Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2020, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Région administrative spéciale de Hong-kong (Ratification: 1997)

Autre commentaire sur C098

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 16 September 2020 reiterating matters raised in its observations sent in 2019 and addressed in the present comment. It also notes the observations of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) received on 30 September 2020 referring to matters addressed in the present comment and denouncing violations of the Convention in practice, including anti-union transfers and demotions in the context of public protests. The Committee takes note of the reply of the Government in connection to the ITUC and HKCTU’s observations. It notes that the reply mostly concerns matters examined within the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee thus requests the Government to provide its comments on the 2020 HKCTU’s allegations of violations of the present Convention in practice as well as on the 2016 observations from the ITUC and the HKCTU, which also contain allegations of violations of the Convention in practice.

The Committee also notes the Government’s supplementary report provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020), which does not provide new information on pending issues. The Committee therefore reiterates the content of its observation adopted in 2019 and reproduced below.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government’s reference to the drafting of an amendment that would empower the Labour Tribunal to make an order of reinstatement/re-engagement in cases of unreasonable and unlawful dismissal without the need to secure the employer’s consent. The Committee had expressed its expectation that the Bill, which had been under examination for 17 years, would be adopted without any further delay so as to give legislative expression to the principle of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and would be effectively enforced in practice. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that, by virtue of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance, 2018, which amends the Employment Ordinance (EO), the Labour Tribunal and the courts are now empowered, in case of an unreasonable or unlawful dismissal (among others, dismissal by reason of exercising the right to trade union membership or participation in trade union activities), to make a compulsory order for reinstatement or re-engagement without having to secure the agreement of the employer. The Committee observes, however, that, according to the ITUC and the HKCTU, the amended ordinance allows for discretion in ordering reinstatement and the penalty for the employer’s failure to observe a reinstatement is not sufficiently dissuasive to ensure such compliance (three months of the worker’s average salary and not exceeding 72,500 Hong Kong dollars (HKD) (US$9,300)). The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that it accords high priority to investigating complaints on suspected anti-union discrimination but observes that, according to the ITUC and the HKCTU, only two prosecutions of anti-union discrimination resulted in reinstatement since 1974, as it is difficult to prove the employer’s covert intent in criminal proceedings. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the amended EO, in particular to inform about its impact on the number of reinstatement orders issued by the courts and effectively implemented by the employers. Bearing in mind the allegations made by the ITUC and the HKCTU with regard to anti-union dismissals and threats of dismissals in the context of public protests, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to investigate any allegations of anti-union discrimination and to impose sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to avoid the occurrence of such acts in the future. The Committee further requests the Government to provide updated statistics on the number and nature of complaints of anti-union discrimination filed to the competent authorities, their follow-up and outcome.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that it had previously referred to the need to strengthen the collective bargaining framework in the light of the low levels of coverage of collective agreements, which were not binding on the employer, and the absence of an institutional framework for trade union recognition and collective bargaining. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to step up its efforts to take effective measures, including of a legislative nature, in order to encourage and promote free and voluntary collective bargaining in good faith between trade unions and employers and their organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) collective bargaining compelled by law is not conducive to voluntary negotiation and there is no consensus on introducing compulsory bargaining in the legislation; (ii) the Labour Department, making use of its conciliation services, encourages employers and employees to draw up agreements on the terms and conditions of employment, which has contributed to harmonious industrial relations; (iii) collective agreements have been reached in certain industries including printing, construction, public bus transport, air transport, food and beverage processing, pig-slaughtering and elevator maintenance; (iv) the Government has been taking numerous measures appropriate to local conditions, both at the enterprise and industry levels, to encourage and promote voluntary negotiation and effective communication between employers and employees or their respective organizations, including through the industry-based tripartite committees; and (v) all the above efforts help foster an environment conducive to voluntary bipartite negotiation between employers and employees or their respective organizations.

While taking due note of the information provided, including on the promotional measures and activities undertaken, the Committee observes the concerns raised by the ITUC and the HKCTU that there is still no legal framework to regulate the scope, protection and enforcement of the agreements and that less than one per cent of workers are covered by collective bargaining. The Committee recalls in this regard that collective bargaining is a fundamental right which members States have an obligation to respect, promote and to realize in good faith and that the overall aim of Article 4 of the Convention is to promote good-faith collective bargaining between workers or their organizations on the one hand, and employers or their organizations, on the other hand, with a view to reaching an agreement on terms and conditions of employment. The Committee also emphasizes that it has not been requesting the Government to impose compulsory collective bargaining, as under the terms of Article 4 of the Convention, collective bargaining must be free and voluntary but that it has been pointing to the need to strengthen the collective bargaining framework. The Committee also reiterates, as regards the tripartite committees established at the industry-level, that the principle of tripartism, which is particularly appropriate for the regulation of questions of a larger scope (drafting of legislation and formulating labour policies), should not replace the principle enshrined in the Convention of autonomy of workers’ organizations and employers (or their organizations) in bipartite collective bargaining on conditions of employment. The Committee also recalls that, whatever the type of machinery used, its first objective should be to encourage by all possible means free and voluntary collective bargaining between the parties, allowing them the greatest possible autonomy, while establishing a legal framework and administrative structure to which they may have recourse, on a voluntary basis and by mutual agreement, to facilitate the conclusion of a collective agreement under the best possible conditions (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 242). Considering the above, the Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to step up its efforts to take effective measures, including of a legislative nature, to strengthen the legislative framework for collective bargaining so as to encourage and promote free and voluntary collective bargaining in good faith between trade unions and employers and their organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded, the sectors to which they apply and the number of workers covered.

Article 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers and employees in public enterprises, enjoy the right to collective bargaining. The Committee regrets to observe that the Government simply reiterates that every civil servant, irrespective of grade or rank, is a part of the civil service and contributes to the administration of the Government, and that all civil servants are thus excluded from the application of Article 6 of the Convention. It also observes the concerns expressed by the ITUC and the HKCTU that civil servants are excluded from the enforcement of the Convention without distinction of rank and job. While further noting the Government’s explanation that there are sufficient avenues for staff representatives to participate in the process for determining the terms and conditions of employment, including through an elaborate three-tier staff consultation mechanism and independent bodies which provide impartial advice on matters of conditions of employment, the Committee reiterates that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, in some countries, public servants in government ministries and other comparable bodies, and ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. It recalls that the establishment of simple consultation procedures for public servants instead of real collective bargaining procedures is not sufficient. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers and employees in public enterprises, enjoy the right to collective bargaining. The Committee trusts that the Government will be able to report progress in this regard in the near future.