Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2007, Publicación: 97ª reunión CIT (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether the right to organize of public servants is governed by section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1996, as amended, or by other legislative provisions and, if so, to provide copies of the relevant legislation. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the right to organize of civil servants is governed by section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1996 which applies to every worker, since no exceptions have been introduced to this provision by any other legal text so far.

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which establish a regime of trade union monopoly (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84; sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3, amending Legislative Decree No. 84; section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969; and sections 26–31 of Act No. 21 of 1974). The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply indicating that the unity of trade union organization is not contrary to the substance of the Convention and results from the decisions and orders of the working class at different levels of the union assemblies; it would be illogical to pretend to defend workers’ freedom and then oppose the final trade union structure freely chosen by the workers themselves for their representation as an expression of their interests. The Committee recalls once again that although it is generally to the advantage of workers and employers to avoid proliferation of competing organizations, 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 once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which establish a regime of trade union monopoly (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84; sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3, amending Legislative Decree No. 84; section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969; and sections 26–31 of Act No. 21 of 1974).

The Committee’s previous comments concerned legislative provisions which authorize the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the investment of trade union funds in the financial services, and industrial sectors (section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the signature of the Minister is required merely as an administrative formality under the scope of his responsibility for the implementation of labour laws and related issues. The Committee recalls that several legislative amendments introduced in 2000, which were taken note of in the Committee’s previous comments, were aimed at guaranteeing the freedom of trade unions to organize their administration and activities without interference but did not explicitly amend the provision authorizing the Minister to set the conditions for investment of trade union funds. The Committee requests the Government to provide details in its next report on the specific conditions established by the Minister on the basis of section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84 (as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982) for the investment of trade union funds in the financial services, and industrial sectors.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which determine the composition of the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84). The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply indicating that trade unions in the Syrian Arab Republic are independent, that their administration and activities are organized in accordance with their internal statutes and that their independence is secured by national legislation. Noting that the Government’s report does not address specifically the issue of the provisions which determine the composition of the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84), the Committee once again requests the Government to provide specific information on the measures taken or contemplated to repeal or amend these provisions.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 44(B)(3) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow a certain percentage of trade union officers to be non-Arab, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the country. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, by virtue of section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, as amended by section 1(c) of Act No. 25 of 2000, foreign non-Arab workers have the right to join an occupational trade union; consequently, according to the Government, they have the right to present themselves as candidates to trade union elections. The Committee notes, however, that section 44(B)(3) explicitly sets Arab nationality as a condition of eligibility to trade union office and that the provisions mentioned by the Government do not amend or repeal this provision. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions which explicitly amend section 44(B)(3) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow a certain percentage of trade union officers to be non-Arab.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend legislative provisions which restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code). The Government indicates in this respect that the relevant amendment of the Penal Code requires more time than other amendments and is currently being followed up on. The Committee recalls that sanctions for strike action should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations, and that both excessive recourse to the courts in labour relations and the existence of heavy sanctions for strike action may well create more problems than they resolve (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177–178). The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made with regard to the adoption of amendments to the legislative provisions (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code) which restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend legislative provisions which impose forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities, by acting in a manner contrary to the plan (section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 concerning the Code on economic penalties). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the penalty of forced labour was repealed by virtue of Act No. 34 of 2000. The Committee notes however, that Act No. 34 of 2000 concerns amendments to the Agricultural Relations Act of 1958 and does not appear to repeal any penalty of forced labour. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the provisions which have been adopted or are being contemplated in order to repeal section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 concerning the Code on economic penalties which imposes forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan.