Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 1997, Publicación: 86ª reunión CIT (1998)

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

The Committee recalls that for several years it has been indicating to the Government that the provisions of sections 22(e)(i), (v), (vii) and (ix), 23(3)(c) and 39(7)(c) of the Permanent Labour Tribunal Act, No. 41 of 1967, as amended in 1990 and 1993, give the court the power to refuse to register a collective agreement if the Convention is not in conformity with the Government's economic policy. The Committee considers that these provisions are not compatible with the principles of voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between employers and employers' organizations on the one hand and workers' organizations on the other hand with a view to regulating conditions of employment by this means. The Committee observes that in its last report the Government explains that registration of collective agreements is intended to give them compulsory force. It admits that registration has sometimes been refused but adds that that has not prevented the parties from executing their agreement. The Government states that registration is intended to ensure that the provisions of the agreement do not contradict the provisions of the Industrial Court Act or other legislation and that it so happens that parties to the refused agreement decide to amend it so as to ensure no contradiction in its execution. According to the Government, the Industrial Court's role is advisory. It emphasizes, however, that the parties may opt to execute an agreement without registering it and this has no consequences for the agreement. The Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government, the parties may apply the agreement even though it has not been registered. It recalls, however, as a general rule, that the provisions requiring prior approval of a collective agreement for it to enter into force are only compatible with the Convention provided they merely stipulate that approval may be refused if the collective agreement has a procedural flaw or does not conform to the minimum standards laid down by general labour legislation. On the other hand, if legislation allows the authorities full discretion to deny approval or stipulates that approval must be based on criteria such as compatibility with the general or economic policy of the Government or official directives on wages and conditions of employment, it in fact makes the entry into force of the collective agreement subject to prior approval, which is a violation of the principle of autonomy of the parties. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report all the measures taken or envisaged to take into account the clarification mentioned above and to bring the legislation into conformity with the practice it affirms in its report. Furthermore, it also asks it to specify how many unregistered collective agreements have actually been applied between the parties during the period covered by the report.

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