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

1. In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government's attention to the fact that the draft Labour Code did not contain specific provisions recognising the right to strike of workers (except for sections 431(4) and 433(7) in a very restrictive and allusive manner) and that the procedure for the settlement of industrial disputes did not appear to give workers the possibility of going on strike.

The Committee notes the information supplied in its report by the Government, which states that it is ready to take into account the comments made by the Committee of Experts but emphasises that, in the national context of Chad, the use of wild-cat strikes, which have occurred on several occasions, harms the economy. Furthermore, the Government states that it is not prohibited to call a strike but that this must follow the exhaustion of procedures for the settlement of disputes.

In this connection, the Committee points out that it has always admitted that the right to strike may be suspended while the parties have not attempted to reach a solution through settlement procedures such as conciliation, mediation or voluntary arbitration. However, such procedures should not be so cumbersome as to render a lawful strike impossible in practice (see the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining).

The Committee notes that in the draft Labour Code the calling of a strike appears to be prohibited during the dispute settlement procedure and that no maximum period for conciliation and arbitration appears to be set, which is liable unduly to delay a settlement of the dispute. Furthermore, the draft Labour Code appears ambiguous concerning the possibility for workers to call a strike, even after the completion of the dispute settlement procedures since, firstly, section 433(6) lays down in its second paragraph that the arbitration award is binding, while section 433(7) sets out that any appeal that may be made against the arbitration award would not suspend employees from exercising the right to strike. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to adopt provisions that are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and to keep it informed of the measures that have been taken or are contemplated in this respect.

2. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that section 312(7), second paragraph, of the draft Labour Code, appeared to confer upon the competent authorities broad powers of supervision over trade union assets.

The Committee notes the Government's explanations in its report according to which the public authorities have never supervised trade union finances. The Government indicates, however, that if the Prosecutor of the Republic or the labour inspector requested financial reports from trade unions that would be based on valid reasons for supervision, such as requests by trade unionists that were unsatisfied with the financial administration of their organisation.

While agreeing with the Government's analysis on this point, the Committee is, however, of the opinion that the provision in the draft Labour Code, in its present wording, may facilitate interference by the administrative authorities (the labour inspectorate) in the financial administration of organisations. The Committee therefore considers that this provision could be amended to provide, for example, for periodic controls and the possibility of investigations if irregularities are found during these controls or if complaints are made from within the trade unions. This change would be in line with the comments made by both the Government and the Committee.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would inform it of the measures that have been taken or are contemplated in this respect.