in fact the Government drafted its regulation precisely to undermine the rights of workers as set out in the Convention and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It turns out then that the Law was favourable to the workers but the regulation completely overrode those provisions. Unwritten interventions also took place and of course that also overrode the effect of the new Law. The Law was also infringed on many occasions, for instance the interpretation of article 24 of the Law which grants trade union federations that were created under a previous law to maintain their legal status.

Government member, Algeria – The Government of Egypt clearly demonstrated that it has the political will to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts so as to bring the laws into conformity with international standards in this respect.

The Algerian delegation notes the information supplied by Egypt on all the measures that it has adopted and wishes to express satisfaction at the amendments proposed, particularly in relation to the reduction of the number of workers required to establish a trade union committee or a union federation.

Algeria also considers that close collaboration with the International Labour Office is essential to accelerate the implementation of the legal framework establishing the arrangements for the exercise of the right to organize in Egypt.

We are determined to continue supporting Egypt in its pursuit of dialogue and tripartite consultations to give full effect to the Convention. We support the efforts made by Egypt to develop a culture of freedom of association and trade union pluralism and we thank Egypt for accepting our tribute to the measures adopted and efforts made by the Government. We call on the Committee to support the reforms that are being implemented by Egypt.

Worker member, Spain – The Government of Egypt claims to have amended certain provisions of Law No. 213 of 2017 to bring it into line with the Convention. Although nobody knows when the amendments will enter into force or if in practice they will be adopted by Parliament, we emphasize that this is not enough to ensure that it complies with the commitments deriving from this Convention. The Law was enacted on 17 December 2017. Although there already existed a pernicious legal framework governing trade unions in Egypt, the new text, instead of guaranteeing the right to freedom of association, has restricted this right even further, and has almost completely removed it.

Once again in the long history of workers’ combat in Egypt, the law imposes on the working class the patronage of the Government union federation, which by nature is closer to being a government institution than a trade union.

In this context of clear repression of freedom of association in Egypt, the process under discussion here lacks credibility. For example, section 11, as initially proposed, provided that trade union committees required 50 members to be established. Nevertheless, following discussion in Parliament, this number was raised to 150 members, and then was reduced once again just before the beginning of the present 2019 Conference. In addition to amending sections 11 and 12 of the Law, it would at least be necessary to amend sections 21 and 54, as well as the provisions of Chapter 10 (sanctions). The penal section of the Law imposes serious penalties of imprisonment for a wide range of violations.

The independent trade union movement in Egypt is continuing to suffer from oppression, arbitrary decisions and the denial of its rights to engage in trade union action. The introduction of the Law is in itself in violation of the Convention. What is the use of reducing the minimum number of members required to establish trade unions, when the unions that are already in compliance with the existing requirement have not been able to legalize their status and complete the process of registration? What is the use of reducing the minimum number of members for the establishment of unions, if the Government imposes model statutes and requires the unions to change the clauses of their statutes because they are not in conformity with those provided by the Ministry?

Regrettably, once again, we see that the working class in Egypt, following decades of action to combat repression in their country, not only cannot yet benefit from the right to freedom of association, establish independent unions and benefit from legal status, but they are also living through a new period of repression.

Today in Egypt any type of activism in support of democratic freedoms is impeded, and activists, journalists, students and trade unionists, among many other categories, are persecuted and attention is drawn to them. Indeed, this is the case for anyone who endeavours to defend fundamental liberties in the country.

Government member, Ghana – Ghana wishes to express its gratitude to the Committee of Experts and this Committee for the work done so far to ensure that member States comply with the agreed standards in their various countries. Freedom of association is a fundamental right of workers as enshrined in the Convention, which was ratified by the Government of Egypt as far back as 1957. The Government of Ghana supports any effort to ensure mutual respect, tripartite social dialogue, social justice and cooperation between the Government and its social partners. We look forward to seeing that the Government of Egypt and worker representatives, as well as employers relate in a cordial atmosphere in their engagements and in line with the Convention. Ghana is of the considered opinion that the Egyptian Government’s priority to review and consolidate the Labour Legislation including the Trade Union Law in consultation with the social partners and with the support of the ILO Office is in the right direction. With our experience in ensuring freedom of association, democratization and greater participation of trades unions in matters that affect workers, the Government of Ghana encourages the social partners, with the support of the ILO Office, to continue on the path of social dialogue. We urge the ILO Office to provide them with the necessary technical support as requested by the Government of Egypt in their quest to reform their laws to comply with the Convention. With the above in place, we are convinced that the Government of Egypt will be in a position to adopt measures to align its laws and practices in line with the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Government of Egypt must continue to ensure that labour and employment issues are dealt with in accordance with their obligations under the Convention and with mutual respect.

Worker member, France – It is with reference to a specific case, identified as a typical case by Frontline Defenders, that we would like to illustrate the serious failings of the Government of Egypt and the extremely harsh trade union repression that prevails in the country.

In May 2016, hundreds of workers in the Alexandria Shipyard Company organized an unlimited sit in to protest against low wages which, according to them, were well below the national minimum monthly wage. Over 20 workers were arrested and accused of being at the origin of this strike. They were detained for months and forced to resign from their jobs. Nearly two years later, they are still being judged by a military court.

During the May 2016 sit in, the workers of the Alexandria Shipyard indicated that they were demonstrating in favour of a minimum wage and to obtain the clothing and safety equipment that was being refused to them by the factory, and against a reduction in their annual Ramadan bonus. According to the workers’ lawyer, those responsible in the army decided that the workers employed in a factory belonging to the army were only entitled to bonuses aligned with those paid to other persons employed by the Ministry of Defence, thereby reinforcing their treatment as military personnel. The workers made use of a traditional union technique: they did not stop production completely, but worked and demonstrated in shifts. Military police units and the central security forces were deployed around the naval shipyard, and the management ordered a reinforced blockade by the army to prevent the workers from entering the factory to work. As a result, the 2,300 people who worked in the factory were suspended indefinitely.

At the end of May, the workers went to the local police station to lodge a complaint against the management blockade, seeking to know why they were not allowed to work. At the police station, they learned that the army had opened an inquiry into the alleged participation of 15 workers in the sit in. The military court convoked 26 workers for an inquiry (Case No. 2759/2016). Of the workers, six were known to have called for labour reforms in the factory in the past. Fourteen of the workers who were convoked went to the police station for the inquiry, where they were then placed in detention and interrogated.

The court refused to release the workers and indicated that they would be transferred to local police stations and released later. However, the workers were detained for four days or more. The military court charged them with calling a strike and perturbing the operation of the enterprise. It charged civilian workers with the violation of section 124 of the Egyptian Penal Code, under the terms of which public employees who wilfully refrain from performing their duties may be imprisoned or sentenced to pay a fine. Even now, the 26 workers are still without jobs, out of prison and awaiting the verdict of the military court. The verdict has been postponed over 30 times in two years, and hundreds of employees of the naval shipyard are still prohibited from entering the factory.

It is high time for the Government of Egypt to give effect to the Convention. It must act rapidly to respond to the fundamental concerns of the Workers’ group and the international community.

Government member, Iraq – We would like to thank the Government of Egypt for its efforts. It has been striving to apply the Convention. We would like to pay tribute to the efforts made in relation to the new Law, which applies to all Egyptian workers, regardless of the type of work in which they are involved or the sector to which they belong. This Law grants a number of advantages, for instance respect for trade union pluralism. When the Government of Egypt drafted this Law, it drew inspiration from ILO recommendations, and it involved the social partners in that process. It also consulted civil society. Egypt has respected the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. In light of this, we feel that this new Law, as amended, is perfectly in line with international labour standards. Nor should we forget that the Magna Carta of Egypt, otherwise known as the Constitution, grants room for freedom of association and the right to organize. Geneva is the host city of the ILO, admittedly, but the Arab Labour Organization has its headquarters in Egypt. They are sister organizations, and that serves only to reinforce the conviction that Egypt cannot escape its international obligations. On the contrary, Egypt is very committed to respecting all international labour Conventions.

Worker member, United Kingdom – I speak on behalf of the workers of the United Kingdom and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITWF). Since the Committee now allows for the submission of additional documentation and other evidence by governments due to be considered by the Committee, it remains vital to keep us all up to date with recent events. Sadly, in the case of Egypt, these events portray an ongoing climate of repression of trade union freedoms that demands far stronger action from the Government to comply with the Convention.

The Government itself insists there is no evidence for union claims that they have faced pressure if openly critical of government policy or not aligned with unions with favourable views of the same. We are happy to provide some examples.

Throughout 2018, the Egyptian Seafarers’ Union (ESU) attempted to register a branch in the Port of Alexandria, and was consistently refused. The branch has now had its activities suspended. The union had already been seriously weakened by Law No. 213 of 2017, which allowed the Government to dissolve most of the ESU structure, leaving only branches in Suez and Port Said. Action should be taken immediately to restore the rights of the port workers to form or join unions of their own choosing, without state interference.

We note that port workers are not part of the group exempt from the Convention, being neither, under any reasonable interpretation, part of the police nor military.

Last year, workers at a factory producing ceramics and sanitary ware, took part in a strike over, among many things, paid holiday, which was being withheld in defiance of Egypt’s labour laws. Also at stake, were an annual pay increase, payments for hazardous work, access to health care and a request to change the election procedure for trade union committees. As for that last point of dispute, a company attempting to control such processes is itself a breach of the Convention.

Rather than negotiate, the ceramics company closed down all power to the factory and called the police, providing them with details of the striking workers. On 17 February 2018, seven of those workers were arrested. During the arrest, one worker fell three stories and sustained serious injuries. He was arrested nevertheless. On 25 May, the workers were charged with inciting the strike, which – by coincidence – the Labour Office retrospectively adjudged illegal, just in time for their sentencing to 15 days’ imprisonment on the same day. The workers were then forced to agree, in negotiations with the Ministry of Manpower, that they were to abandon several of their pre-strike demands, in return for the police ending their pursuit of other strike participants. The Ministry also compelled the workers to sign a no-strike agreement as part of the arrangement.

Ceramics and sanitary-ware producers are not listed as essential services by the ILO.

Finally, in April 2018, workers at a biscuit factory entered a dispute with their management over the distribution of profits after a productive and rewarding year for the factory. The workers joined the strike on 29 April 2018, and their protest lasted for seven days, at the end of which the security services arrested six of the workers and charged them with organising a protest without a licence. Biscuit production is also not listed as an essential service by the ILO.

These cases show that state interference in the activities of trade unions has continued up to very recent times, and promises of reform must be taken in the context of a total failure to change the behaviour of the Government and its enforcement agencies.

Government member, Brazil – Brazil thanks the Government of Egypt for the presentation of detailed information to the consideration of this Committee. Brazil shares Egypt’s unease with various aspects of the supervisory system, and in particular the working methods of the Committee. This Committee is far from conforming to best practices in the multilateral system. It is not transparent, it is neither impartial nor objective, it is not tripartite in the house of tripartism, and it does not favour social dialogue in the house of social dialogue. The lack of due notice, the opaque nature of the selection of cases and the negotiation of conclusions, seriously hinder our efforts to build constructive dialogue and give meaningful consideration to the submissions of various parties.

A strong, effective and legitimate ILO, adapted to the contemporary challenges of the world of work and multilateralism, is of interest to all, governments, workers and employers. This should and can be achieved by means of cooperation, dialogue and partnership. The information from the Government shows that it has made clear efforts to seek social dialogue in recent years and that amendments to the Trade Union Law, approved by the Council of Ministers last month, are a promising development. Yet, we reiterate that in Brazil’s view, only clearly defined standards to which a government has agreed, through the formal ratification process, should grant any questions or requests for clarification before this Committee.

The Office, this Committee and the ILO as a whole should recognize the important role of governments, national institutions and organizations in the interpretation of standards, with a view to accommodating national circumstances and capabilities.

Worker member, Belgium – First of all, we would like, once again, to draw attention to the fact that it has been three years since the mutilated body of the Italian student, Giulio Regeni, was found; he was 28 years old and did research on the organization of trade unions in Egypt. Trade unions, the very freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize are the reason we are discussing the case of Egypt today.

As the Committee of Experts notes in its report, the Government assures that it will continue to work with full transparency in cooperation with the ILO in order to overcome the challenges facing the Egyptian experience in establishing a nascent trade union freedom that has not been witnessed in the country for ages. Trade union freedom can only be exercised if workers and trade unionists do not have to fear arrest, military trial enforced disappearance, dismissal and a range of disciplinary measures solely for exercising their right to strike and to form independent trade unions. It is a euphemism to describe these as serious obstacles impeding the full exercise of freedom of association for all workers. This is further aggravated by the fact that various contraventions of the Trade Union Law are penalized with imprisonment. Combined with the Egyptian authorities’ use of solitary confinement as a tool to inflict additional punishment against prisoners as is infamous and has been widely documented by human rights organizations, this nascent trade union freedom the Government talks about is far from being a reality on the ground and seems to only exist on paper. As yet another example of the complete disdain by the Egyptian authorities for workers and trade unions we can refer to the arbitrary detention of the labour rights lawyer, Haytham Mohamdeen, that happened just last month; he had been on a probation since his release from months of arbitrary detention over trumped-up charges of inciting peaceful protests against austerity measures. Instead of stepping up the repression with a fresh round of arbitrary detentions, the authorities should immediately ensure that their citizens can peacefully exercise their right to freedom of association and protect their right to organize.

Government member, Plurinational State of Bolivia – The Plurinational State of Bolivia welcomes the information provided by the Government of Egypt in relation to the Convention. Freedom of association and protection of the right to organize are one of the fundamental pillars of the International Labour Organization. For that reason, in Bolivia the right of men and women workers is recognized to organize in unions in accordance with the law. In that regard, we welcome the fact that the Committee of Experts takes due note of the adoption of the new Trade Union Law in Egypt, which no longer refers to a specific union federation, but allows organizations to affiliate with other federations, to establish federations or act with autonomy, as indicated by the Government of Egypt.

We also emphasize the invitation to the Government to help those organizations that have not been able to regularize their situation up to now so that they can be registered in accordance with the law. For that reason, we encourage the Government of Egypt to continue its measures to promote and protect the right to organize.

Government member, Bahrain – I am speaking on behalf of the Governments of the Arab countries (Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen). The ILO Arab group would like to applaud the efforts made by the Egyptian Government to ensure full application of the Convention and also to implement the recommendations of the Committee. Over the course of the past two years, the Government has set up a council for social dialogue, involving all the social partners, and a very wide-ranging social dialogue effort has also been lodged. Trade union elections have also been planned and held in a transparent way. All of this shows how much importance Egypt attaches to the Convention and to the protection of freedom of association. We would encourage Egypt to continue cooperating with the ILO. The member States of the Arab group note that the efforts made by Egypt are very recent – these are all very recent initiatives. And so we would ask to give them a chance to bear fruit. We thank Egypt for all the efforts that it has made, and more specifically, we would like to draw attention to the efficient cooperation that is taking place between the social partners to ensure the stability of Egypt and its workplaces.

Government member, Ethiopia – My delegation takes due note of the observations of the Committee of Experts in relation to the application of the Convention in law and in practice on which the Government of Egypt is requested to provide information. We also learned that the Committee called on the Government of Egypt to take steps to ensure that all workers are ensured the full enjoyment of their fundamental right to freely organize and, in particular, to guarantee the independence of trade unions and the elimination of all forms of interference in workers’ organizations.

The Committee had also requested the Government to lower the minimum membership requirements for forming a trade union at enterprise level, so as to ensure the rights of workers to form and join the organizations of their own choosing. In light of the above, the Government of Egypt had provided the required information with regard to the achievements and progress made towards advancing the application of the Convention, in point taking into account the observations of the Committee.

Accordingly, we have listened with keen interest that relevant provisions of the existing Trade Union Law were amended that include: number of workers required to form a trade union; number of unions required to form a general union; and number of general unions required to form a federation, among others. We are also informed by the Government of Egypt that the amendments of the Law in point included the abolition of penalties of imprisonment contained in the provisions of the Law, and includes only fines against illegal practices of any of the trade unions. We also learned that the Cabinet of Ministers approved the amended draft Law and referred it to the Parliament for adoption, which in our view is a positive step.

In conclusion, in light of the progress made by Egypt and commendable measures taken by the Government towards aligning its national legislation with Convention, we hope that the Committee will consider these developments while drawing its conclusions.

Government member, Sudan – We would like to thank the Government representative and his delegation. We have taken note of the efforts the Government has been making and the measures taken in order to bring law into line with the Convention. It is absolutely essential to support the efforts of the Government in order to be able to apply the amended 2017 Law, which has been brought into line with the request made by the Committee. Many trade unions have been established since the adoption of this Law which removed the restrictions on freedom of association. The initiatives and the efforts of the Government have not stopped there. We have heard that there is now a body which assists trade unions and federations to register their status and other matters.

This brings the Government much closer to applying the provisions of the Convention and we welcome Egypt’s initiatives and would call on the country to use the technical assistance provided by the ILO.

Government representative – Allow me first to thank all of those who spoke in the discussion. I would like to thank everyone for their positive contributions. The idea here is to reach the best outcomes. We have noted all of the comments and we will take all of them into account.

I would particularly like to say that there is not a single State in the world which can meet the criteria and standards to 100 per cent, neither in law, nor in practice. However, some countries have better performance than others with regard to the adoption of decisions, to reinforce their compliance with international standards, and we would reiterate once again that for us in compliance with standards is one of our priority objectives, so that we can achieve social justice, stability and peace.

We have faith in the progress of the Egyptian trade union movement, and we are proud of the changes that have taken place, maybe not enough yet, but we can say that we are on the right track.

On the occasion of the high-level and direct contact missions, I said that in Egypt we now have the opportunity which everybody can take. Trade unions now can look towards a trade union movement following years of absence.

A few points were raised which I would like to touch upon. For example, the representative of the Workers said that the Government had made certain amendments to legislation simply in response to this meeting taking place, and this case being on the list. That is not right. I would recall that there was an ILO high-level visit in August 2018 to Egypt, and then the Superior Council for Social Dialogue met on 9 October 2018. Because that is what was scheduled, that is what had been promised to the high-level mission. We said we would get right down to studying the amendments. They were studied. The study was commended to a technical committee for fine-tuning and then referred to the Superior Council for Social Dialogue. In December 2018, we sent a letter where we referred to these amendments. These changes have been made in order to better comply with our international obligations. Claiming that they were made simply at the last minute in response to us being on the list is something that we categorically reject.

We wanted to amend Egyptian legislation in order to better comply with the Convention, and we did that following a request that had been made by the Committee of Experts. The representative of the Workers’ group referred to a series of articles in the new law. Now I cannot go into details, but I can say that there are errors in the interpretation of these provisions. Somebody has urged the Workers’ group to make these comments, and I imagine that they did so in offering a personal and distorted interpretation.

Now we are open to discussing these matters with the Workers where we will be able to talk about the correct interpretation of the provisions, including those that they think violate the provisions of the Convention. We want to set things absolutely straight and if there is something that contradicts the Convention, then we can quite easily amend these articles to bring them into line.

A number of other speakers took the floor making claims or allegations. However, the ILO mission was able to see with their own eyes what the real situation is in Egypt. But let us pick up a few of these examples. For example, there has been interference in trade union elections by the State. Well there has been judicial oversight of the elections, nobody interfered however in any of the trade union electoral processes.

That is the first thing. The second thing, and with regards to the claim that there were prisoners taken and arrests made in Alexandria shipyard. Well what actually happened is that in one of the enterprises there were actions, disturbances and confrontations. What the enterprise did was turn to the authorities who stepped in and took decisions in accordance with the laws that are in force.

There were also comments relating to us hampering the creation of the Egyptian Workers’ Democratic Organization. Now I talked about this a number of times. I talked about it with our colleagues who visited Egypt, and we talked about it on a number of different occasions. We discussed this question yesterday as well, and I will continue talking about this issue and reaffirming our position with regard to the union Egyptian Democratic Workers, who have acclaimed that they have more than 700,000 affiliates. Now before the law was adopted and before we have these trade union legislations, we looked into this issue, but then during a period of reconciliation, what we have tried to do, is enter into contact with them. But the problem is that no trade union committee has come to us and said, yes, they are affiliated to these confederations. So apparently, it has 700,000 affiliates, but it has not been able to provide documentation of a single affiliated union.

On the occasion of the ILO Centenary, I spoke to the President of this trade union confederation. I said, please provide us with the relevant documentation and we will protest your request so that we then cannot be accused that our Ministry is somehow blocking the registration of your organization, but we have not heard anything, despite having tried to enter into contact a number of times.

So how can this trade union say that they have so many affiliates? This is a confederation which claims to have affiliates but has not demonstrated any affiliates at all.

So we would like to say to the Committee that, in line with the recommendation of the Committee of Experts, we are creating a technical body to study all of the complaints of the trade unions that we have received, including considering the possible creation of new organizations to provide technical support. We asked the Cairo Office of the ILO to send a representative to this technical committee so that it can provide the support that would be helpful in processing all of these requests. About Mr Regeni, this is a case which is currently before the courts in Egypt. The Egyptian authorities and the Italian authorities are cooperating. I do not think that this is a case that merits being discussed here. Here, we deal with labour issues. We could talk about other cases, Egyptian workers who have been killed in other countries but we have not done this because this is not the appropriate place.

Some people yesterday asked whether we were being serious when it came to submitting amendments, whether our motivation was good. I can assure you that everything is being done properly. The Parliament has approved the legislation. The employers are part of the consultation which is taking place. Employers are obviously part of that consultation. The thing you have to remember is that we have grown economically in Egypt and we have, therefore, needed to make changes to the laws in correspondence with this. So, we will happily respond to any further points. We have taken measures to adapt to evolving situations. We want to cooperate with this Organization and continue benefiting from the technical assistance of this house.

Employer members – I would like to thank the distinguished Government delegate for his responding comments and I would like to thank everyone that took the floor to add their voice to the discussion of the case.

In the Employers’ view, this case really deals with some fairly limited issues around whether obstacles exist in law and practice to the free and autonomous operation of trade unions. So we are hopeful that the spirit in which the Government attended and made its interventions represents a desire to work constructively with both social partners, workers’ and employers’ organizations at the national level to move forward to try to address some of the concerns that have been identified and to remove the obstacles both in law and in practice that exist for trade union registration.

And so from the Employers’ perspective if we were able to see that kind of forward motion and progress we would think that those would be very positive developments and certainly, to the extent that it is possible, the Employers’ group stands ready to participate in that process.

As a result, we think that this is a case in which the Government should be encouraged to remain open and willing to hear the stakeholders’ concerns on these aspects of the case and should remain open and willing to remove any obstacles that will continue to exist in the new trade union law.

Worker members – I first wish to thank all those who have taken the floor to illustrate the discrepancies between the situation as described by the Government and reality.

The Government of Egypt is not happy to be included on the list. But, I can reassure it, I do not know any Government that would be content to be on the list. And yet, it is clear that many of the provisions of the new Law that I mentioned are not in conformity with the Convention. The presence of Egypt on the list is therefore fully justified.

The Employer member of Egypt expressed certain opinions that need to be taken up. First, concerning the prohibition to establish unions founded on a religious, political or ideological basis. The honourable member appears to ignore the fact that, in many countries throughout the world, there are socialist, Christian, communist and even liberal unions. Yours truly is himself the President of a Christian union.

That does not mean that only Christians can become members of our organization, as we have among our ranks members of all religions, as well as atheists. It merely means that organizations have the right, on the basis of the Convention, to give their organization the ideological line that they wish without being subject to any interference. That is what is called freedom and pluralism.

The second point concerns financial control. The central accounting body is a public institution under the authority of the Office of the President of the Republic which is responsible for controlling the use of public finances. Contrary to the idea expressed by the honourable member, trade union dues are not public finances. Public resources are those raised through compulsory taxation. Trade union dues are paid on a voluntary basis arising out of membership of a union. It is not therefore public money. If this reasoning were to be extended, all commercial companies would also have to be controlled in the same way. The argument is therefore absurd.

These elements nevertheless bear witness to an unsupportable paternalistic attitude which claims to know the interests of the workers better than they do themselves. It treats them as minors, beasts or automata, as ignorant beings. It would appear that the Government has decided to apply the famous maxim of Di Lampedusa: “Everything must change, so that everything can stay the same.”

In practice, what it is doing is continuing in its failure to comply with the Convention, while claiming that the changes that have been made guarantee freedom of association. The duty of the Workers’ group is to exercise the right of vigilance by pointing out the traps for the unwary.

The adoption of a new law is not enough to guarantee freedom of association. It is still necessary in particular for its content to be in conformity with the Convention on all matters. In my opening intervention, I made many references to legal provisions that continue to raise problems. We insist in particular on the repeal of section 5, which prohibits the establishment of unions based on the criteria set out in that section.

The same applies to the provisions which empower the Minister to initiate a procedure for dissolution in the event of a serious fault in the financial and administrative management of an organization. We insist that it is not for the authorities to establish the conditions of eligibility for candidates to trade union office.

Similarly, the Workers’ group invites the Government to withdraw the provisions which determine the competences of executive committees and regulate elections in general assemblies.

Moreover, the continuing problem that it is prohibited to join several unions must be resolved.

Finally, we invite the Government of Egypt to repeal the provisions setting out penal sanctions, including fines. For example, we do not see the use of establishing penal sanctions in the case of non-compliance with an exclusion procedure.

We invite the Government to register all the trade unions which have applied for registration and to meet without delay those that have lodged complaints.

We also call on the Government to provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts by September 2019 on the action taken to follow up the requests made by our Committee.

As we are referring to problems that have persisted for several years and which relate to a fundamental aspect of freedom of association, we therefore call on the Government to accept a visit by a high-level mission.

The case of Egypt has been examined by our Committee on several occasions. Each time, the Government has chosen the path of restrictions and impediments of all types with, on each occasion, negative results. Perhaps the time has come for it to try the path of respect for freedom of association, as every other route invariably leads to a blockage, with all that that entails.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted that despite the adoption of the Trade Union Law and Ministerial Decree No. 35, a number of long-standing discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention continued to persist.

The Committee expressed concern over the persistence of restrictions on the right of workers to join and establish trade union organizations, federations and confederations of their own choosing and ongoing government interference in the trade union elections and activities.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee calls upon the Government to:

- ensure that there are no obstacles to the registration of trade unions, in law and practice, in conformity with the Convention;

- act expeditiously to process pending applications for trade union registration;

- ensure that all trade unions are able to exercise their activities and elect their officers in full freedom, in law and in practice, in accordance with the Convention;

- amend the Trade Union Law to ensure that:

– the level of minimum membership required at the enterprise level, as well as for those forming general unions and confederations, does not impede the right of workers to form and join free and independent trade union organizations of their own choosing;

– workers are not penalized with imprisonment for exercising their rights under the Convention; and

- transmit copies of the draft Labour Code to the Committee of Experts before its next session in November 2019.

The Committee invites the Government to accept ILO technical assistance to assist in implementing these recommendations. The Committee urges the Government to submit a report on its progress to the Committee of Experts before its November 2019 session.

Government representative – We have taken note of the conclusions of the Committee and we thank all those who participated in the discussion. We would like to welcome the conclusions and to reassure the Committee that the Government of Egypt had made amendments to the law as explained thoroughly by the Minister during the case discussion, and I note that the amendments proposed in the conclusions are really reflected in the amendments that we had presented to the Parliament and are currently being discussed for adoption. Definitely, copies of this new law will be presented to the ILO secretariat.

The Government is also working on solving the problems of the trade union organizations that wish to regulate their status by providing them technical support and has requested the participation of the ILO Office in Cairo in this process.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2017, Publication: 106th ILC session (2017)



A Government representative assured the Committee that his Government fully respected its obligations under all the Conventions it had ratified, including the Convention under examination, ratified in 1957. Based on its belief in the importance of trade union freedom for the realization of social peace and stability, as well as balanced labour relations, the Ministry of Manpower had issued a statement on the establishment of trade union freedoms, according legal personality to trade unions and providing for the receipt and deposition of their founding documents. Thus, 1,800 trade unions had been established at the enterprise level, in addition to 63 general trade unions and 24 trade union federations, which did not belong to the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF). These trade union organizations played their role in defending the rights and interests of their members, engaging in collective bargaining and concluding collective agreements, which had been registered and deposited at the Ministry. However, judicial decisions issued by administrative judges and the ordinary judiciary, as well as decisions by the Council of State, had not recognized the statement of the Minister of Manpower, as a ministerial decision could not override the Trade Unions Act No. 35 of 1976, which only recognized trade union organizations established in accordance with its provisions. Furthermore, the Civil Code, which provided the general legal framework for all labour legislation, did not recognize legal personality other than that established by law, and not by ministerial decision. Therefore, and in spite of the upheavals since 2011, the Government, since June 2013, had been fully determined to improve and correct the state of affairs, including with regard to trade union organizations, and it had thus taken measures to issue a law in this regard. The President himself had urged the House of Representatives to expedite the issuance of labour legislation, including the draft Labour Code and the draft law on trade union organizations, which would abrogate the current Trade Unions Act No. 35 of 1976, and thus also annul the judicial decisions referred to above. Although the protection of trade union freedoms was already enshrined in the Constitution of 2014, the new law had been drafted in an explicit manner, using the terms of “trade unions and federations” and not “the federation” as in the current law. The new law was to be considered complementary to the Constitution, as it undoubtedly granted additional protections and guarantees, while the Constitution itself was inspired by the international human rights treaties and Conventions which Egypt had ratified, including Convention No. 87. Article 76 of the Constitution thus provided that the establishment of trade unions and federations on the basis of democratic principles was a right guaranteed by law, and that they would possess legal personality, freely conduct their activities, contribute to enhancing the skills of their members, defend their rights and protect their interests. It further provided that the State guaranteed the independence of trade unions and federations, whose governing bodies could not be dissolved other than by a court judgment. Based on these constitutional provisions and the international Conventions ratified by Egypt, the Government had prepared a draft law, with due consideration to all the comments of the Committee of Experts and the ILO on the current Trade Unions Act. The Ministry had finalized the draft law on 24 April 2016, submitting it to the Council of Ministers which had in turn, approved it and passed it to the Council of State for its review. A copy of the draft law had been sent to the Director-General of the ILO to obtain the ILO’s views on its sections. Comments received from the ILO had partly been integrated in the text of the law during its discussion by the Council of State, while responses had been provided on other comments. In April 2017, while the draft law was pending before the House of Representatives, the ILO had transmitted a second set of comments after having received the final version of the draft law. The Government had then invited a delegation of experts from the ILO International Labour Standards Department, which had visited Cairo in May 2017. An open discussion had thus been held on the technical comments, and agreement had been reached on the amendment of some sections of the law, which demonstrated Egypt’s seriousness and its eagerness to move forward.

Still, in May 2017, the President of Egypt had urged the House of Representatives to pass the pending labour legislation. Subsequently, the Labour Committee of the House of Representatives had finalized the draft Labour Code on 28 May 2017, while it had commenced its discussion of the draft law on trade union organizations on 23 May 2017, in preparation for its submission to the plenary session of Parliament for adoption. The draft law on trade union organizations enshrined the principle of freedom of association for trade unions and federations, while guaranteeing their democratic nature and independence. In particular, it enshrined the freedom of workers to establish trade union organizations, and to join such organizations or to withdraw from them. The bill renounced the notion of the existence of a single trade union federation. It also provided explicitly that public authorities were to refrain from any interference that would restrict or impair the legitimate exercise of these rights. Furthermore, the draft law prohibited the dissolution of trade unions or their governing bodies, or the halting of their activities, by the administrative authorities or the competent Ministry. It also provided that trade unions, regardless of their level, should acquire legal personality, and abolished the unified hierarchical structure. With regard to some specific sections of the draft law on trade union organizations, he explained that sections 1, 4 and 13 provided for the possibility to establish more than one federation, ensuring trade union plurality, and the freedom to join any trade union or federation. Sections 14, 16 and 17 provided for the annulment of the provisions on a unified structure. Moreover, the draft law would make it possible for a trade union organization to formulate its own by-laws which regulates its relationship with a higher organization if it wished to join it. Sections 59, 60, 61 and 65 allowed trade union federations to draw up their own financial regulations. After submission of the draft law on trade union organizations to the House of Representatives, and following discussion with the ILO concerning the Committee of Experts comments on the Trade Unions Act, and the two sets of comments transmitted by the ILO on the bill, agreement had been reached. Already before the Conference, and during the meeting with ILO representatives in Cairo, the tendency had been to involve the representatives of independent trade unions in social dialogue on the draft law in the Ministry of Manpower or the Labour Committee of the House of Representatives. Moreover, the presidents of the Egyptian trade union federations (the ETUF, the Egyptian Federation of Independent Trade Unions and the Democratic Union of Egyptian Workers) had signed a joint document with the heads of the employers’ organizations in Egypt, in which they identified the provisions agreed upon in the draft law and affirmed their full faith in the principle of freedom of association as the basic element for the stability of labour relations in Egypt. In conclusion, he emphasized that: (i) the draft law on trade union organizations had passed through several stages, all with the consensus of the social partners and in full and continuous coordination with the ILO, in all transparency and clarity to ensure its compatibility with international labour standards; (ii) the most important reason behind the delay in its adoption was the absence of an Egyptian Parliament until the beginning of 2016, and the fact that the bill, being complementary to the Constitution, could not be issued by decree; and (iii) the Ministry had not frozen the activities or bank accounts of independent trade unions, since it considered it important to give them an opportunity to adjust their conditions and enter the umbrella of the new law. The new trade unions continued to freely conduct their activities, defend the rights of workers, engage in collective bargaining and conclude collective agreements. Finally, he questioned the basis and criteria applied for the inclusion of Egypt in the list of individual cases, while reconfirming the Government’s seriousness and eagerness to realize social justice for workers, which was not possible without freedom of association, to which the Government was committed through its Constitution and the international Conventions it had ratified. Thus, he reaffirmed that the ongoing cooperation with the ILO had contributed to achieving the progress made in a very short time frame, and that the Government would continue on this path, in accordance with the Egyptian Constitution and ratified international Conventions.

The Employer members welcomed the information provided and appreciated the recent engagement of the Government with the social partners and the ILO as well as its stated intention to respect the commitment to ensure compliance with the Convention. The Committee of Experts had repeatedly commented on the Labour Code No. 12 of 2003 and had noted the formulation of a new draft Labour Code and the social dialogue taking place in this regard with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Employer members recalled their disagreement with the comments of the Committee of Experts on Convention No. 87 and the right to strike. They also recalled the Government group’s statement of March 2015 according to which “the scope and conditions of this right are regulated at the national level”. The Employer members, highlighting their views on the subject matter, emphasized that industrial action could be regulated at the national level by the Government taking into account national circumstances. Furthermore, the Employer members made reference to the observation of the Committee of Experts that the final draft law on trade union organizations was expected to be finalized soon to replace the Trade Unions Act. Emphasizing that the discussions on the bill had been ongoing since 2011, the Committee of Experts had reiterated its comments on the Trade Unions Act, in particular concerning the single trade union system, the control exercised by the ETUF over other trade unions and the prohibition to join more than one trade union. The Employer members noted with interest the steps taken to date by the Government, in particular the completion of the draft law on trade union organizations in April 2016 in a process of social dialogue with the involvement of workers’ and employers’ organizations. In August 2016, the Government had received technical comments on the bill from the ILO, which had been discussed by the Council of State and had entailed certain amendments. In April 2017, a second version of the bill had been submitted to the ILO and a mission had been accepted in May 2017 to discuss the ILO’s additional technical comments. In July 2017, the bill would be presented to the stakeholders in a process of social dialogue and would be submitted to Parliament in October 2017. The Employer members felt encouraged by the concrete steps taken by the Government, which illustrated its commitment to compliance with the Convention. They urged the Government to continue bringing the discussion forward so as to demonstrate the tangible results of its efforts, and invited it to continue working with the ILO in cooperation with the social partners so as to ensure that the draft legislation was in line with the express requirements of the Convention. The Government should provide updated information on all the measures taken in time for its examination by the Committee of Experts.

The Worker members emphasized that the commitments made by the Government to the Committee in 2013 concerning respect for freedom of association had not been given effect. It was true that the country had undergone a change of regime since then, but that could not justify the inertia for the past four years, with trade unionists having to wait so long for their country to be in conformity with its international commitments to guarantee freedom of association. This was aggravated by an unfavourable general situation, as the country had once again been in a state of emergency since 9 April, with important consequences for civil liberties. In addition, a new Act had been adopted on non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which contained provisions drastically tightening up the procedures for their establishment and imposed very serious penalties for violations of the law. Certain statements by the Government gave grounds for fearing that the principles of that Act would also be applied to trade unions. Several circulars intended to limit the freedom of action of independent trade unions had also been issued. Moreover, the Committee of Experts indicated in its report that it had received several allegations concerning the arrest and harassment of trade unionists. As it recalled in paragraph 59 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, which also referred to the 1970 Resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, in the absence of a democratic system in which fundamental rights and civil liberties were respected, freedom of association could not be fully developed. For the existence of genuine freedom of association, it was essential for the following rights to be established: (i) the right to freedom and security of person and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention; (ii) freedom of opinion and expression, and in particular freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers; (iii) freedom of assembly; (iv) the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal; and (v) the right to protection of the property of trade union organizations. The ILO supervisory bodies unceasingly recalled the interdependence between public liberties and trade union rights, emphasizing that the concept of a truly free and independent trade union movement could only develop in a climate free from violence, pressure and threats of any kind against the leaders and members of such organizations. The Worker members called on the Government to take all the necessary measures to guarantee all the aspects of freedom of association outlined above.

With regard to the legislative issues, the draft law on trade unions was being drawn up and would soon be adopted. An ILO mission had recently visited the country to provide technical views on the draft law and to discuss freedom of association in more general terms. It was necessary to be particularly vigilant concerning the following points: (i) the draft law contained, in section 2, a provision placing the ETUF, the only trade union that was currently really recognized, in a more favourable position than other trade unions. The ETUF would maintain its legal personality under the new law and would only have to comply with certain additional measures, while independent trade unions would have to follow new procedures to obtain legal personality. To prevent this difference of treatment between trade unions, the only solution was for independent trade unions to be recognized as of now; (ii) apart from the exceptions set out in Article 9 of the Convention, the new law must not contain provisions which constituted in practice a prohibition for certain workers to join unions, for example on the grounds of their nationality or political views. The same applied to the right to join several unions; (iii) it should also be ensured that the new law did not contain any section that might impair the organization of the administration and activities of trade unions, contrary to the current provisions of the draft law, which set out measures for the control of their financial management by the trade union confederation. The introduction of the systematic financial control of their accounts by the public authorities, even through such a body as “a confederation of trade unions” or the Court of Accounts, was a violation of the Convention; (iv) finally, the new law would need to guarantee trade unions the right to draw up their by-laws and administrative rules, without any interference from the public authorities. This right was set out in Article 3 of the Convention and prevented the authorities from imposing requirements that went beyond generally admitted formal conditions, such as the need to comply with democratic principles and the establishment of a right of appeal for members. These various elements were covered by the observations in the report of the Committee of Experts. In any case, it would be useful for the comments made by the Office in the context of its technical assistance to be attached to the draft law when it was examined by Parliament, so that they could be taken into account. The ministerial circulars referred to above limited the freedom of action of independent trade unions. They prohibited dealings with these unions and also denied them the possibility of receiving dues from their members. This was a clear illustration of the ambiguity that reigned in the Egyptian Government. On the one hand, it stated that it wished to be in compliance with the Convention, and on the other hand, it was taking measures that were in breach of the instrument. Until the new law entered into force, independent trade unions would continue to be afflicted by these measures. The Government needed to bring an end to this situation without further ado, as the new law would only be implemented in several months’ time. It was urgent to allow independent trade unions to be able to exercise their rights in full freedom. History taught that institutions could only achieve stability when they were founded on justice and respect for human dignity.

The Employer member of Egypt indicated that he did not share the view expressed by the Worker members. Egypt enjoyed social stability and peace, and there was good cooperation between the Government and the social partners. An agreement had been signed with the social partners and had been submitted to the ILO for comments. Freedom of association should not necessarily mean a proliferation of trade unions, which would inevitably lead to conflicts. There were 1000 trade unions and 26 federations with 5 million members in the country. Freedom of association should be guaranteed, but on a clear and well-regulated basis, in order to ensure that trade unions were representative. The draft law on trade union organizations guaranteed freedom of association for workers as well as for employers. The country was adopting new legislation after a period when Parliament did not exist. Parliament had started to function again in 2016, and this legislation could not be adopted by presidential decree. Egypt had ratified the ILO’s core Conventions and the Government ensured their compliance. The Constitution of Egypt guaranteed the right to freedom of association and tripartism, and the Government did not interfere with independent unions. The Constitution also protected the right to strike. Steps had to be taken before strike action, but if they were followed, they were the only conditions to be met prior to a strike. While expressing his respect for the work of the Committee of Experts, he considered that it sometimes exceeded its mandate when addressing the right to strike and other issues under the Convention. The Committee of Experts needed to focus on the application of the Convention. More information and facts could also be brought to the attention of the Conference Committee. In his view, the Worker members had referred to facts that were inaccurate. Lastly, when a country was selected in the shortlist, it generated reaction in society. The Committee needed to take into consideration the political and economic situation of the countries concerned, and to define clear criteria for the selection of cases. A possibility would be to hear the Employer and Worker members from the country concerned before the adoption of the list.

The Worker member of Egypt denied that the state of emergency impacted on trade unions. It had been adopted to protect citizens, as innocent persons had been murdered. He confirmed the engagement of the social partners in tripartite dialogue, as reported by the Government. The delays in the elaboration of the draft law on trade union organizations and its adoption had been due to political, social and economic difficulties since June 2013. The Committee was asked to show understanding of the circumstances of the country. A new President and a new Parliament had been elected. Numerous draft laws had been submitted to the new Parliament. On 23 May 2017, a dialogue between the ETUF and the independent unions had been initiated and had led to the signature of a joint declaration that approved the draft law on trade union organizations. The Government and the employers had been informed of the joint declaration. The ETUF had taken the initiative to negotiate with all trade unions, since the draft law on trade union organizations constituted a major challenge for workers. The ETUF had submitted to the Government a number of modifications to the draft law that had been accepted. The Government had sent the draft law to Parliament, where it was under discussion and would be on the agenda this year. This draft law was consensual and constituted a new era for industrial relations in the country. It was time to revive the trade unions, in the context of the numerous legislative reforms that required harmonization. Egyptian unions wanted to train leaders to face this challenge and change from an old system to a new and modern one that would take into account the changes in labour relations. The workers of Egypt wanted to launch a new movement, and elections would take place to establish a new trade union. A memorandum of understanding had been signed between the ETUF, the independent unions and the federation of employers. This agreement benefited the country as a whole, the workers and the employers of Egypt. The draft law had been discussed by the three relevant stakeholders, and workers in Egypt were determined to watch over the adoption of a law that would protect freedom of association, in line with the Convention, and the Constitution of Egypt. He called on the Committee to take into account in its conclusions the efforts made by the Government, and in particular the tripartite discussions that had been conducted. The Committee was also called upon to note that the draft Labour Code addressed the question of the right to strike, an issue that should not be regulated by the legislation on trade unions. The country had experienced obstacles, but the situation had improved politically, economically and socially.

The Government member of Switzerland regretted that the Government had not given effect to the repeated requests to bring the Trade Unions Act into conformity with the Convention and emphasized the importance of trade union independence and diversity. Trade union plurality ensured representation of all tendencies. She hoped that the Government would bring an end to discrimination against trade unions and encouraged it to amend the Labour Code, in collaboration with the social partners, to give effect to the comments of the Committee of Experts. She added that it must be possible to engage in collective bargaining at all levels and reiterated her hope that the Government would quickly bring the Trade Unions Act into conformity with the Convention.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) expressed concern at the draft law on trade union organizations proposed by the Government, which repressed freedom of association and violated several provisions of the Convention. Although the information provided by the Government was a step forward, the fundamental problem remained unaddressed. The draft law imposed a model of trade unionism which replicated the current model. Particularly, section 13 provided for three types of trade union organizations: trade union committees, general unions, and national federations. The draft law also imposed conditions with regard to the number of council members, membership requirements, election rules and procedures, as well as the objectives and activities of the unions. Moreover, the draft law differentiated between the ETUF and other unions. While ETUF retained its recognized legal personality, the latter would need to be re-registered, in violation of Articles 2 and 11 of the Convention. The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt and an Administrative Court had recognized the right to freedom of association as a constitutional right, which entailed the right for unions to establish their own constitutions and the prohibition of interference by the Government or its administrative bodies. Instead of complying with the rulings of the courts, the Government had relied on the Advisory Opinion of the Council of State of 21 December 2016, which had instructed the Ministry of Manpower and Migration not to register independent trade union organizations and had been widely used to attack independent trade unions. In particular, several unions had been instructed by employers and the authorities to stop their activities and vacate their premises, and could no longer collect the monthly contributions of the workers.

The Government member of Cuba noted the information provided by the Government, according to which: (i) the new draft bill on trade unions took into account the Committee of Experts’ comments on the need to ensure that the national legislation was in conformity with the Convention; (ii) the legislative committee established in the Ministry of Manpower and Migration had finalized the preparation of a new draft Labour Code, and dialogue sessions were held with employers’ and workers’ organizations, and civil society organizations, to discuss the draft text. She encouraged the Government to continue taking measures in line with its commitments.

The Worker member of Germany also speaking on behalf of the Worker members of Finland, France, Italy, Spain and Sweden, stated that security forces in Egypt were operating with the utmost harshness. Despite the reprisals, local strikes had occurred in the recent past. Examples included: in May 2016, a shipyard protest in Alexandria where 20 strikers had been arrested by the military police and brought before a military court; in December 2016, a strike in the chemical industry where 200 strikers had been arrested by the police and released after a few hours; and in February 2017, a partial strike by nursing staff in a hospital where 36 persons had been suspended and subject to an arrest warrant for “work obstruction”. Their only offence had been that they had attempted to organize freely outside the state system of control and had demanded higher wages in the face of rising inflation. She added that the state-controlled and supervised ETUF was an extended arm of the Government, supervised by the Minister of Labour in its organizational, financial and personnel matters. The ITUC, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB) did not cooperate with the ETUF, as it was not considered to be a free trade union. While the ETUF enjoyed a State-assured monopoly, the formation of independent and free unions was systematically hampered. The envisaged legislation on the registration and recognition of trade unions would not only perpetuate, but also exacerbate the situation. The already registered ETUF would be recognized, whereas all other unions would, in light of the excessive requirements, be de facto deprived of their right to exist. She called on the Government to bring an end to the constant legal and practical impediments to free trade unions and eventually fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela emphasized the Government’s commitment to continue complying with ratified ILO Conventions. In its 2017 report, the Committee of Experts had noted with interest the final draft law on trade union organizations, which had been approved by the Council of Ministers and submitted to Parliament for adoption. He welcomed the indication by the Government representative that this draft took into account the comments made by the Committee of Experts, and trusted that the Government would continue adopting further measures to comply with the Convention, bearing in mind the spirit of pluralism that was reflected in the participation of the accredited tripartite delegation in this session of the International Labour Conference. He also considered that the Committee should bear in mind the Government’s goodwill and efforts to comply with the Convention. Lastly, he hoped that the Committee’s conclusions would be objective and balanced so that the Government could take them into account and give them weight in the application of the Convention.

An observer representing the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) recalled the statement by the Worker members that the draft law on trade union organizations did not come close to ensuring the full right of freedom of association. The lack of consultation with independent unions during the drafting process had rendered any semblance of genuine social dialogue void. The new provisions appeared to ensure that those trade unions that were already recognized would continue in their status, while new independent unions would have to go through a fresh registration process. Real trade union pluralism could not be achieved under those provisions, especially given the onerous membership requirements included in the draft proposals for the establishment of unions. The ITF affiliates in Egypt continued to face difficulties. A recent letter from the Government had confirmed that public sector employees were banned from dealing financially and administratively with trade unions, federations or independent committees not affiliated with the only recognized national union federation. The letter specified that independent unions were illegal for the purposes of the Trade Unions Act. In a subsequent letter, the Minister of Labour and the Public Transit Authority had called on the Minister of Local Development to issue the necessary instructions to all sectors under its purview not to accept the stamp of the independent unions on any official documents or national identification documents. As a result, ITF affiliates had reported consistent state interference in their activities, which had prevented them from collecting membership fees, and thus threatened their very existence. The leader of the Dock Workers’ Federation had been deducted five days’ pay because of a social media post calling for the reinstatement of a statutory monetary supplement. Real trade unions representing the real interests of the workers needed to be able to function in full freedom. The Government was urged to comply with the observations of the Committee of Experts and to urgently bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of Mauritania said that the information provided by the Government proved that progress was under way, despite the political challenges currently faced by the country. Following the parliamentary elections, the new draft law on trade union organizations had been prepared in consultation with the social partners and had been sent to the ILO for comments. In April 2017, the Government had sent the final version of the draft law to the ILO. Moreover, according to the Parliamentary committee, another round of consultations would be held next July 2017, and the draft law would be adopted in October 2017.

Another observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) indicated that the Egyptian Democratic Labour Congress had been established on 28 January 2014 and had submitted its accreditation to the Ministry of Manpower. However, Circular No. 6-4-2014 of the Council of Ministers had been issued calling on all governmental institutions and administrations to stop collaboration with any independent unions, and to recognize only the Confederation of Trade Unions that was supported by the Government. All related information could be found in the complaint that had been submitted to the ILO in 2013. She added that many independent trade unions had been harassed and unionists had been persecuted or threatened, such as the unionists of the Maritime Union who had been convicted by military courts under Case No. 2759/2016. Lastly, she indicated that, in the course of this International Labour Conference, 32 persons had been arrested and had lost their right to be paid because of being accused of calling on workers to strike.

The Government member of Algeria welcomed the information provided by the Government on the measures taken to ensure compliance with the Convention. These measures included the preparation of a draft law on trade union organizations, consultations in this regard with the social partners, as well as the consideration of the relevant technical comments of the ILO. All those steps illustrated the commitment of the Government. With the new draft law, the Government was seeking to address the discrepancies between the Trade Unions Act and the Convention, in particular with regard to the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and trade union pluralism. The Government and the social partners should therefore be encouraged to continue to move forward and avail themselves of the technical assistance of the ILO.

The Government member of Sudan commended the important steps taken by the Government despite the difficult situation in the country, which was experiencing political challenges. Labour legislative reforms had been undertaken by the Government, in particular with regard to the drafting of a labour law on trade union organizations. The draft legislation had been submitted to the ILO for comments. She welcomed the social dialogue initiated by the Government, which was an indication of its respect for freedom of association. The Committee should take into account the positive steps taken by the Government.

The Employer member of Algeria said that the Government, which had cooperated with the Office and made huge progress in its legislative reform, should be encouraged and supported. There should also be support for the steps taken by the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to highlight problems in the draft law on trade unions and introduce legislation that was in conformity with ratified ILO Conventions. All the initiatives taken by the Egyptian authorities were significant steps forward that deserved support and encouragement.

The Government member of Libya said that the Government had proved its commitment to the full application of the Convention by amending the legislation on trade unions. The new draft law on trade union organizations offered an adequate protective framework to workers, particularly as it had been drafted in collaboration with the ILO. He nonetheless expressed surprise at the inclusion of the Government in the list of cases to be discussed by the Committee, in view of the positive steps already taken by the Government. He urged the Committee to take into account the Government’s commitment to fully comply with the Convention.

The Government member of the Russian Federation expressed his deep gratitude to the Government representative for the exhaustive information provided on the steps taken to achieve full compliance with the Convention. He expressed satisfaction with regard to tripartite social dialogue in Egypt. The cooperation of the Government with the ILO and the efforts made to take into account the ILO’s comments on the draft law on trade union organizations were to be commended. This had led to notable and visible progress, despite the multiple challenges faced by the Government, and this progress would certainly continue. The discussion before the Committee had to be used to express approval and encouragement for the efforts made by the Government to comply with international labour standards, in particular in the area of freedom of association.

The Worker member of Italy also speaking on behalf of the Worker members of Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom, recalled that the mutilated body of Giulio Regeni had been found near Cairo on 3 February 2016. He had been a 28-year-old student of sociology at the University of Cambridge, whose research had focused on the organization of unions in Egypt. His family still did not know who had ordered his abduction, torture and murder, nor the reason why. Much uncertainty remained due to the absence of cooperation between the Egyptian and Italian authorities. There was evidence that Mr Regeni had been tortured for seven days and that he had had a slow death. The Italian paper La Repubblica had reported that officers from the National Security Agency had been directly implicated in the murder. As a result, the Public Prosecutor of Rome had requested the Prosecutor of Cairo to be able to question these agents. This request had remained unanswered. That case was not isolated. For the past three years, non-governmental organizations had reported 1,124 killings, in addition to cases of deaths in detention, individual and collective torture, medical negligence in detention and other forms of state violence. Despite the evidence to the contrary, the Government denied the involvement in these crimes and refused to address them. The murder of Giulio Regeni had pointed at a serious deficit in Egypt, which had also been the engine of Tahrir Square: the fundamental human right of workers to organize in order to change their status, become free and achieve in peace a more just society. The case of Mr Regeni had become a symbol for all Italians and the Government should be aware that justice would be pursued.

The Government member of Ghana recalled that the Government was undertaking a review of new draft legislation. The major stakeholders, including workers, employers, civil society and the ILO had been included in the review, which had taken into consideration the comments made by the Committee of Experts with regard to consolidating the provisions on freedom of association, ensuring trade union pluralism and including within the scope of the new draft Labour Code certain vulnerable categories of workers, such as domestic workers. He hoped that the Government would progress without delay on this review to ensure compliance with the Convention.

The Government member of Zimbabwe stated that the Government’s comprehensive presentation had helped to shed light on the case. From the submissions of the Employer and Worker members of Egypt, it was clear that all the tripartite partners were involved in the ongoing reforms. The parties had been consulted and were in agreement with the draft law on trade union organizations. The tripartite partners were therefore encouraged to continue their collaboration on the matter. He agreed with the comments of the Government representative questioning the criteria for listing countries to appear before the Committee. The Government had demonstrated its commitment and willingness to give effect to ratified Conventions, despite the difficult circumstances. The Employer and Worker members of Egypt had acknowledged that social dialogue existed in the country. The Office should continue to provide technical assistance, which would be instrumental in expediting the labour law reform.

The Worker member of the Syrian Arab Republic expressed support for the draft law on trade union organizations, which would soon be brought before the Egyptian Parliament. He commended the comments made by the Office on the draft law and requested the Committee to take into consideration the complex situation in Egypt in recent years. The ILO should continue to provide technical assistance to countries, such as Egypt, which had achieved tangible progress towards compliance with the Convention.

The Government representative wished to clarify, with regard to the doubts expressed by the Worker members in relation to some of the achievements highlighted, that some of the comments appeared to relate to the Trade Unions Act, or an earlier version of the draft law on trade union organizations, which had been revised in the meantime, in light of the ILO’s comments. It was important to recall that since 2011 Egypt had undergone major upheavals and it had been able to make progress only after calm had been restored in mid-2013, with achievements such as the holding of presidential elections, the adoption of the Constitution and the resumption of work by the House of Representatives, the body mandated to adopt legislation. Many interventions appeared to be based on hearsay only, and not on a study of the actual situation. Egypt had made progress with the draft law on trade union organizations so as to address the flaws in the current law. The new law was based on freedom of association and had been prepared through tripartite engagement and with the acceptance of many ILO comments. The draft law abolished any distinction between different trade union organizations, and the Government would take all the measures needed to finalize the law so as to provide protection to trade unions. In response to the statement made by the Worker member of Italy, he said that the incident had also shaken the Egyptian people. Although the statement concerned a criminal offence which should not be discussed before the Committee, he stated that procedures were under way between the Public Prosecutor in Egypt and his counterpart in Italy, and that a coordination meeting had been held on 17 May with a judicial investigation team from Rome. He also referred to the case of an Egyptian citizen who had become a victim of crime in Italy, and in relation to which similar investigations and coordination were taking place. Finally, he emphasized that Egypt saw no obstacles to achieving freedom of association and aimed to adopt the draft law on trade union organizations, with the technical support and cooperation from the ILO. The Government had put in place procedures to achieve a system of free and strong trade union organizations by the end of the year. The support of the ILO over the past few years had helped to accelerate the achievements made in a transparent and open manner. The law would be adopted and serve the public interest of Egypt, in full conformity with its Constitution, and the international Conventions ratified by Egypt.

The Worker members, while thanking the Government representative for the explanations and details provided, replied to certain points. They did not consider the dispersion of the trade union movement to be a positive, but the road was long between having a single union (as was the case in Egypt at present) to the dispersed movement described by the Government representative. It was acceptable, in accordance with the Convention, for representativity thresholds to be established, if they were reasonable, but that was not the point at issue. The ministerial circulars referred to above had been issued based on the opinion of the Council of State, which considered that independent trade unions were illegal under the current legislation. Even the Government acknowledged that this legislation was at odds with the Convention. The Government claimed that the legislation in question had been amended and that the Worker members’ comments no longer applied. It was however regrettable that the Government had not seen fit to supply the Committee with the latest version of the Bill so that its members would have all the facts.

Full and unconditional respect for freedom of association involved specific steps to ensure that this freedom was respected: (i) in the short term, the Government should withdraw the ministerial circulars which, in practice, prohibited independent trade unions. A State that really wished to guarantee freedom of association had no need for a law to be passed to ensure that it could be exercised. It was enough to refrain from taking measures to restrict it; (ii) in the medium term, the Bill that was being drafted must be in line with all the provisions of the Convention and respond to the criticisms of the current legislation. More particularly, that implied that the new legislation must guarantee the expression of trade union pluralism by ensuring that no trade union could be favoured at the expense of others. In addition, it must guarantee the freedom of workers to join organizations of their own choosing, without the imposition of any other criteria or restrictions not permitted by the Convention. The Government should refrain from adopting measures that undermined the independence and financial autonomy of organizations, such as the introduction of controls over their accounts. The same was true of respect for the right to draw up by-laws and administrative rules without interference from the authorities. To that end, the Government could continue to request ILO technical assistance. Lastly, in view of the information brought to the attention of the Committee of Experts and presented to the Conference Committee, a direct contacts mission was strongly recommended.

The Employer members highlighted their commitment to freedom of association as it related to both employers’ and workers’ organizations. Freedom of association was the foundation for democracy and crucial for a climate of stable labour relations conducive to investment. Taking into account the importance of the issues raised, the discussion before the Committee had contributed to a better understanding of the case at hand. They appreciated the Government’s commitment and believed that the Committee’s conclusions should focus on supporting the process of the drafting and adoption of a final law on trade unions. The Employer members encouraged the Government to continue to involve the social partners in social dialogue and to report on its efforts to the Committee of Experts so that it could acknowledge progress. They were supportive of the processes through which the Government engaged with the ILO for the finalization of the draft law on trade union organizations in line with the Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee regretted a number of long-standing discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention. The Committee also regretted that despite repeated requests from the Committee of Experts, the Government failed to provide a copy of the draft Labour Code and the draft Law on Trade Union Organisations and Protection of the Right to Organise.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee called upon the Government of Egypt to:

- ensure that the draft Law on Trade Union Organisations, presently before the House of Representatives for adoption, is in conformity with the Convention, in particular with respect to the concerns relating to the institutionalization of a single trade union system;

- transmit a copy of this draft legislation to the Committee of Experts;

- ensure that all trade unions in Egypt are able to exercise their activities and elect their officers in full freedom, in law and in practice, in accordance with the Convention.

The Committee called on the Government to accept an ILO direct contacts mission to assess the progress in respect of the abovementioned conclusions and requested that this information, as well as a detailed report from the Government, be transmitted to the Committee of Experts for examination before its next session in November 2017.

The Government representative indicated that his Government fully opposed and objected to the totality of the conclusions because they did not reflect the content of the discussion which had taken place before the Committee and did not reflect reality. He asked for the opinion of the Legal Adviser on the way to proceed when a government has objections to the conclusions.

The Worker member of Egypt indicated that an attempt was taking place to politicize the Committee’s conclusions to the detriment of Egypt. The conclusions did not reflect the fact that a draft law had been presented to the House of Representatives.

The Legal Adviser indicated that the question raised concerned the procedure to be followed for the adoption of the Committee’s conclusions on individual cases when the government concerned wished to express objections to the proposed conclusions. It was essential to recall that in discharging its supervisory function, the Committee on the Application of Standards drew on the Standing Orders of the Conference but had also developed its own working methods and long-standing practices over the years. The conclusions were delivered based on carefully balanced views exchanged in order to encapsulate consensus. It could happen, and had indeed happened in the past, that the government concerned expressed its disagreement with the conclusions. In these cases, the Government’s disagreement was always faithfully reflected in the Record of Proceedings. This long-standing and constant practice gave satisfaction to governments that their objections had been faithfully reproduced.

The Government representative thanked the Legal Advisor for his reply. He explained that his Government was against the conclusions which were inaccurate and counterfactual. They contained no reference to the new draft legislation, although the draft law had been presented on two occasions before it was submitted to Parliament and the ILO had expressed its views as recently as last May. He repeated that the conclusions were inconsistent with reality: not a single point was accurate. He would have accepted them, had they reflected events that had occurred, but as they were factually inaccurate, he felt he must object.

Another Government representative indicated that the question he wished to raise with the Legal Advisor was not related to the Committee’s practice but to the fact that the Chairperson had asked the room whether there was any objection prior to the adoption of the conclusions. He asked whether, in the event of an objection as in this case, the Chairperson could still go ahead and declare that the conclusions had been adopted by consensus.

The Legal Adviser answered that the Chairperson could proceed on the basis of a very large majority in circumstances where objections were expressed. The main duty of the Chairing Officer was to conduct the debate according to the Standing Orders of the Conference. He could therefore proceed to adopt conclusions despite legitimately expressing disagreement by the government concerned as long as all statements and facts were faithfully reflected in the Record of Proceedings.

The Worker member of Egypt indicated that, according to the conclusions, the ILO had not received a copy of the draft law. He questioned how this could be true, as an ILO official had visited the country, and had obtained and commented on a copy of the law on which the agreement of the social partners had been obtained. In the particular circumstances of his country, it was incomprehensible that the Committee would express disappointment. With the social partners, legislation had been developed that could contribute to peace and open a new era for the people of Egypt, and although the trade unions may have disagreed with certain issues, there was overall agreement. Yet where the Government had hoped that the ILO would extend its support, it had expressed disappointment: the conclusions suggested that nothing had happened, although enormous progress had been made through very hard work. The conclusions disregarded that progress.

The President of the Committee while taking note of the interventions, indicated that they would be entirely reflected in the Conference Record of Proceedings. He requested that the Government contact the secretariat to ensure follow up on the case.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2013, Publication: 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Government provided the following written information.

With reference to the issuance of the Declaration on Freedom of Association following the 25 January Revolution in 2011, the Government states that it is committed to ensuring conformity with international labour standards relating to freedom of association. To this end, efforts have been made and numerous measures have been taken to deal with the issues raised in the area of freedom of association. In particular, the Government wishes to highlight the following. Egypt hosted in Cairo, in collaboration with the ILO, the workshop on the “Perspectives of Freedom of Association” on 9 April 2013 and numerous societal dialogue sessions, which resulted in a broad agreement to establish a national committee entrusted with the comprehensive review of all relevant labour legislation. The Ministry of Manpower and Immigration extended an invitation to all relevant stakeholders to be part of this national committee, including representatives of workers, independent unions, the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF), employers, relevant government entities, the Ministry of Justice, the Shura Council and civil society organizations. The national committee held ten sessions and issued a final recommendation to repeal Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976 and replace it with the draft law that had previously been prepared and discussed during the last session of the dissolved Parliament, as amended, to take into consideration the comments of the ILO Committee of Experts as well as other relevant international labour Conventions ratified by Egypt. After the national committee discussed and reviewed each section of the new draft law, the latter was submitted to the Council of Ministers, which approved it on 29 May 2013. The draft law was then submitted to the Shura Council, currently in charge of legislation, for discussion and approval. The current trade union session that was supposed to end by 27 May 2013 was extended for one year or until the promulgation of the new law by the Shura Council, whichever is earlier. This action was taken to avoid having a gap and allow for a comprehensive discussion of the new law on freedom of association. The representatives of the newly formed independent unions have been able to freely participate in various international activities, meetings and conferences, including in the International Labour Conference in 2011, 2012 and in the current 102nd Session of the ILC.

In addition, before the committee a Government representative expressed his Government’s astonishment at the Committee of Experts’ observation on the absence of legislation on trade unions ensuring their independence and freedom in Egypt while the new Constitution provided for such guarantees in its article 53. Furthermore, the authorities could not dissolve unions, federations and cooperatives, or dissolve their executive boards unless it was by virtue of a court order.

Turning to the challenges in implementing the Convention, he emphasized the need to have a clear understanding of the general social and political context in Egypt if comprehensive and balanced conclusions were to be reached. Egypt had witnessed a revolution on 25 January 2011 against a regime which for many years had flouted the rights of Egyptians, including workers. While the phase of political transition provided a valuable opportunity for society, it also posed important challenges. The most important was the absence of elected legislative institutions for consecutive periods in addition to their dissolution by virtue of judicial decisions issued by the Constitutional Court. Consequently Egypt had been delayed in completing the comprehensive review of all its legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the new Constitution.

In addition to the written information by the Government on some of the measures taken to ensure the observance of the Convention, including the new draft law on freedom of association, he indicated that the Government had regularly informed the ILO of the developments in the process so as to benefit from its technical expertise. Although the Manpower and Migration Committee at Parliament, had finished the discussion of the draft law, a court order had dissolved Parliament, which had delayed promulgation of the law. However, the delay did not mean that there was no freedom of association and trade union pluralism in Egypt. By virtue of the Declaration on Freedom of Association issued in March 2011, there were 13 independent general federations and 1,228 branch trade union committees which worked in all freedom and independence without any interference from the State. The Committee of Experts had also expressed its satisfaction with respect to some measures taken by Egypt on Convention No. 87, and had emphasized the role of technical assistance in that regard.

With respect to the impact of the delay in the promulgation of the draft law on freedom of association, he drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Egyptian delegation participating in the present Conference was composed of six independent general federations, which was a new development in the history of Egyptian trade union participation in international conferences. Reflecting on the aim of freedom of association, he considered that if the aim was to guarantee such freedom, Egypt’s new Constitution provided more guarantees than any other law. If the aim was to regulate trade union work, this had already been discussed with the participation of all parties, as well as the ILO. It had also been approved by the Council of Ministers, and was currently before the Shura Council. If the aim was to verify practice, the speaker invited the Conference Committee to address the six federations present at the Conference. Egypt had exerted unrelenting efforts to meet its legal obligations under international labour Conventions including Convention No. 87. His country had therefore expected a vote of confidence and encouragement from the ILO so as to continue on the right track and he expressed his Government’s deep disappointment at the inclusion of Egypt in the list of individual cases. This could only be due to a lack of accurate information and an erroneous appreciation in the examination of the case of Egypt, and he referred the Conference Committee members to the written information provided by his Government which included information that was absent in the Committee of Experts’ report.

He reiterated his Government’s request to reform the work of the Conference Committee to guarantee transparency, objectivity, a geographical balance on the annual list of cases, and to avoid it being turned into a means of retribution against countries which had a sincere will to move ahead on the path of reform for the sake of protecting and promoting workers’ rights. In light of the above, he called upon the Conference Committee to consider removing Egypt from the list of individual cases and to consider it in future as a case of progress.

The Employer members noted that this case had last been discussed in 2010 and it was necessary to take into account the context of the country. The new Parliament was yet to be elected and the election was scheduled for later in 2013. He recalled that this case was initiated by observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), rather than a national trade union, and related to: (i) the predominance of the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF); (ii) the imprisonment of Kamal Abbas, a representative of the Centre for Trade Union and Worker Services; and (iii) provisions of Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976 and the Labour Code concerning the single integrated trade union system, controls over subsidiary unions, and restrictions to the exercise of the right to strike and recourse to compulsory arbitration.

The Employer members noted that the Government had taken several steps including the drafting of a new comprehensive Labour Code for consideration by Parliament to be elected, and that this law addressed the issues raised by the ITUC. Even without the passage of the draft Code, unions, including unions not affiliated to the ETUF, had begun to proliferate in the country and the Employer members therefore tend to agree that the Government was not exercising control over unions. With respect to restrictions on trade union rights in the existing legislation, which was the subject of this case, the Employer members considered that these did not appear to be operating in practice. The recent proliferation of unions had generated considerable confusion and many unions, especially the new ones, did not understand their obligations; strikes, which were unlawful in many jurisdictions, were apparently common practice. This did not enhance harmonious workplaces and undermined the stability of a properly functioning labour relations environment. The interim Government should ensure that such activities were addressed quickly, effectively and specifically by national laws and regulations. The Employer members reiterated the view that guidance on the right to strike could not be drawn from Convention No. 87. With respect to the alleged unjustified treatment of union officials, they noted that the case of Mr Abbas had been taken by the ETUF itself, and considered that his release by the court showed that justice prevailed. With respect to the delays in the enactment of the draft Code, the Employer members considered that the argument that it had to wait for the election of the new Parliament might be seen as excuses for inaction. They therefore urged the interim Government to at least examine the draft Code on its full compliance with international treaty obligations. The interim Government should also strengthen its efforts towards early implementation of laws which complied with and gave practical effect to the Convention.

Lastly, the Employer members reiterated the view that this case seemed to have been taken out of context. The current practice of unions demonstrated little or no restrictions on freedom of association and might affect overall law and order, which was not what the freedom of association was about. Therefore the draft Code should be processed without delay and the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that draft laws should be submitted to the social partners for a better evaluation of the situation. If the new legislation reflected the text and spirit of the Convention, the Employer members would indeed be able to regard it as a case of progress.

The Worker members, taking account of the comments of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) of 29 August 2012, the discussions of the previous week on the mandate of the Committee of Experts and the link between freedom of association and the right to strike, wished to recall that Convention No. 87 enshrined the right of workers and employers to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. Workers’ and employers’ organizations organized freely and could not be dissolved or suspended by an administrative authority. Freedom of association was a human right and was the prerequisite for sound collective bargaining and social dialogue for the benefit of employers, workers and social peace. Together, the Conference Committee and the Committee on Freedom of Association contributed to resolving difficulties in the application of that fundamental right worldwide. The Worker members also wished to emphasize that they wholeheartedly supported the Committee of Experts and the legal significance of their observations. The Worker members maintained that the existence of the right to strike derived from reading Article 3 in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention.

The Worker members recalled that, time and again, most recently in 2010, the Conference Committee had called into question Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976 for the following reasons: the institutionalization of a single trade union system; the control over trade union organizations and over the nomination and election procedures to their executive committees; the control over their financial management; the requirement of the prior approval for the organization of any strike action; and lastly, the possibility of dismissing, without justification, workers who acted outside the existing union structure. They emphasized the extent to which the Egyptian trade union landscape had developed. While the ETUF continued to be the dominant trade union, other federations had emerged and, between 2004 and 2011, had mobilized some 1.7 million workers in collective action.

The Worker members stressed, however, that the country’s legislation had not kept pace with developments in trade unions and in society, and the ETUF seemed to have retained the benefit of the State monopoly. That was, in any case, what could be inferred from the new Constitution that had been adopted at the end of the previous year. Article 53 of the Constitution provided for the recognition of a single trade union by sector or profession. Moreover, in general, the new Constitution protected employers’ rights better than those of workers, given that the provisions concerning workers were not binding on either employers or the State. Those developments were at odds with the Government’s stated intentions, contained in its “Freedom of Association Declaration” of March 2011, to observe all ratified Conventions. Moreover, there had been a delay in adopting the new freedom of association law owing to successive political hitches. Recently, however, the process had resumed with the organization of a workshop on freedom of association in collaboration with the ILO, followed by the setting up of a national committee to review all the relevant legislation. According to the Government’s statements, the committee had already begun its work with an agreement to replace Trade Union Act No. 35 with a new legal instrument. A draft law had been prepared and amended to take account of the observations of the Committee of Experts and, once it had been approved by the Council of Ministers, it would be submitted to the Shura Council, which was in charge of legislative issues. The Worker members looked forward to a successful conclusion to that matter.

A Worker member of Egypt informed the Conference Committee that the ETUF had suffered, since the election of its new executive committee in November 2011, several instances of interference from the public authorities based on the Trade Union Act. The Government had withheld the elections of the executive committees of more than 500 trade union organizations established by the ETUF at undertakings in the past two years. Recalling that the Trade Union Act also imposed a restriction on the right of trade union organizations to formulate their basic statutes and financial regulations, the speaker further expressed his refusal of any form of Government interference and any administrative oversight over trade union organizations or the monopoly by any political party or religious faction of the trade union movement.

At present, the ETUF was exerting pressure on the Government so as to finalize the new draft law on freedom of association before sending it to the ILO in order to ensure its conformity with the Convention. Referring to Egypt’s ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that recognized the right to strike, he stressed the importance of guaranteeing that right without any conditions as it was also a guarantee of the right to organize. It was not a favour bestowed by governments or employers, nor was it a crime which required punishment. Recently, Egyptian workers had proven that the right to strike was a spontaneous means of human resistance against attacks on their rights and injustice levelled against them. He called upon the social partners in Egypt to work together in order to amend the Labour Code and other relevant regulations to guarantee the right to strike and its practice without any threat as well as the right to peaceful assembly and demonstration. Recalling the Committee of Experts’ satisfaction with some of the measures taken by the Government, he requested ILO’s technical assistance with respect to promoting the capacities of trade union organizations.

The Employer member of Egypt considered that some of the criticisms directed at the Government were not fair. The Government had drawn up a new bill which had been adopted by the Council of Ministers and was in conformity with the Convention. It should be recalled that the country had been undergoing a process of transition since February 2011 and in the absence of Parliament it was not possible to proceed with legislative reforms. Even if the bill had not been promulgated, it was already being applied in spirit by the Government, as borne out by the setting up of a tripartite council and the presence of six trade union organizations in the Egyptian delegation to the present session of the Conference, which was an unprecedented situation. He added that freedoms, especially those of expression and association, naturally had to be respected, but that did not rule out the possibility of all stakeholders endeavouring to support the economy. Laws had to be observed and laws in turn needed to respect the rights of citizens.

The Employer member declared that it would have been judicious to show more patience towards Egypt, not only for the reasons set out above but also because of the difficult economic circumstances experienced by the country. Some parts of the Committee of Experts’ comments were concerned with minor issues which might be better resolved at local level. Finally, he asked that Egypt should be able to avail itself of more extensive technical cooperation programmes for the benefit of all parties.

The Government member of India expressed his Government’s appreciation at the steps taken by the Government to ensure better compliance with the Convention, despite the challenges encountered in the context of the transformation. He noted with satisfaction the ongoing deliberations on the new draft law on freedom of association, which was an outcome of a tripartite social dialogue led by the Ministry of Manpower and Migration. The conference organized by the Government in partnership with the ILO definitely indicated the positive intent of the Government to comply with the Convention. In particular, the annulment of the provisional law on protests and strikes on worksites deserved a special mention and applause. He stressed the importance of technical assistance by the International Labour Office, as well as the support and cooperation by member States to assist the country in implementing the Convention.

The Government member of Algeria noted that the Government had reaffirmed in writing its readiness to respect international labour standards as they related to freedom of association. Better still, Egypt had already taken steps so that all the parties concerned could, as members of a national committee, conduct a general review of the country’s entire labour legislation. The Government of Algeria congratulated Egypt on its inclusive approach, which would enhance the culture of collective bargaining and social dialogue. The institutional, political and social developments in the country in recent months and the changes currently under way would undoubtedly have a positive impact on freedom of association and on the protection of trade union rights. The speaker invited the Government of Egypt to take advantage of the experience of other countries throughout the world so as to be able to meet the social partners’ expectations in terms of international labour standards.

Another Worker member of Egypt said that Egyptian workers had a long tradition of humanism and that social dialogue had suffered extensively under the previous regime. They wanted to do away with the last vestiges of that regime and to recover the use of social dialogue and freedom of association. Since the revolution they had contributed to social dialogue with a view to adopting a Labour Code that protected trade union rights. The speaker was troubled by the absence of a functioning legislative body and the obstacles to the Labour Code’s adoption by Parliament. The Egyptian workers were tired of so many failed and useless attempts at social dialogue. If an effective means of resolving labour disputes had existed, the current situation characterized by constant demonstrations and strikes would never have arisen. The speaker despaired at the thought that the next legislative assembly might produce no results and that the adoption of the Code might be further postponed. He said that he had been imprisoned for three years because of his trade union activities. Trade unionism in the country operated in a climate of violence, brutality and arrests, against which the Labour Code would provide protection.

Another Worker member of Egypt stated that his Federation represented more than 3 million Egyptian agricultural workers and asked the ILO to be more accurate in recording the number of members belonging to the country’s various trade unions. He asked for a clear strategy to be adopted leading to the rapid adoption of a new Labour Code and urged all the tripartite partners to cooperate fully to that end.

The Government member of Uzbekistan commended the Government on the many measures taken to implement the Convention. Many trade unions had been set up to protect different types of workers and the presence of six trade unions in this Conference Committee showed that the Government was committed to the application of the Convention. Many bills had been drafted concerning freedom of association, and there were tripartite consultations in the process. The Government was trying to eliminate obstacles to the activities of the independent trade unions and was taking targeted measures to implement the Convention.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), considered that the practice of social dialogue by the Government was merely a tactic, as demonstrated by the lack of consultation concerning the draft Labour Code. He referred to cases of abuse committed against trade union leaders and indicated that during the course of the year, workers demonstrating peacefully had been the subject of violent attacks, in some cases by the police, and in others, by employers; 15 workers had been arrested at Petrojet and 11 had been suspended. He said that the Trade Union Act No. 35 should be brought into line with the Convention, that the Labour Code should be adopted and that the Government should stop interfering in trade union affairs.

The Government member of Libya considered that the high number of ratifications of ILO Conventions by Egypt and the reports submitted on their application, clearly attested to its goodwill in observing these instruments, and to its efforts in reflecting the provisions of the Convention in its national legislation. Recalling that Egypt had undergone a period of change in its political system, he requested that the International Labour Office provide its technical assistance to assist the country in the preparation of the required replies to the Committee of Experts’ comments on some of the ratified Conventions.

The Worker member of Tunisia regretted that the new regime in Egypt had only changed in appearance but, in reality, continued to use the same methods of repression and harassment against the trade union movement. Faced with an unprecedented 3,817 protest actions in 2012, the Government resorted to the same abusive practices, such as dismissals, arrests, physical violence, threats and salary deductions instead of changing the economic and social policies that were at the origin of the unrest. The speaker noted that ever since the Convention had been ratified in 1957, successive labour laws failed to give full effect to the principle of freedom of association and recognized instead the Government’s prerogative to interfere in union activities and control union funding. The Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976 was still in force while the right to strike, which was expressly recognized in the Labour Code of 2003, was rendered ineffective, especially after the adoption of Act No. 96 of 2012 on the protection of the revolution. The speaker welcomed the workshop organized on 9 April 2013 on freedom of association issues and the approval of the draft freedom of association law by the Council of Ministers on 29 May 2013, and expressed the hope that the Government would put an end to all forms of abuse against trade unions and their members.

The Worker member of Libya stated that union elections could not take place under the Trade Union Act No. 35, which allowed for Government interference in union activities and was therefore contrary to the provisions of the Convention. He questioned the Government’s goodwill and declared readiness to ensure trade union rights and observed that the situation was, in fact, worsening. There were four times more strikes and protest actions than at the time of the Mubarak regime. He asked why it had so far not been possible for unions to hold elections or adopt their own by-laws if there was a free and independent trade union movement, as the Government claimed. Moreover, it was difficult to understand the reason for extending the mandate of the Shura Council, which should have normally ended in 2010. He wondered how was it possible for the Government to organize presidential and parliamentary elections and then claim that it was not possible to organize union elections. The Government should stop patronizing trade unions and should establish the appropriate framework in order to ensure compliance with the Convention.

The Government member of Turkey welcomed the Government’s efforts to adopt a new draft law on freedom of association and stated that the process of adoption was based on social dialogue which demonstrated the Government’s commitment to tripartism. The speaker appreciated the establishment of hundreds of new independent trade unions and committees, and the participation of trade unions and confederations at regional and international levels, which was a clear sign of the exercise of freedom of association rights. He had no doubt that the Government had brought a new era of democracy to the country and that it would intensify its efforts to reach full compliance with international labour standards.

The Worker member of Italy, speaking also on behalf of the Worker members of Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and the Nordic countries, expressed deep concern about the violations of the Convention in Egypt. She indicated that, despite promises that the Trade Union Act and the Labour Code would be aligned with the requirements of the Convention and that the right to establish trade union organizations would be recognized and protected, the Government had made no progress in addressing the repeated observations of the Committee of Experts. Serious efforts were needed to guarantee freedom of association and the establishment of independent trade unions as essential elements of a democratic society, but the Government had approved instead, in August 2012, a new emergency law which restricted civil liberties and reintroduced military courts under the pretext of combating violence. The speaker drew attention to article 52 of the new Constitution, which destroyed trade union rights, allowed only one union per sector and gave sweeping powers to the Government to control union activity and even the right to dissolve trade unions. In addition, provisions which would have supported women’s rights had been struck out of the Constitution. None of the 234 articles of the Constitution clearly guaranteed women’s rights and gender equality while provisions against child labour and forced labour were so vague that they were virtually meaningless. Moreover, judicial decisions, such as the Cairo Criminal Court decision of 4 June 2013, by which 43 workers had been convicted, further attested to a system where the freedom of association was denied and repressed. The Government needed to move quickly to address these basic concerns of the Egyptian workers and the international community.

The Government member of Sri Lanka echoed statements of previous speakers that Egypt was in a transition period and faced a number of challenges. It was important to understand the nature and depth of the political and socio-economic transformation that Egypt was witnessing. The Government had taken a number of measures to improve compliance with its obligations under the Convention, including the new draft freedom of association law that had been formulated through lengthy tripartite social dialogue, with ILO support, and had been submitted for parliamentary approval. This was a good example of the commitment and willingness to implement freedom of association in law and in practice. The ILO should continue to provide technical assistance and capacity building by addressing the real needs of Egypt and should allow more time for the problem to be addressed effectively.

The Worker member of Belarus expressed support for the Egyptian workers and noted that the Government had called upon all trade unions and employers’ organizations to be involved in the discussions on the draft freedom of association law. This legislative development constituted a positive step for promoting the principles of freedom and justice. The Committee of Experts should be satisfied with the measures taken by the Government regarding the application of the Convention and ILO technical assistance would be helpful to this effect.

The Government member of Bahrain stated that he was conscious that the Government was facing huge challenges, which was common in countries going through historical changes. Nevertheless, the Government had carried out all of the steps in its power to fully implement the provisions of the Convention. Egypt had an ancient history in trade union freedoms and stood out as a model for other countries in the region. His Government called upon the Committee to take into consideration all of the positive efforts made so far and the challenges that Egypt was currently facing and hoped that the conclusions would objectively reflect the situation.

The Worker member of Benin expressed his support for the Egyptian workers, who were fighting to improve their working and living conditions and to uphold their trade union rights. The Government was in control of the police force and was preventing the workers from exercising their rights, particularly the right to strike, which was, however, inalienable. Likewise, it was unacceptable that the Government was interfering in the internal affairs of trade unions. The Committee had to remain attentive and ensure that the Government honoured its commitments, applied the Convention fully and handled complaints submitted by trade unions with due diligence.

Another observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) said that trade unions which had fought the old regime were facing repression and some of their members had been imprisoned. The Government did not seem to have drawn lessons from the past or understood that economic development was not possible without freedom. Egypt had to develop and set an example of a democratic society. The speaker requested an end to the repression of the union movement and employer interference in union affairs. Trade unions should be able to work with elected representatives of the employers, collective agreements should be respected and the single trade union system provided for in the Constitution should be discontinued.

The Government member of Senegal welcomed the steps taken by the Government during a period of transition marked by profound political, economic and social changes in the country. Certain achievements already stood out: the pursuit of social dialogue, to which the broader tripartite consultation attested; the inclusive negotiations underlying the new legislation, which the Government stated would comply with ILO standards; and the progress noted by the Committee of Experts, such as the repeal of the provisional law on protests and striking on worksites. The social partners should be encouraged to pursue untiringly their efforts to ensure that social standards were respected and the Government should be urged to pursue its efforts to comply fully with the Convention.

A Worker member of Bahrain stated on behalf of the Bahrain Free Labour Unions Federation (BFLUF) that it was not fair to have included Egypt on the list of cases. The Government had returned authority to the hands of the people and the elected officials needed more time to achieve results. Social dialogue led by the Government had resulted in new draft legislation which had been referred to the Council of Ministers for adoption. As for the union movement, it had proved its maturity in adopting, in April 2013, a declaration by which the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF) reached out to international trade union confederations for enhanced cooperation and confirmed that all restrictions on each organization had been lifted. Concerning the allegations of Government-controlled unions, simply because they were not affiliated with the ITUC, the Government should not be criticized on that basis. The Committee should stand clear of this controversy and should not use the discussion of the case to exert pressure on non-affiliated unions.

The Government member of South Sudan stated that it was important for workers to better understand the current situation, which required working collectively for the adoption of the new legislation on freedom of association rather than disregarding all efforts that were being made. For its part, the Government should remain open to peaceful dialogue and consider the comments of the Committee of Experts to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention. The ILO should continue to provide technical assistance and capacity building since Egypt was going through difficult times.

The Worker member of Sudan said that free trade unions had become a reality since the revolution of 25 January 2011. However, time was needed to permit consolidation and maturity of the new experiences while laws pertaining to union rights should be applied in accordance with social dialogue and the participation of all the parties concerned.

The Government member of Iraq recalled that the situation in Egypt was evolving fast and was very sensitive. The Government should be praised for its determination to meet all the challenges. There were objective indications that the Government was acting in full conformity with its constitutional obligations, including respect for the principle of freedom of association. Many meetings had been held culminating in the adoption of the “Freedom of Association Declaration” of March 2011, which recognized the freedom of establishing trade union organizations, and led to the setting up of numerous trade union organizations, committees and federations.

The Government representative thanked those who had participated in the discussion and noted that 13 of the 21 speakers were appreciative of the Government’s efforts and expressed their encouragement. In response to the statement of the Worker members, he clarified that article 53 of the Constitution, which they had relied on, dealt with occupational unions and the right to practise a profession, whereas freedom of association was addressed only in article 52. Concerning some statements that alluded to emergency laws and military rule, the Government representative clarified that such misconceptions had nothing to do with present realities. His country had, for the first time, an elected civilian President. He emphasized the importance of having updated and correct information and noted that although there might have been sufficient reasons in the past for the Committee to discuss the case, the situation was now completely different. His country had over 3,000 trade union committees, and more than 835 strikes had been organized, yet no worker involved in the strikes had been physically harmed.

The Employer members noted that the present case was difficult as it involved matters of the past. The Government had drafted a new freedom of association law that apparently addressed long-standing issues. The Employer members recalled that freedom of association in the context of Convention No. 87 was a labour standard pertaining to conditions of work and not a basic freedom of every citizen. It was therefore important to put the situation in context and ask whether each and every demonstration of a group of so-called unions related to labour matters and workplace conditions. Egypt was emerging from a period of great difficulties and patience was required on several fronts. The employers were frustrated with the rampant freedom of unions, and the unions, for their part, needed time to gain maturity. The Government needed room to manoeuvre and yet also needed to be held responsible to some extent; merely not having laws in place could not absolve the Government from its obligations. The Employer members urged the Government to move forward with union elections.

The Worker members emphasized that there were significant discrepancies between the Convention and Egyptian labour legislation, particularly as the latter enshrined a single trade union system. Since 2008, the Government had taken steps to bring its legislation into line with the Convention. Since 2011, progress had been faster: independent trade union federations had been recognized and a new draft freedom of association law had been proposed within the framework of tripartite social dialogue. The Worker members stressed that the draft law should be examined by the Office before its final adoption by the Shura Council.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and of the discussion that followed.

The Committee observed that the comments of the Committee of Experts concerned a number of long-standing discrepancies between the labour legislation and the provisions of the Convention, in particular as regards Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976, which was based on a single trade union system.

The Committee noted the Government’s commitment to ensuring freedom of association rights in the country. The Government representative referred to a freedom of association workshop held in April 2013, in collaboration with the ILO, resulting in a broad agreement to establish a national committee to review all labour legislation. The national committee issued a final recommendation to repeal Trade Union Act No. 35 and replace it with the draft freedom of association law that it had discussed and reviewed and which was submitted to the Council of Ministers. This draft was approved by the Council of Ministers on 29 May 2013 and submitted to the Shura Council, currently in charge of legislation, for discussion and approval. In addition, the elections for the current trade union executive councils under Act No. 35 were once again extended for one year or until the promulgation of the new law by the Shura Council, whichever is earlier. Finally, the Government representative stated that the representatives of the newly formed independent unions have been able to freely participate in various national and international activities, meetings and conferences, including in the ILC since 2011.

The Committee did not address the right to strike in this case as the employers do not agree that there is a right to strike recognized in Convention No. 87.

While regretting that many years have passed since the Government was asked to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention without any concrete results having been achieved, the Committee noted with interest the recent and positive steps taken by the Government in this regard. The Committee therefore expressed the firm expectation that a law ensuring full respect for the freedom of association rights of workers and of employers would be adopted in the very near future. It requested the Government to provide a copy of the draft that was before the Shura Council to the ILO and to ensure appropriate consultations with the social partners. The Committee expressed its firm expectation that, in the meantime and as the Government had committed, all trade unions in Egypt would be able to exercise their activities and elect their officers in full freedom in accordance with the Convention pending the adoption of the freedom of association law. It encouraged the Government to continue to have recourse to ILO technical assistance and capacity building for all the social partners. The Committee requested the Government to provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year and expected that it would be in a position to observe significant and concrete progress in the country to ensure respect for trade union rights both in law and in practice.

The Government representative stated that he had listened closely to the conclusions, but that his Government would communicate its comments in writing to the Chairperson of the Conference Committee and the Office, after giving them a careful reading.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2010, Publication: 99th ILC session (2010)

A Government representative was of the view that the Committee of Experts’ observation, which included comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 2008 referring to alleged events of 6 April 2008, merely repeated events which had already been discussed by the Conference Committee in 2008 and to which allegations the Government had objected as they lacked precision. After the Government had provided clarifications, the discussion had been concluded and a recommendation, including an invitation to accept an ILO technical assistance mission that took place in April 2009, had been issued. Following the mission, a tripartite workshop in which the social partners, relevant national bodies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and ILO officers participated, had been conducted in April 2010. The workshop had focused on promoting social dialogue and ensuring the conformity of national laws with the requirements of the Convention and allowed for the exchange of views on the principles and practices of various trade unions, the institutional capacities needed to exercise the right to bargain collectively, the role of the Government and the social partners in promoting a culture of social dialogue, as well as the practical steps necessary in the future.

As a follow-up to the April 2010 workshop and after consultations with the ILO, a tripartite committee had been set up. This committee was charged with collecting and evaluating the proposed texts with a view to amending the national legislation, a process which should be finalized shortly, in collaboration with the ILO. She also informed the Conference Committee of the ILO project “Promoting fundamental principles and rights at work and social dialogue” that was carried out in Egypt, which her Government considered of great importance as it contributed to raising the institutional capacities of the social partners in the long run and to improving labour relations, thus being an essential element in implementing the 2008 recommendations of the Conference Committee.

Reiterating Egypt’s commitment to full compliance with international labour standards, she expressed the hope that the discussions in the Committee would result in a positive recommendation that took into account the steps taken by the Government.

She stated that the protection and welfare of all workers was a priority and a national aim pursued by the State, which had been reflected in the Government’s work programme. This was in line with the President’s call to review and develop labour relations and mechanisms to achieve a balance between the duties and rights of all social partners, which were part of the democratic exchange at all levels of society. Workers’ protection and welfare had to continue to be a national duty to strive for and honour.

The Employer members noted that before the discussion in 2008, the case had not been dealt with for two decades. Following the 2008 discussion in this Committee, the Government had been asked to reply to the allegations made by the ITUC in 2007. While the Government provided a significant amount of information submitted to the Committee of Experts, they requested that this information also be provided in writing. The Government provided information on the seminar held in 2010 and reported that as a result, a tripartite expert committee had been set up with ILO assistance. The Employer members hoped that the Government would be in a position to define goals and address the issues raised by the Committee of Experts with regard to discrepancies between the Trade Union Act No. 35 (Act No. 35) of 1976 and Convention No. 87. The main discrepancy related to the institutionalization of a single trade union system, since several sections of Act No. 35 were contrary to the possibility of trade union pluralism called for in Article 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, Act No. 35 granted control to higher level trade unions over the nomination and election procedures of first-level unions, which constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, whichprovided for an absolute right of unions to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. In addition, the Committee of Experts had pointed out that Act No. 35 enabled the Government to interfere with the financial independence of unions. With respect to the right to strike, the Employer members recalled that Convention No. 87 did not expressly provide for a right to strike. At most it contained a general right to strike but that could not be regulated in detail under the Convention; the Government could regulate this right in accordance with its needs and conditions. However, this discretion was subject to the caveat that the personal human rights and civil liberties of individuals participating in the labour action were to be respected. They recalled that the Government had to provide a report on the allegations made by the ITUC to the Office. The report should also establish a legislative timeline for the rectification of all issues raised.

The Worker members observed that the Committee had again been called upon to examine the present case, which had already been discussed in 2008. Although it had ratified Convention No. 87 more than half a century earlier, Egypt persistently refused to amend its legislation to bring it into line with the Convention.

The Committee of Experts had drawn attention to numerous violations of freedom of association in the country and had identified, based on irrefutable facts, situations that demonstrated the Government’s obstinate refusal to implement the Convention. It had referred in particular to the police’s violent suppression of a demonstration by workers in 2008, even if the facts were apparently contested by the Government. The Committee of Experts had stressed the importance of holding an independent judicial enquiry to identify those responsible and impose penalties, and the need to take preventive measures to avoid such situations from reoccurring in the future. According to the Committee of Experts, based on reliable sources, workers’ rights were still being flouted in special economic zones, where working conditions were unbearable (long hours, low wages and poor safety standards) and union activists found it difficult to carry out their activities because of restrictions on collective bargaining and a ban on strikes. The majority of workers in the Tenth Ramadan City were required to sign letters of resignation prior to being hired, allowing employers to dismiss them at will.

For many years, the Committee of Experts had been referring to significant discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention: the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing was severely restricted; legislation established a single trade union system; and authorization to carry out activities was granted only to unions belonging to one of the 23 industrial federations affiliated to the sole legally recognized trade union confederation. Above all, legislation allowed enterprises to dismiss without justification workers who acted outside the established trade union structure. Although trade union unity was important, it should not be imposed through legislation that created a trade union monopoly. By institutionalizing a single trade union system under Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995 (sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52; 41, 42 and 43), the Government had placed numerous trade unions representing professional groups (doctors, engineers, lawyers, pharmacists) under judicial control, which was exercised over trade union organizations at the highest level by controlling procedures for nominating and electing executive committees, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had mentioned serious cases and acts of interference, such as the Government’s attempt to control which candidates stood in trade union elections and to prevent certain candidates from standing. Furthermore, the law allowed the Confederation of Trade Unions to exercise control over the management of workers’ organizations, thereby preventing trade unions from having any financial independence. First-level organizations also had to pay a certain percentage of their income to higher-level national organizations. Such a decision to cede trade union dues was normally taken by an organization’s executive committee and should not be imposed by law.

The Worker members emphasized that the law also allowed the removal from office of the national executive committee of a trade union which had caused work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service or community services. With regard to the right to strike, the Committee of Experts had recalled the need to amend section 192 of the Labour Code, which required prior approval by the Confederation of Trade Unions before calling a strike and required the duration of a strike to be specified in the strike notification. It had also indicated that section 69(9) of the Labour Code, which provided that workers who participated in a strike and were in breach of section 192 could be dismissed, was in violation of Convention No. 87. The Worker members also emphasized that restrictions on the right to strike and recourse to compulsory arbitration in services that were not essential in the strict sense of the term, as well as the penalties provided for in section 194 of the Labour Code, were in violation of the Convention.

The Worker members recalled that the technical assistance mission that had visited the country in April 2009 had led to the signature of a memorandum of understanding between the social partners in which they agreed to participate in a tripartite seminar to examine the questions raised in relation to the application of the Convention, study comparable experiences in other countries and draft proposals. While the Government representative had indicated that that seminar had taken place in April 2010, the Worker members emphasized that they did not have any information confirming the Minister’s statements.

The Worker members urged the Government to amend the labour legislation to bring an end to the institutionalization of a system of trade union monopoly which excluded the possibility of establishing different federations independent of the Confederation of Trade Unions. The Government was also requested to take the necessary measures to amend the Labour Code so that: (1) no restrictions on the right of workers to organize freely were allowed or promoted; (2) any interference in the determination of electoral procedures was prohibited; (3) there was no legal obligation to specify in advance the duration of a strike; (4) workers participating in a strike the duration of which had not been specified in advance were not subject to penalties; and (5) sections 179, 187, 193 and 194 were repealed. Finally, measures needed to be taken immediately to guarantee workers’ rights and to address the concerns of the world of work.

The Worker member of Egypt felt that a long-standing disagreement should not entail the abandonment of dialogue, and that this was valid for all trade unions. Regarding the information contained in the report of the Committee of Experts concerning discrepancies between the provisions of this Convention and national practice, in particular the information relating to the murder and imprisonment of workers, he regretted having to note that most of that information had either not been confirmed or did not correspond to reality and probably stemmed from questionable sources. As confirmed by the Committee of Experts, the constitution of Egypt and national legislation provided for the independence of trade unions, prohibiting outside interference. He agreed with the ILO mission that trade unions in Egypt had been able to initiate necessary changes to ensure the application of international labour standards. As regards the legislation concerning trade union affiliation and the right to strike, the relevant draft law had been submitted to the ILO for review in 1994 and no objections had been raised. Trade union unity was a strength that should be preserved. While the existence of various trade unions in a sector in a given country could be justified, trade union division was normally not beneficial to workers. The Egyptian Confederation of Trade Unions, founded in 1898, comprised 23 national trade unions and over 2,000 committees and had recently signed important agreements with employers wishing to lay off workers, which had been presented to the ILO mission. He hoped that the Egyptian Confederation of Trade Unions would be allowed to continue its relentless efforts.

The Employer member of Egypt expressed surprise that Egypt had been included on the list of cases under examination by the Committee, given the important measures that had been taken by the Government. These measures included the ILO technical assistance mission in 2009, which had resulted in a memorandum of understanding to hold a tripartite workshop on freedom of association, which had been held in April 2010. This tripartite workshop had yielded positive discussions and outcomes, and had resulted in a call for the establishment of a tripartite committee. Turning to the comments of the Worker member of Egypt, the speaker emphasized that workers in Egypt were benefiting from protection and enjoyed rights. The allegations of the Worker members that the majority of workers in the Tenth Ramadan City area were made to sign letters of resignation prior to being hired were not true. He invited any mission to come and verify these facts. Workers in Egypt enjoyed the right to strike, when notification was given. Some workers had been striking without advanced notice, which was not acceptable. There was no reason to review this case, as the available data and information indicated that the Government was respecting its obligations under the Convention. The situation in Egypt was positive, and the discussion of this case caused unnecessary tension between the social partners. The case should have been removed from the list.

The Government member of Lebanon underlined that it was appropriate to consider the specific situation and the culture of each country. The Government representative had shown that her Government had put everything in place to correct the identified gaps. One should not keep silent about the efforts that had already been undertaken with a view to bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Worker member of Spain stated that article 56 of the Egyptian Constitution guaranteed the right to establish trade unions. However, only one trade union confederation was legally recognized in Egypt, and all other unions were subjugated to it, which made both unionization and union representation difficult. The right to form and join unions was severely restricted. Act No. 35 of 1976, amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, institutionalized a single trade union system, and the contents of the Act were of concern to workers, as it was they who suffered the consequences. The Act granted the Confederation of Trade Unions almost complete authority; indirectly, through a single trade union, the Government controlled the process of creating and legalizing trade unions and procedures for nominating and electing their executive. At the same time, some organizations existed with the aim of defending workers’ rights, improving working conditions and promoting social dialogue and independent trade unionism, but their members were persecuted and harassed in various ways. There had also been attempts to obstruct the activities of an independent trade union, which had been formally established in April 2009, becoming the first independent trade union in Egypt in more than 50 years and operating outside the Confederation of Trade Unions. In this regard, the union’s president, Mr Kamal Abu Eita, had declared at an international seminar held in Cairo, that his union continued to be the subject of a campaign of aggression and harassment against its members. It was not democratic to impose a single trade union by law and worker unity would not be achieved by such means. Unity came from objectives discussed and accepted by all workers, even if they were organized into different unions. She concluded by calling on the Government to adopt and implement adequate instruments to provide workers with the real and effective enjoyment of the right to organize freely in whatever unions they chose to establish.

The Government member of India noted the proactive measures that had been taken by the Government of Egypt in follow-up to the conclusions of this Committee in 2008. In 2009, there had been a technical assistance mission to the country, followed by the tripartite workshop in 2010. This participative approach needed to be encouraged. He looked forward to further measures taken by the Government with ILO technical assistance.

The Worker member of the Republic of Korea expressed concern at the restrictions on the right to organize and the right to strike of workers. Sharp discrepancies existed between the principles set out in the Convention and the national legislation. The single trade union system and the requirement of the prior approval of the General Confederation of Trade Unions for the organization of strike action were worrying. Highlighting several restrictions to the right to strike imposed by the Labour Code of 2003, she indicated that these were just a few examples of how the Government was inhibiting workers to use strike action as a means of collective bargaining. In the private sector workers were left without any organizational support structure and had to rely on self-organization without legal protection. A legal basis should be provided so that all workers could benefit from the rights derived from ratified ILO Conventions. In the context of a severe social and economic crisis in which workers were fighting for better working conditions and against low and unpaid wages, it would be important to amend the Labour Code and Trade Union Act. A good start had been made with the visit of the ILO technical assistance mission but laws should now be brought into conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of Belarus emphasized that the positive measures taken by the Government of Egypt could not be overlooked. The tripartite workshop held in April 2010 addressed many important questions. This was a clear manifestation of the Government’s willingness to proceed forward, with assistance from the ILO. Positive steps continued to be taken and the desired result would eventually be achieved. The cooperative spirit demonstrated by the Government should be recognized.

The Worker member of Malaysia pointed to a range of issues hampering collective bargaining in Egypt. The single trade union system prevented workers from designating representatives of their own choosing. With growing privatisation, workers were left without any organizations to defend their interests, as the only legally recognized union was not well established in the private sector. Furthermore, collective bargaining was not allowed in the public sector where the Government unilaterally set wages and other terms and conditions of employment. Under the Labour Code of 2003 a collective agreement was valid only if it complied with the law on public order or “general ethics”, a concept that had never been defined by the Government, as requested by the Committee of Experts. In addition to legal limitations to the right to strike, fundamental workers’ rights were being compromised through the use of security forces in industrial disputes. State security investigations officers had repeatedly intervened in labour disputes even without legitimate security purposes. Lastly, he mentioned the strike organized by the trade union committee in a textile company in the Mahalla Al-Kubra Special Economic Zone, and the subsequent disbanding of this committee, as another example of severe limitations of trade unions rights. Clearly, workers were facing serious limitations to their rights guaranteed by the Convention, and the Government had to bring its legislation into conformity with ratified ILO Conventions.

The Government member of Sudan welcomed the cooperation between the Government of Egypt and the ILO. During a technical assistance mission ILO representatives had met with many parliamentarians. The speaker commended the Government on its efforts, in particular with regard to the legislative amendments which had been agreed upon and submitted to the ILO and to Parliament.

The representative of the Secretary-General replying to requests for clarifications from the Worker members during the discussion indicated that an ILO mission had indeed visited Egypt on 25 and 26 April 2010 during which a one-day workshop was held on freedom of association and development. All actors were present on that day and had a lively debate on trade union pluralism. The second day, follow-up meetings were held on the necessary action to be taken. On the question whether the Government had replied to the comments from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 29 August 2009, under article 23 of the ILO Constitution referring to the alleged violent repression of a demonstration of workers on 6 and 7 April 2008, she stated that the Committee in its conclusions in 2008 had requested the Government to provide full particulars in reply to the allegations of violent attacks against trade unionists in its report to the Committee of Experts; the Committee of Experts had also requested the Government to provide information in this regard.

The Government representative thanked the representative of the Secretary-General for the precise information she had provided. She indicated that the statement made by the Worker members was based on inaccurate information. She wondered why the Worker members doubted the information that she had provided concerning the convening of the tripartite workshop. Egypt had been one of the first member States to ratify the Convention, and had always indicated its confidence in the ILO and vice versa. A Worker member had also asserted that the Labour Code had not been amended since the 1950s, while it had been amended for the last time in 2003, after ten years of discussions. Moreover, half the members of Parliament who had adopted the Code were workers. The speaker underlined her respect towards the ITUC but was astonished that it had obtained information from illegal non-governmental organizations, which received funds from abroad, which had no links with the worker movement, and whose aim was to destabilize the country. She indicated that, since November 2008, she had met with the officials of the International Labour Standards Department on five occasions, and had transmitted to them the information pertaining to the issues which needed to be resolved in Egypt. A Worker member had also asserted that the majority of workers were victims of oppression. Yet, 140 collective agreements had been concluded, 138 of which were at enterprise level. A number of countries had a single trade union system, but in Egypt, this was not the case as it had a specific system. Since assuming her functions as the Minister of Labour in 2005, the Government representative had worked, with the rest of the Government, towards promoting freedom of association. Considerable progress had been made: the trade union movement had acquired a high level of autonomy; the most recent union elections were held in all freedom, as had been communicated to the ILO. In conclusion, the Government representative requested that all the information supplied by the Government should be made available to the competent bodies of the ILO. She expressed her hope that the Committee would take into account the historical status of Egypt, and the measures taken by the Government in promoting international labour standards, in collaboration with the ILO.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the information provided, but regretted that this information had not been submitted before the sitting of this Committee. In response to an issue raised by the Government representative, they stated that the report of the Committee of Experts was their main source of information. Other information came from the ITUC, of which they were members and which carried out studies on the situation in various countries. Following the declaration of the Employer member of Egypt, they recalled that the list of cases to be reviewed by the Committee had been the subject of an agreement between the representatives of employers and workers. The Worker members also took note of the information provided by the representative of the Secretary-General, indicating that in their preliminary declaration, they had admitted that the workshop on freedom of association and development in April 2010 had in fact taken place. The Worker members constituted a unified group that sought respect for labour rights in Egypt. The single trade union system was a violation of the Convention. Each worker must have the right to join an organization of their choice. The situation of the single trade union system was also the reason for the refusal to grant workers the right to organize union elections as they wished. The situation of a union monopoly was not the result of free choice of workers, but the result of the law, and it was important that the Government accept the conclusions of the workshop that had been held under the aegis of the ILO and make the necessary changes in legislation in accordance with the comments of the Committee of Experts.

Promotion of collective bargaining and healthy professional relations were as important as the social dialogue to which the Government referred and required an appropriate legal framework. Conflicts, in the form of industrial action and strikes, were normal within the context of healthy industrial relations, and the legal restrictions on the right to strike must be repealed. This was the same case for mandatory arbitration in services that were non-essential services in the strict sense of the term. In this regard, the Government representative had not mentioned concrete measures that the Government had the intention of taking in order to change its legislation.

The Worker members requested that the Government adopt immediately an action plan in order to harmonize its legislation and practices with Convention No. 87. They strongly requested that the single trade union system, which was in flagrant contradiction with freedom of association, be changed in order to allow the existence and active role of other workers’ organizations in the social dialogue at all levels. As in the other countries, it was up to labour organizations to decide whether they wanted or not to join up. The Worker members also requested that the law on trade unions and the Labour Code be amended concerning the various issues raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts and that the Government submit a report on application of the Convention for the next session of the Committee of Experts. The Government had not yet expressed a real willingness to resolve the problems raised and the Worker members would follow the evolution of the situation very closely, as the ILO must likewise do. The workers found themselves in a difficult situation and must have the right to organize. In conclusion, the Worker members stressed that only respect for Convention No. 87 should guide the discussion.

The Employer members congratulated the Government for getting organized to address the legislative issues identified by the Committee of Experts, but regretted that this had taken two years. The Government had not contested that legislative issues needed to be addressed, and this was demonstrated by the establishment of the tripartite committee to begin this work. The Government understood that freedom of association was a cornerstone of the ILO. The Convention was a fundamental one, and only partial compliance with the Convention was not acceptable. Tripartite discussion and consultation was also essential, but it did not replace freedom of association. Therefore, the tripartite committee needed to address two fundamental aspects of the Convention to achieve compliance: firstly, trade union pluralism required by the Convention and, secondly, that trade unions be free to set up their rules and organizational structure, without governmental interference. These obligations had been accepted upon ratification. Therefore, the tripartite committee needed to make quick progress and produce legislative proposals by the end of the year. These legislative proposals should be forwarded to the ILO, to ensure their compliance with the Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and of the discussion that followed.

The Committee observed that the comments of the Committee of Experts concerned a number of long-standing discrepancies between the labour legislation and the provisions of the Convention, in particular as regards a legislative framework for a single trade union system.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication of the steps that it has taken since 2008 when the Committee last discussed this case. The Government representative referred, in particular, to the tripartite understanding that had been signed by the Government and the principal social partners in April 2009 and an all-inclusive workshop on freedom of association which was held this past April. She added that the Government planned to engage in a review of the legislation with the assistance of the ILO in order to ensure full conformity with the Convention and that, to this end, a tripartite expert committee had been established to examine the laws. The Government would report back to the Committee of Experts on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee, while observing the recent steps taken by the Government, nevertheless regretted that no concrete progress had yet been made to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention on these fundamental points. Encouraged by the recognition now shown by the Government with respect to these unresolved issues in relation to the application of the Convention, the Committee once again urged it to continue with the important democratic reforms it had referred to and which necessarily included ensuring full respect for freedom of association.

The Committee expressed the firm expectation that the Government would elaborate a fast-track programme for ensuring that tangible steps would be taken in the very near future to amend the legislation in order to ensure that all workers may freely form and join the organization of their own choosing and that all forms of Government interference in the activities of workers’ organizations, including through legislative reference to the authority of a single trade union in this regard, are eliminated. The Committee requested the Government to provide the necessary proposals for amendments, especially to the Trade Union Act, by the end of this year to the ILO for advice on their conformity with the Convention. The Committee further requested the Government to provide detailed written information on all steps taken in this regard, as well as in reply to the allegations of violence made by the International Trade Union Confederation, to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2008, Publication: 97th ILC session (2008)

A Government representative considered that generally the criticism of the Egyptian trade union system was a result of a certain misunderstanding of the trade union situation in the country. The Government attached great importance to the respect of international labour Conventions, 61 of which it had ratified. The Labour Code reform started by the public authorities aimed at addressing concerns raised by the Committee of Experts and ensuring that the legislation took into account global economic developments. This process, which had lasted for ten years, brought together the social partners. With regard to mediation, the new provisions stipulated that a mediator was to be designated by employers and workers and that arbitration could take place only when mediation had failed. In accordance with the new legislation, peaceful strikes were legal. Furthermore, the social partners participated in the social dialogue, including through its innovative forms such as workshops and seminars. The sound functioning of social dialogue was illustrated by the fact that in 2007 over 80 collective agreements were signed. The number of demonstrations (strikes, sit-ins) which took place at enterprises showed that workers were free to present their demands. As a general rule, workers' demands were peacefully resolved through negotiations. The social dialogue project was under way, with the technical assistance of the ILO.

To respond to the criticism of the Committee of Experts with regard to the alleged government interference in trade union affairs, the Government representative declared that trade union elections were conducted in conformity with the rules adopted by the trade unions at their general assemblies, the particulars of which would be provided to the Committee of Experts. All candidatures were registered, under legal supervision, in the framework of this election cycle, and over 18,000 persons were elected to the workers' representative bodies at the enterprises and undertakings of the country. Among them, there were over 8,000 young trade unionists and 1,000 women. Moreover, 23 new trade unions were established. The Central Council of the Confederation of Trade Unions held a general election and thus renewed 70 per cent of its executive committees. Naturally, a process of such large scale, which mobilized over 4 million workers, gave rise to rivalry and incidents and required the intervention of the security forces. However, such intervention could not be seen as a Government's intervention into trade union affairs. The principle of trade union unity reflected the solidarity of workers. Trade union pluralism could contribute to the fragmentation of the trade union movement, followed by its subjection to the political parties. The existence of a single trade union organization indicated the unity of the goals of the working class. Trade union pluralism was automatically followed by division and weakening of the trade union movement. A single trade union system allowed the trade union movement to function democratically. The transformation of the economy would be followed by the evolution of the trade union movement. In practical terms, there were 23 general trade union organizations, which drafted their rules at the regional level before their adoption by the general assembly.

With regard to the allegations that members of the executive committee of trade unions were removed from office for having participated in a sit-in pursuant to section 70 of the Labour Code, she explained that this provision did not provide for such sanction. With regard to section 14 of the Labour Code which required trade unions to obtain prior approval of the Confederation of Trade Unions before a strike could be organized, the rationale of this provision - which should not be questioned - was based on the premise that a strike was a particularly powerful instrument and that it was therefore legitimate that the Confederation monitored the use thereof. The new Code regulated strike action and other protest action in order to protect the population. Section 194 of the new Code prohibited strikes in essential public services, where a strike would have a direct impact on security. In public services, if the conflict was not settled through negotia- tions, it was referred to arbitration. In general, when employers and workers did not accept the recommendations of a mediator, they were free to resort to arbitration. The Confederation's monitoring of the financial administration of trade unions observed technical rules governed by the need to ensure transparency of the accounts of these organizations.

The Worker members remarked that, coming from the worker movement and having attended the Governing Body, the Minister was aware that freedom to organize could not be granted partially, selectively or under state control. For several years, the Committee of Experts' comments had been referring to a series of discrepancies between the Convention and the national legislation. The right to form and join independent free trade unions was heavily restricted by Egyptian law. The law foresaw the institutionalization of a single trade union system; a minimum membership requirement of at least 50 workers in the same enterprise; the authorization for unions to operate subject to their joining of one of the 23 industrial federations affiliated to the only legally recognized trade union centre, the Confederation of Trade Unions; and the possibility to fire workers acting outside that centre without any justification. While trade union unity was important, it should not be imposed by means of monopolistic legislation but left to the trade union organizations.

According to Article 3 of the Convention, each workers' organization should be able to elect its representatives in full freedom. On 17 May 2006, security forces had barred engineers from voting in the Engineers' Syndicate's General Assembly. Various other acts of interference were reported as the Government tried to control candidates in union elections, preventing some of them from standing for such elections. The Committee of Experts had to underline once again that procedures for the nomination and election to trade union bodies should be defined by the organizations concerned, without any interference by public authorities or by the single trade union central organization designated by law.

The Worker members wished to illustrate by way of example recent problems of freedom of association encoun- tered in Egypt. In 2007, several local branches of the Centre for Trade Union and Workers' Services (CTUWS), had been shut down pursuant to an administrative decision. The CTUWS was an independent civil society organization that assisted workers in defending their rights, monitored trade union elections, provided legal support and called for the removal of administrative barriers to the right to be a trade union candidate. In April 2007, the main premises of the CTUWS in Cairo had been surrounded and attacked by security forces and also shut down pursuant to an administrative decision. On 12 October, an Egyptian court had sentenced the CTUWS General Coordinator and his lawyer to one-year imprisonment, thus violating the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution. Finally, on 30 March 2008, the Administrative Court overturned the Government's refusal to allow CTUWS to operate.

The existing legislation did not allow the financial independence of unions and foresaw the control by the Confederation of Trade Unions over the administration of workers' organizations. Lower level unions had to pay a certain percentage of their income to the higher level national centre. While trade union income from workers' dues might well be distributed through the structure of a trade union, such decision should be taken by the organization's governing bodies and not imposed by law. Under Article 3 of the Convention, workers' organizations had the right to determine their administrative structure and manage their financial activities without interference from public authorities, thus allowing workers' organizations to affiliate independently.

As to the right to strike, the Committee of Experts had urged the Government to amend section 192 of the Labour Code, according to which strikes should receive prior approval of the trade union organization board. The Committee of Experts had underlined that any restrictions on the right to strike should be confined to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term. Section 192 also provided that the notification of strike action should specify its duration. The Committee of Experts had previously considered that such mandatory specifica- tion of the strike duration represented a restriction of the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities. Furthermore, section 69(9) of the new Labour Code, providing that workers who participated in strike action infringed section 194 of the new Labour Code and could be dismissed, was contrary to the Convention. Sanctions for strike action should only be possible where the prohibitions in question were in conformity with the Convention. Workers who had participated in legitimate strike action should not be sanctioned because the duration had not been specified.

The strikes of the workers in the largest state-owned textile factory in Mahalla Al Korba and their refusal of the decision to refer some workers to the General Prosecutor, also deserved the Committee's attention. Their fight had been supported by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the General Board of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions (ICATU) that called for a halt to retaliatory action against the workers and respect for workers' rights. Thanks to negotiations between the President of the Confederation of Trade Unions, the President of the General Union of Garment and Textile Workers, the President of the Textile Industries and the company, the protest finally produced a positive agreement. Another violent intervention of the police against protestors recently took place in the industrial city of Mahalla Al Korba. The police used live ammunition to suppress the protests against low wages and high prices for basic goods. The Ministry of Interior issued a statement asking all citizens to refrain from participating in the strike. In Mirs Spinning and Weaving factory, a strike was cancelled after security agents surrounded and entered the premises.

Regrettably, the legislative changes that the Committee of Experts had been requesting for many years had not been initiated by the Government. The Worker members urged the Government to modify the labour law so as to overcome the institutionalization of a single trade union system, which excluded the possibility to form different trade union federations, independent from the Confederation of Trade Unions. The Government should also take the necessary measures to amend the Labour Code to ensure that national law neither interfered in the freedom to organize nor in the definition of electoral procedures, there was no legal obligation for workers' organizations to specify the duration of a strike, and workers who had participated in legitimate strike action were not penalized on the grounds that the strike notice did not specify the duration. The Government should further take immediate action to ensure that the categories of workers excluded from the Labour Code enjoyed the right to strike.

The Worker members also supported the Committee of Experts' requests to urgently amend legislation concerning the removal from office of the executive committee of a trade union which had provoked work stoppage in the public or community services, the requirement of the prior approval of the Confederation for the organization of strike action, the restriction on the right to strike in services which were not essential in the strict sense and the penalties for breaches of section 69(9) of the new Labour Code. The Worker members called on the Government to comply with the Convention and the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, in particular as regards the independence of trade union organizations, the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing, the elimination of intervention in union elections, financial management and all other forms of interference, and the right to strike. ILO technical assistance could help the Government to amend national legislation to that effect.

The Employer members noted that the Committee of Experts' observation, despite being short, raised serious matters. There appeared to be problems with Act No. 35, as amended. The Convention required respect for trade union pluralism. However, several sections of the Act imposed the institutionalization of a single trade union in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Act also adversely impacted on the ability of high-level unions to establish their election procedures, in violation of Article 3. Similarly, the Government interfered in the financial independence of trade unions. Accordingly, the Government was asked to make legislative changes to address these issues.

With respect to the right to strike, the Employer members recognized a generalized right to strike but the State had the discretion to regulate it in accordance to its needs and conditions. However, during a strike, the human rights and civil liberties of the individuals in the action must be respected. In conclusion, the Government was requested to provide a comprehensive report on the issues raised. There was also a need for ILO technical assistance.

The Employer member of Egypt stated that as a resident of El Mahallah City, he had witnessed the recent strikes and could report that the security forces intervened only after being attacked with stones and Molotov canisters by the demonstrators who had burnt schools and other public buildings, causing considerable damage. The Egyptian employers believed in human rights, democracy and freedom of expression but these rights should be exercised in a framework of respect for national legislation and public order. Laws and regulations could not be the same everywhere and should reflect cultural specificities.

With regard to the issue of elections, he said that, as a representative of the Egyptian Chamber of Industry and Commerce, he had never witnessed government interference in elections. This having been said, strong competition among trade unions had recently led to questions about the legitimacy of elections in certain cases. He also noted that the number of strikes had recently increased and this was something that the Egyptian society was not used to. As a result of the strikes, a number of companies had reached agreements with the trade unions and had paid workers' salaries agreed upon in negotiations. The right to strike was guaranteed to all workers, but strikes were not supposed to be used as a means to intimidate, pillage and burn. He concluded by emphasizing that employers' organizations in Egypt strongly believed in social dialogue and were continually involved in consultations with the Government and the workers, attaching great importance to their counterparts who had a specific role to play in this process.

The Worker member of Egypt indicated that he had asked for the floor in order to answer certain comments touching upon the dignity of the trade union movement in Egypt which was more than 100 years old. The latest trade union elections had taken place in accordance with the applicable procedures in a democratic atmosphere and without Government intervention. Elections had led to changes in 40 to 60 per cent of the trade union leadership. These changes were an eloquent answer to those who accused trade unions of monopolizing trade union action. A monopoly could not exist where the trade union movement renewed itself every five years through elections in conformity with the Convention. The workers' and em- ployers' organizations in Egypt had enjoyed pluralism and democracy since the 1920s in defending the interests of their members. The workers themselves realized that their interests could be effectively defended only through solidarity and the will of the workers to this effect was reflected in the law and the statute of their trade unions. Moreover, any development in the status quo had to come from within the trade union movement in the country, taking into account cultural specificities. In Egypt, there were no restrictions in joining or leaving a trade union in any sector. The role of the Confederation of Trade Unions in relation to trade union statutes was to draft a model statute so that it could serve as guidance for unions in drafting their own statutes. These statutes varied among the 23 trade union organizations, taking into account their specific circumstances. The Worker members had acknowledged in their intervention the role played by the Textile Workers' Federation and the President of the Confederation of Trade Unions in settling the strike in El Mahallah City. This testified to the successful functioning of tripartite relations and cooperation in Egypt.

Finally, he indicated that the CTUWS General Coordinator had never been a trade unionist and had established a centre to provide workers with services, which was by no means a trade union. It was rather a mere individual initiative to set up a commercial establishment. He expressed his surprise that this international forum took the trouble to refer to this issue.

The Government member of Qatar indicated that he had listened carefully to the Government representative who had provided detailed information and expressed the hope that the Committee would examine this information and make good use of it.

The Government member of Morocco underscored the importance of the full enjoyment of trade union rights not only for the workers themselves but also for all the social partners. The Convention, which was the point of reference for the workers in terms of their rights, could also have an important impact on a country's economic and social development. However, any changes needed to come from within the society. The Government representative of Egypt had referred to the efforts made in the country so as to adjust to world economic circumstances. The Government was working relentlessly to ensure social development and the resolution of labour disputes in the best way possible. The Labour Code of 2003 had been adopted to regulate this process and major efforts had been made to raise awareness of the partners regarding social dialogue and improve working relationships. These efforts had begun to bear fruit, which was very important for the further development of labour relations. All these measures were bound to lead to a positive atmosphere and to the overcoming of obstacles between the national legislation and the Convention. The Government's efforts should also be praised since it was playing an important role in realizing peace in the Middle East and had a major role in the work of the Arab Labour Organization. He concluded by stating that the Committee should look into the information provided and take into consideration the views expressed by the Government.

The Government member of Tunisia emphasized that the Egyptian legislation, including the Labour Code of 2003, was in conformity with international labour standards and that the enactment of legislation depended, notably, on the development of tripartism and social dialogue. Moreover, encouraging results had been obtained in this regard through the elaboration, in 2006, of the foundation and principles of social dialogue as a basis of social justice, the importance given to a constructive and serene social dialogue, and the organization of training for the social partners. The speaker also emphasized the openness demonstrated by the Egyptian Government for dialogue and supported the efforts made by the Government to comply with the Convention.

The Government member of Sudan indicated that his Government attached special importance to cooperation with the Conference Committee. The Government representative of Egypt had shown that the Government action was compatible with the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Government was willing to accept technical assistance and benefit from it. It had made strenuous efforts to reach agreement so as to resolve the disputes. Egypt, a country with a long history steeped in civilization, was currently facing new experiences and needed time so as to select the model which best suited its conditions. Change should be gradual so as to enable the social partners to reap the benefits. He concluded by stating that Egypt should not have been included in the list of individual cases.

The Government member of Belarus welcomed the intention of the Government of Egypt to bring the legislation into line with the Convention in the framework of social dialogue. The Government's intention to further develop trust and confidence with the social partners through social dialogue had been demonstrated through the organization of seminars on a wide range of issues including economic reforms and improvements in conditions of work. He noted the positive evolution in the number of women trade unionists were a result of the Government's efforts to promote gender equality. It was important to continue the dialogue with the Government.

The Government member of the United Arab Emirates associated himself with the statement made by the Government member of Qatar. The issues raised by the Committee of Experts did not constitute fundamental violations of the Convention and could be dealt with through technical cooperation between the ILO and the Government. He praised the Government of Egypt for showing openness to the comments of the Committee of Experts and for its readiness to continue to cooperate with the ILO. He expressed the confidence that the Government would take every possible measure for the implementation of all the Articles of the Convention in dialogue with the social partners.

The Government member of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya indicated that his Government had the utmost respect for the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Government representative of Egypt had given ample explanations and information in reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts and had also provided detailed information on the events that had taken place in El Mahallah City, which showed that the right to strike was guaranteed in Egypt. Strikes should take place in line with the law. The issue had been dealt with in a democratic manner and in conformity with the law through a decision of the independent judiciary. The information provided should be taken into consideration when conclusions were drawn on this case.

The presence in person of the Minister of Labour of Egypt showed the value placed by the country on the implementation of ILO Conventions. In her statement, the Minister had referred to the provisions of the Labour Code respecting the single trade union system and its beneficial aspects for workers. She had added that strikes had occurred at various levels, while explaining the conditions determining such strikes. She had also explained the procedures for the election of members of the executive boards of trade unions, which were held under judicial supervision, with any interference being prohibited. New leaders had been elected, including women (40 per cent), with in some cases achieving the level of 70 per cent. The security forces only entered election halls to ensure order. Their role was to guarantee security, but they never intervened in trade union elections. The Minister had clearly explained the various stages of negotiation and how labour disputes were settled, including through conciliation and arbitration. This information needed to be taken into account when drawing up the Committee's conclusions.

The Government member of Cuba commended the efforts made by the Government of Egypt to seek, through social dialogue, appropriate alternatives to confront the economic and social challenges of globalization. Furthermore, the Government promoted dialogue between employers and workers and organized training sessions aimed to prepare both parties to undertake economic reforms that benefited workers and ensured respect for their fundamental rights. The speaker trusted that the Committee would take due note of the explanations provided by the Government of Egypt.

The Government member of China stated that she had taken note of the Government's statement in particular with regard to the legislation adopted to give effect to the Convention and the measures taken to promote social dialogue. The ILO should continue to cooperate with the Government in order to achieve full compliance with the Convention.

The Government member of the Russian Federation stated that the Government of Egypt was taking special measures to fulfil its international obligations concerning the rights of workers. The solution to the problems raised by the Committee of Experts lied in tripartite negotiations at national level and cooperation between the ILO and the Government. He called on all interested parties to continue the dialogue and on the ILO to give, if necessary, appropriate technical assistance.

The Government representative of Egypt expressed her appreciation for all those who had taken the floor during this important sitting. She assured the Committee that being a trade unionist herself, she would not tolerate any violation of trade union rights in her country and she would seek to remedy any divergence between the na- tional law and the international Conventions. She wished to reply to the comments made by the Employer and Worker members which had been prepared apparently before hearing the Government's statement. She expressed the hope that the Worker members would reexamine their position. In Egypt, there were no strict constraints placed on the right of workers to join or leave a trade union. It was the basic statute of trade unions which determined the rules and procedures for affiliation, as long as the worker was still active in service. The Trade Union Act guaranteed the full freedom of workers to join or not to join any trade union. There was therefore no question of constraints.

With regard to the issue of trade union unity, she fully supported the view that this unity should spring from the trade union organization itself, and not be decided upon by law or by the administrative authority. The application of the by-laws of trade union organizations reflected the desire of the workers themselves, who opted for a pyramidal trade union structure, based on unity, as set out in the current Trade Union Act. Things could evolve in the future as the country developed, and tripartite dialogue on this issue was continuing.

Concerning the procedures governing the nomination and election of trade union members, which according to the Committee of Experts should be decided by the trade unions and not by the public authority, the single trade union central organization or the law, she emphasized that the Government had no involvement in the choice of trade union representatives during elections which took place in full freedom. The matter raised by the Committee of Experts had been resolved in a meeting of the General Assembly of the Confederation of Trade Unions held on 18 October 2006. She promised to furnish a copy of the minutes of the meeting to the Committee of Experts along with a copy of a model regulation of the by-laws of trade union organizations. This was further proof of her Government's good will.

With respect to the group of professionals representing engineers, she clarified that the specific entity was a professional organization and not a trade union, and had been set up only to defend its members' specific interests. She added that no person had been stopped from entering the meeting place of the entity as long as he or she was a member - entry being denied only to non-members. The presence of the police force outside the building was only to ensure security and protect the safety of individuals and undertakings and was not aimed to intervene in any gathering.

As for the closure of the Centre for Trade Union and Workers' Services and its branches in El Mahallah, Nagaa Hamadi and Helwan, she informed the Committee that the Centre was not closed on account of its trade union activity, but on account of its violation of the licensing conditions as a non-governmental organization, in accordance with the provisions of Non-Governmental Organizations Act No. 84 of 2002. She added that a judicial decision had been rendered ordering that the closure be annulled. Dialogue was ongoing between the representatives of the Centre and the Ministry of Social Solidarity to correct its status, in accordance with the Non-Governmental Organizations Act.

With reference to the strikes in El Mahallah, these had taken place on 6 April 2008 in the city of El Mahallah al-Kubra and not in a factory. Acts of vandalism had been committed by persons with motives unrelated to the promotion of professional interests. More than 27,000 workers in the El Mahallah factory had not joined the strike as they had engaged in negotiations with management under the auspices of the Ministry. Those persons who had gone on strike had been paid full wages even during the period of strike, although the Labour Code required the deduction of wages during the strike period; this was due to the discretion enjoyed by the Government in this regard and the respect paid by the Government to workers and their rights. She stressed that the April event in El Mahallah was an operation aimed to cause damage in the city and not at all a strike called by workers.

She concluded by underlining the importance of consultation and collaboration with the social partners through the Labour Consultative Council which had been set up on the basis of the Labour Code. She assured the Conference Committee that the comments of the Committee of Experts would be submitted to the Labour Consultative Council so as to take the necessary measures to review the Labour Code and the Trade Union Act and bring them into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker members thanked the Minister of Labour for the information provided. They pointed out that Egypt had ratified the Convention 51 years ago. In view of the number of years that had since elapsed, it was time for the Government to align its laws with the Convention's requirements. Regarding the representatives of various Governments who had taken the floor in support of the Government of Egypt, they noted that many of those countries did not fully uphold freedom of association principles and workers' rights. Indeed, cases concerning the application of the Convention by several of those Governments would be discussed in the Committee. They acknowledged the Government's remarks and noted that the Minister of Labour was formerly a colleague of theirs on the Workers' bench. They hoped, therefore, that the Government would act upon the commitments it had made before the Committee in good faith and with due haste.

Recalling the Minister's remarks on the freedom to join the sole trade union, they maintained that the crux of the matter was the freedom to join a trade union, not the trade union - that is, the single trade union established by law. Until workers enjoyed the freedom to join other organizations, the legislation would remain non-compliant with the Convention. The situation of trade union monopoly was also to blame for the refusal to grant workers the right to hold union elections in a manner of their own choosing. Underscoring that the trade union monopoly had not been freely chosen by workers but rather originated in the legislation, they called upon the Government to introduce the necessary legislative changes, in line with the comments of the Committee of Experts.

As concerned the Government's remarks on the importance of social dialogue, they emphasized that it was equally necessary to promote collective bargaining and sound industrial relations. This, in turn, required the appropriate legislative framework. They recalled that conflict naturally occurred within sound industrial relations environments - in the form of industrial action and strikes. The right to strike needed to be ensured for Egyptian workers; it was therefore necessary to remove the restrictions on the right to strike contained in section 192 of the Labour Code, as well as the imposition of compulsory arbitration in services which were not essential in the strict sense of the term.

They stated that the CTUWS was recognized by well-respected international organizations, including the ITUC and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). If the monopoly on trade unions were lifted, the CTUWS would be able to become a fully fledged trade union, rather than a civil society organization.

As concerned the strike in El Mahallah al-Kubra, they recalled that many non-governmental organizations - including Amnesty International and the ITUC - had eyewitness reports that the riot police were shooting with live ammunition. They emphasized that even should a strike turn violent, this did not authorize the authorities to react with equal or greater violence.

They accepted the Government's proposal to convene a tripartite body on the matters discussed and reiterated their strong hope that legislative amendments would soon be introduced, particularly in respect of the trade union monopoly situation, the control by higher level organizations of union election procedures, the control by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the financial management of trade unions, and the right to strike.

The Employer members thanked the Minister for her comprehensive reply. They emphasized that the Convention was a fundamental one and a cornerstone of the ILO. Compliance with this Convention was therefore not an evolutionary process; there could be no concessions or "middle ground" in securing respect for its provisions. Social dialogue and tripartism was a second cornerstone of the ILO. The existence of dialogue and consensus, however, could not veto the requirements of the Convention. They recalled that the present case concerned two fundamental aspects of the Convention. The first, which concerned the situation of trade union monopoly, was inconsistent with the requirement that a multiplicity of trade unions be allowed to exist and flourish. The second aspect touched upon the right of trade unions to set their own rules and govern themselves without government interference.

They maintained that countries that had ratified the Convention must completely fulfil the attendant obligations. In this respect, technical assistance in the form of an ILO mission was necessary. They requested the Government to indicate whether it was prepared to accept such a mission and recalled that it was also obliged to prepare a report fully responding to the ITUC allegations and the comments of the Committee of Experts.

The Government representative of Egypt stated that although her Government was ready to cooperate in all respects and welcomed any assistance offered, it had a precise agenda and she could not, therefore, promise that the legislation would be reviewed so rapidly. It was not certain whether amendments to the laws could be submitted before the end of Parliament's present term, hence she could not promise that the amendments would be enacted by next year; more time was required to review the legislation and prepare the necessary changes.

The Government representative of Egypt reiterated her Government's commitment to the application of standards. With respect to ILO assistance mentioned in the conclusions, she indicated that ILO assistance was currently being provided to her country on social dialogue, and that there was therefore no need for further assistance on the issue under discussion. What was needed was assistance in the training of trade unionists and employers. She expressed her hope that Egypt would always meet its obligations under ILO Conventions.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and of the discussion that followed.

The Committee observed that the comments of the Committee of Experts concerned serious allegations of government interference and violent intervention by the security forces against trade union members during union elections, as well as a number of discrepancies between the labour legislation and the provisions of the Convention, in particular as regards the institutionalization of a single trade union system through a variety of means.

The Committee noted the Government's statement according to which the amendments made to the Labour Code were the result of intensive social dialogue. In addition, a draft concerning social dialogue was in the process of being prepared with the assistance of the ILO. The Government representative asserted that there was no interference in union elections, which were held in accordance with the organizations' by-laws, except where necessary to ensure the peaceful settlement of internal conflicts. Nevertheless, the Government representative assured the Committee that all comments made by the Committee of Experts would be taken seriously into account within the framework of the national tripartite consultative committee.

The Committee noted with deep concern certain elements of the Government representative's statement which appeared to show a lack of commitment to the fundamental principles consecrated in the Convention, in particular with respect to the most basic right to form and join organizations of one's own choosing, even if outside the existing trade union structure. It regretted that no progress had been made on these fundamental points since the ratification of this Convention over 50 years ago. It also expressed concern at the references made by several speakers to ongoing, grave violations of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee recalled that basic civil liberties and fundamental rights must be respected during strike action. The Committee asked the Government to fully implement the judgement of the Egypt Administrative Court so that the Centre for Trade Union and Workers' Services may operate freely. The Committee encouraged the Government to continue on the important path of democratic reform it had embarked upon in the country.

The Committee urged the Government to take tangible steps in the very near future to ensure that all workers could be ensured the full enjoyment of their fundamental right to freely organize and, in particular, to guarantee the independence of trade union organizations and the elimination of all forms of interference in workers' organizations. The Committee invited the Government to accept an ILO technical assistance mission and welcomed the Government's readiness in this regard. It requested the Government to provide detailed information to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to bring the law and practice into conformity with the Convention, as well as full particulars in reply to the allegations of violent attacks against trade unionists and acts of interference in internal union affairs, in its report when it was next due.

The Government representative of Egypt reiterated her Government's commitment to the application of standards. With respect to ILO assistance mentioned in the conclusions, she indicated that ILO assistance was currently being provided to her country on social dialogue, and that there was therefore no need for further assistance on the issue under discussion. What was needed was assistance in the training of trade unionists and employers. She expressed her hope that Egypt would always meet its obligations under ILO Conventions.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

The Government has communicated the following information:

The Government recalls that it had indicated already in its previous comments that a mixed technical committee consisting of representatives of the Government and the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions had been established with a view to examining the question of amending the provisions of Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended, and of Act No. 137 of 1981 which the Committee of Experts does not consider to be in conformity with the Convention. The technical committee is continuing its work. The Government also reiterates its earlier statements in which it indicated that before any of the above-mentioned Acts could be amended, the proposals of the committee would be submitted to the parties concerned, especially to the trade union associations which, as the most representative organisations of workers, are 1,995 in number. These associations formulate their observations on the proposals and submit them to the general unions whose number is 23. They are then finally transmitted to the Confederation.

The Government considers that it should give time to these unions to examine the proposals in question in order to formulate their views. It further states that there are some views according to which both Acts need thorough review in order to cope with the shortcomings in the matters concerning freedom of association and others, which entails necessarily more time. According to the Government, as soon as the interested parties and the unions formulate their views concerning the committee's proposals for the amendment of the above-mentioned two Acts, the committee will receive them and co-ordinate their proposals before elaborating a draft which will regroup the proposed modifications and which will be submitted to the People's Council, the highest legislative organ of the country, for its adoption.

The Government states that Egypt under President Mohamed Hosni Moubarak has seen important and radical changes towards democracy and political freedoms and that the latest elections of the People's Council took place in April 1987 in which a great number of political parties of all tendencies participated. According to the Government, this freedom and political democracy will no doubt have positive effects on trade unions, industrial relations and workers. The effect is also visible in the protection against arbitrary dismissal which created a feeling of security among the workers, reducing thereby the number and the length of industrial disputes. The trade unions seek dialogue with the administration and make use of conciliation procedures in industrial disputes. The Government does, therefore, not agree to the interpretation made by the Committee of Experts on sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, Act No. 137 of 1981, concerning peaceful settlement of labour disputes. It considers, in the light of the results of practical application, that the mechanism of arbitration has given the workers, in the great majority of the cases, access to their rights.

As regards the railway strike, the call for the train drivers' strike of 7 and 8 July 1986 was made by the Railway Workers' Association without the knowledge of the Railway Union or the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions. Disruption was caused to millions of Egyptians who use the railways as their main means of going to work. Railways are the main means of transport in Egypt. They extend along the Nile and most of the population is concentrated in the Delta. Stoppage of a vital service like the railways is a threat to the safety of the citizens. The abrupt stoppage interrupted transport of grain from Egyptian ports to the flour mills in all governorates of the country. It also interrupted the transport of medical supplies and various imported foodstuffs. The strike was led by state officials and was a danger to the life, health and safety of citizens as well as a threat to the economic interests of the country. This is why the State intervened and brought the drivers to court. Those detained were released after the first hearing; on 14 April 1987 they were all acquitted by decision of the Superior State Security Tribunal.

Finally, the Government wishes to assure the Committee of Egypt's concern for applying the freedom of association Conventions ratified by it, which guarantee workers the right to peaceful strikes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

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

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

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had raised a number of points concerning the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing and the right to strike. In particular, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to:

–           amend section 19(f) of Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, so that all workers are able to join more than one organization, if they so wish, in order to be able to defend their occupational interests in cases where they are engaged in more than one occupation;

–           ensure that the categories of workers excluded from the scope of the Labour Code (public servants in state agencies who do not exercise authority in the name of the State, including local public administrations and public authorities; domestic and similar workers; and workers who are members of the employer’s family and dependent upon the latter) enjoy the right to strike;

–           amend section 192 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that there is no legal obligation for workers’ organizations to specify the duration of a strike; and

–           amend section 69(9) of the Labour Code to ensure that workers who have participated in legitimate strike action are not penalized on the grounds that the strike notice does not specify the duration of the strike.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that Order No. 69 of 2010 has been issued by the Minister of Manpower and Migration on the establishment of a preparatory technical committee composed of legal experts to review Labour Code No. 12 of 2003 and Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended to date, to ensure their conformity with international labour standards. The Committee further notes that pursuant to Order No. 69, the legal experts shall present a report by the end of the year, which will then be submitted for discussion to a tripartite meeting in order to agree on the final versions of the two bills. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that during the review process, due account will be taken of the Committee’s comments on the abovementioned issues and trusts that the proposed amendments will be provided to the ILO in the near future for advice on their conformity with the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the progress made on these long-outstanding matters.

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

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the ILO technical assistance mission of April 2009, which had been requested by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, had given rise to a Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding by which the social partners and the Government had agreed to participate in a tripartite symposium to be organized by the ILO to discuss the challenges faced by the country in the application of the Convention, to review the experiences of other member States and to formulate proposals on the measures necessary to give effect to the Committee’s comments. The Committee welcomes the fact that a Tripartite Workshop on Social Dialogue, Freedom of Association and Development took place on 26 April 2010, with ILO participation, to address a number of divergences between the legislation, the practice and the Convention. The Committee hopes that the holding of this seminar will constitute an important first step in addressing this long-standing matter.

The Committee notes the discussion during the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2010 on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes in particular the Government’s indications during that meeting that it planned to engage in a review of the legislation with the assistance of the ILO in order to ensure full conformity with the Convention. The Committee also notes that the Conference Committee expressed the firm expectation that the Government would elaborate a fast-track programme for ensuring that tangible steps would be taken in the very near future to amend the legislation in order to ensure that all workers may freely form and join the organization of their own choosing and that all forms of Government interference in the activities of workers’ organizations, including through legislative reference to the authority of a single trade union in this regard, are eliminated. Finally, the Committee notes that the Conference Committee requested the Government to provide the necessary proposals for amendments, especially to the Trade Union Act, by the end of the year to the ILO for advice on their conformity with the Convention. The Committee regrets that the Government has not yet transmitted any draft amendments in this regard.

The Committee recalls that for several years it has been commenting upon the discrepancies between the Convention and the national legislation, namely Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, and Labour Code No. 12 of 2003, with regard to the following points:

–      the institutionalization of a single trade union system under Act No. 35 of 1976 (as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995), and in particular sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52;

–      the control granted by law to higher level trade union organizations, and particularly the Confederation of Trade Unions, over the nomination and election procedures to the executive committees of trade unions, under the terms of sections 41, 42 and 43 of Act No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12);

–      the control exercised by the Confederation of Trade Unions over the financial management of trade unions, by virtue of sections 62 and 65 of Act No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12);

–      the removal from office of the executive committee of a trade union which has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service or community services (section 70(2)(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976);

–      the requirement of the prior approval of the Confederation of Trade Unions for the organization of strike action, under section 14(i) of the same Act;

–      restrictions on the right to strike and recourse to compulsory arbitration in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term
(sections 179, 187, 193 and 194 of the Labour Code); and

–      penalties for breaches of section 194 of the Labour Code (section 69(9) of the Code).

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that Order No. 69 of 2010 has been issued by the Minister of Manpower and Migration on the establishment of a preparatory technical committee composed of legal experts to review Labour Code No. 12 of 2003 and Trade Unions Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended to date, to ensure their conformity with international labour standards. The Committee further notes that pursuant to Order No. 69, the legal experts shall present a report by the end of the year, which will then be submitted for discussion to a tripartite meeting in order to agree on the final versions of the two bills. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that during the review process, due account will be taken of the Committee’s comments on the abovementioned issues and trusts that the proposed amendments will be provided to the ILO in the near future for advice on their conformity with the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the progress made on these long-outstanding matters.

Finally, and as specifically requested by the Conference Committee at its meeting in June 2010, the Committee regrets that the Government has still not provided its observations on the 2009 comments submitted by the ITUC concerning the violent repression in April 2008, by the police, of a workers’ demonstration in the town of Mahalla, resulting in the death of six workers and the detention of 500 people, including three trade unionists and requests it to do so with its next report.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Previously, the Committee had raised a number of points concerning the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing and the right to strike (Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention). In particular, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to:

–      amend section 19(f) of the Trade Union Act, No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, so that all workers are able to join more than one organization, if they so wish, in order to be able to defend their occupational interests in cases where they are engaged in more than one occupation;

–      ensure that the categories of workers excluded from the scope of the Labour Code (public servants in state agencies who do not exercise authority in the name of the State, including local public administrations and public authorities; domestic and similar workers; and workers who are members of the employer’s family and dependent upon the latter) enjoy the right to strike;

–      amend section 192 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that there is no legal obligation for workers’ organizations to specify the duration of a strike;

–      amend section 69(9) of the Labour Code to ensure that workers who have participated in legitimate strike action are not penalized on the grounds that the strike notice does not specify the duration of the strike.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates that following the discussion that took place at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008, a technical assistance mission visited the country in April 2009. Furthermore, the Government indicates that at the end of the mission the representatives of the social partners and the Government issued a joint Memorandum of Understanding in which they agreed to participate in a tripartite symposium to be organized by the ILO Subregional Office so as to discuss the challenges faced by Egypt in the application of the Convention, to review the experiences of other member States, and to formulate proposals on subsequent steps so as to take into account the Committee’s comments. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the hope that the symposium will take place in the very near future and that measures will be taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any developments in this regard.

Recalling that it has been commenting upon these legislative matters for several years, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the progress made with respect to the legislative amendments, and reminds the Government that the technical assistance of the Office is at its disposal in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 29 August 2009, which refer to matters already raised by the Committee, as well as the violent repression by the police of a demonstration by workers on 6 and 7 April 2008, resulting in the death of six workers and the detention of 500 people, including three trade unionists who were held in detention for 54 days. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, when disorders have occurred involving loss of human life or serious injury, the setting up of an independent judicial enquiry is a particularly appropriate method of fully ascertaining the facts, determining responsibilities, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such actions, and 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 principles of freedom of association (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 29 and 31). The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

The Committee notes the discussion during the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008 on the application of the Convention. In particular, the Committee notes the Government’s indications during that meeting, in relation to the ITUC’s comments made in 2007, that: (1) trade union elections were conducted in conformity with the rules adopted by the trade unions at their general assemblies; (2) all candidatures were registered, under legal supervision, in the framework of this election cycle, and over 18,000 persons were elected to the workers’ representative bodies in the enterprises and undertakings of the country; (3) 23 new trade unions were established; (4) the Central Council of the Confederation of Trade Unions also held elections and re-elected 70 per cent of its executive committees; and (5) a process of such a large scale as this, which mobilized over 4 million workers, gave rise to rivalry and incidents which required the intervention of the security forces, although such intervention could not be seen as Government intervention in trade union affairs. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that its comments on the application of the Convention would be submitted to the Labour Advisory Council with a view to taking the necessary measures to review the Labour Code and the Trade Union Act and bringing them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that the Conference Committee invited the Government to accept an ILO technical assistance mission and welcomed the Government’s readiness in this regard.

The Committee notes that the technical assistance mission requested by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards visited Egypt on
20–23 April 2009.

The Committee recalls that for several years its comments have been referring to the discrepancies between the Convention and the national legislation, namely the Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, and the Labour Code No. 12 of 2003, with regard to the following points:

–           the institutionalization of a single trade union system under Act No. 35 of 1976 (as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995), and in particular sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52;

–           the control granted by law to higher level trade union organizations, and particularly the Confederation of Trade Unions, over the nomination and election procedures to the executive committees of trade unions, under the terms of sections 41, 42, and 43 of Act No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12);

–           the control exercised by the Confederation of Trade Unions over the financial management of trade unions, by virtue of sections 62 and 65 of Act No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12);

–           the removal from office of the executive committee of a trade union which has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service or community services (section 70(2)(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976);

–           the requirement of the prior approval of the Confederation of Trade Unions for the organization of strike action, under section 14(i) of the same Act;

–           restrictions on the right to strike and recourse to compulsory arbitration in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 179, 187, 193 and 194 of the Labour Code); and

–           penalties for breaches of section 194 of the Labour Code (section 69(9) of the Code).

In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following the technical assistance mission referred to above, the Government and the social partners signed a memorandum of understanding through which they undertook to participate in a tripartite seminar to be organized by the ILO subregional office to analyse the issues raised concerning the application of the Convention, and to study the comparative experience of other countries and make proposals for the measures to be adopted so as to give effect to the Committee’s comments. The Committee considers that the holding of this seminar will be an important first step in addressing this longstanding matter. The Committee expresses the hope that the seminar referred to above will be held in the near future and will take up all the matters raised in its comments. The Committee further hopes that, following this activity, the necessary measures will be taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Previously, the Committee had raised a number of points concerning the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing and the right to strike (Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention). In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government’s report does not substantively reply to these matters; it trusts that the Government, in its next report, would provide full information in respect of the points previously raised, which are as follows:

–      Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to amend section 19(f) of the Trade Union Act, No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, so that all workers are able to join more than one organization, if they so wish, in order to be able to defend their occupational interests in cases where they are engaged in more than one occupation.

–      Article 3. The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the categories of workers excluded from the scope of the Labour Code (public servants in state agencies, including local public administrations and public authorities; domestic and similar workers; and workers who are members of the employer’s family and dependent upon the latter) enjoy the right to strike.

–      The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 192 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that there is no legal obligation for workers’ organizations to specify the duration of a strike.

–      The Committee requests the Government to amend section 69(9) of the Labour Code to ensure that workers who have participated in legitimate strike action are not penalized on the grounds that the strike notice does not specify the duration of the strike.

Recalling that it has been commenting upon the legislative matters above for several years, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government would be in a position to indicate the progress made in respect of these amendments in its next report, and reminds the Government that the technical assistance of the Office is available with respect to the drafting of legislation.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report as well as its reply to the comments submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – the International Trade Union Confederation) in 2006 on the application of the Convention. It further notes the comments submitted by the ITUC in a communication of 28 August 2007, which mainly refer to matters previously raised by the Committee as well as to acts of government interference in union elections and violent intervention by security forces against trade union members participating in the elections. The Committee requests the Government to transmit its observations on the ITUC’s allegations.

The Committee recalls that for several years its comments have been referring to the discrepancies between the Convention and the national legislation – i.e. the Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, and the Labour Code No. 12 of 2003 – on the following points:

Article 2 of the Convention. The institutionalization of a single trade union system under Act No. 35 of 1976 (as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995), and in particular sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the trade union structure is one the workers themselves had chosen upon the realization that disparate trade union set-ups are ineffective and do not constitute a pressure group aimed at meeting their interests. In these circumstances the Committee once again recalls that Act No. 35, and in particular sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52, are at variance with Article 2 of the Convention since trade union unity, directly or indirectly imposed by law, runs counter to the standards expressly laid down in the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 91). The Committee requests the Government to amend sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976 (as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995) so as to secure the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing at all levels outside the existing trade union structure.

Article 3. The control granted by law to higher level trade union organizations, and particularly the Confederation of Trade Unions, over the nomination and election procedures to the executive committees of trade unions (sections 41, 42 and 43 of Act No. 35, as amended by Act No. 12). The Committee recalls that procedures for the nomination and election to trade union office should be fixed by the rules of the organization concerned, without any interference by public authorities or by the single trade union central organization designated by the law. Legislative provisions can require, in a manner compatible with the Convention, that organizations specify in their statutes and rules the procedure for appointing their executive bodies, and rules ensuring the proper conduct of the election process. Furthermore, if any supervision is deemed necessary, it should be exercised by a judicial authority (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 114 and 115). Finally, the Committee would like to point out that any removal or suspension of executive bodies which is not the result of an internal decision of the trade union, a vote by members or normal judicial proceedings, seriously interferes in the exercise of the trade union office to which officers should be freely elected by members of their trade union. Legislative provisions which permit the appointment of temporary administrators by the single central organization are incompatible with the Convention. Measures of this kind should only be possible through judicial proceedings (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 122 and 123). The Committee thus expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that each workers’ organization is able to elect its representatives in full freedom in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The control exercised by the Confederation of Trade Unions over the financial management of trade unions (sections 62 and 65 of Act No. 35, as amended by Act No. 12). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the funding structure in place does not contravene any international convention or law, and is the main source of funding for trade unions at the international level. The Committee nevertheless recalls that it had previously pointed out that workers’ organizations should have the right to organize their administration without any interference from public authorities, which means, among other things, that they should enjoy autonomy and financial independence. The control granted by the law to a single central organization constitutes, as such, interference with the free functioning of workers’ organizations, contrary to Article 3. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that section 62, which provides that the Confederation shall determine the financial rules of trade unions and obliges lower level unions to pay a certain percentage of their income to higher level organizations, and section 65, which provides that the Confederation shall control all trade union activities, are amended so that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their administration, including their financial activities, without interference, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

Right to strike. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that strikes are prohibited at strategic undertakings, as a legitimate and necessary safeguard to protect public safety and security; the Government adds that the restrictions placed by the law on the holding of strikes are measures similarly aimed at ensuring public security and the country’s economic welfare. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). In these circumstances, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation concerning:

–      the removal from office of the executive committee of a trade union which has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service or community services (section 70(2)(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976);

–      the requirement for the prior approval of the Confederation of Trade Unions for the organization of strike action (section 14(i) of the same Act);

–      restrictions on the right to strike and recourse to compulsory arbitration in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 179, 187, 193 and 194 of the Labour Code); and

–      penalties for breaches of section 194 of the Labour Code (section 69(9) of the Code).

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) of 10 August 2006, which refer largely to pending issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice that are already under examination. The Committee notes the recent communication of the Government which replies to the ICFTU’s comments.

The Committee will examine the ICFTU’s comments and the Government’s reply at its next session and requests the Government, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, to provide its observations for the November-December 2007 session on all the issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice raised in its previous observation in 2005 (see 2005 observation, 76th Session).

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 19(f) of the Trade Union Act, No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, so that all workers are able to join more than one organization, if they so wish, in order to be able to defend their occupational interests in cases where they are engaged in more than one occupation. In its report, the Government indicates that in practice workers may choose to be affiliated simultaneously to several trade unions and occupational organizations. The Committee requests that the Government amend its legislation accordingly so that both national law and practice are in full conformity with Article 2 of the Convention.

Article 3. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the conditions governing recourse to arbitration in the case of collective disputes in special economic zones. As the Government indicates in its report that the applicable provisions in this respect are those of the Labour Code of 2003, the Committee requests that the Government refer to the content of its previous observations on this matter.

Further, the Committee noted previously that certain categories of workers excluded from the scope of the Labour Code do not accordingly enjoy the right to strike as established by the Code (public servants in state agencies, including local public administrations and public authorities; domestic and similar workers; and workers who are members of the employer’s family and dependent upon the latter). In its report, the Government indicates that: (1) domestic workers are not organized in the country; (2) the question of the right to strike is not an issue for workers who are members of the employer’s family; and (3) public servants in state agencies, including local public administrations, are covered by the exceptions authorized by the Convention as they correspond to the category of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, in essential services in the strict sense of the term or in a situation of acute national crisis. Under these conditions, the Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers who are not covered by these exceptions enjoy the right to strike.

The Committee also noted previously that, under section 192 of the new Labour Code, the notification of a strike shall specify the duration of the strike. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the specific information requested appears to be related to questions concerning the payment of wages throughout the strike period. The Committee nevertheless reiterates that the mandatory specification of the duration of a strike restricts the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes freely, contrary to the provisions of Article 3. It therefore once again requests that the Government take the necessary measures to amend section 192 so as to ensure that there is no legal obligation for workers’ organizations to specify the duration of a strike.

Finally, the Committee noted previously that under section 69(9) of the new Labour Code, workers who have participated in strike action that infringes section 192 may be dismissed on the grounds of serious fault. In its report, the Government indicates that the penalties in question are the consequence of a breach of the legal procedures relating to strike action. In this respect, the Committee recalls that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. It therefore once again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers who have participated in legitimate strike action are not penalized on the grounds that the strike notice does not specify the duration of the strike.

The Committee once again requests that the Government indicate in its next report the measures adopted to bring all of the legislation referred to above into conformity with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. It brings to the Government’s attention that the technical assistance of the Office is available with respect to the drafting of legislation.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It recalls that for several years its comments have been referring to the divergencies between the Convention and the national legislation on the following points:

–      the institutionalization of a single trade union system under Act No. 35 of 1976 (as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995), and in particular sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52;

–      the control granted by law to higher-level trade union organizations, and particularly the Confederation of Trade Unions, over the nomination and election procedures to the executive committees of trade unions (sections 41, 42 and 43 of Act No. 35, as amended by Act No. 12);

–      the control exercised by the Confederation of Trade Unions over the financial management of trade unions (sections 62 and 65 of the same Act);

–      the removal from office of the executive committee of a trade union which has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service or community services (section 70(2)(b) of the above Act);

–      the requirement for the prior approval of the Confederation of Trade Unions for the organization of strike action (section 14(i) of the same Act);

–      restrictions on the right to strike and recourse to compulsory arbitration in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 179, 187, 193 and 194 of the Labour Code); and

–      penalties for breaches of section 194 of the Labour Code (section 69(9) of the Code).

In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that all the Committee’s comments will be taken into account in the context of a revision of the legislation. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government’s next report will indicate substantial progress on the various matters referred to above. It reminds the Government that the technical assistance of the Office is available for this purpose.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. In this respect, the Committee notes in particular: (1) the new Labour Code No. 12 of 2003; and (2) the Government’s answer to the Committee’s previous comments, prepared with a tripartite committee.

At the outset, the Committee would like to recall that the discrepancies between the Convention and the national legislation - i.e. Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, and the former Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 1981 - concern the following points:

-  the institutionalization of a single trade union system under Act No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12) and in particular sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52;

-  the control granted by law to the higher level trade union organizations, and in particular the Confederation of Trade Unions, over the nomination and election procedures for trade union office, under sections 41, 42, 43 of Act No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12);

-  the control exercised by the Confederation of Trade Unions over the financial management of trade unions, under sections 62 and 65 of Act No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12);

-  the removal from office of the executive committee of a trade union which has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service or utility, under section 70(2)(b) of Act No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12);

-  the prior approval of the Confederation of Trade Unions for the organization of strike action, under section 14(i) of Act No. 35 (as amended by Act No. 12);

-  compulsory arbitration at the request of one party, in services other than those that are essential in the strict sense of the term, under sections 93 to 106 of the former Labour Code (as amended by Act No. 137).

Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee once again urged the Government to ensure that Act No. 35 was amended to secure for all workers the right, should they so wish, to establish occupational organizations at all levels outside the existing trade union structure. The Government reiterates that, over the years, the Egyptian labour movement has aimed to protect trade unions against fragmentation, which had weakened it in the past, while preserving their independence from public authorities and political parties. The Committee takes due note of this information but recalls that Act No. 35, and in particular sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52, are at variance with Article 2 of the Convention, since trade union unity, directly or indirectly imposed by law, runs counter to the standards expressly laid down in the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 91). In its 2002 report, the Government mentioned the creation of a tripartite committee to review Act No. 35 in the light of the observations formulated by the Committee in recent years. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report if this committee has been established and, more generally, to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged to amend Act No. 35 so as to ensure the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, in accordance with Article 2.

Article 3. The Committee recalls that in its previous comment it noted that section 41 of Act No. 35 provides that the date and procedure for nomination and election to the executive boards of trade union organizations shall be determined by a decision of the competent minister, with the approval of the Confederation of Trade Unions. Section 42 sets out the manner of filling vacancies in the executive board and also permits the Confederation to determine the conditions and modalities of the dissolution of such boards in the event of a reduction in the number of members. Section 43 provides that, if for any reason, the number of members of the executive boards falls by more than half of the total number, the board shall be deemed to be dissolved by force of law and the executive body of the higher level trade union organization shall assume its functions temporarily. In its report, the Government indicates that it is the trade union that decides the organization of the elections. The role of the Minister of Manpower and Migration is merely an organizational and procedural one. It provides an official mechanism in order to guarantee that the enterprise will fulfil its obligation to organize elections and that the elections will be held with all the impartiality and neutrality required. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls that procedures for the nomination and election to trade union office should be fixed by the rules of the organization concerned, without any interference by public authorities or by the single trade union central organization designated by the law. To address the Government’s statement that elections should be held under all guarantees of impartiality and neutrality, the Committee would point out that legislative provisions can require, in a manner compatible with the Convention, that organizations specify in their statutes and rules the procedure for appointing their executive bodies, and rules ensuring the proper conduct of the election process. Further, if any supervision is deemed necessary, it should be exercised by a judicial authority (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 114 and 115). Finally, the Committee would like to point out that any removal or suspension of executive bodies which is not the result of an internal decision of the trade union, a vote by members or normal judicial proceedings, seriously interferes in the exercise of the trade union office to which officers should be freely elected by members of their trade union. Legislative provisions which permit the appointment of temporary administrators by the single central organization are incompatible with the Convention. Measures of this kind should only be possible through judicial proceedings (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 122 and 123). The Committee thus expresses the firm hope that the Government will make the necessary amendments to ensure that each workers’ organization is able to elect its representatives in full freedom in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 62 of Act No. 35 provides that the Confederation of Trade Unions shall determine the financial rules of trade unions and obliges lower level unions to pay a certain percentage of their income to higher lever organizations, while section 65 provides that the Confederation shall control all aspects of the trade union’s financial activities. The Committee recalls that workers’ organizations should have the right to organize their administration without any interference from public authorities, which means, among other things, that they should enjoy autonomy and financial independence. The control granted by the law to the single central organization constitutes interference with the free functioning of workers’ organizations, contrary to Article 3. If such control were to be organized it should be a matter for decision of all the organizations concerned, as reflected in their respective by-laws, and connected to the free choice of lower level organizations to affiliate to higher level organizations. Further, legislation intended to protect the rights of members and to ensure sound and efficient management can provide, in a manner compatible with the Convention, that trade union rules include provisions on the use of funds, the internal financial administration, etc. (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 124). The Committee therefore requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged to amend sections 62 and 65 so that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their administration, including their financial activities, without interference, in accordance with Article 3.

In relation to section 70(2)(b) of Act No. 35, which provides for the dissolution of the executive committee of a trade union that has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service by the criminal court at the request of the public prosecutor, the Government indicates that these are public facilities and enterprises of vital services, where a strike might endanger the life and safety of the society as a whole. The Committee recalls that it has always considered that any restriction or limitation on the right to strike should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see the General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 158 and 159). The Committee considers that the scope of the enterprises covered by section 70(2)(b) goes beyond this definition. However, it recalls that, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than imposing an outright ban on strikes (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 160). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 70(2)(b) taking into account the above.

The Committee notes that under section 193 of the new Labour Code, workers are prohibited to stage or announce a strike during the mediation and arbitration procedures. The Committee further notes that there are two kinds of arbitration procedures: (1) the private arbitration to which the parties may have recourse, under section 191, on the basis of a mutual agreement, except in the case of a dispute concerning a vital and strategic establishment; (2) the arbitration procedure set forth in the law, which may be imposed by one of the parties under section 179; in accordance with section 187, such procedure results in an award which amounts to a ruling passed by the court of appeal. The Committee must once again point out that the right to strike of workers’ organizations may only be prohibited or limited, in particular through compulsory arbitration imposed by one party, in cases of a dispute in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in case of acute national crisis. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 193 of the Labour Code read in conjunction with sections 179 and 187, in order to guarantee that compulsory arbitration imposed by one party will limit the right to strike of workers’ organizations only in cases of essential services in the strict sense of the term or in case of an acute national crisis.

The Committee notes that under section 194 of the new Labour Code, a strike is prohibited in strategic and vital establishments and that these establishments will be determined in a decree of the Prime Minister. In light of the considerations recalled above on the restrictions on the right to strike, the Committee trusts that, in the ministerial decree, the Government will limit the determination of such establishments to essential services in the strict sense of the term. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect and to provide a copy of the decree.

The Committee notes that, under section 69(9) of the new Labour Code, workers may be dismissed on the grounds of serious error if they have participated in a strike infringing section 194. Recalling that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association, the Committee trusts that workers who have participated in legitimate strike action, in light of the considerations made above in respect of section 194, will not be sanctioned. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any concrete case of application of section 69(9) for infringement of section 194.

Articles 3 and 10. With regard to section 14(i) of Act No. 35 under which the Confederation of Trade Unions is empowered to approve the organization of a strike by workers, the Government indicates that the Confederation is, by virtue of its responsibilities, the trade union which includes all workers in the sector concerned at the national level, and the party responsible for the strike financing fund; therefore, it is only natural that it should have a say in the organization of the strike, in view of all the consequences, both financial and in terms of solidarity, that the strike might entail at the level of all workers in the sector. Further, if the Confederation were not to have a say, this would favour the employer who prefers to deal with the workers of the enterprise and the trade union committee and to have a limited confrontation, rather than a confrontation with the general trade union and the workers of the sector concerned. The Committee recalls that the requirement set out in the law of the approval of the Confederation in order to organize a strike is not in conformity with the Convention, as it denies first-level organizations the right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes independently, including the decision on whether to call a strike. Prerequisites to the exercise of the right to strike should be left to the statutes and rules of the organizations concerned, which may themselves choose to subordinate a call for industrial action to approval by the central organization to which they may be affiliated. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend the legislation in order to bring it into conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, so that first-level organizations have the right to organize all their activities without the imposition by law of the requirement of prior authorization by the Confederation. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 19(f) of Act No. 12 of 1995 so that all workers are able to join more than one organization, if they so wish, in order to be able to defend their occupational interests in cases where they are engaged in more than one occupation. In this regard, the Committee had recalled that, under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, workers have the right to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization and that this issue relates to the importance of ensuring that workers who hold more than one job are able to join a union to defend their occupational interests in each job category or occupation in which they work. As the Government’s report contains no specific reply on this matter, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend the legislation to enable workers to join more than one organization, if they so wish, to defend their occupational interests in cases where they are engaged in more than one occupation.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It notes in particular the Government’s statement that the Minister of Labour has decided to set up a tripartite committee in order to review the Law on Trade Unions No. 35 of 1976, as well as the draft Labour Code, in the light of the observations formulated by the Committee in recent years.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points.

1. Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend sections 7, 13 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as well as sections 14, 16, 17 and 41 of Act No. 12 of 1995 to ensure that all workers who so wish have the right to establish occupational organizations outside the existing trade union structure. The Committee had recalled in this respect the importance of the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing, that this right was breached where the law maintained a trade union monopoly and that the preference of the trade union movement for a unified system was not sufficient to justify a monopoly established by law. The Committee once again urges the Government to ensure that sections 7, 13 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as well as sections 14, 16, 17 and 41 of Act No. 12 of 1995, are amended to secure for all workers the right, should they so wish, to establish occupational organizations at all levels outside the existing trade union structure and it requests the Government to keep it informed of the ongoing review of the labour legislation that has been undertaken by the tripartite committee referred to above.

2. Article 3. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned sections 41 and 42 of Act No. 12 of 1995. The Committee had noted that section 41 provides that the date and procedure for nomination and election to the executive boards of trade union organizations shall be determined by a decision of the competent Minister, with the approval of the General Confederation of Trade Unions. Section 42 sets out the manner of filling vacancies and also permits the General Confederation to determine the conditions and modalities of the dissolution of such boards in the event of a reduction in the number of members. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the procedures for the nomination and election to trade union office should be fixed by the rules of the organization concerned, and not by law or by the single trade union central organization designated by the law. The Committee thus expresses the firm hope that the Government will make the necessary amendments to ensure that each workers’ organization is able to elect its representatives in full freedom in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

With reference to sections 62 and 65, the Committee had recalled that it is contrary to Article 3 to empower the single central trade union organization designated by the law to exercise financial control. It once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that section 62, which provides that the Confederation shall determine the financial rules of trade unions and obliges lower level unions to pay a certain percentage of their income to higher level organizations, and section 65, which provides that the Confederation shall control all trade union activities, are amended so that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their administration, including their financial activities, without interference, in accordance with Article 3.

3. Articles 3 and 10. The Committee has been commenting for several years on the following provisions:

(i)  sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 1981, providing for compulsory arbitration at the request of one of the parties in services other than those that are essential in the strict sense of the term;

(ii)  section 70(2)(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976 authorizing the Public Prosecutor to ask the criminal courts to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union that has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service; and

(iii)  section 14(i) of Act No. 12 of 1995 requiring the General Confederation to approve the organization of strike action.

The Committee notes in this respect the Government’s reference once again to a draft Labour Code. It trusts that this Code will be adopted in the near future and that it will ensure full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. It requests the Government to transmit a copy of the new draft Labour Code as soon as it is adopted.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee had requested the Government to amend section 19(f) of Act No. 12 of 1995 so that all workers are able to join more than one organization, if they so wish, in order to be able to defend their occupational interests in cases where they are engaged in more than one occupation. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report to the effect that it considers it to be unlikely that a worker could join a general trade union while at the same time exercising another activity outside the occupational classification. The Government adds that, even where a worker exercises more than one activity in several workplaces, in such a case, that worker would have an occupation which was not outside the occupational classification of the general trade union of which she or he was a member. The worker concerned would therefore remain a member of one and the same trade union.

While noting the Government’s explanations, the Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, workers have the right to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. In the view of the Committee, this issue relates to the importance of ensuring that workers who hold more than one job are able to join a union to defend their occupational interests in each job category or occupation in which they work. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to amend the legislation to enable workers to join more than one organization, if they so wish, to defend their occupational interests in cases where they are engaged in more than one occupation.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It recalls that its previous comments related to the following matters.

1. Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to amend sections 7, 13 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as well as sections 14, 16, 17 and 41 of Act No. 12 of 1995 to ensure that all workers who so wish have the right to establish occupational organizations outside the existing trade union structure. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report to the effect that section 7 above provides that "the trade union structure is established in the form of a pyramid based on trade union unity". In its report, the Government emphasizes that trade union unity emanates from the will of the workers and is not imposed upon them.

With regard to section 13 of Act No. 35 of 1976, the Government states in its report that this provision establishes a classification of occupational groups for industries which are similar or interlinked, or which have a common product, on condition that each group of similar categories is entitled to establish a single general trade union at the level of the Republic. It appears that the workers have the right to join organizations enumerated in the legislation and to leave them, as indicated by the Government, but they do not have the right to establish or join an organization outside the established trade union structure. The Committee recalls in this respect the importance of the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing, and that this right is breached where the law maintains a trade union monopoly.

With regard to the right, referred to by the Government in an earlier report, of the General Confederation of Trade Unions to establish trade union organizations, the Committee recalled the primary importance that it attaches to the right of workers to establish and join organizations within the meaning of Article 2. Furthermore, the preference of the trade union movement for a unified system is not sufficient to justify a monopoly established by law. The Committee reiterates that, even where at some point all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should still remain free to choose to set up unions outside the established structures should they so wish (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 96). The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to ensure that sections 7, 13 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as well as sections 14, 16, 17 and 41 of Act No. 12 of 1995, are amended to secure for all workers the right, should they so wish, to establish occupational organizations at all levels outside the existing trade union structure and it requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures which have been taken or are envisaged in this respect.

2. Article 3. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned sections 41 and 42 of Act No. 12 of 1995. It also recalls that the procedures for the nomination and election to trade union office should be fixed by the rules of the organization concerned, and not by law or by the single trade union central organization designated by the law. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report to the effect that the General Confederation of Trade Unions confines itself to setting the dates of elections and the procedures for the selection of candidates, which is a purely organizational function and does not concern the authority of the confederation or the supervision of trade union organizations. The Government adds that the selection procedures for candidates and elections for trade union office must be determined by the specific rules of the trade union organizations and not by law or by a single trade union central organization with the support of the law. The Committee nevertheless recalls that section 41 above provides that the date and procedure for nomination and election to the executive boards of trade union organizations shall be determined by a decision of the competent minister, with the approval of the General Confederation of Trade Unions. Section 42 sets out the manner of filling vacancies and also permits the General Confederation to determine the conditions and modalities of the dissolution of such boards in the event of a reduction in the number of members. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will make the necessary amendments to ensure that each workers’ organization is able to elect its representatives in full freedom in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

With reference to sections 62 and 65, the Committee notes that, according to the Government’s statement, financial control is confined to general organizations and to the General Confederation of Trade Unions. The Committee recalls that it is contrary to Article 3 to empower the single central trade union organization designated by the law to exercise financial control. It once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that section 62, which provides that the Confederation shall determine the financial rules of trade unions and obliges lower level unions to pay a certain percentage of their income to higher level organizations, and section 65 of Act No. 12 of 1995, which provides that the confederation shall control all trade union activities, are amended so that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their administration, including their financial activities, without interference, in accordance with Article 3.

3. Articles 3 and 10. The Committee notes that the information provided in the Government’s report is the same as that supplied in its previous report. The Committee is therefore bound to recall its concerns regarding the following provisions:

(i)  sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 1981, providing for compulsory arbitration at the request of one of the parties in services other than those that are essential in the strict sense of the term;

(ii)  section 70(2)(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976 authorizing the Public Prosecutor to ask the criminal courts to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union that has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service; and

(iii)  section 14(i) of Act No. 12 of 1995 requiring the General Confederation to approve the organization of strike action.

With regard to sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, the Committee noted in its previous comment that the Government had referred to a new draft Labour Code establishing a system of mediation in the event of labour disputes, which may then lead to arbitration at the request of both parties. A new tripartite arbitration board was also to be created by the draft text. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the provisions of the new draft Labour Code mentioned by the Government and to report on the progress achieved in the adoption of the above text.

In relation to section 70(2)(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976, which provides for the dissolution of the executive committee of a trade union that has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service, the Government reiterates its statement that this section is limited to enterprises providing general services, public facilities or services responding to the needs of the population. The Committee recalls that it has always considered that any restriction or limitation on the right to strike should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see 1994 General Survey, paragraphs 158 and 159), and it considers that the scope of the enterprises covered by section 70(2)(b) goes beyond this definition. However, it recalls that, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than imposing an outright ban on strikes (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 160). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to amend section 70(2)(b) taking into account the above principles.

Finally, with regard to section 14(i) of Act No. 12 of 1995, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report to the effect that the General Confederation is empowered to approve the organization of a strike by workers. The Government adds that this prerogative supports and reinforces the objective of the trade union movement. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the requirement of the approval of the General Confederation to organize a strike is not in conformity with the Convention, as it denies first level organizations the right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes independently, including the decision on whether to call a strike. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend the legislation in order to bring it into conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, so that first level organizations have the right to organize all their activities, whatever they may be, without the imposition by law of the requirement of prior authorization by the General Confederation.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters.

Affiliation to more than one union

The Committee had requested the Government to amend section 19(f) of Act No. 12 of 1995 so that all workers are able to join more than one organization if they so wish, in order to be able to defend their occupational interests if they are engaged in more than one occupation. The Committee recalls that, pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, workers should have the right to join organizations of their own choosing, without previous authorization. In the view of the Committee, the issue touches not on trade union unity, but rather on the importance of ensuring that workers who hold more than one job are able to join a union to defend their occupational interests in each job category or occupation. So the Committee requests once again the Government to amend the legislation to enable workers to join more than one organization, if they so wish, to defend their occupational interests if they are engaged in more than one occupation.

Right to organize of public servants

In addition, the Committee recalls that, according to Article 2 of the Convention, freedom of association should be guaranteed not only to employers and workers in the private sector but also to public servants and officials, and to workers in nationalized industries. Persons in either category should be permitted to defend their interests by becoming organized. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report if there are legal provisions which guarantee the right to organize for civil servants and, if that is the case, to send all the relevant texts.

The Committee emphasizes that while the Convention guarantees the right to organize for civil servants, their corollary right to strike may be either limited or prohibited. In the view of the Committee, a too broad definition of the concept of public servants is likely to result in a very wide restriction or even a prohibition of the right to strike for these workers since the term "civil servants" varies considerably from one country to another. Therefore, the Committee has always considered that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 156-158). In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the legal provisions which guarantee the right to strike for civil servants other than those who are exercising authority in the name of the State.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It also notes that the Egyptian Trade Union Federation and the Federation of Egyptian Industries have taken note of the Government’s report and did not make any comment. The Committee hopes that the next report of the Government will include full information on the discrepancies between national legislation and the guarantees provided for in the Convention.

1.  Article 2 of the Convention.  In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that sections 7, 13 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as well as sections 14, 16, 17 and 41 of Act No. 12 of 1995, were amended so that all workers would have the right to establish, should they so wish, occupational organizations outside the existing trade union structure. Furthermore, the Committee recalled the importance of the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing which is violated where a trade union monopoly is maintained by law; even if workers have the right to join or withdraw from those organizations set out in the law, they are still denied the right to form and join organizations outside the existing trade union structure. With respect to a reference made by the Government in an earlier report that the General Confederation of Trade Unions is entitled to establish union organizations, the Committee recalled the primary importance it attaches to the right of workers to  form and join organizations under Article 2. In addition, the preference of the trade union movement for a unified system is not sufficient to justify a legal monopoly. The Committee reiterated that, where at some point all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should still remain free to choose to set up unions outside the established structures should they so wish (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 96). Therefore, the Committee once again urges the Government to ensure that sections 7, 13 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as well as sections 14, 16, 17 and 41 of Act No. 12 of 1995, are amended so that all workers will have the right, should they so wish, to establish occupational organizations outside the existing trade union structure, in conformity with Article 2.

2.  Article 3.  With reference to Act No. 12 of 1995, in its previous comments the Committee drew attention to the need to amend the following: (i) sections 41 and 42 to remove the power of the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions to exercise control over the nomination and election procedures for trade union office; (ii) sections 62 and 65 so that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their administration, including their financial activities, without interference from the public authorities. The Committee recalls that the procedures for nomination and election to trade union office should be fixed by the rules of the organization and not by law or by the single trade union central organization with the support of the law. The Committee, therefore, again requests the Government to take steps to ensure that sections 41 and 42 of Act No. 12 of 1995 are amended.

Concerning section 65, the Government confirmed in an earlier report that the process of financial control rests with the Confederation, while asserting that this was an improvement over the former provision which placed financial control in the hands of the Ministry of Manpower and Training. The  Committee considers that allowing the single central organization expressly designated by law to exercise financial control is contrary to Article 3. The Committee again requests the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that section 62, which obliges lower level unions to allocate a certain percentage of their income to higher level organizations, and section 65 of Act No. 12 of 1995, are amended so that workers’ organizations have the right to organize their administration, including their financial activities, in accordance with Article 3.

3.  Articles 3 and 10.  In its previous comments the Committee raised concerns with respect to the following provisions:

(i)  sections 93-106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 1981, providing for compulsory arbitration at the request of one party beyond services that are essential in the strict sense of the term;

(ii)  section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976 authorizing the Public Prosecutor to ask the criminal courts to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union that has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service;

(iii)  section 14(i) of Act No. 12 of 1995 requiring the General Union to approve the organization of strike action.

The Committee noted with interest that the Government had referred, in an earlier report, to a new draft Labour Code which introduces a system of mediation in the case of labour disputes, which can continue to arbitration at the request of both parties. A new tripartite arbitration body was also created. The Committee requests once again the Government to supply a copy of the provisions of the new draft Labour Code amending or repealing sections 93-106 of the Labour Code.

Concerning section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976, the Government indicated in an earlier report that the provision is in conformity with the Convention since it is limited to undertakings providing general services or public facilities or a given facility that responds to public needs. The Committee recalls that it has always considered that any restrictions or limitations on the right to strike should not go beyond public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 158 and 159), and requests the Government to take measures to ensure that section 70(b) is amended accordingly.

Finally, concerning section 14(i) of Act No. 12 of 1995, the Committee had noted that the legislation states that the General Union is to "approve" the organization of strike action by workers, and requiring such approval, even if regulatory in nature, is not in conformity with the Convention, as it denies first-level organizations the right to strike without seeking the authorization of the General Union. The Committee once again requests the Government to amend the legislation in order to bring it into closer conformity with the principles of freedom of association so that first-level organizations have the right to strike without having to seek the authorization of the General Union.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report.

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 19(f) of Act No. 12 of 1995 so that all workers are able to join more than one organization if they so wish, in order to be able to defend their occupational interests if they are engaged in more than one occupation. The Government states generally in response that Act No. 35 of 1976 and Act No. 12 of 1995 were promulgated to give effect to the will and aspirations of the workers. More specifically, the Government indicates that permitting a worker to join more than one union would affect the unity and strength of the trade union movement. The Committee recalls that pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, workers are to have the right to join organizations of their own choosing, without previous authorization. In the view of the Committee, the issue touches not on trade union unity, but rather on the importance of ensuring that workers who hold more than one job are able to join a union to defend their occupational interests in each job category or occupation. The Committee requests the Government to consider amending the legislation to enable workers to join more than one organization if they so wish, to defend their occupational interests if they are engaged in more than one occupation.

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

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report. The Committee notes that the Government has not yet remedied the discrepancies between the legislation and the Convention that have been raised by the Committee for a number of years, in relation to the obligation to ensure that workers have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing and that workers' organizations have the right to elect their representatives and organize their administration and activities in full freedom.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that sections 7, 13 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as well as sections 14, 16, 17 and 41 of Act No. 12 of 1995 were amended so that all workers would have the right to establish, should they so wish, occupational organizations outside the existing trade union structure.

The Government states in its report that section 13 of Act No. 35 of 1976 is compatible with the Convention since the section provides for the forming of a single country-wide "general" union of "workers and apprentices employed in occupational categories or industries that are similar, interrelated or engaged in the same type of production". The Government states that workers have the right to belong to unions at all levels pursuant to section 7 of the same Act, amended by Act No. 1 of 1981, which provides that "the union structure is established according to a pyramidal structure on the basis of the unity of the union" with the specific union organizations then being named in the legislation. The law empowers the General Confederation of Trade Unions to issue rules and procedures to establish union organizations, without any interference from the public authorities. The Government stresses that workers are free to join or withdraw from these unions, and that trade union unity is preferred by the union movement in Egypt, that trade union plurality, particularly at the level of the enterprise, would result in conflicts and weaken the trade union movement, as would allowing workers to join more than one general union.

The Committee recalls in this regard the importance of the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing which is violated where a trade union monopoly is maintained by law; even if workers have the right to join or withdraw from those organizations set out in the law, they are still denied the right to form and join organizations outside the existing trade union structure. With respect to the Government's reference to the General Confederation of Trade Unions being entitled to establish union organizations, the Committee recalls the primary importance it attaches to the right of workers to form and join organizations under Article 2. In addition, the preference of the trade union movement for a unified system is not sufficient to justify a legal monopoly. The Committee reiterates that where at some point all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should still remain free to choose to set up unions outside the established structures should they so wish (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 96). The Committee, therefore, urges the Government to ensure that sections 7, 13 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as well as sections 14, 16, 17 and 41 of Act No. 12 of 1995, are amended so that all workers will have the right, should they so wish, to establish occupational organizations outside the existing trade union structure, in conformity with Article 2.

2. Article 3. With reference to Act No. 12 of 1995, in its previous comments the Committee drew attention to the need to amend the following: (i) sections 41 and 42 to remove the power of the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions to exercise control over the nomination and election procedures for trade union office; (ii) sections 62 and 65 so that workers' organizations have the right to organize their administration, including their financial activities, without interference from the public authorities.

With respect to sections 41 and 42, the Government states that the role of the Confederation is limited to establishing timetables for elections and setting out the procedures for nomination; these roles being of an administrative and not a supervisory nature. The Government states further that the Confederation represents the union movement at the national level and has the role of directing the trade union movement. The Committee repeats its view that the procedures for nomination and election to trade union office should be fixed by the rules of the organization and not by law or by the single trade union central organization with the support of the law. The Committee, therefore, again requests the Government to take steps to ensure that sections 41 and 42 of Act No. 12 of 1995 are amended.

Concerning section 65, the Government confirms that the process of financial control rests with the Confederation, while asserting that this is an improvement over the former provision which placed financial control in the hands of the Ministry of Manpower and Training. The Committee recalls its view that allowing the single central organization expressly designated by law to exercise financial control is contrary to Article 3. The Committee again requests the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that section 62, which obliges lower-level unions to allocate a certain percentage of their income to higher-level organizations, and section 65 of Act No. 12 of 1995, are amended so that workers' organizations have the right to organize their administration, including their financial activities, in accordance with Article 3.

3. Articles 3 and 10. In its previous comments the Committee raised concerns with respect to the following provisions:

(i) sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 1981, providing for compulsory arbitration at the request of one party beyond services that are essential in the strict sense of the term;

(ii) section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976 authorizing the Public Prosecutor to ask the criminal courts to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union that has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service;

(iii) section 14(i) of Act No. 12 of 1995 requiring the General Union to approve the organization of strike action.

The Committee notes with interest that the Government refers to a new draft Labour Code which introduces a system of mediation in the case of labour disputes, which can continue to arbitration at the request of both parties. A new tripartite arbitration body is also created. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the provisions of the new draft Labour Code amending or repealing sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code.

Concerning section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976, the Government indicates that the provision is in conformity with the Convention since it is limited to undertakings providing general services or public facilities or a given facility that responds to public needs. The Committee is of the view that any restrictions or limitations on the right to strike should not go beyond public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 158 and 159), and requests the Government to take measures to ensure that section 70(b) is amended accordingly.

Finally, with reference to the Committee's previous comments on section 14(i) of Act No. 12 of 1995, the Government informs the Committee that the General Union's approval of the strike would support the union committee and strengthen it. According to the Government, obtaining authorization from the General Union is only a regulatory procedure, the aim of which is not to seek acceptance or refusal but to organize the strike process. The Committee recalls, however, that the legislation states clearly that the General Union is to "approve" the organization of strike action by workers, and requiring such approval, even if regulatory in nature, is not in conformity with the Convention, as it denies first-level organizations the right to strike without seeking the authorization of the General Union. The Committee requests the Government to amend the legislation in order to bring it into closer conformity with the principles of freedom of association so that first-level organizations have the right to strike without having to seek the authorization of the General Union.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the entry into force on 30 March 1995 of Act No. 12 of 1995 amending some provisions of the Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976.

1. The Committee notes that section 14(i) of Act No. 12 of 1995 requires the General Union "to approve the organization of strike action by workers in accordance with the rules laid down in the Labour Act". The Committee would recall that the right to strike is one of the essential means that should be available to workers and their organizations at all levels for the protection and promotion of their economic and social interests. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that this provision is amended so that first-level organizations have the right to strike without having to seek the authorization of the General Union.

2. The Committee notes that under the terms of section 19(f), workers are forbidden from becoming members of more than one general union even if they are engaged in more than one occupation. The Committee would draw the Government's attention to the fact that under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, workers have the right to join organizations of their own choosing, without previous authorization. The Committee requests the Government to take the appropriate steps to amend this provision so that all workers have the possibility of joining more than one organization if they so wish, so that they are able to defend their occupational interests if they are engaged in more than one occupation.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report as well as the entry into force on 30 March 1995 of Act No. 12 of 1995 amending some provisions of the Trade Union Act No. 35 of 1976. The Committee regrets that the new legislation still contains a number of discrepancies with the requirements of the Convention in relation to the obligation to ensure that workers have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing and that workers' organizations have the right to elect their representatives and organize their administration and activities in full freedom.

1. Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend:

(i) those provisions of Act No. 35 of 1976 on trade unions which institutionalized a single trade union system (sections 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 41 and 52);

(ii) those provisions which enabled the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions to control the nomination and election procedures for trade union office (section 41); and

(iii) those provisions which enabled the Confederation to control the financial administration of trade unions (sections 62 and 65).

(i) The Government states in its report that most of the above-mentioned provisions, apart from sections 7 and 13, were amended by Act No. 12 of 1995. The Government states that sections 7 and 13 of Act No. 35 of 1976 were not amended because the trade unions themselves believe that the trade union movement should be organized on a single union and hierarchical basis. The Committee would recall however that Convention No. 87 implies that pluralism should remain possible in all cases. Therefore, the law should not institutionalize a factual monopoly; even in a situation where at some point all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should still remain free to choose to set up unions outside the established structures should they so wish. Furthermore, the rights of workers who do not wish to join the existing trade unions or central organization should also be protected (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 96). The Committee also notes with regret that the remaining provisions which have been the subject of its comments for many years, namely sections 14, 16, 17 and 41, have not been amended in any meaningful manner by Act No. 12 of 1995, while section 52 has not been amended at all.

The Committee would therefore request the Government to ensure that sections 7, 13 and 52 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as well as sections 14, 16, 17 and 41 of Act No. 12 of 1995, are amended so that all workers will have the right to establish, should they so wish, occupational organizations outside the existing trade union structure, in conformity with Article 2 of the Convention.

(ii) The Committee further notes that the newly enacted sections 41 and 42 of Act No. 12 of 1995 still allow the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions to exercise control over the nomination and election procedures for trade union office. The Committee considers that provisions which allow supervision by the administrative authorities or the single trade union central organization of the election procedure, for example by requiring the acceptance or approval of elections or their results, are contrary to the principles of freedom of association (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 115). The Committee is of the view that the procedures for nomination and election to trade union office should be fixed by the rules of the organizations not by law in order to bring the legislation into conformity with Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take steps to ensure that sections 41 and 42 of Act No. 12 of 1995 are amended in line with the above comments.

(iii) Furthermore, the Committee notes with regret that sections 62 and 65 of Act No. 35 of 1976 have not been amended very substantially by Act No. 12 of 1995. The new section 62 of Act No. 12 of 1995 still contains the obligation for lower-level unions to allocate a certain percentage of their income to higher-level organizations. Moreover, the newly enacted section 65 stipulates, amongst other things, that "... the Trade Union Confederation shall exercise sole financial supervision of trade union organizations, and, to that end, may seek assistance from the organs of the Ministry of Manpower and Employment". The Committee would once again remind the Government that the above provisions, which specify the proportion of union funds that have to be paid to higher-level organizations and which allow the single central organization expressly designated by the law to exercise financial control, are contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that sections 62 and 65 of Act No. 12 of 1995 are amended so that workers' organizations have the right to organize their administration, including their financial activities, without interference from the public authorities.

2. Articles 3 and 10. The Committee's previous comments referred to the need to repeal or amend sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 6 August 1981, concerning compulsory arbitration at the request of one party outside services which are essential in the strict sense of the term, and section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976 on the Public Prosecutor's authority to ask the criminal courts to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union which has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service.

The Government states in its report that the Committee's comments have been taken into consideration in the new draft Labour Code. The Committee hopes that any restrictions or prohibitions on the right to strike contained in the draft Labour Code are limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety, or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 158 and 159). The Committee requests the Government to supply, along with its next report, a copy of the provisions of the new draft Labour Code which repeal or amend sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 6 August 1981, and section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976.

In addition a direct request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

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

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

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee refers to its previous comments on the need to repeal or amend the provisions of Act No. 35 of 1976 on trade unions as amended by Act No. 1 of 1981, which Act institutionalizes a single trade union system (sections 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 41, 52 and 65) and establishes that the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions controls the nomination and election procedures for trade union office and the financial management of trade unions (sections 41 and 62), contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that the Act in question is in the process of being revised by the parties having a direct interest, i.e. the trade unions, without interference by the Government. The Government adds that the committee in charge of preparing amendments has been informed of the Committee's observations. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the planned amendments will establish the right of all workers and all employers to form, should they so wish, industrial organizations outside the existing trade union structure, and the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to handle their financial activities without interference from the public authorities.

Articles 3 and 10. The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the need to repeal or amend sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 6 August 1981 on compulsory arbitration at the request of one party outside services which are essential in the strict sense of the term, and section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976 on the Public Prosecutor's authority to ask the criminal courts to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union which has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service. The Committee hopes that any restrictions or prohibitions on the right to strike contained in the legislation will be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraphs 158 and 159).

The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to bring all the legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

With reference to its previous comments concerning the restrictions on the possibility of standing for election or being appointed to the chairmanship or membership of management committees of trade union organizations or federations, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that section 4 of Act No. 95 of 1980 on the protection of values only applies to persons who have been convicted of: (i) having called for the rejection of holy laws; (ii) having incited young persons to misbehave by calling for them to free themselves from religious values or loyalty to the country; (iii) having published or disseminated news, information or rumours which are false, controversial or constitute provocative propaganda.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its future reports on the effect given in practice to this section.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

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

1. The Committee notes with regret that, despite the assurances given by the Government in its previous report that it was undertaking the revision of the national legislation and that meetings had been organized for this purpose with high-level officials of the ILO with a view to bringing its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention, the Government confines itself to reiterating the comments and information provided previously.

In these conditions, the Committee is bound to recall that for several years its comments have dealt with the need to repeal or amend the following provisions of its legislation:

(a) sections 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 31, 41, 52 and 65 of Act No. 35 of 1976 on trade unions, as amended by Act No. 1 of 1981, which institutionalize a single trade union system, contrary to Article 2 of the Convention, which provides that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Committee also recalls that workers must be able, if they so wish, to establish trade union organizations outside the existing trade union structure;

(b) sections 41 and 62 of the same Act on the control exercised by the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions over the nomination and election procedures for trade union office and the financial management of trade unions, contrary to Article 3 which provides that workers' and employers' organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration;

(c) sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 6 August 1981, on compulsory arbitration at the request of one party, which go beyond essential services in the strict sense of the term, and section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976 on the powers of the public prosecutor to request the criminal courts to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union which has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service, which is contrary to the right of workers and their organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes to defend their economic, social and professional interests, including by means of a strike, without interference by the public authorities, in accordance with the principles contained in Articles 3 and 10. In this connection, the Committee notes with interest the draft text of the Labour Code, section 183 of which provides that a dispute may only be submitted to arbitration at the request of both parties. Noting however that section 182 of the draft text provides that a dispute which arises in an establishment which provides "vital services" (which shall be determined by the Prime Minister under section 199(2) of the draft text) in which strikes are forbidden, can still be submitted to arbitration at the request of one party, the Committee recalls that any restrictions, or prohibition on the right to strike should be confined to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paras. 158 and 159).

2. The Committee also notes that the Act respecting "guarantees for democracy" in professional union associations, adopted on 17 February 1993, regulates in a too detailed manner the right of trade unions to freely elect their representatives (for example, length of trade union office, control of elections, quorum). Committee recalls that it should be left to trade unions to regulate their election procedures in their constitutions or rules, and that the law should be confined to guaranteeing that democratic rules are respected.

3. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures which have been taken to bring the whole of the above legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

4. The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government concerning Act No. 95 of 1980 on "the protection of values".

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. While the Committee was in session, the legislative text on professional organizations of 17 February 1993 was received by the Office. The Committee proposes examining it at its next session.

It recalls that the divergencies between the national legislation and the Convention concern the following points:

- sections 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 31, 41, 52 and 65 of Act No. 35 of 1976 on trade unions, as amended by Act No. 1 of 1981, which institutionalize a single trade union system;

- sections 41 and 62 of the same Act on the control exercised by the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions over the nomination and election procedures for trade union office and the financial management of trade unions;

- sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 6 August 1981, on compulsory arbitration at the request of one party, which go beyond essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population;

- section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976 on the powers of the Public Prosecutor to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union which has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service;

- section 4 of Act No. 95 of 1980 on the protection of values, under which a person may be banned for a period ranging from six months to five years from standing for election or being appointed to the chairmanship or membership of management committees of trade union organizations or federations.

The Committee takes due note of the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that it is currently embarking upon the revision of the national legislation. The Committee also notes that meetings have been organized for this purpose with senior ILO officials in the context of the examination of structural changes, the development of the public sector, the promotion of the private sector and the participation of the ILO in examining the possibility of unifying the labour legislation and bringing it into conformity with international labour Conventions and Recommendations.

The Government states that the Ministry of Manpower and Training has established working groups to re-examine ratified Conventions relating to the protection of workers with a view to ensuring their strict application and to avoid observations being made by the Committee concerning them.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the above working groups, based on the comments which it has been making for many years, will endeavour to adopt the necessary provisions as soon as possible in order to guarantee to all workers the right to establish, if they so wish, trade union organizations outside the existing trade union structure and to recognize the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to administer the finances of their activities without interference by the public authorities, as well as to confine restrictions on the right to strike which go beyond the limitations which are compatible with the principles of freedom of association.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

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

With reference to its previous direct request concerning Act No. 95 of 1980 on the protection of values, under which a person may be banned for a period ranging from six months to five years, from standing for election or being appointed to the chairmanship or membership of management committees of trade union organisations or federations, the Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, these provisions are a means of upholding the Constitution and the legislation safeguarding the rights and religious values of the people, the basic political, economic, social and moral principles and thereby national unity and social peace.

The Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the practical application of these provisions in its future reports and, in particular, copies of any judgements handed down by virtue of Act No. 95 of 1980.

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

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its report. It recalls that, for many years, its comments have addressed the following points:

1. The single trade union system laid down by law. The Committee has pointed out several times that sections 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 31, 41, 52 and 65 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended, institutionalise a single trade union system, which is incompatible with Article 2 of the Convention. In its report, the Government indicates that the above provisions are being examined in co-operation with the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions in order to assess the extent to which they are in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee takes due note of this information but recalls that the provisions in question are at variance with Article 2 of the Convention, the principle of which is not intended as an expression of support either for trade union unity or trade union pluralism. However, trade union pluralism must remain possible in all cases and the legislation must safeguard the workers' freedom to set up, should they so wish, unions outside the established trade union structure. The Committee trusts that upon conclusion of the above-mentioned examination, the Government will adopt the necessary provisions to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and asks it to indicate the measures taken to this end in its next report.

2. The regulation of the internal management and activities of trade unions. With reference to its previous observation on the control exercised by the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions over the nomination and election procedure for trade union office (section 41 of Act No. 35 of 1976) and over the financial management of trade unions (section 62 of the same Act), the Committee notes that consultations are currently being held with the representatives of the Confederation and that the Government will shortly communicate its reply on this matter.

The Committee recalls that according to Article 3 of the Convention, the legislation should allow such matters to be dealt with in the constitutions and rules of trade unions at all levels, and asks the Government to communicate its reply on this matter promptly upon conclusion of the consultations.

3. Compulsory arbitration at the request of one party; broad powers of the Public Prosecutor to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union that has provoked work stoppages in non-essential public services. With reference to its previous comments on compulsory arbitration at the request of one party (sections 93-106 of the Labour Code, amended by Act No. 137 of 6 August 1981) and on the powers of the Public Prosecutor to remove from office the executive committee of a trade union that has provoked work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service (section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976), the Committee observes that, according to the Government, the right to strike is guaranteed in the legislation and is organised in such a way as not to jeopardise national security, particularly in cases where a strike is harmful to the country's vital economic interests. The Government adds that, in its opinion, this is accepted by the Committee and is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Convention.

With regard to the last point, the Committee must again refer the Government to the comments it has repeatedly made, and recall that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations to promote and protect their economic and social interests (Article 10 of the Convention) and organise their activities (Article 3). Restrictions or limitations on the right to strike are only compatible with the Convention if they are confined to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or to essential services in the strict sense of the term (and not public services in general) whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to adopt provisions to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention, and requests it to indicate the measures taken in this respect in its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee takes note of Act No. 95 of 1980 on the protection of values. It notes in particular that trade union organisations are among the organisations or institutions responsible for protecting and upholding the fundamental values of the nation embodied in the principles laid down in the Constitution and the legislation safeguarding the rights and religious values of the people, the basic political, economic, social and moral principles, the authentic nature of the Egyptian family with all its values and traditions, national unity and social peace. To this end, any individual recognised as being guilty of failing to respect these fundamental values shall be banned, notwithstanding any penal or administrative sentence, for a period ranging from six months to five years, from standing for election or being appointed to the chairmanship or membership of management committees of trade union organisations or federations (sections 1, 2 and 4(2) of Act No. 95 of 1980).

The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that, when a person is banned by law from holding trade union office due to a conviction on account of activities, the nature of which is not such as to call into question the integrity of the person concerned and does not affect the exercise of trade union functions, the right of trade union organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention is not respected (see paragraphs 161-164 of the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining).

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would point out which provisions of the national legislation and what types of behaviour are affected by the above-mentioned sections of Act No. 95 of 1980 and provide information on the practical effect given to these provisions. The Government is requested, in particular, to provide the text of any sentence handed down by virtue of Act No. 95 of 1980.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report and the modifications to the draft amendment to the Trade Union Act, No. 35 of 1976, which, with regard to certain points, constitute progress towards a better implementation of the Convention.

1. The single trade union system laid down by law. In its previous observations, the Committee noted that sections 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 31, 41, 52 and 65 of Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended, institutionalised a single trade union system, contrary to the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the draft legislation provides for amendments to sections 13, 14, 31, 41 and 52 which make progress towards greater autonomy for trade union committees and general trade unions vis-à-vis the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions, which is the highest body in the trade union structure. However, the Government once again states that the principle of a single trade union system, as laid down in sections 7, 16, 17 and 65, will be maintained in so far as this type of organisation represents the wish of the workers and corresponds to the needs of many countries, including developing countries, of which Egypt is one.

In this connection, the Committee is bound to recall that the principle set forth in the Convention is not an expression of support either for trade union unity or for trade union pluralism; however, the Convention implies that pluralism should be possible in all cases. Consequently, the legislation should guarantee workers the possibility of setting up, should they so wish in the future, unions outside the existing trade union structure. The Committee trusts that the Government will continue to examine the national legislation with a view to amending the above provisions in accordance with the principles guaranteed by the Convention.

2. Regulation of the internal management and activities of trade unions. With regard to the provisions of Act No. 35 of 1976 respecting the regulation of the internal management and activities of trade unions, in relation to which the Committee has noted discrepancies with the principles set forth in Article 3 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the proposed amendments to sections 23 (the exclusion of the unemployed and retired persons from the right to organise) and 36(c) of Act No. 35 of 1976 (the obligation to have been a member of a trade union organisation for one year in order to be elected to office) are in line with its comments.

Concerning the control exercised by the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions over the nomination and election procedures to the executive committees of trade union organisations (section 41 of Act No. 35 of 1976) and over the financial administration of trade union organisations (section 62 of Act No. 35 of 1976), it is proposed to entrust these powers to the general assembly of the Confederation of Egyptian Trade Unions on the grounds that in practice it represents all workers' trade unions.

While taking note of the proposed change, the Committee is of the opinion that this amendment does not fully comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, which guarantees trade union organisations the right to organise their administration in full freedom. The Committee requests the Government to leave these matters to the rules of trade unions.

3. Compulsory arbitration and the broad powers of the public prosecutor to call for the removal from office of the executive committee of a trade union that is responsible for work stoppages. In its previous observations, the Committee noted that the procedure for the settlement of disputes laid down in sections 93 to 106 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 137 of 6 August 1981, by enabling one of the parties to the dispute, namely the employer, to resort to compulsory conciliation and arbitration, was liable to result in a restriction on the right to strike.

It also noted that section 70(b) of Act No. 35 of 1976 empowers a criminal tribunal, at the request of the Public Prosecutor, to dissolve the executive committee of a trade union organisation that has provoked work stoppages or deliberate absenteeism in a public service or public utility.

In its report, the Government indicates that the right to strike is guaranteed by law and has been regulated so as not to prejudice the security and economic stability of the country.

The Committee points out, in this connection, that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests (Article 10 of the Convention) and for the organisation of their activities ( Article 3 of the Convention). The Committee trusts that measures will be taken to safeguard the full exercise of this right by all workers, subject only to the prohibitions which may be laid down in the case of public employees acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is where the interruption of their activities due to strike action would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

4. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that have been taken to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.