Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2023, publiée 112ème session CIT (2024)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Tadjikistan (Ratification: 1993)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Previous comment

Article 3. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously noted that pursuant to section 323(2) of the Labour Code, a decision to declare a strike should be taken by a meeting of workers or of an appropriate workers’ representative body and that such a decision should be adopted by not less than two thirds of those present at the meeting (representative body) or two thirds of the delegates to the conference of workers’ representatives. The Committee considered that requiring a decision by two thirds of those present at the meeting was excessive and requested the Government to amend this provision so as to lower the majority required for the calling of a strike. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this proposal was carefully considered by specialists with the participation of trade union representatives. According to the Government, there is no need to reduce the above requirement as it corresponds to the rules and regulations set out in trade union statutes, according to which, trade union conferences and congresses are considered legitimate with the participation of at least two thirds of delegates. The Committee considers that requiring a decision by two thirds of those present at the meeting could unduly hinder the possibility of calling a strike and once again it requests the Government to amend section 323(2) of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

The Committee had previously noted that pursuant to section 323(5) of the Labour Code, the right to strike can be restricted by legislation in cases where it might endanger the life and health of individuals or the security and defence capacity of the State and requested the Government to indicate services where the right to strike was so restricted or prohibited, with reference to the relevant legislative provisions. The Committee notes that the Government points out that restrictions and prohibitions on participation in strikes are established by law and only for the purpose of national security in specific sectors, and refers in this respect to the following examples: the Law on a State of Emergency prohibits strikes in specific circumstances of a state of emergency; the Law on the Status of Military Personnel (section 6) and the Law on the Police (section 20) prohibit military personnel and police officers from organizing and participating in strikes; the Customs Code (section 484) and the Civil Service Act (section 30) prohibit customs officials and civil servants from taking part in strikes that may disrupt the functioning of state bodies and impede the performance of official duties. The Committee understands the national security examples identified, and also understands that the restrictions under the Civil Service Act apply to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. While taking due note of these examples, the Committee requests the Government to provide an exhaustive list of services where strikes are restricted or prohibited.

The Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to indicate whether alternative compensatory guarantees were afforded to workers deprived of their right to strike pursuant to section 323(5) of the Labour Code and to indicate the applicable legislative provisions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the national legislation does not provide for compensatory guarantees and payments to employees whose right to strike is restricted or prohibited. The Committee once again recalls that when the right to strike is restricted or prohibited in certain enterprises or services considered essential, or for certain public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, the workers should be afforded adequate protection so as to compensate for the restrictions imposed on their freedom of action. Such protection should include, for example, impartial conciliation and eventually arbitration procedures which have the confidence of the parties, in which workers and their organizations could be associated. Such arbitration awards should be binding on both parties and once issued should be implemented rapidly and completely. The Committee requests the Government to review its legislation with a view to ensuring that procedures such as conciliation, and eventually arbitration, exist and can be used by the above-mentioned categories of workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to that end.