Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 295, November 1994

1. 502. In a communication of 15 May 1994, the Public Service Union of Belize (hereinafter the PSUB) submitted a complaint of infringements of trade union rights against the Government of Belize. It sent additional information relating to its complaint in a communication of 15 June 1994. Public Services International (PSI) associated itself with this complaint in a communication of 2 August 1994.
2. 503. The Government supplied its observations on the case in a communication dated 9 September 1994.
3. 504. Belize has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 505. In its complaint of 15 May 1994, the PSUB presents allegations of violations by the Government of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 which are both of a factual and legislative nature. First of all, on 3 July 1992 the Government entered into an agreement to pay salary increases of 10 per cent and 12.5 per cent to senior and junior public officers, respectively, each year over a three-year period commencing 1 April 1992. The Government implemented increases for 1992 and 1993. However, the new government administration which took power on 1 July 1993 announced shortly after the budget presentation of March 1994 that it would only be giving a 5 per cent across-the-board increase and that the balance of the increase would be paid subject to prevailing economic circumstances.
2. 506. The PSUB contends that the Government now maintains that it is unable to pay the balance due to the economy and its fiscal position. After reviewing the current budget content, the PSUB considers that sufficient savings can be made in the current budget to pay for the increases. It further considers that the Government has breached a collective agreement and has made unsustainable campaign promises for which public officers must now pay.
3. 507. In addition, since the announcement of industrial action in April, the Minister of Labour passed into law on 28 April 1994, Statutory Instrument No. 32 of 1994 (copy attached by complainant) extending the essential services departments to Revenue Services (customs, income tax and all revenue collecting departments and agencies of the Government). The PSUB contends that such an extension effectively makes all government departments essential services thereby limiting the right to strike of employees in these departments. In the PSUB's view, many of these departments cannot be classified as essential services.
4. 508. Finally, notwithstanding that the PSUB recognizes the need for restrictions on the right to strike, it considers that the provisions of the Settlement of Disputes (Essential Services) Ordinance are not in conformity with ILO Conventions. More specifically, it is of the view that the Minister of Labour has too much power in determining the manner and settlement of the dispute including the setting up of a tribunal whose five members are ultimately selected by him, that worker representation in the settlement of disputes is negligible and that the time frame for the settlement of disputes is too long.

B. The Government's reply

1. 509. In its communication of 9 September 1994, the Government states that the previous People's United Party Government had promised to public officers an across-the-board salary increase of 10 per cent for senior officers and 12.5 per cent for junior officers for three consecutive years to take effect on 1 January 1992. The first and second salary increases took effect as promised in 1992 and 1993.
2. 510. However, in July of 1993 a new Government was installed after the opposition United Democratic Party won the General Elections. After assuming office the new Government announced that, due to the unfavourable state of the economy, salary increases of 10 per cent and 12.5 per cent could not be approved in 1994. However, the Government did assure public officers and the unions that the increases as promised would be granted in the context of a reducing deficit. In any event, an across-the-board salary increase of 5 per cent was granted to public officers in April of 1994.
3. 511. The Government, which has a deficit ceiling of US$50 million is currently running a deficit of US$47 million. It explains that salary increases of 10 per cent and 12.5 per cent would result in additional costs that it could not sustain. The Government further indicates that currently salaries paid by it are over 56 per cent of tax revenue. While the Government is in the process of initiating tax improvement measures, there is no guarantee that the income from taxes will be sufficient to cover the additional costs resulting from additional salary increases. The Government concludes by stating that it is committed to granting to all public officers the remaining salary increases of 5 per cent and 7.5 per cent at a later date.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 512. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case which refer to violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 are of a factual and legislative nature.
2. 513. With regard to the complainant's allegation that a collective agreement was breached by the Government because it did not pay the full amount of salary increases already negotiated under this agreement, the Government replies that it could not pay the full salary increase for 1994 in view of the unfavourable state of the economy and especially a very large budget deficit. The Committee has considered that the exercise of financial powers by the public authorities in a manner that prevents compliance with collective agreements already entered into by public bodies is not consistent with the principle of free collective bargaining (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 640). The Committee, however, has acknowledged that where, for compelling reasons of national economic interest and as part of its stabilization policy, a government considers that it is not possible for wage rates to be fixed freely through collective bargaining, any restrictions should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary without exceeding a reasonable period, and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards. (See Digest, op. cit., para. 641.)
3. 514. As regards the particulars of this case, none of the allegations lead the Committee to believe that restrictions on collective bargaining for public officers occur frequently, and therefore the current restriction can be said to be an exceptional measure. Furthermore, The Committee notes from the arguments of both parties that the Government measure does not cancel the salary increases negotiated for 1994 but only delays their payment to public officers. The Government states that the remaining salary increases of 5 per cent and 7.5 per cent will be paid at a later date although it does not specify exactly when. Moreover, notwithstanding the delay in the payment of the salary increases for 1994 by the Government, the Committee observes that an across-the-board salary increase of 5 per cent was granted to all public officers, thereby protecting to a certain extent their living standards.
4. 515. The Committee accordingly notes that the Government has committed itself to respect the terms of the previously negotiated collective agreement. It requests the Government to keep it informed of when the remaining salary increases of 5 per cent and 7.5 per cent will be paid to all public officers.
5. 516. As regards the allegation that most government departments are defined as essential services by virtue of the Settlement of Disputes (Essential Services) Act thereby limiting the right to strike of employees in those departments, the Committee notes in effect, that the list of essential services set out in the Schedule to the Act (see Annex) as well as the extension of this Act to all Revenue Services go well beyond the Committee's own definition of essential services in the strict sense of the term, or government services where strikes may be prohibited (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 394 and 400-410). Moreover, the Committee notes that under the terms of section 15 of the Act, a trade union may call a lawful strike after issuing 21 days' notice unless before the end of this period the Minister decides that the dispute should be referred to arbitration. In the Committee's view, this provision allows the Minister to submit any dispute to compulsory arbitration, thereby prohibiting strikes for all practical purposes. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take steps to ensure that its legislation be amended so that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only for public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; it requests the Government to keep it informed of developments thereof.
6. 517. Finally, the Committee notes that under section 4 of the Act, the Minister has the authority to set up an Essential Services Arbitration Tribunal. It notes that subsection 5(1) allows him to directly appoint three members and that section 6 enables him to select two other members from panels of persons chosen to represent employers and workers respectively, which panels are constituted by the Minister. The Committee considers that the appointment by the Minister of all five members of the Tribunal calls into question the independence and impartiality of such a tribunal as well as the confidence of the concerned parties in such a system. It therefore urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the Act be amended so that it provides for organizations representative of workers and employers, respectively, to select their members of the Essential Services Arbitration Tribunal, and asks it to keep it informed of developments thereof.

Z. Annex

• Services that are classified as essential by virtue of the Settlement of
• Disputes (Essential Services) Act
• Electricity services;
• Health services;
• Hospital services;
• Sanitary services;
• Telecommunications services;
• Telephone services;
• Water services;
• Services in which petroleum products are sold, supplied, transported,
• conveyed, handled, loaded, unloaded or stored;
• The national fire service;
• Postal services;
• Monetary and financial services (banks, treasury, monetary authority);
• Airports (civil aviation and airport security services);
• Port authority (pilots and security services);
• The social security scheme administered by the social security board;
• Revenue services (customs, income tax and all revenue-collecting departments
• and agencies of the Government).