Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1994, Publication: 81st ILC session (1994)

A Government representative first of all stated that in his country freedom of association was guaranteed by section 16.1 of the Trade Union Act of 1992. This Act prohibited that a request to join or to leave a trade union be refused. Joining and leaving a trade union were finalized immediately upon request. This section must be read together with section 13 of the Manpower Act, which provided for the registration of candidates for posts. There were no constraints in that Act to membership or non-membership of a trade union. Section 9 of the same Act also stipulated that an unemployed person with the capacity and desire to work could register with the employment service concerned upon presentation of the necessary documentation. Secondly, section 13(b) stipulated that any enterprise employing ten or more persons that wished to employ a person covered by this Act could request to the corresponding employment service to recruit a person qualified for that job. With regard to the question of stability of employment and the prevention of discrimination with regard to workers and their trade union organizations, section 3, subsection 2 of the Act of 1992 prohibited the employer from disciplining any member of a trade union because of that person's trade union activities. Thirdly, with regard to the protection of trade union organizations, section 24 of the Trade Union Act of 1992 stipulated that the employer could not impose any financial or other penalties or sanctions in order to make a person join or leave a trade union organization, and the employer could not interfere in the internal affairs of trade union organizations. Fourthly, with regard to the necessity of adopting measures in order to promote collective bargaining negotiations, section 11 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976 provided that in the case of a labour dispute, the two parties to the dispute were required, within a period of two weeks, to launch negotiations in order to reach a voluntary settlement to the dispute within three weeks from the start of such negotiations. He concluded by insisting on the importance his Government attached to the dialogue with this Committee and expressed its readiness to cooperate with it and with the Committee of Experts in order to serve the objectives of this Organization.

The Workers' members pointed out that although the brevity of the observation of the Committee of Experts on this case might be interpreted to obscure the very serious character of the violations of Convention No. 98 involved in this case, nothing could be further from the truth. They recalled that the experts' observation was not based upon a report from the Government, but on the conclusion of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1508, adopted in November 1992. The comments of the Committee of Experts on this case suggested that there had been a violent and almost total elimination of trade union rights in Sudan. For a better understanding of this case, they considered it was necessary to look at the facts and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1508 on which the Committee of Experts relied in reaching its conclusions. This revealed that the complaint was filed in October 1989 with the Committee on Freedom of Association by the WFTU, the ICFTU and the International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees alleging severe repression of trade union activities following the June 1989 coup d'ítat including the dissolution of all trade union organizations in the country, the detention of numerous trade union leaders, the confiscation of union assets and property by the military and the sentencing to death of a trade union leader for calling a doctors' strike. The Committee on Freedom of Association concluded that there was, first, a denial by the new Trade Union Act of trade union rights to certain public servants; second, the imposition of a system of trade union monopoly imposed by legislation; third, government interference in union activities and elections; fourth, suspension or dissolution of trade union organizations by administrative authorities; and finally, lack of sufficient protection afforded to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. In view of the seriously troubling aspects of this case, they wished to ask the Government representative to inform them about any corrective measures taken or contemplated to amend the new Trade Union Act and thus ensure workers' rights under the Convention. Thus far, what they had heard from the Government representative was really a restatement of the current law and not a response to the comments of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Employers' members noted that up until now this Committee had not dealt with Sudan under Convention No. 98. They recalled however that in the last few years it had repeatedly dealt with this country on other subjects, such as under Convention No. 29, on forced labour where considerable problems were encountered and clear violations noted. This year it was certainly timely to deal with this country under Convention No. 98, the application of which posed serious problems. The statement of the Government representative did not in any way respond to the points raised by the Committee of Experts regarding the non-compliance, in law and practice, by Sudan with fundamental principles of freedom of association. They fully supported the views of the Workers' members and felt that if no concrete replies were not provided by the Government, at least in its next report, this Committee should reserve its right to come back to it next year in order to see whether important changes had occurred.

The Workers' member of New Zealand noted that the experts' comments on this case were brief but absolutely unequivocal. These comments recorded the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association which expressed concern at the numerous and serious incompatibilities of the 1990 Trade Union Act with the principles of freedom of association, and in particular the lack of protection afforded to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. Since the introduction of the new Act and the issuing of the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, it appeared that the events in Sudan over the past 18 months had in fact confirmed the worst fears expressed concerning the likely impact of the Act. Moreover, the Government had interfered in trade union activities and trade unionists had been arrested, detained, tortured and forced into exile. The speaker was heartened by the statement of the Government representative when he said that his Government wanted to work very closely with this Committee and with the Committee on Freedom of Association to fulfil the requirements of the Convention. She felt, however, that if any practical change were to occur, then this Committee needed to express its views in the strongest possible terms.

The Workers' member of Togo emphasized that the violation of trade union rights constituted a violation of human rights. The situation in Sudan preoccupied independent African organizations which worried that these violations could spread and threaten the whole system of standards.

The Workers' member of Sudan spoke as Secretary-General of the Sudanese Confederation of Trade Unions and thanked the Government representative for his explanations before describing the trade union situation in his country. The merging of all of the sectoral and various levels of unions decided upon by the Trade Union Conference of 1990 was in response to a more general objective of efficiency and independence as regards political parties. The law counted for less than the power of the trade union movement: it was thanks to the power of its conviction that the movement obtained the modification of the minimum wage from the Government. This Committee, in its work of defence of social justice, should avoid to treat developing countries in the same manner as industrialized countries. Those countries need technical assistance to provide them a fair base.

The Workers' member of Germany, reacting to the Workers' member of Sudan, considered that a situation of imposed trade union monopoly did not indicate a great respect of the right to organize, which necessarily involved the free choice of union affiliation. When the law provided for a single trade union, neither trade union independence nor freedom of association was respected. This Committee should clearly point out that this was a grave violation of human rights.

The Workers' member of Sudan, in response to the Workers' member of Germany, stated that the trade union unity in his country had not been imposed by law but had been decided upon spontaneously by elected representatives.

The Workers' member of Greece, reacting to the Workers' member of Sudan, stated that it was not useful to come to help the Government representative in the elements not reflecting the reality. The real trade union situation in Sudan had been explained to the Workers' group by a Sudanese trade unionist in exile, which was characterized by the absence of freedom of expression and of freedom of association. It was not by prohibiting workers from freely explaining themselves that a country hoped to progress in its development.

Another Government representative of Sudan replied that the National Salvation Revolution did not dissolve the trade unions, but only re-examined political and social organizations and set-ups. With regard to trade unions and the revision of their structure, it should be noted that they were suspended for a period of only two months, after which they resumed their activities in full freedom. They held a large conference in 1990 in the course of which the workers laid down a new strategy for trade union activities to allow workers to enjoy their trade union rights. This dialogue gave birth to a tripartite committee which drew up draft trade union legislation endorsed by the competent authorities. He considered that the views expressed in this Committee were not pertinent to the question of whether his Government was applying Convention No. 98. In his view this was being done satisfactorily regarding discrimination and the right to collective bargaining. With respect to the violations raised in the Committee on Freedom of Association they said the Government had provided that Committee in 1993 with a detailed reply containing explanations on the provisions of the law. The Committee had not yet considered or examined this reply. In his view therefore the dialogue was continuing. He further wished to add that in Sudan they did not have detainees at present and that if anyone was interested to ascertain this he would be most welcome to do so.

The Employers' members considered that the discussion had shown that their proposals to have a complete report on all the individual points raised were urgently required in order to permit the re-examination of the situation in Sudan as soon as possible.

The Workers' members supported the views expressed by the Employers' members that this case needed to be examined again next year. They emphasized the gravity of the situation and expressed the hope that that would be reflected in the conclusions of this Committee in view of the fact that one of the allegations included the death and torture of a trade union leader. Were it not for the fact that it was being discussed for the first time they would certainly have requested that it be put in a Special Paragraph.

The Government representative of Sudan reiterated the fact that the issue under discussion was pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association which Committee had been provided with a report. The issue regarding the death of a trade unionist was raised within the said Committee and a reply provided. He said he would convey the observations of this Committee to his Government.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion that took place in the Committee. The Committee would like to remind the Government of the need to make in-depth modifications in its national legislation and practice to ensure the application of the Convention. The Committee noted with concern several complaints had been submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning, in particular, serious acts of anti-trade union discrimination. The Committee would reiterate the importance that it attached to the interdependence that existed between civil rights and freedom of association, and it could not overemphasize the fact that the guarantees stipulated in the Convention could not be effective unless they were truly recognized and protected as part of civil and political freedoms. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would, as of next year, submit a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that workers and their organizations had true protection against acts of anti-trade union discrimination and against acts of interference, as well as to promote voluntary negotiation of collective bargaining agreements, with a view to regulating employment conditions between employers and workers in Sudan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in communications of 26 August 2009 and 26 August 2010, referring to the issues the Committee has been raising for a number of years and in particular, trade union monopoly controlled by the Government, denial of trade union rights in the export processing zones (EPZs) and nearly non-existent collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its observation on similar 2008 ITUC comments. The Committee notes the Government’s reply denying the ITUC allegations, which it considers general, unfounded and mostly political. It also notes the observations of the Sudanese Businessmen and Employers Federation (SBEF) and the Sudan Workers Trade Unions Federation (SWTUF). According to the SBEF, Sudanese society is characterized by an active involvement of trade union organizations, which enjoy full freedom in carrying out their activities and participate in tripartite activities, as partners of tripartite social dialogue. Finally, the SBEF indicates that it collaborates with workers and enjoys the right to bilateral negotiations to determine the conditions of work and service in conformity with the legislative provisions in force. The SWTUF concurs with the SBEF. It denies the ITUC comments and stresses the independence of the Sudanese trade union movement, the efficiency of its bodies and its democratic structure. The Committee notes that a new Trade Union Act had been adopted on 28 January 2010. The Committee requests the Government to send this legislation and to indicate if it maintains trade union monopoly.

Violence against trade unionists and repression of trade union rights. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed its deep concern over the allegations of harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest, detention and torture made by the ITUC. The Committee had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the personal safety of trade unionists and ensure respect for the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government points out that these issues are of a political nature and are not related to the Convention. In this respect, the Committee recalls the Resolution of 1970 concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties which recognizes that “the rights conferred upon workers’ and employers’ organizations must be based on respect for those civil liberties which have been enunciated in particular in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that the absence of these civil liberties removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights”. The Resolution refers, in particular, to the right to freedom and security of person and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention. The Committee notes with concern the most recent allegations of the ITUC on brutal and fatal repression of workers in the oil sector, who demanded improved working conditions, by security forces. The Committee notes that the Government states that no arrests of workers have occurred at the company in question. The Committee points out that, according to the ITUC, two workers were shot and injured. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC allegations. It urges the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to guarantee the personal safety of trade unionists and ensure respect for the rights enshrined in the Convention. Recalling that trade union rights can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence and intimidation, the Committee requests the Government to ensure observance of civil liberties and human rights.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had observed that section 112 of the 1997 Labour Code allowed referral of a collective dispute or a collective labour dispute to compulsory arbitration and had requested the Government to take measures to amend the legislation so that arbitration may only be compulsory with the agreement of both parties, or in the case of essential services. The Committee notes that the ITUC comments also refer to this issue. In this respect, the Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that a new Labour Code was being prepared (the Committee understands that the reference was made to the draft Labour Code for Northern Sudan) and requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this respect. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the law currently in force is the Labour Code of 1997, which provides for optional phases of resolving conflicts and that a draft Labour Code was sent to the ILO Office in Cairo for review, advice and comments. The Committee has been informed that the Office has indeed provided its assistance with regard to the draft Labour Act of Southern Sudan, section 117(1) of which stipulates that parties “may agree” to refer their dispute to arbitration, however no request for assistance was formally made with regard to the draft Labour Code for Northern Sudan, which is currently pending before the Federal Assembly. The Committee expresses the hope that the new Labour Code (for Northern Sudan) will ensure that compulsory arbitration may only be permitted with the agreement of both parties or in the case of essential services. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the said Code as well as a copy of the Labour Act of Southern Sudan, once these legislative texts are adopted.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee previously noted the ITUC’s allegation that collective bargaining was nearly non-existent and that salaries were set by a government-appointed and controlled tripartite body. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Higher Council for Wages, a body responsible for preparing collective agreements and studies on minimum wages, has a tripartite structure. The Government further indicates that it is up to employers and workers at the level of undertaking, factory, province and industry to engage in open bargaining between each other in order to reach agreements which determine their wages. The Government states that there are many collective agreements attesting to it and provides a copy of one such agreement. The Committee requests the Government to keep providing information on the application of the right of collective bargaining in practice, including the number of existing collective agreements as well as the sectors and workers covered, as well as the ways the authorities promote the exercise of this right.

Scope of the application of the Convention. On the issue of trade union rights in the EPZs, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that legislative texts clearly determine the exempted categories of workers employed in the oil exporting zones and the Port of Sudan. The Committee requests the Government to transmit the relevant legislative texts.

The Committee recalls that the only possible exemptions from the application of the Convention are the armed forces, police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers engaged in the EPZs and the Port of Sudan can enjoy the rights provided to them under the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication of 29 August 2008. The ITUC underscores that the legislation establishes a trade union monopoly controlled by the Government. The Committee recalls in this respect that such a trade union monopoly obstructs the exercise of the rights enshrined in the Convention. The ITUC also indicates that the export processing zone (EPZ) is exempt from the labour laws. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations regarding the ITUC’s comments.

Violence against trade unionists and repression of trade union rights. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Case No. 1843, examined in March 1998, had referred to numerous arrests and detentions frequently followed by acts of torture against trade unionists, as well as acts of interference by the Government in trade union activities. In this respect, the Committee notes that the comments of the ITUC indicate that trade unionists have been the subject of harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest, detention and torture. The Committee deplores that, once again, the Government’s report does not contain any information on these serious issues and recalls that trade union rights cannot be exercised in the absence of respect for human rights. The Committee further considers that the Government’s silence represents a form of admission, in view of the observations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in 1998. The Committee expresses its deep concern over the gravity of these allegations, particularly in view of the observations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the personal safety of trade unionists and ensure respect for the rights enshrined in the Convention and to answer to the comments made by the ITUC.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had observed on many occasions that section 16 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976, and also section 112 of the Labour Code, allowed referral of a collective dispute or a collective labour dispute to compulsory arbitration and had requested the Government to take measures to amend the legislation so that arbitration may only be compulsory with the agreement of both parties, or in the case of essential services. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Industrial Relations Act has been annulled, and that a new Labour Code was being prepared that would take into account the Committee’s comments on section 112 of the present Labour Code. The Government further states that it has sent a draft of the proposed code to the ILO Subregional Office in Cairo for its assistance in identifying the provisions that are in conflict with international labour standards. The Committee expresses the hope that the new Labour Code will ensure that compulsory arbitration may only be permitted with the agreement of both parties or in the case of essential services; it requests the Government to indicate the progress made with respect to the preparation of the new labour code, and to provide a copy of the said law upon its adoption. The Committee further requests the Government to transmit a copy of the instrument annulling the Industrial Relations Act of 1976.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes that the latest comments of the ITUC reiterate that collective bargaining is nearly non-existent in Sudan and that salaries are set by a government-appointed and controlled tripartite body. Regretting that, once again, the Government has not provided its observations thereon, the Committee again requests the Government to provide its observations respecting this matter. It also requests the Government to promote collective bargaining in the country and to send information on the application of the right of collective bargaining in practice, including the number of existing collective agreements as well as the sectors and workers covered thereunder.

The Committee once again stresses the gravity of these matters and expresses the hope that the Government will address all its attention to their resolution.

[The Government is requested to report in detail in 2009.]

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and regrets to observe that it contains only the text of a collective agreement. It further notes the comments submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on 10 August 2006, which refer mainly to issues previously raised by the Committee and also alleges that the export processing zone (EPZ) is exempt from the labour laws. The Committee hopes that a report will be supplied that contains full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Violence against trade unionists and repression of trade union rights. In its last comments, the Committee had noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Case No. 1843, examined in March 1998, had referred to numerous arrests and detentions frequently followed by acts of torture against trade unionists, as well as acts of interference by the Government in trade union activities. In this respect, the Committee notes that the last comments of the ICFTU indicate that trade unionists have been the subject of harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest, detention and torture. The Committee deplores that the Government’s report does not contain any information on these serious issues and recalls that trade union rights cannot be exercised in the absence of respect for human rights. Considering the gravity of these allegations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the personal safety of trade unionists and ensure respect of the rights enshrined in the Convention and to answer to the comments made by the ICFTU.

Article 4. 1. The Committee recalls that it had observed on many occasions that section 16 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976, and also section 112 of the new Labour Code, allowed referral of a collective dispute or a collective labour dispute to compulsory arbitration and had requested the Government to take measures to amend the legislation so that arbitration may only be compulsory with the agreement of both parties or in the case of essential services. The Committee, once again, requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislation in this sense so as to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that the comments made by the ICFTU indicate that collective bargaining is nearly non-existent in Sudan and that salaries are set by a government-appointed and controlled tripartite body. The Committee observes with concern that the Government limits itself to providing a copy of a collective agreement and requests the Government to answer to these comments and to send information on the application of the right of collective bargaining in practice, including the number of existing collective agreements as well as the sectors and workers covered.

3. The Committee stresses the gravity of these matters and expresses the hope that the Government will address all its attention to the abovementioned matters.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the adoption of the Trade Unions Act of 2001. It notes with satisfaction that this new Trade Unions Act includes provisions - transmitted by the Government - that protect against acts of anti-union discrimination or interference including dissuasive sanctions and requests the Government to send a copy of this Act. The Committee also notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 18 September 2002.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. In its last comments, the Committee had noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Case No. 1843, examined in March 1998, had referred to numerous arrests and detentions frequently followed by acts of torture against trade unionists, as well as acts of interference by the Government in trade union activities. In this respect, the Committee notes that the last comments of the ICFTU indicate that trade unionists have been the subject of harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest, detention and torture. The Committee deplores that the Government’s report does not contain any information on these serious issues and recalls that trade union rights cannot be exercised in the absence of respect for human rights. Considering the gravity of these allegations, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the respect of rights enshrined by the Convention and to answer to the comments made by the ICFTU.

Article 4. 1. The Committee recalls that it had observed on many occasions that section 16 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976, and also section 112 of the new Labour Code, allowed referral of a collective dispute or a collective labour dispute to compulsory arbitration and had requested the Government to take measures to amend the legislation so that arbitration may only be compulsory with the agreement of both parties or in the case of essential services. Noting that the Government’s report does not contain any information on this issue, the Committee, once again, requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislation in this sense so as to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that the comments made by the ICFTU indicate that collective bargaining is nearly non-existent in Sudan and that salaries are set by a government-appointed and controlled body. The Committee requests the Government to answer to these comments and to send information on the application of the right of collective bargaining in practice, including the number of existing collective agreements as well as the sectors and workers concerned.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It also notes the communication of 14 January 2001 from the Sudan Workers’ (Legitimate) Trade Union’s Federation. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the matters raised in this communication.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that the tripartite committee established to revise the Trade Union Act of 1992 had drawn up a draft Act which took account of the Committee’s observations which had been submitted to the Attorney General. The Committee had expressed the firm hope that the draft would strengthen the protection of workers and trade union organizations, through rapid, effective procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against anti-union discrimination and acts of interference, and had asked the Government to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee notes that the Trade Union Act of 1992 has been replaced by the Trade Union Act of 2001, a copy of which has been sent to the Committee but not yet received by it. The Committee notes the adoption of the new Act and intends to examine the legislation once it has been received.

In its previous observation, the Committee had noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Case No. 1843, examined in March 1998, had referred to numerous arrests and detentions frequently followed by acts of torture against trade unionists, as well as acts of interference by the Government in trade union activities. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain any information in this respect. The Committee deplores this situation and emphasizes that freedom of association cannot be exercised in the absence of respect for human rights. Considering the gravity of the situation apparent in the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee asks the Government to take urgent steps to ensure exercise of these rights.

Article 4. The Committee had observed on many occasions that section 16 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976, and also section 112 of the new Labour Code, allowed referral of a collective dispute or a collective labour dispute to compulsory arbitration and had requested the Government to take measures to amend the legislation so that arbitration may only be compulsory with the agreement of both parties or in the case of the essential services. The Government indicates in its report that the Ministry of Labour would like to assure the Committee that this section would only be applied for essential services. Noting the Government's statement, the Committee recalls the importance it accords to the principle of voluntary negotiation set forth in Article 4. The Committee again requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislation to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention so that arbitration may only be possible with the agreement of both parties or be compulsory in the case of the essential services, and to keep it informed in this respect.

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

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that the tripartite committee established to revise the Trade Union Act of 1992 has drawn up a draft Act which takes account of the Committee's observations which has been submitted to the Attorney General. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the draft will strengthen protection of workers and trade union organizations, through rapid, effective procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against anti-union discrimination and acts of interference, and asks the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

2. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Case No. 1843, examined in March 1998, refers to numerous arrests and detentions frequently followed by acts of torture against trade unionists, as well as acts of interference by the Government in trade union activities. The Committee deplores this situation and emphasizes that freedom of association cannot be exercised in the absence of respect for human rights. Considering the gravity of the situation apparent in the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee asks the Government to take urgent steps to ensure exercise of these rights.

3. Article 4. The Committee has observed on many occasions that section 16 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976, and also section 112 of the new Labour Code, allow referral of a collective dispute or a collective labour dispute to compulsory arbitration. Recalling the importance it accords to the principle of voluntary negotiation set forth in Article 4, the Committee again requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislation to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention so that arbitration may only be compulsory with the agreement of both parties or in the case of the essential services, and to keep it informed in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report.

Article 1 of the Convention. The need to guarantee workers protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that a new complaint from the Sudan Workers' Trade Unions' Federation alleging measures of anti-union reprisals, including new cases of detentions of trade unionists and acts of violence against them, has been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in March 1997 (see 306th Report, Case No. 1843).

The Committee had requested the Government to take steps to ensure that: (i) section 23 of the Trade Union Act of 1992 was amended so that all trade unionists, and not just officials, were protected against acts of anti-union discrimination; and (ii) this protection was not weakened by allowing an employer to carry out such acts with the agreement of the Registrar or a union which was not independent.

The Committee notes that according to the Government's report, the Committee's comments have been transmitted to the tripartite committee responsible for reviewing this Act. It expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures as soon as possible to guarantee the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination both in law and in practice by amending sections 23 and 24 of the Trade Union Act of 1992.

Article 4. The Committee recalls the importance that it attaches to the principles of voluntary negotiation contained in this Article and requests the Government to take measures so that section 16 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976 is amended to limit the powers of the Minister to refer a collective dispute to compulsory arbitration to cases of disputes in the essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes that its comments have been transmitted to the tripartite committee responsible for reviewing the legislation. It requests the Government to indicate any progress that has been made in these matters in its next report, and hopes that the review of its legislation will help in solving the problems raised by the Industrial Relations Act of 1976 which have been the subject of the Committee's previous comments.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. The need to guarantee workers protection against acts of anti-union discrimination.

The Committee notes with concern that the Government has not taken any measures to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1688 concerning extremely serious acts of anti-union reprisals.

It also notes that a new complaint alleging measures of anti-union reprisals, including new cases of detentions of trade unionists and acts of violence against them, has been submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association by the Sudan Workers' Trade Unions' Federation in May 1995 (Case No. 1843).

Under these conditions, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures as soon as possible to guarantee the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination in both law and practice by amending sections 23 and 24 of the Trade Union Act of 1992.

Article 4. The Committee recalls the importance that it attaches to the principles of voluntary negotiation contained in this Article and requests the Government to amend section 16 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976 to limit the powers of the Minister to refer a collective dispute to compulsory arbitration to cases of disputes in the essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate any progress that has been made in these matters in its next report.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the 85th Session of the Conference.]

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

The Committee notes the Government's report as well as the detailed discussion which took place at the Conference Committee in June 1994.

In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to amend its legislation in view of the numerous and serious incompatibilities of the Trade Union Act of 1992 with the Convention, in particular, the lack of protection afforded to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that subsection 23(1) prohibits an employer from transferring any member of the central, preparatory or executive committees of unions from his workplace after election to trade union office if this transfer results in a loss of membership of the Committee; and from transferring any member to another geographical region or professional category during his term of office except with the agreement of the union or the Registrar General. Subsection 2 prohibits an employer from imposing any penalties on any such member for reasons linked to his trade union activities. The Committee further notes that under section 41, a violation of this provision constitutes an offence punishable by six months' imprisonment or a fine or both.

The Committee observes that section 23 requires that trade union officials enjoy a certain degree of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. This provision is defective, however, in that it only applies to trade union officials and not to workers in general. Moreover, under the terms of this provision, an employer may carry out the prohibited acts with the permission of the union or the Registrar General. The Committee would point out that (i) Article 1 protects all union members from acts of anti-union discrimination; and (ii) this protection cannot be weakened by allowing an employer to carry out such acts with the authorization of the administrative authority or a union which is not independent.

The Committee would therefore request the Government to ensure that the Trade Union Act of 1992 is amended so that all trade union members, and not just officials, are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination and that employers may not carry out such acts against trade union officials with the agreement of the Registrar.

2. Article 3. The Committee recalls that the existence of basic legislative provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not sufficient if these provisions are not accompanied by effective procedures ensuring their application in practice, in line with Article 3, which stipulates that machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, to ensure respect for the right to organize as defined in Articles 1 and 2. The Committee notes that the 1992 Act does not establish such machinery.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to make provision in the Trade Union Act for the setting up of impartial national machinery in conformity with Article 3.

3. Article 4. The Committee notes from the Government's report that section 11 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1976, provides that "if a labour dispute arises, the parties to the dispute must settle it within a period not exceeding two weeks by entering into amicable negotiations, provided that the duration of such negotiations must not exceed three weeks as from the date of the beginning of the negotiations. The period of negotiations may be extended by two more weeks if the two parties so agree".

The Committee observes that this provision establishes a procedure of compulsory conciliation which can be extended if both parties agree. The Committee would request the Government to indicate, in its next report, whether the failure to reach agreement would result in compulsory arbitration at the request of one party leading to a final decision which is binding on both parties.

The Committee notes, moreover, that section 32(2) of the Trade Union Act of 1992 states that when any dispute arises before the Registrar General, his decisions - as far as the application of the Act is concerned - are binding on the parties and should be executed in the same manner as the provisions of the 1983 Civil Proceedings Law. While the decision of the Registrar General can be appealed within 30 days, the Committee would recall that Article 4 of the Convention aims at promoting and encouraging voluntary collective bargaining and that decisions involving compulsory arbitration should be confined to: (a) public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (b) essential services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; (c) situations of acute national crisis; or (d) cases in which both parties request such arbitration.

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

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

The Committee had requested the Government on previous occasions to take measures to amend its legislation in view of the numerous and serious incompatibilities of the Trade Union Act of 1992 with the Convention, particularly the lack of protection afforded to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee's previous comments referred to the fact that while section 23 afforded trade union officials a certain degree of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, it was defective in that it did not apply to trade union members in general. Moreover, under the terms of this provision, an employer could carry out the prohibited acts with the agreement of the trade union federation or the Registrar General.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that section 24 of the Trade Union Act provides for such protection by stipulating that it is prohibited for an employer to tempt any of his workers, by assistance in cash or in kind or by any other means, to join or not to join a trade union. This section also prohibits all forms of interference by an employer in the activities or administration of a union for the sake of bringing it under his control.

The Committee observes, however, that the first part of section 24 only provides unionists with protection from pressures which may be exercised against them as a result of their union membership, but not as a result of their union activities. Moreover, the second part of section 24 refers to protection against acts of interference and not anti-union discrimination.

The Committee therefore is obliged to conclude that neither section 23 nor section 24 afford sufficient protection to unionists against acts of anti-union discrimination.

The Committee would therefore once again request the Government to take steps to ensure that: (i) section 23 of the Trade Union Act of 1992 is amended so that all trade unionists, and not just officials, are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination; and (ii) this protection is not weakened by allowing an employer to carry out such acts with the agreement of the Registrar or a union which is not independent.

2. Article 3. The Committee recalls that this provision stipulates that machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, to ensure respect for the right to organize as defined in Articles 1 and 2. In this respect, the Committee notes that under section 41 of the Trade Union Act, a violation of any provision of this Act or of any regulations issued thereunder constitutes an offence punishable by six months' imprisonment or a fine or both.

3. Article 4. The Committee observes that section 11 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1976, establishes a procedure of compulsory negotiation for two weeks in the event of a labour dispute, which duration can be extended if both parties agree. The Committee further notes that failure to reach agreement after such negotiation results in section 14 of the same Act providing for compulsory conciliation for a maximum period of three weeks. In the event of failure to reach agreement during this period, section 16 stipulates that the Registrar General shall refer the dispute for arbitration but only if both parties agree. However, the Committee notes that section 16 also provides that the Minister may, if he deems it necessary, refer the dispute for arbitration even without the agreement of the parties.

In this respect, the Committee recalls that the Minister could have recourse to compulsory arbitration only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee would therefore request the Government to take steps to ensure that section 16 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1976, is amended so that compulsory arbitration may be imposed only in the circumstances mentioned above.

Moreover, with reference to its earlier comments on section 32(2) of the Trade Union Act concerning disputes which arise before the Registrar General, the Committee notes the Government's statement that disputes arising under section 32(2) of the Trade Union Act of 1992 relate to disputes which may occur between unionists themselves for reasons related to activities inside a union or regarding union protection and immunity in union relations with employers; consequently, this provision does not govern labour relations disputes, which are regulated by the Industrial Relations Act. In addition, the Committee notes that the decisions of the Registrar General under section 32(2) are subject to appeal, first to the Court of Appeals, and then to the Supreme Court if necessary.

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

The Committee has taken note of the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1508 in its 284th Report, in which it noted with concern the numerous and serious incompatibilities of the new Trade Union Act with the principles of freedom of association - and in particular the lack of protection afforded to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee observes that in its conclusions on the case, the Committee on Freedom of Association had stressed that the Act did not contain any provision to ensure respect for the right to organize as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention (paragraph 438) and that it was silent on the promotion of voluntary negotiation between employers' and workers' organizations (paragraph 439), covered by Article 4 of the Convention.

The Committee asks the Government to give full information on the measures taken to amend its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 81st Session and to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1994.]