Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 1991, publiée 78ème session CIT (1991)

The Committee takes note of the Government's reply to the communication, dated 1 May 198, from the Federation of Civil Service Union (FCSU).

The FCSU indicates that, with regard to Article 7 of the Convention, the Government has not intention of promoting machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment so as to allow civil servants in Hong Kong to bargain collectively their employment conditions. It has only adopted a consultative machinery and the existing body was appointed in 1968 with no element of democratic status, and with little change since then. This Senior Civil Service Council (SCSC) only has limited coverage and the Government only informs it of certain issues affecting civil servants and ignores any objections the Council might have.

The Government points out that collective bargaining is only one of the many ways to effect an exchange of views between employees and employers and the system of joint consultation has been preferred in Hong Kong because it is appropriate to conditions there. Although voluntary negotiation is encouraged, the main difficulty in applying collective bargaining is that the Hong Kong civil service is characterised by a large number of unions/staff associations, making the establishment of a single viewpoint for bargaining purposes a formidable task. As for the SCSC, the Government states that since 1982 certain high-level staff are not covered by it and that in the near future a separate consultative council will be set up for the general disciplined service; these changes will readjust the number of staff represented by the SCSC to less than 100,000, and the membership of the three staff associations which set up is 40,000, equivalent to 40 per cent representation. The Government lists some of the continuous efforts made to develop the system of dialogue between civil service staff and management: the Standing Commission's 1979 review of consultative machinery, which led to its strengthening at the central level by the creation of a separate consultative council in 1982 for certain high-level staff; the setting up of 72 departmental level consultative committees; the 1987-88 review whose recommendations were open to comment from individual staff members, staff associations and department managements; the current collation of comments received on this most recent review with a view to the elaboration of an implementation programme in due course. According to the Government, this latest review reaffirmed that the existing consultative machinery is effective, but that further improvements recommended by the Standing Commission would make the system even better.

The Committee observes that Article 7 requires measures appropriate to national conditions to be taken for the development and utilisation of machinery for negotiation or of such other methods allowing staff representatives to participate in the determination of their employment conditions. It is clear from the Government's reply that consultative machinery is in place - and is regularly reviewed - allowing staff representative to have some say in the determination of civil service employment matters. The Committee is unsure, however, in view of the doubts expressed by the Federation of Civil Service Unions, whether the role accorded to the SCSC and the Standing Commission suffices as a method allowing staff representatives to participate actively in the determination of employment conditions affecting their membership. It accordingly requests the Government to inform it of the recommendations made by the most recent review of the consultative machinery, of the proposals elaborated to implement these recommendations and to give details on the practical functioning of the current machinery in so far as it relates to Article 7 of the Convention.