Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2021, publiée 110ème session CIT (2022)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Sao Tomé-et-Principe (Ratification: 1992)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to freely elect representatives, organize activities and formulate their programmes. In its previous comments, the Committee trusted that the Government would take all necessary measures to amend the legislative provisions referring to the following issues so as to bring its legislation into line with the Convention:

– the two-thirds majority required for calling a strike is too high (originally section 4 of Act No. 4/92, currently section 422 of the Labour Code);
– with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (originally section 10(4) of Act No. 4/92, currently section 428(4) of the Labour Code);
– compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense, such as postal, banking and loan services (originally section 11 of Act No. 4/92, currently section 429 of the Labour Code); and
– requisition of workers in cases of strikes is allowed in non-essential services while it should only be possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the term (Act No. 4-2002).

The Committee notes with regret that the Government, in its report, states that there has been no change to its legislation regarding strikes. It also takes note of the Government’s explanation that: (i) the two-thirds majority that is required to call a strike is based on principles such as collective interest and unanimity within a trade union; (ii) minimum services are currently established by the employer since the State does not have an independent body that can determine them; and (iii) requisition of workers is only allowed in essential services and in cases where a prolonged strike affects public works to a large extent. As regards the majority required to call a strike, the Committee considers that requiring a decision by two thirds of the workers present is excessive and could unduly hinder the possibility of calling a strike. The Committee recalls that the quorum and majority to vote on a strike should be fixed at a reasonable level, taking only into account the votes cast (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 147). Concerning the establishment of minimum services, the Committee observes that the role of an independent body responsible for settling disagreements between the parties may be fulfilled, for instance, by the judicial authorities. Regarding the requisition of workers, the Committee recalls that it is desirable to limit powers of requisitioning to cases in which the right to strike may be limited, or even prohibited, namely: (i) in the public service for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (ii) in essential services in the strict sense of the term; and (iii) in the case of an acute crisis (see the 2012 General Survey, paragraph 151). Recalling once again that the above-mentioned matters have been the subject of its comments for several years, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Act No. 4/92 and Act No. 4-2002 in the very near future and requests the Government to report on any progress made in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard, if it so wishes.