Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2008, Publicación: 98ª reunión CIT (2009)

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 29 August 2008, on issues previously raised by the Committee.

Article 2 of the Convention. Trade union monopoly. 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 current law on the unity of trade union organizations has not been imposed on workers in any manner but rather reflects their choice, expressed through trade union congresses at various levels, in line with the Convention. Furthermore, the Trade Union Organization Act, like all the relevant laws and regulations, are being discussed within a tripartite structure before its adoption. Workers consider this issue as a red line which cannot be crossed and they are adamant on the clear expression of that choice, as provided for in the Convention. The Committee notes that the above is corroborated by the comments of the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) forwarded by the ITUC, according to which the reason for the existence of a single trade union system is that workers themselves reject union diversity because it harms their interests.

While taking due note of the above information, the Committee must once again note 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. Although it was clearly not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does at the very least require this diversity to remain possible in all cases (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 91). The Committee therefore 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 in a manner which allows trade union diversity to remain possible in all cases (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).

Article 3. Financial administration of organizations. 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 recalls that according to the text of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended, a trade union can invest its funds in financial services and industrial sectors under conditions specified by Ministerial Decree after their approval by the Bureau of the GFTU. The Committee recalls that, in previous reports, the Government had indicated that the signature of the Minister is required merely as an administrative formality. It notes that according to the Government’s latest report, the text of the law is not enforced in practice; the investment projects of trade unions are managed by the unions themselves through tenders and procedures carried out without any interference by any body including the Ministry; the Government attaches as examples documents showing that the investment of trade union funds in a hotel was carried out through private agreements and tenders. While taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee considers that national law should be brought into line with the Convention and with what appears to be national practice. It also recalls that despite several legislative amendments introduced in 2000 to guarantee the freedom of trade unions to organize their administration and activities without interference, the provision in question was not amended. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to indicate in its next report the steps taken or contemplated to amend section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, so as to lift the power of the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the investment of trade union funds in financial services and industrial sectors.

Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. 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 GFTU Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84). The Committee notes from the Government’s report that Legislative Decree No. 84 and the amendments made thereto have not been imposed on the workers and are the result of the struggle of the working class in the Syrian Arab Republic. The Committee recalls that it should be up to trade union constitutions and rules to establish the composition and presiding officers of trade union congresses; national legislation should only lay down formal requirements in this respect; any legislative provisions going beyond such formal requirements constitute interference contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 109 and 111). The Committee, therefore, once again requests the Government to provide specific information on the measures taken or contemplated to repeal or amend section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84, which determines the composition of the GFTU Congress and its presiding officers.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested 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. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, Legislative Decree No. 25 of 2000 amending Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 explicitly provides for the right of non-Syrian workers to join occupational trade unions; the law does not set down any discriminatory restrictions or provisions on the possibility of election of workers as trade union officers, regardless of their nationality. In this regard, the Committee once again observes that there are no provisions unequivocally amending section 44(B)(3) of Legislative Decree No. 84, which explicitly sets Arab nationality as a condition of eligibility for trade union office. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to explicitly and unequivocally 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.

Right to strike. 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 draft amendment of the General Penal Code contains provisions on this issue but has not yet been promulgated; a copy will be sent as soon as it is promulgated. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made with regard to the adoption of draft amendments to 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) and to communicate the relevant text as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee finally notes that the Government does not provide any information in reply to the Committee’s previous request for 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, in previous reports, the Government had indicated that the penalty of forced labour had been repealed by virtue of Act No. 34 of 2000. However, the Committee had noted that Act No. 34 of 2000 concerned amendments to the Agricultural Relations Act of 1958 and did not appear to repeal any penalty of forced labour. The Committee once again 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.