Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 308, Novembre 1997

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 75. At its meeting in June 1996, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any developments in the Harrison v. Kent County Council case. Furthermore, while noting the Government's indication that existing legislation provided adequate protection against discrimination on grounds of trade union membership or activities and that there were extensive procedures to ensure that the legislation is effectively implemented, the Committee recalled that the circumstances giving rise to this case indicated that an express protection in the legislation against blacklisting or other forms of discrimination based on past trade union membership or activities was necessary in order to ensure full protection to workers in this regard. It therefore urged the Government to give consideration to such explicit protection and to keep it informed of any measures taken (see 304th Report, paras. 18-20).
2. 76. In a communication dated 21 July 1997, the Government indicates that the case of Harrison v. Kent County Council has been settled. Since however the terms of the settlement are confidential and the Government was not a party, the Government has no further details concerning the terms of the settlement.
3. 77. The Committee notes this information. It further notes however that the Government has not provided any information concerning the consideration of incorporating an express protection in the legislation against blacklisting. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to give consideration to such explicit protection and to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.