Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2019, Publicación: 109ª reunión CIT (2021)

Convenio sobre las relaciones de trabajo en la administración pública, 1978 (núm. 151) - Bélgica (Ratificación : 1991)

Otros comentarios sobre C151

Solicitud directa

2019
1994

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes the observations of General Labour Federation of Belgium (FGTB), the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC) and the General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (CGSLB), dated 30 August 2019, and of the Government’s reply thereto, received on 29 October 2019.

Article 7 of the Convention. Social dialogue and procedures for determining terms and conditions of employment. The Committee notes the allegations made by the trade unions relating to the lack of effective social dialogue in the public service, and the Government’s response thereto. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the functioning of the procedures in place for negotiations between the public authorities and public employees’ organizations on the terms and conditions of employment, and the application in practice of those procedures.

Article 8. Settlement of disputes. The Committee notes the allegations of the above-mentioned trade union organizations that the Act of 23 March 2019 on the organization of prison services and the status of prison personnel affects the application of the Convention, particularly in relation to special consultation and negotiation procedures in the event of industrial action. They indicate that, even though prison personnel are covered by the public service trade union rules, the Act gives the King the power to establish special arrangements, derogating from the “standard” trade union rules in the event of a social conflict in the sector. In particular, the trade union organizations indicate that this power has resulted in provisions which grant consultation committees additional powers in social conflicts, reduce the time allowed for consultation or negotiation procedures, and establish an “internal conciliation” function, which does not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality established in Article 8 of the Convention. In this regard, the trade union organizations indicate that such a role already exists in the “standard” trade union rules (section 12-8 of the Act of 19 December 1974), but that the involvement of this independent and competent social conciliator is subsidiary to the involvement of the internal conciliator. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the role of conciliator was previously envisaged in an initial version of the Royal Decree issued under sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 23 March 2019, the Royal Decree being a transposition of protocol No. 351 which provides for a specific contact in each Regional Directorate to conduct social dialogue in prisons; (ii) this role was then referred to as “internal conciliator”; (iii) following trade union negotiations in Committee A (the common committee for all public services), the role is performed by a representative of the Regional Directorate, with the aim of ensuring good practice, without preventing recourse to the social conciliator in the public service; and (iv) the use of the “internal conciliator” often meets with satisfaction by both partners: the local directorate and the trade unions.

The Committee wishes to recall that whether a system or dispute settlement body can guarantee the impartial and independent settlement of disputes, in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention, depends on its capacity to ensure the confidence of the parties in practice. The Committee therefore underlines the fact that a system that provides for conciliation, mediation or arbitration bodies that are administrative in nature and composition for the settlement of disputes in connection with collective bargaining in the public service, does not meet the requirements of the Convention with regard to the independence and impartiality of procedures and their ability to ensure the confidence of the parties (see the 2013 General Survey on collective bargaining in the public service, paragraph 438). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide additional information on the current mechanism for conciliation in the prison administration in order to ensure that it inspires the confidence of the parties in practice, and to provide a copy of the legislative provisions and applicable regulations.