ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Honduras (Ratification: 1956)

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period between 30 June 1987 and 30 June 1988.

The Committee recalls that its previous observations once again noted that various points in the Labour Code in force needed to be amended in order to bring them into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention, namely:

- the amendment of section 2 of the Labour Code, so as to extend the right to join trade unions expressly to workers in agricultural or stock-raising enterprises not regularly employing more than ten workers, with a view to bringing this provision into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention;

- the amendment of section 472 of the Labour Code, which is inconsistent with Article 2 of the Convention in not permitting the existence in a given enterprise, institution or establishment of more than one works union and in providing that, where there is already more than one union, only the one with the greatest number of members shall remain in existence;

- the amendment of section 510 of the Labour Code, which is inconsistent with Article 3 in requiring that union officers shall, at the moment of election, be normally engaged in the occupation or function characteristic of the union and have exercised it for more than six months during the preceding year;

- the bringing into conformity with Article 6 of section 537 of the Code, which provides that federations and confederations are not entitled to call strikes, and section 541, which provides that the leaders of federations and confederations shall have been engaged in the corresponding occupation or function for more than one year before election;

- the amendment of provisions that require a majority of two-thirds at the general assembly of a trade union in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563 of the Labour Code);

- the need for government authorisation or six months' notice for any suspension or work stoppage in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558 of the Labour Code). This provision is open to criticism in so far as it applies to certain services - such as transport or services connected with petroleum - that are not essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population;

- the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end a dispute between employers and workers on the application of either party in services for the production, refining, transport and distribution of petroleum (section 555(2) of the Code).

The Committee also notes the information in the Government's report that it convened a tripartite commission of representative organisations of employers (the Honduran Private Enterprise Council - COHEP) and of workers (Confederation of Workers of Honduras - CTH and the National Workers' Federation of Honduras - FESITRANH) in order to consider the observations of the Committee of Experts.

The Government's report indicates that, with regard to the amendment of section 2 of the Labour Code in order to bring it into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention, the parties left this point in suspense until they reached an agreement between themselves. As for the observation regarding section 472 of the Labour Code, the Government reports that there was consensus between the parties to retain this section in force since, according to the Government, when the Labour Code was drafted, the organisations of workers and employers demanded this provision, in view of the fact that the financial structure of enterprises in Honduras was and remains limited and aspirations to human advancement could be illusory if a multiplicity of workers' organisation with differing aims and interests competed in collective bargaining, and this resulted in section 472. With regard to section 510 of the Labour Code, the Government points out that this was analysed with great care, particularly by the trade union representatives, who opposed its amendment. There was also opposition to the amendment of sections 537 and 541 of the Labour Code, which are contrary to Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government requests clarifications on the amendments to sections 495, 563 and 558 and, finally, indicates that there was agreement on a new formulation for section 555(2) of the Labour Code.

The Committee notes these statements and is bound to recall that it has been pointing out the need to amend sections 2, 472, 510, 537, 541 and 555(2) of the Labour Code since 1971.

With regard to sections 495 and 563 of the Labour Code (the requirement for a two-thirds majority in the general assembly of a trade union to call a strike), the Committee recalls that legislative restrictions on the right to strike should not be such as to make it impossible to call a strike in practice. A simple majority of voters (excluding workers who have not participated in the vote) of a particular negotiating unit should be sufficient to be able to call a strike.

With regard to section 558 (the need for government authorisation or six months' notice for any suspension or work stoppage in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State), the Committee reiterates its observation of 1986 on this point, namely, that this provision is open to criticism in so far as it applies to certain services - such as transport or services connected with petroleum - that are not essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee regrets that the Government's report does not contain information on the situation regarding the draft Labour Code of 1981, which has been the subject of observations by this Committee (see, in this connection, the observation of 1986 by the Committee of Experts). It also regrets that there has been no progress regarding the points in the current labour legislation which are not in full conformity with the Convention.

The Committee trusts that the Government will examine attentively the observations that it has made and expresses the firm hope, once again, that it will take the necessary measures to give full effect to the Convention and requests it to report any progress achieved in this respect. [The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 76th Session.]

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