Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2021, Publicación: 110ª reunión CIT (2022)

Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (núm. 87) - Níger (Ratificación : 1961)

Otros comentarios sobre C087

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 2 of the Convention. Scope of application. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the legislative provisions that ensure that the rights guaranteed by the Convention are enjoyed by the following categories of workers: judges; teachers and researchers in universities and similar institutions; the personnel of administrations, services and public establishments of the State that are industrial or commercial in nature; staff of customs, water and forestry services, and of the National School of Administration and Magistracy; and the personnel of local authorities and the parliamentary administration. The Committee observed that section 41 of Act No. 2012-045 of 25 September 2012 issuing the Labour Code excludes these categories from its scope of application. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 14 of Act No. 2007-26 of 23 July 2007 issuing the General Public Service Regulations guarantees that public service employees enjoy the right to establish and join a trade union. It also notes the Government’s indication that no legislative provisions modify or limit the ability of public sector workers to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the legislative provisions, if any, which ensure that the above categories of workers, who are not covered by the scope of application of Act No. 2007-26 of 23 July 2007 issuing the General Public Service Regulations, enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Convention.

Article 3. Right to elect trade union representatives in full freedom. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that, under section 190 of the Labour Code, the members responsible for the administration or management of a trade union must, inter alia, be in possession of their civic rights, and requested the Government to specify the nature of these rights to ensure that this requirement does not impede the right of the organizations to elect their trade union leaders in full freedom. The Committee notes that the Government continues to indicate that the purpose of this requirement is not to restrict the autonomy of trade union organizations, but rather to limit the access to trade union office of persons convicted of crimes or offences, persons who have failed to comply with a summons to appear in court and persons deprived of legal capacity. The Committee once again recalls that conviction for an act, the nature of which is not such as to call into question the integrity of the person concerned and is not such as to be prejudicial to the performance of trade union duties, should not constitute grounds for disqualification from trade union office (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 106). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the legislative provisions that determine the crimes and offences for which final conviction results in ineligibility for trade union administrative office or leadership, and to specify the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of legal capacity.

Compulsory arbitration. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide further details on whether the parties to a dispute may object to an arbitration award and the consequences of such opposition. It also noted the Government’s indication that contesting an arbitration award did not carry any consequences for the contestant party, and that there were two ways to contest an arbitration award: (i) by objecting to the award within two days of the notification of the award to the parties, in accordance with section 331 of the Labour Code; and (ii) by applying, once the award has become binding, to the judicial chamber of the Court of Cassation for the award to be set aside on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or violation of the law, in accordance with section 335 of the Labour Code. The Committee recalled that recourse to compulsory arbitration to bring an end to collective labour disputes and strikes, in the absence of an agreement by the parties, is only acceptable when the strike in question may be restricted, or even prohibited, that is: in the case of disputes concerning public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; in conflicts in essential services in the strict sense of the term; or in situations of acute national crisis (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 153). Noting with regret that the Government confines itself to indicating that there have been no changes since the last report, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the procedure that follows the notification of opposition in writing to the labour inspectorate, in accordance with section 331(2) of the Labour Code, including any additional time limits imposed as part of the procedure and whether the two-day limit may be extended or waived in exceptional circumstances.