ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2002, publiée 91ème session CIT (2003)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Népal (Ratification: 1996)

Autre commentaire sur C098

Demande directe
  1. 2004
  2. 2002
  3. 2001
  4. 2000
  5. 1999
  6. 1998

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee had pointed out that section 23(a) of the Trade Union Act of 1999 limits the protection against anti-union discrimination to cases of transfer of trade union representatives and had considered that the legislation does not cover the following situations: (i) anti-union discrimination against workers in general; (ii) anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment; and (iii) dismissals on anti-union grounds. The Committee notes that the Government intends to send these observations to a committee duly formed to review the labour legislation and indicates that an explicit provision as a result of this review would be inserted in the 1992 Trade Union Act.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the provision is accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. It reminds the Government that it may seek technical assistance from the ILO in this process if it so wishes. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this regard.

2. Article 2. The Committee had pointed out that neither the 1992 Trade Union Act as amended in 1999 nor the 1992 Labour Act contain provisions providing protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations. The Committee notes that according to the Government it will send the Committee’s observation on this issue to the labour law review committee mentioned above and that a specific provision would be inserted in the next amendment of the 1992 Trade Union Act.

The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the provision is accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, to guarantee adequate protection to trade unions against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and in particular against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed, in its next report, of any progress made in this respect.

3. Article 4. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the abrogation of section 30 of the Trade Union Act which gives special powers to the Government to restrict trade union activities considered against the economic development of the country and which has never been put into practice. In its report, the Government reiterates the arguments of its previous report and states that this provision is a safeguard necessary for a developing country like Nepal and that it would never be invoked against the interest of the workers. The Committee considers that this legislation confers broad powers, which could impair guarantees set out in the Convention. The Committee requests, once again, the Government to take measures for the abrogation of section 30 of the Trade Union Act in the near future.

The Committee requests the Government once again to forward a copy of the Essential Service Act, 1957, which seems to impose restrictions on the right to organize and bargain collectively.

4. Article 6. The Committee had noted the information provided by the Government according to which the Trade Union Act is not applicable in the case of public servants involved in the administration of State affairs or in essential services determined by the Government. The Committee notes that according to the Government employees of the public enterprises have the right to organize and form unions under the National Directive Act, 1962, while civil servants who discharge their duties in the name of the Government, do not have that right (Civil Service Act 1993). The Committee recalls that only public servants who, by their functions, are directly employed in the administration of the State may be excluded from the scope of the Convention but that all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to forward examples of collective agreements that concern employees of the public enterprises or public institutions employing civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the 1962 National Directive Act and the Civil Service Act.

The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will, as soon as possible, take the measures necessary to bring its legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer