Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

A Government representative stressed that the Constitution of 20 July 1991 guaranteed to all citizens the right of association and the right to join any political or trade union organization of their choice. As was the case for other public liberties, freedom of association had to be regulated by legislation setting out the conditions required for trade unions to establish themselves and to function. To this end, and without even waiting for the revision of the Labour Code undertaken with ILO assistance to be completed, a draft law had been prepared which would repeal all the provisions restricting trade union pluralism and recognized unequivocally the trade union rights contained in the Convention. The final draft could be submitted to Parliament at the end of the year, once it had been examined by an ILO expert. This showed the Government's intention to bring its legislation into conformity with international labour standards and its readiness, as noted by the direct contacts mission of April 1992, to work towards this end in collaboration with the Office.

The Workers' members recalled that in this case comments had been made for several years on the need to amend the legislation to allow trade union pluralism. In its observation the Committee of Experts noted the assurances given by the Government in this respect during the direct contacts mission in May 1992. The Government representative confirmed this intention to go ahead with the necessary amendments to the legislation. However, this represented a backward slide because although the Committee of Experts had indicated that the adoption of the draft law was planned for April 1993, the Government representative had now promised that this would take place at the end of the current year. The Workers' members could only subscribe to the hope expressed by the Committee of Experts that the Government would take all the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention. It was moreover indispensable that the Office be kept informed of any developments in the situation by full and detailed reports.

The Employers' members associated themselves with the requests made by the Workers' members. However, they made a distinction between the two points raised by the Committee of Experts. With regard to the amendments that needed to be made to the legislation to make trade union pluralism possible, it was clear that they were indispensable to bring the situation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee of Experts was also asking for amendments to the legislation in respect of the restrictions on the right to strike. Given their stance on the interpretation by the Committee of Experts of the right to strike, and in the absence of information on what the restrictions were in this case, the Employers' members reserved their position on the second point.

The Government representative stated that he had taken due note of the remarks made. The delay in the adoption of the new legislation was due to technical difficulties but the political intentions of the Government could not be doubted. The existence of a free press and of several political parties was a reflection of its commitment to pluralism. With the help of the Office, these developments should also have an impact on trade unionism towards the end of the year.

The Committee noted the oral information supplied by the Government representative. The Committee observed with concern that the adoption of the new labour legislation, in conformity with the Convention, had been delayed. The Committee strongly urged the Government to ensure that the necessary measures were taken in the very near future to ensure that all workers and all employers could establish and join occupational organizations outside the existing trade union structure, if they so wished. The Committee noted with interest the request for technical assistance made by the Government representative with a view to enabling this draft legislation to be adopted before the end of 1993. The Committee hoped to be able to note in the near future significant progress in the application of this fundamental Convention, and requested the Government to supply detailed information in this respect in its next report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

A Government representative thanked the Committee for offering his Government the chance to supplement the information already supplied on this Convention, in particular on the following three points: the single trade union system; the strike prohibition arising from the referral of collective disputes to compulsory arbitration; and the query as to whether organisations of public servants and those in the private sector could affiliate freely to the Trade Union Federation of Mauritania or to any other confederation.

As regarded the question of trade union unity, his Government did not see any difficulty in the creation of several trade unions by trade if such was the will of the trade unions. He stated that nothing in his country's legislation prohibited unions from creating unions or confederations other than the Trade Union Federation of Mauritania and, if the workers considered that only one union was satisfactory, then it was not for the Government to impose a different situation. In so far as the legislation provided that there be only one union by profession, those unions could form several other trade union confederations. He stressed that his Government was greatly attached to individual and collective freedoms, but that considerations of a social nature specific to his country might have led the workers there to prefer unitary institutions rather than those which might divide them further.

As for the strike ban when disputes were referred to compulsory arbitration, his Government did not consider that strikes were really a solution to the crucial problems of the social partners. Consultation had to be stressed and recourse to strikes should only occur when the possibility no longer existed for the workers to protect their rights or obtain their legitimate claims. Referral to the arbitration council, with the possibility of appeal, should avoid the use of strikes.

As regarded the third question, he was pleased to reply that trade unions covering public servants and private sector workers could freely join the Trade Union Federation of Mauritania and that that had always been the case.

He pointed out that the preliminary draft of the new labour code which had been reviewed by a special committee of the Labour Department would be submitted, together with all the Committee of Experts' comments and present observations, to the National Labour Council, which was a tripartite consultation body. He gave the undertaking that his Government would respect the will of the workers as regarded the contents of that document so that that part of the national legislation would also be in conformity with the international labour standards covered therein. He added that, since 12 December 1984, his Government had wished to re-establish its credibility both internally and internationally. His Government's Department of Labour had received much valuable assistance from the Office over the past two years in preparing reports requested; the subsequent sending of a large number of these reports, as well as the fact that the draft code had been sent to the Committee of Experts for comments, proved his country's good will.

The Employers' members, referring to the two most important points under discussion, noted that the Mauritanian single trade union system existed in a special form since it was based on grouping by occupations, trades or crafts. This question had been looked at before and would be dealt with again and again because the problem lay in the legislation, not in the de facto situation. They noted that the question which the Committee on Freedom of Association had already looked at in 1982 had not been entirely solved: this involved the ability of public employees' associations to join with private sector unions.

They recalled that the discussion of this case last year had led to agreement on the fact that the national legislation had to be amended. That was why the draft code had had to be looked at again. They were therefore surprised that the Government representative had just stated that the legislative provisions on trade union unity by trade were not contrary to the Convention. The Office had helped in the preparation of proposals along the lines indicated by the Committee of Experts and this had been a reasonable way of approaching the problem. However, the Committee of Experts had now noted that the preliminary draft which had been sent did not correspond to the requirements of the Convention and that it differed from the proposals which had been agreed on with ILO assistance. They noted that the Government representative had defended the single trade union system by stating that it was the wish of the workers; the Employers' members had to repeat the usual reply to this, namely that the workers could indeed decide on only one union but that the legislator should not institute this in the legislation because that meant that the workers were no longer free to set up organisations of their own choosing. This was a basic requirement of Convention No. 87. Nothing new had been added in today's discussion, so they repeated what had been said last year, that divergencies with the Convention should be removed and that the draft labour code should be revised yet again.

The Worker member of Mauritania noted that there were joint public and private sector unions, for example in the fishing sector, where both the public fishermen's union and the private fishermen's union belonged to the Trade Union Federation of Mauritania and had representatives on its executive bodies. As for the fact that at the shop floor level only one trade union existed per branch of activity, he stressed that Mauritanian workers thought this gave greater strength when facing disputes. That explained their wish for trade union unity. The legislation did allow the setting up of more than one union, but the workers had decided freely to form only one. There were sometimes fights within the union yet no worker had ever wanted to create a parallel union, although this could be done under the legislation. The case that had been presented to the Committee on Freedom of Association in 1981 had concerned the Federation's 1981 congress, but the trade unionists who had withdrawn from the congress at that time could have set up a new trade union if they had so wished. The legislative possibility to establish more than one union would no doubt appear in the new labour code. The single trade union system dated back to 1962 when priority had been given to strength and solidarity through unity. He believed that a large number of trade unions would be detrimental to this. He recalled that until 1984 there had been problems - there had been imprisonments and torture - but this had occurred under the dictatorship. With the advent of the new regime, trade unions were free to organise and he had taken note of the Government representative's statement today regarding the expansion of freedoms. This meant that if there were problems the Mauritanian workers would not fail to refer them to the ILO. However, in the absence of such problems, why should the wish of the Mauritanian workers be countered? Regarding the existence of several trade union groups at the grass roots level, he considered that a solution could be found in the new draft code when it was sent to the National Labour Council where the workers were represented. He trusted that the legislation should provide for more than one union, and that the Government would support this in the Council.

The Workers' members noted that the Convention did not challenge the existence of single trade union systems, but rather the compulsory institution of such systems by virtue of legislation. There was some contradiction in the explanations given in that on the one hand some trade unionists had split from the congress of the Trade Union Federation but had not set up another union and that on the other hand they had not been prevented from doing so; more information was needed on the situation in practice. They regretted that in 1986 the Government had indicated changes to the Labour Code in a preliminary draft but that the same problem still existed because the new draft was not in conformity with the Convention on two fundamental points. Moreover, the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in its 1982 case concerning Mauritania had not been taken into account. An earlier draft decree had fully conformed with Convention No. 87, but that too had not been taken into account. Therefore, from a legal point of view, no progress had been made. They hoped that the Government would take account of the Committee of Experts' comments and that the present draft would soon be subject to major amendments so that at the next session of the Conference a different situation could be described. Perhaps it would be desirable, as in 1979, to call on Office assistance so as to adapt the old texts to the present situation, in conformity with the Convention.

The Worker member of Mauritania clarified that his earlier reference to problems during the 1981 congress did not refer to deaths or injuries, but to differences during elections. One faction within the Trade Union Federation had indeed withdrawn, but had not wanted to set up, nor had been prevented from setting up, its own union. The problem in the 1981 complaint had not concerned the occupational unions, but the Federation itself. He again pointed out that Mauritanian workers would not fail to complain if the new legislation was not in conformity with ILO standards, but before discussing this they had to wait for the draft texts to be put before the National Labour Council for discussion there.

The Government representative thought that the criticism of his country regarding its desire to improve the situation was very severe. What had to be kept in mind was the Government's intention to make changes. The ILO experts who had visited Mauritania had experienced the complete readiness of his Government which had been demonstrated by the sending of the preliminary draft for comments and the communication of a large number of requested reports. Perhaps his initial statement had been misunderstood, because he had not said that the legislation was not in contradiction with the Convention. He had merely referred to the events which had led up to Case No. 1088 and which were not linked to the single trade union system which, as had been said earlier, existed due to the will of the workers. He repeated that his Government saw no problem in there being a multiplicity of unions by profession. All the observations made here would be examined and taken up in the draft which was being reviewed and which would be submitted to the tripartite National Labour Council before being examined by the Government and adopted in the form of legislation.

The Workers' members noted that the Government representative's second statement clarified the situation, but that the legislation was clearly not in conformity with the Convention. They thanked the Government for having sent the preliminary draft for comments and hoped that the present dialogue would lead to the necessary changes.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government in the course of the discussion that had just taken place. The Committee noted, in particular, that a number of divergencies still existed between the national legislation and the Convention. The Committee urged the Government to seek the assistance of the ILO and to take account in its revision of the legislation of all the considerations expressed by the Committee of Experts in its comments, so as to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee hoped that the Government would soon be able to report that progress had been made in this connection.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Legislative amendments. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, in the context of the revision of the texts implementing the Labour Code, a technical committee will take the necessary measures to amend the legislation to bring it into full conformity with the Convention and that particular attention will be paid to all sections which have been the subject of comments by the Committee. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government’s next report will indicate progress in the revision of the Labour Code to bring it into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will take due account in this regard of the points that it recalls below.

Article 3 of the Convention. For several years, the Committee has been referring to sections 268 and 273 of the Labour Code on the conditions which must be fulfilled to be a member of a trade union or to be eligible to hold office as a manager or administrator. The Committee recalls that the combination of the conditions laid down in the two sections above may infringe the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom by preventing the election of qualified persons or by depriving unions of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks. The Committee requests the Government to make the eligibility conditions more flexible, for example by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

Furthermore, the Committee refers to section 359 of the Labour Code which provides that the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, under penalty of the penal sanctions established by Book VIII of the Code. The Committee notes that, according to section 361, if a worker, during the course of a strike, even where it is lawful, is in breach of the obligations and prohibitions set forth in section 359, he or she is guilty of serious misconduct giving grounds for dismissal without entitlement to compensation in lieu of notice, severance allowance or damages. The Committee recalls that restrictions on strike pickets and workplace occupations should be limited to cases where the action ceases to be peaceful or to cases where respect of the freedom to work of non-strikers or the right of the management to enter the premises of the enterprise are hindered. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that no penal sanctions should be imposed on a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and therefore, measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to amend section 359 of the Labour Code to remove the prohibition of peaceful occupation of workplaces or their immediate surroundings and to provide for penal sanctions only in cases where action during a strike is not peaceful.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Comments of the ITUC. The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 24 August 2010, concerning legislative matters already raised by the Committee, as well as violations of freedom of association in 2009. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in reply to the ITUC’s comments.

Legislative amendments. For several years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation to bring it into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, in the context of the revision of the texts implementing the Labour Code, a technical committee composed of labour inspectors will take the necessary measures to amend the legislation to bring it into full conformity with the Convention and that particular attention will be paid to all sections which have been the subject of comments by the Committee. The Committee notes this information and expresses the firm hope that the Government’s next report will indicate concrete progress in the revision of the Labour Code to bring it into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee further hopes that the Government will take due account of all points recalled below. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government expresses its wish to continue benefiting from technical assistance from the Office.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization. Minors who are of the minimum legal age for admission to employment. For several years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to amend section 269 of the Labour Code to remove any obstacles that prevent minors who have access to the labour market from exercising the right to organize. The Committee recalls that, under Article 2 of the Convention, the minimum age for joining a trade union in full freedom must be the same as that established for admission to employment, without the permission of the parents or guardian being necessary. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 269 of the Labour Code so as to guarantee the right to organize of minors who are of the minimum legal age for admission to employment (14 years according to section 153 of the Labour Code), whether as workers or as apprentices, without the permission of their parents or guardians being necessary.

Magistrates. For several years, the Committee has been commenting on the need to ensure that magistrates enjoy freedom of association. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that magistrates have preferred to form neutral associations for the defence of their interests and that they have not expressed the wish to establish unions. The Committee is bound to recall once again that magistrates are not covered by the exceptions allowed by Article 9 of the Convention and that they ought to enjoy, like all other categories of workers, the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that magistrates enjoy the right to establish and join occupational organizations of their own choosing.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without interference from the public authorities. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 278 of the Labour Code extends the procedure for the establishment of trade unions to any changes in their administration or management, and therefore has the effect of subjecting such changes to the approval, either of the Prosecutor-General or of the courts. The Committee therefore indicated that this provision gives rise to serious risks of interference by the public authorities in the organization and activities of trade unions and their federations. It recalled that the establishment or amendment of the statutes of an organization of workers is the responsibility of the organization itself and should not be subject to the prior consent of the public authorities in order to take effect. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 278 of the Labour Code so as to provide that any change in the administration or management of a union may take effect as soon as the competent authorities have been notified and without the requirement of their approval.

Compulsory arbitration. For many years, the Committee has been noting that sections 350 and 362 of the Labour Code allow compulsory arbitration in instances which go beyond essential services in the strict sense and in situations which cannot be deemed to constitute an acute national crisis. The Committee recalls that the prohibition or restriction of the right to strike by means of compulsory arbitration can be justified only in the cases of: (1) essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; (2) an acute national crisis and then only for a limited period and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation. The Committee trusts that the Government will amend the relevant sections of the Labour Code so as to limit the prohibition on strikes by means of compulsory arbitration only to essential services in the strict sense of the term and to situations of acute national crisis.

Duration of mediation. In its previous comments concerning the prohibition on strikes for the duration of the mediation procedure established under section 362 of the Labour Code, the Committee recalled that it was possible to require the exhaustion of conciliation and mediation procedures before a strike may be called, on condition that the procedures are not so complex or slow that a lawful strike becomes impossible in practice or loses its effectiveness. However, the Committee considered that the maximum period of 120 days for mediation provided for in section 346 of the Labour Code was too long. The Committee expects that the Government will amend section 346 of the Labour Code to reduce the maximum duration of mediation before a strike may be called.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments concerning sections 268 and 273 of the Labour Code on the conditions which must be fulfilled to be a member of a trade union or to be eligible to hold office as a manager or administrator, the Committee recalled that the combination of the two conditions laid down in the above sections may infringe the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom by preventing the election of qualified persons or by depriving unions of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks. The Committee therefore invited the Government to make the eligibility conditions more flexible, for example by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

The Committee’s previous comments also concerned section 359 of the Labour Code, which provides that the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, under penalty of the penal sanctions established by Book VIII of the Code. The Committee also noted that, according to section 361, if a worker, during the course of a strike, even where it is lawful, is in breach of the obligations and prohibitions set forth in section 359, he or she is guilty of serious misconduct giving grounds for dismissal without entitlement to compensation in lieu of notice, severance allowance or damages. The Committee recalls that restrictions on strike pickets and workplace occupations should be limited to cases where the action ceases to be peaceful or to cases where respect of the freedom to work of non-strikers or the right of the management to enter the premises of the enterprise are hindered. The Committee therefore asked the Government to amend section 359 so as to limit the prohibition and, hence, the possibility of dismissing workers, to cases in which the action is not peaceful.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report the possibility of examining the amendments requested to the sections of the Labour Code which are the subject of comments by the Committee in the process under way of revising the texts implementing the Labour Code. The Committee hopes that in its next report, the Government will give an account of concrete progress made in the revision of the Labour Code (through the adoption of implementing texts or any other measures) to bring it into full conformity with the Convention on the two points raised in the present direct request.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee previously asked the Government to reply to the observations of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, dated 10 August 2006, relating to problems in giving effect to the Convention in practice (registration applications blocked at the Office of the Public Prosecutor and pressure from the public authorities in favour of a trade union organization). The Committee notes that, in its reply, the Government refutes the observations made by the ICFTU concerning the blocking of trade union registrations at the Office of the Public Prosecutor and points out, as an example, the recent registration (March 2008) of a tenth trade union confederation. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 29 August 2008, which relate to legislative matters already raised by the Committee.

In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation so as to bring it into full conformity with the Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, without previous authorization. The Committee previously asked the Government to amend section 269 of the Labour Code in order to remove any obstacles that prevent minors who have access to the labour market from exercising the right to organize. In its reply, the Government maintains that parental authorization was deemed necessary to protect minors and that this position does not contradict the provisions of the Convention. The Committee is bound to recall that, under Article 2 of the Convention, the minimum age for joining a trade union in full freedom must be the same as that established for admission to employment, without the permission of the parents or guardian being necessary. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures without delay to amend section 269 of the Labour Code in order to guarantee the right to organize of minors who are of the minimum legal age for admission to employment (14 years according to section 153 of the Labour Code), whether as workers or as apprentices, without the permission of their parents or guardians being necessary.

Furthermore, the Committee has been making comments for several years on the need to ensure the exercise of freedom of association of magistrates. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that magistrates are not allowed to set up trade union organizations but may form neutral associations for the defence of their material and moral interests. In this regard, the Committee is bound to recall that magistrates are not covered by the exceptions allowed by Article 9 of the Convention and that they ought to enjoy, like all other categories of workers, the right to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that magistrates enjoy the right to establish and join occupational organizations of their own choosing and will indicate all measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without interference from the public authorities. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 278 of the Labour Code extends the procedure for the establishment of trade unions to any changes in their administration or management, and therefore has the effect of subjecting such changes to the approval, either of the Prosecutor-General or of the courts. The Committee indicated that this provision therefore gives rise to serious risks of interference by the public authorities in the organization and activities of trade unions and their federations. It recalled that the establishment or amendment of the statutes of an organization of workers is the responsibility of the organization itself and should not be subject to the prior consent of the public authorities in order to take effect. It therefore asked the Government to amend section 278 of the Labour Code so as to provide that any change in the administration or management of a union may take effect as soon as the competent authorities have been notified and without the requirement of their approval.

Compulsory arbitration. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that sections 350 and 362 of the Labour Code allow compulsory arbitration in instances which go beyond essential services in the strict sense and in situations which cannot be deemed to constitute an acute national crisis. The Committee recalled that the prohibition or restriction of the right to strike by means of compulsory arbitration can be justified only in the cases of: (1) essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; (2) an acute national crisis, and then only for a limited period and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation. The Committee therefore asked the Government to amend the relevant sections of the Labour Code so as to limit the prohibition on strikes by means of compulsory arbitration only to essential services in the strict sense of the term and to situations of acute national crisis.

Duration of mediation. In its previous comments concerning the prohibition on strikes for the duration of the mediation procedure established under section 362 of the Labour Code, the Committee recalled that it was possible to require the exhaustion of conciliation and mediation procedures before a strike may be called, on condition that the procedures are not so complex or slow that a lawful strike becomes impossible in practice or loses its effectiveness. However, the Committee considered that the maximum period of 120 days for mediation provided for in section 346 of the Labour Code was too long. The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 346 of the Labour Code.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that activities have recently been carried out with technical support from the Office aimed at validating various draft texts implementing the Labour Code. It adds that the amendments requested to the sections of the Labour Code which are the subject of comments by the Committee (sections 278, 350–362, 346, etc.) could be examined in the process under way of revising the texts implementing the Labour Code. The Committee notes these indications and hopes that the Government’s next report will give an account of concrete progress made in the revision of the Labour Code (through the adoption of implementing texts or any other measures) to bring it into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will take due account of all the points raised and hopes that the technical assistance provided to the Government by the Office will continue with regard to these matters.

The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on other matters.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee takes note of the information in the Government’s report.

Article 2 of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted in its previous comments that under section 269 of the new Labour Code, young persons of 16 years of age may join a trade union unless their membership is opposed by the person vested with parental authority. The Committee notes from the report that the Government believes that parental authority was deemed necessary in order to protect young persons against acts of violence liable to occur when trade unions hold elections. The Committee reminds the Government that the minimum age for joining a trade union in full freedom must be the same as that established for admission to employment, and again asks the Government to amend section 269 of the Labour Code in order to remove any obstacles that prevent young people who have access to the labour market, whether as workers or as apprentices, from exercising the right to organize without the need for parental authorization.

2. With reference to its previous comments on the public service, the Committee notes the information sent by the Government to the effect that the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code of public servants and contractual employees of the State and public establishments (section 1) does not apply to the establishment, organization and running of their unions. The Committee notes, however, that the Government confirms that magistrates are not allowed to set up trade union organizations, but may form mutual associations for the defence of their material and moral interests. The Committee reminds the Government that magistrates are not covered by the exceptions allowed by Article 9 of the Convention and that they ought, therefore, like all other categories of workers, to have the right to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing. It accordingly asks the Government to take measures to ensure that magistrates have the right to establish and join occupational organizations of their own choosing. Please report on all measures taken or envisaged to this end.

Article 3. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 273 of the new Labour Code establishes that membership of a trade union is a requirement for eligibility to hold office as a manager or administrator of the union and that, under section 268 of the new Code, only workers belonging to the occupation represented and defended by the union may be members of it. The Committee points out that the combination of these two conditions may infringe the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom by preventing the election of qualified persons or by depriving unions of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks. It asks the Government to make the eligibility conditions more flexible, for example by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization. In its report, the Government indicates that unions usually have technical advisers who also fulfil the role of permanent officers and that they are recruited from among lawyers and retired labour inspectors. The Government adds that this issue may be examined in the committee responsible for drafting the implementing legislation for the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken in this regard.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 359 of the new Labour Code provides that the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, under penalty of the penal sanctions established by Book VIII of the Code. The Committee also noted that according to section 361, if a worker, during the course of a strike, even where it is lawful, is in breach of the obligations and prohibitions set forth in section 359, she or he is guilty of serious misconduct giving grounds for dismissal without entitlement to compensation in lieu of notice, severance allowance or damages.

The Committee notes in this connection the Government’s statement in its report that to prevent non-striking workers from exercising their right to work is a non-peaceful act under section 359. The Committee reminds the Government that the right to strike must be exercised in observance of the freedom to work of non-strikers, but that restrictions on strike pickets and workplace occupations should be limited to cases where the action ceases to be peaceful. The Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to amend section 359 so as to limit the prohibition and, hence, the possibility of dismissing workers, to cases in which the action is not peaceful.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the comments of 10 August 2006 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) which address legislative matters already raised by the Committee, and practical problems in giving effect to the Convention (registration applications blocked at the Office of the Public Prosecutor and intervention by public authorities in favour of an organization). The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on these observations with its next report.

Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the procedure for acquisition of legal personality envisaged by the new Labour Code sets specific time limits and is ultimately subject to review by the courts, and that it applies to the amendment of the internal rules of trade unions. The Committee asked the Government to report any cases of refusal to issue a registration receipt and any rejection of amendments under this procedure. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it has been notified of no refusals to deliver registration receipts or rejections of amendments.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without interference from the public authorities. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 278 of the new Labour Code extends the procedure for the establishment of trade unions to any changes in their administration or management. This provision therefore has the effect of subjecting such changes to the approval either of the Prosecutor-General or of the courts, and therefore gives rise to serious risks of interference by public authorities in the organization and activities of trade unions and their federations. In its report, the Government indicates that if the statutes as amended and the changes made to a union’s administration or management are lawful, there is no reason for the Prosecutor-General to withhold approval, and that section 278 therefore needs no amendment. The Committee points out that the establishment and amendment of the statutes of an organization of workers is the responsibility of the organization itself and should not be subject to the prior consent of the public authorities in order to take effect. Accordingly, it once again asks the Government to amend section 278 so as to provide that any change in the administration or management of a union may take effect as soon as the competent authorities have been notified and without the requirement of their approval.

2. Compulsory arbitration. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the new Labour Code, in sections 350 and 362, allows compulsory arbitration in instances which go beyond essential services in the strict sense and in situations which cannot be deemed to constitute an acute national crisis. According to section 362, a strike is unlawful when it occurs either during the course of mediation or after notification of the Minister of Labour’s decision to refer the dispute to arbitration under the conditions set in section 350, or following the award of the Arbitration Council. The Committee noted in this connection that under section 350, the Minister of Labour may decide to refer a collective dispute to arbitration at any time, in light of the circumstances and impact of the dispute, and when he considers the strike to be prejudicial to public order or contrary to the general interest.

The Committee notes that in its report, the Government states that strikes are not prohibited and are one of the levers of freedom of association laid down in the Labour Code. Furthermore, the Minister decides to resort to arbitration only where he deems the strike to be prejudicial to public order or contrary to the general interest, i.e. to essential services, after mediation and conciliation proceedings have been exhausted.

The Committee nonetheless points out that the prohibition or restriction of the right to strike by means of compulsory arbitration can be justified only in the cases of: (1) essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; (2) an acute national crisis, and then only for a limited period and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation. The Committee again asks the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the relevant provisions of the Labour Code so as to limit the prohibition on strikes by means of compulsory arbitration to essential services in the strict sense of the term and to situations of acute national crisis.

3. Duration of mediation. Lastly, with regard to the prohibition on strikes for the duration of the mediation procedure established in section 362 of the Labour Code, the Committee pointed out that it is possible to require the exhaustion of conciliation and mediation procedures before a strike may be called on condition that the procedures are not so complex or slow that a lawful strike becomes impossible in practice or loses its effectiveness. The Committee observed in its last observation that the maximum period of 120 days for mediation provided in the Labour Code appeared too long in this respect. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government states that it could envisage reducing the maximum of 120 days in order to meet the Committee’s demands and that a committee is to be set up to draft implementing legislation for the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to report on the progress of the above committee’s work and to inform it of the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 346 of the Labour Code.

The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on other matters.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

With reference to its observation, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following matters.

Article 2 of the Convention. 1. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 269 of the new Labour Code, young persons aged 16 years of age may join a trade union unless their membership is opposed by the person vested with parental authority. Furthermore, section 153 provides that children may not be engaged, even as apprentices, before the age of 14 years or where, when they have passed this age, they are still subject to compulsory schooling. Moreover, with the exception of employment in maritime fishing, children who have reached 12 years of age may, under certain conditions, be employed in establishments in which members of their family are engaged. The Committee notes that young workers under 16 years of age are excluded from the right to organize, while those who are 16 years old may only exercise this right subject to certain conditions. The Committee recalls that the minimum age for the membership of a trade union in full freedom must be the same as that established for admission to employment. It therefore requests the Government to amend section 269 of the Labour Code so as to guarantee the right to organize of young persons who have access to the labour market in compliance with the conditions set out in the Labour Code, both as workers and apprentices, without the need for parental authorization.

2. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it requested the Government to provide further information on the establishment of occupational organizations, particularly in the sectors of small-scale fishing and agriculture (market gardeners in Nouakchott and Nouadhibou). The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s report that the Federation of Agricultural and Stock-raising Workers of Mauritania (FAEM) and the National Fishing (Small-Scale and Industrial) Federation are emanations of occupational organizations and exercise their activities freely.

3. With regard to the public service, the Committee notes that, under section 1 of the new Labour Code, public officials appointed to a permanent post in the framework of a public administration and contractual employees of the State and public administrative establishments are excluded from the scope of application of the Labour Code. The Committee notes that under sections 18 and 107 of Act No. 93-09, of 18 January 1993, applicable to public servants and contractual employees of the State and public administrative establishments, such workers enjoy the right to organize. However, these sections also provide that the trade unions of public servants and contractual employees are governed by the provisions of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that the exclusion contained in section 1 of the new Labour Code concerning public servants and contractual employees does not apply to the establishment, organization and operation of their trade unions. The Committee also notes that magistrates are excluded from the scope of application of Title 1 of the Act of 1993, granting the right to organize to public servants. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the text of the law which grants magistrates the right to establish and join trade union organizations of their own choosing.

Article 3. 1. The Committee notes that section 273 of the new Labour Code establishes that membership of the trade union is a requirement for eligibility to hold office in the management or administration of a trade union. The Committee also notes that, under section 268 of the new Labour Code, only workers belonging to the occupation represented and defended by the trade union may be members it. The Committee recalls that the combination of these two conditions may infringe the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom by preventing the election of qualified persons, such as full-time union officers or by depriving unions of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 117). The Committee therefore requests the Government to make the eligibility conditions more flexible, for example by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

2. The Committee notes that section 359 of the new Labour Code provides that the exercise of the right to strike may not be accompanied by the occupation of the workplace or its immediate surroundings, subject to the possible imposition of penal sanctions established by Book VIII of the Labour Code. In this respect, the Committee notes that, under section 445, a striking worker who has occupied the workplace or its immediate surroundings in a manner which is not peaceful shall be liable to a fine and/or a sentence of imprisonment of between two weeks and four months. Furthermore, under section 361, if a worker, during the course of a strike, even where it is lawful, is in breach of the obligations and prohibitions set forth in section 359, she or he is guilty of a grave fault giving grounds for dismissal without entitlement to compensation in lieu of notice, severance allowances or damages.

The Committee emphasizes that restrictions on strike pickets and workplace occupations should be limited to cases where the action ceases to be peaceful (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 174). The Committee requests the Government to amend section 359 so as to limit the prohibition and, as a consequence the possibility of dismissing workers, to cases in which the action is not peaceful.

With regard to penal sanctions in the case of action which is not peaceful, as envisaged in section 445, the Committee recalls that, where certain prohibitions of, or restrictions on, the right to strike which are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association sometimes provide for civil or penal sanctions against strikers and trade unions which violate these provisions, such sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 178). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any application in practice of section 445 to workers participating in strike pickets.

3. The Committee notes that under section 360 of the new Labour Code, the competent administrative authority may at any time requisition employees of private enterprises, public services, enterprises or establishments occupying posts that are essential to the security of persons and property, the maintenance of public order, the continuity of public services or the satisfaction of the essential needs of the nation. The competent authority shall establish the conditions and procedures for the requisitioning of workers in the posts concerned. In this respect, the Committee notes the copy provided by the Government of the joint Order of 6  June 2004, issued by the Minister of the Interior, Posts and Telecommunications and Minister of the Public Service and Employment "determining the list of establishments considered to be essential services for the population which could be concerned by requisitioning as envisaged by Act No. 70-029 of 23 January 1970". Section 1 of the Order of 6 June 2004 defines as essential services or establishments the armed and security forces, civil protection services, water and electricity services, telecommunication services, health and social services, sanitation, waste-water treatment and rubbish collection services. The Committee notes that the Ministers of the Interior, Posts and Telecommunications and the Public Service and Employment may update this list whenever necessary.

The Committee recalls that requisitioning is not desirable except: (1) in the event of an acute national crisis; (2) in the case of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; and (3) in the case of the maintenance of essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those of the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In this respect, the Committee notes that the list determined by the Order of 6 June 2004 appears compatible with the Convention and hopes that any further revision will remain limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

However, the Committee notes that under section 360 the requisitioning of employees is not limited to workers occupying posts that are essential for the fulfilment of essential needs and that the Order pre-dates the Labour Code. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether the Order of 6 June 2004 can nevertheless be considered as determining the list of posts envisaged by section 360 and, if so, whether it is the sole list that exists or whether other lists have been adopted or are envisaged. The Committee requests the Government to provide any texts issued under section 360 so that it can examine their compatibility with the Convention. With regard to the reference to the continuity of public services set out in section 360, and while awaiting further information on the determination of the list of posts concerned by requisitioning, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following considerations. In order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than imposing an outright ban on strikes. Such a minimum service should meet at least two requirements. Firstly, it must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear. Secondly, since this system restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 160 and 161).

Article 5. The Committee notes that under section 290, lawfully established occupational trade unions may constitute federations freely in any form whatsoever, including federations and confederations, at the local, regional or national levels. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether federations and confederations have the right to affiliate freely with international organizations of workers, in accordance with Article 5.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It also notes Act No. 2004-017 of 6 July 2004 issuing the Labour Code.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made by the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers (CLTM) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), relating to the situation under the former Labour Code, under which no trade union could exist and function without previous authorization. The CLTM contended that in practice over 100 applications had been blocked at the registry of the Prosecutor of the Republic since the adoption of Act No. 93-038 introducing trade union pluralism. The Committee therefore requested the Government to provide precise information on this matter. In its report, the Government indicates that, to its knowledge, no application for the establishment of trade unions is in the hands of the competent authorities. It recalls that any obstacle to freedom of association is subject to the penalties applicable in relation to obstacles to labour freedom.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. It observes in this respect that the new Labour Code provides, under sections 274 to 277, for a procedure that is applicable for the establishment of trade unions and federations of unions. According to this procedure, a trade union has to deposit its statutes with the competent authorities, including the Prosecutor-General of the Republic, through the competent court. These authorities issue a receipt and, within two months of issuing the receipt that the statutes have been deposited, the Prosecutor-General informs the trade union of her or his conclusions. If the statutes have been lawfully deposited and are considered to be in accordance with the law, the Prosecutor-General issues a receipt of registration. If not, she or he notifies the trade union of the refusal to issue the registration receipt. The trade union only acquires legal personality and capacity when the registration receipt is issued. Finally, if once the two-month period has expired the Prosecutor-General has not informed the trade union of the decision or notified it of a decision to refuse to issue the registration receipt the representatives of the trade union may appeal to the court of the Wilaya to obtain a judicial decision with the effect of a registration receipt.

The Committee notes that, in comparison with the former Labour Code, the procedure for the acquisition of legal personality envisaged by the new Labour Code sets out specific time limits and is ultimately subject to the control of the courts. The Committee requests the Government to report any cases of refusal to issue a registration receipt. Furthermore, noting that the procedure for the establishment of trade unions is also applicable to the modification of the internal rules of trade union organizations, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of any rejection of modifications under this procedure.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without interference from the public authorities. 1. The Committee notes that section 278 of the new Labour Code extends the procedure for the establishment of trade unions to any changes in their administration or management. This provision therefore has the effect of subjecting such changes to the approval of either the Prosecutor-General or the courts, and therefore gives rise to serious risks of interference by the public authorities in the organization and activities of trade unions and trade union federations. The Committee requests the Government to amend section 278 so as to provide that any change in the administration or management of a trade union can take effect as soon as the competent authorities have been notified and without the requirement of their approval.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee raised the question of the access of foreign workers to office as trade union leaders. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, under section 273 of the Labour Code, the members responsible for the administration or management of an occupational trade union may be foreign nationals if they have exercised within the Islamic Republic of Mauritania the occupation defended by the trade union for at least five consecutive years.

3. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that it had been drawing the Government’s attention for many years to the restrictions on the right to strike contained in the former Labour Code, and particularly on the referral of a collective dispute to compulsory arbitration in situations which could not be considered as essential central services in the strict sense of the term or as constituting an acute national crisis. The Committee notes that the new Labour Code maintains the referral to compulsory arbitration. Under section 362, a strike is unlawful when it occurs either during the course of mediation, for a maximum duration of 120 days, or after notification of the decision of the Minister of Labour to refer it to arbitration under the conditions set out in section 350, or following the award of the arbitration council. The Committee notes in this respect that, under section 350, the Minister of Labour may decide at his or her discretion to refer a collective dispute to arbitration in view, among other matters, of the circumstances and impact of the dispute and where she or he considers that the strike is prejudicial to public order or contrary to the general interest. Under section 355, the arbitration award cannot be appealed, but may be referred to the Supreme Court on matters of law. Section 356 provides that arbitration awards, which have not been referred to the Supreme Court, and rulings of the Supreme Court are final.

The Committee recalls that the prohibition or restriction of the right to strike by means of compulsory arbitration can only be justified in the cases of: (1) essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; and (2) an acute national crisis, and then only for a limited period and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation. The circumstances governing referral to compulsory arbitration by the Minister of Labour, as established in section 350, go beyond restrictions which are compatible with the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government to limit the prohibition on strikes, through referral to compulsory arbitration, to essential services and situations of acute national crisis. The Committee notes in this respect that, with regard to essential services in the strict sense of the term, the Government could have recourse to the Order of 6 June 2004, which determines the list of establishments considered to be essential services for the population, for the purposes of requisitioning staff under the terms of Act No. 70-029 of 23 January 1970. Finally, with regard to the prohibition of strikes throughout the period of mediation, the Committee recalls that it is possible to require that conciliation and mediation procedures must be exhausted before a strike may be called, on condition that the procedures are not so complex or slow that a lawful strike becomes impossible in practice or loses its effectiveness (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 171). The Committee notes that the maximum period of 120 days appears too long in this respect and requests the Government to reduce it. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the measures adopted or envisaged to amend section 362 so as to guarantee the right of workers’ organizations to exercise the right to strike with a view to defending and promoting the occupational interests of their members, in accordance with Article 3.

The Committee is raising a number of other points on the provisions of the new Labour Code in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee refers to the comments of 9 September 2002 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and those of 17 December 2002 by the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers (CLTM). It notes that the Government has sent a report and has replied to the comments by the CLTM. It further notes that, according to the Government, the Committee’s comments were taken into account in drafting the new Labour Code, which is to be adopted at the next session of parliament. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new Labour Code with its next report (or the draft of the Code if the final version has not yet been adopted). In the light of the Government’s reply to the comments made by the CLTM, the Committee wishes to raise the following matters.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The CLTM contends that the principle of freedom of association, although recognized by the Constitution of 20 July 1991, and the provisions of Act No. 93-038 establishing trade union pluralism, are not applied in practice. It further alleges that the following sectors are denied the right to organize: small-scale fishing, agriculture (Nouakchott and Nouadhibou market gardeners), city and intercity transport, and meat processing. In the transport sector, this is also true for employers’ organizations. The following organizations are thus recognized but may not carry out any activities and must join the National Transport Federation (FNT), which, in the CLTM’s view, is close to the Government: The Transport Workers’ Federation (FTM), the General Transport Federation of Mauritania (GMT), the General Federation of Personnel Transport (FGTM) and the Mauritanian Transporters’ Federation (FTM). The CLTM furthermore emphasizes that no union may exist and operate without previous authorization. Authorization is rarely granted and more than 100 applications have been blocked at the registry of the Prosecutor of the Republic since the adoption of Act No. 93-038 introducing trade union pluralism. The ICFTU likewise indicates that the Government maintains the right not to recognize a trade union and that its decisions in such matters are discretionary. In response, the Government indicates that public transport drivers have formed an occupational union, which is currently affiliated to the General Union of Mauritanian Workers. Furthermore, the National Federation of Butchers exists and carries on its activities freely. The Government emphasizes that any trade union formed in accordance with the procedures for the constitution of trade unions is immediately recognized. The fact that there are five federations or confederations and hundreds of occupational unions which carry on their activities in full freedom bears witness to the flexibility of the existing legislation.

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s reply. It recalls first that, under Article 2 of the Convention, employers and workers, without any distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. It therefore invites the Government to provide details of the establishment of occupational organizations, particularly in the small-scale fishing and agricultural (Nouakchott and Nouadhibou market gardeners) sectors. Secondly, the Committee recalls although the law may require a number of formalities in order for occupational organizations to be established, such formalities may on no account amount to "previous authorization" in breach of Article 2. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the blockage in the registry of the Prosecutor of the Republic of 100 or so applications to establish trade unions, as reported by the CLTM.

Article 3. Right of workers organizations to organize their administration and formulate their programmes in full freedom without interference from the public authorities. The CLTM states that trade union organizations are not free to carry on their activities normally as they regularly come up against obstacles and pressure on the part of the public administration with the intention of obstructing their activities or influencing their decisions. Examples cited by the CLTM include the following: (1) the public authorities still have a say in the right to strike, which even amounts to a ban in practice; (2) unionized workers are subjected daily to all kinds of pressure or discriminatory measures such as arbitrary dismissal, in particular for exercising the right to strike; (3) trade union posters and general assemblies of workers are not authorized in public and private establishments; (4) leave of absence to participate in trade union activities is often refused, particularly to members of the CLTM. The ICFTU, for its part, indicates that it is difficult to exercise freedom of association in the private sector. The Government states in reply that the right to strike is guaranteed but is exercised in conformity with the existing legislative and regulatory provisions; a strike called by dockers this year which led to their wage claims being met gave rise to no dismissals. The Government furthermore denies that the administration prevented workers from holding general assemblies: in June, all the occupational unions affiliated to the Union of Mauritanian Workers have held general assemblies throughout the country as well as their national congress. Furthermore, all trade unions may file complaints with the competent courts if they deem their activities to have been restricted. Lastly, the Government states that trade unionists of all leanings participate regularly in seminars organized by the labour administration. The CLTM has always participated in these events, the last of which, a national workers education seminar on occupational health and safety, took place on 19 August 2003. The Government stresses in conclusion that it does not intervene in trade union matters but merely ensures compliance with the existing legislation while seeking to improve the living conditions of all the workers.

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s comments. It recalls that for workers’ and employers’ organizations, freedom of association implies the right to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes with a view to defending the occupational interests of their members within the bounds of the law. The right to organize consists in particular of the right to hold trade union meetings, the right of trade union leaders to have access to workplaces and the right to strike. The Committee points out that for many years it has been commenting on the restrictions to the right to strike which are set out in the Labour Code, particularly the referral to compulsory arbitration of collective disputes where essential services in the strict sense of the term were not involved. The Committee therefore trusts that, in accordance with the Government’s undertaking, its comments will be taken into account in the new Labour Code currently in the process of adoption, and that the organizations will be able freely to organize their activities and formulate their programmes in order to further and defend the interests of their members, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of progress in this area.

The Committee also requests the Government to respond to the other questions pending (see the Committee’s observation of 2002), in its report due in 2004.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It notes the Government’s statement that the draft Labour Code has been examined and approved by the National Labour Council, and that it will be approved by the Government and the Parliament during the course of the year.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. In its previous comments, the Committee emphasized that section 7 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 93-038 of 20 July 1993, limits the right of access to trade union office to nationals of Mauritania. The Committee recalled in this respect that the national legislation should allow foreign nationals to have access to trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country. In its latest report, the Government indicates that a provision in the new draft Labour Code will permit foreign workers to be elected to office in occupational organizations once they have resided in the country for at least five years. The Committee notes this information with interest and will examine this new provision when it has received a copy of the new Labour Code.

Articles 3 and 10. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes in full freedom in order to further and defend the interests of their members. The Committee previously expressed the hope that the Labour Code would be amended to confine the prohibition of strikes solely to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in the event of an acute national crisis. The Committee notes from the information provided in the Government’s report that it is aware that the existing provisions respecting the right to strike may be inadequate. The Government adds that the draft Labour Code therefore aims at clearly defining strikes in sections 357 to 366, thereby granting trade union organizations the possibility to have recourse to strike action to defend the social, economic and occupational interests of their members.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made towards the adoption of a new Labour Code. It also requests that the Government provide it with a copy of the updated version of the Code once it has become law.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It notes the Government’s statement that the draft Labour Code, prepared with the assistance of the ILO, is being studied by the Interministerial Technical Committee. The Committee recalls that the Government has been referring to a draft Labour Code since 1995. It hopes that the new Code will be adopted in the near future and that the Government will take account of the following comments, which the Committee has been making for several years.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee emphasizes once again that section 7 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 93-038 of 20 July 1993, limits the right of access to trade union office to nationals of Mauritania. The Committee recalls that the legislation should be amended to enable organizations to choose their officers in full freedom and to allow foreign workers to take up trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 118).

Articles 3 and 10. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes freely in order to further and defend the interests of their members. The Committee notes once again that sections 39, 40, 45 and 48 of Book IV of the Labour Code which is currently in force permit the prohibition of strikes in the event of referral to compulsory arbitration. It hopes that the Labour Code will be amended to confine the prohibition of strikes solely to the essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in the event of an acute national crisis.

The Committee again requests that the Government indicate in its next report the progress made towards enactment of the Labour Code.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. However, it notes the observations made by the Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania (CLTM) concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

1.  Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom.  The Committee emphasizes once again that section 7 of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 93-038 of 20 July 1993, limits the right of access to trade union office to nationals of Mauritania. The Committee recalls that the legislation should be amended to enable organizations to choose their officers in full freedom and to allow foreign workers to take up trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 118).

Articles 3 and 10. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes freely in order to further and defend the interests of their members.  The Committee notes once again that sections 39, 40, 45 and 48 of Book IV of the Labour Code which is currently in force permit the prohibition of strikes in the event of referral to compulsory arbitration. It hopes that the Labour Code will be amended to confine the prohibition of strikes solely to the essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in the event of an acute national crisis.

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to amend the Labour Code with a view to bringing the legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

2.  The Committee notes the observations made by the Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania to the effect that the authorities refuse to recognize the right of fishermen and fishmongers to organize as workers, on the grounds that they are not employees. The CLTM emphasizes the great pressure exercised by the authorities to induce these workers to withdraw from the CLTM, and the obligation placed on taxi drivers and cart drivers to organize within the National Transport Federation. It adds that fishermen, fishmongers, taxi drivers and cart drivers are obliged to pay daily taxes and compulsory contributions and dues by the authorities, by the Employers’ Fishing Federation and by the National Transport Federation.

The Government indicates that these allegations are not founded since no authorities took any decision in this sense. The Government adds that the national authorities are not involved at any stage in the election process of workers’ representatives and that the labour courts which are competent on issues related to these elections never received a complaint of the CLTM on this matter. The Committee takes note of this information.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes that in its report the Government repeats the information it sent in 1996 and provides no new information. It notes with regret that the expected amendments to the Labour Code have still not been adopted.

Article 3 of the Convention. 1. Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. Referring to the need to amend section 7 of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 93-038 of 20 July 1993, under which only Mauritanians have the right of access to trade union office, the Government indicates in its report that sections 273 of the draft Labour Code provides that, in order to be eligible for trade union office, workers must either be of Mauritanian nationality or, if they are foreigners, show that they have exercised in Mauritania and for five consecutive years the occupation whose interests the union defends. The Committee nonetheless recalls that it would be more appropriate to amend the legislation so that it enables organizations to choose their officers in full freedom and allow foreign workers to take up trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 118).

2. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes freely in order to promote and defend the interests of their members. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the prohibition of strikes in the event of referral to compulsory arbitration (sections 39, 40, 45 and 48 of Book IV of the Labour Code currently in force), and notes that the amendment to the Code which was to lift these restrictions has still not been adopted. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the right of workers' organizations to resort to strike action in the defence of the social, economic and occupational interests of their members will be ensured. The Committee hopes that the amendment to the Labour Code will confine the prohibition of strikes solely to situations where the Committee has considered it acceptable, that is in essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. whose interruption would endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in the event of an acute national crisis.

The Committee asks once again the Government to provide as rapidly as possible a copy of the amendments to the Labour Code which are relevant to the above comments. It also asks the Government to provide information in its next report on actual progress made in applying the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

1. Article 3: Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. Referring to the need to modify section 7 of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 93-038 of 20 July 1993 which reserves the right of access to trade union office to those of Mauritanian nationality, the Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that section 273 of the draft Labour Code provides that one must be of Mauritanian nationality to hold trade union office or, for foreign workers, must have exercised the profession which the trade union represents in Mauritania for five consecutive years. According to the Government, this text is preferable to section 7 currently in force since it only restricts access to trade union office on the requirement that the workers have exercised the profession before being elected. The Government considers that it is in the workers' interest to have as trade union leaders persons who have an in-depth knowledge of the problems which concern them. The Committee takes note of this information and expresses the hope that the Labour Code will be amended on this point in the near future. 2. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes freely in order to promote and defend the interests of their members. While recalling that its previous comments concerned the prohibition of strike in the case of compulsory arbitration (sections 39, 40, 45 and 48 of Book IV of the Labour Code currently in force), the Committee notes that the draft Code which would lift these restrictions has not yet been adopted. The Government indicates in its report that the draft Code has been discussed in the National Council for Labour and Social Security and that it is presently with an inter-ministerial committee before being submitted to the Council of Ministers. The Committee takes note of the Government's statement that the right of workers' organizations to have recourse to strike action in the defence of the social, economic and occupational interests of their members will be ensured. The Committee expresses the hope that the draft Labour Code will limit the prohibition of strikes only to situations where the Committee has considered it acceptable, that is in essential services in the strict sense of the term (those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or in the case of an acute national crisis. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new Labour Code which it hopes will be adopted shortly.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. Article 3: Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. Referring to the need to modify section 7 of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 93-038 of 20 July 1993 which reserves the right of access to trade union office to those of Mauritanian nationality, the Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that section 273 of the draft Labour Code provides that one must be of Mauritanian nationality to hold trade union office or, for foreign workers, must have exercised the profession which the trade union represents in Mauritania for five consecutive years. According to the Government, this text is preferable to section 7 currently in force since it only restricts access to trade union office on the requirement that the workers have exercised the profession before being elected. The Government considers that it is in the workers' interest to have as trade union leaders persons who have an in-depth knowledge of the problems which concern them. The Committee takes note of this information and expresses the hope that the Labour Code will be amended on this point in the near future.

2. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes freely in order to promote and defend the interests of their members. While recalling that its previous comments concerned the prohibition of strike in the case of compulsory arbitration (sections 39, 40, 45 and 48 of Book IV of the Labour Code currently in force), the Committee notes that the draft Code which would lift these restrictions has not yet been adopted. The Government indicates in its report that the draft Code has been discussed in the National Council for Labour and Social Security and that it is presently with an inter-ministerial committee before being submitted to the Council of Ministers. The Committee takes note of the Government's statement that the right of workers' organizations to have recourse to strike action in the defence of the social, economic and occupational interests of their members will be ensured. The Committee expresses the hope that the draft Labour Code will limit the prohibition of strikes only to situations where the Committee has considered it acceptable, that is in essential services in the strict sense of the term (those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, safety or health of whole or part of the population) or in the case of acute national crisis. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new Labour Code which it hopes will be adopted shortly.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its last report.

1. Article 3: Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee notes that the Government states in its report that section 273 of the draft Labour Code takes into account the previous comments of the Committee to the effect that to hold trade union office it is necessary to be of Mauritanian nationality, or for foreign workers to have had exercised the profession which the trade union represents for five consecutive years in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. The Committee considers however that the text of the previous code was preferable.

2. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes freely in order to promote and defend the interests of their members. The Government states in its report that the restrictions on the right to strike imposed by sections 39, 40, 45 and 48 of Book IV of the Labour Code currently in force could be lifted by the draft Labour Code. While taking note of this information, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures, as quickly as possible, to adopt the new Labour Code and to ensure that its provisions will guarantee the right of trade union organizations to have recourse to strike action in order to defend the social, economic and occupational interests of their members. It further requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect as well as to provide a copy of the new Code once it has been adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee asks the Government to provide it with any decree which might be adopted, during the period covered by its next report, in application of section 1 of Decree No. 70-077 of 24 March 1970 governing the prohibition of the right to strike of civil servants and state employees nominated by decree.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee takes note of the information communicated by a Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 1993 and the information contained in the Government's report. It also notes the comments of the General Confederation of Workers of Mauritania (CGTM) and the Government's reply thereto, as well as a communication of the CGTM dated 5 January 1994 and sent to the ILO Office in Dakar.

1. Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. The right of workers and employers to form and join organizations of their own choosing. The right of workers' organizations to form federations and confederations. With reference to the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that Act No. 93-038 of 20 July 1993 amending the Labour Code guarantees the possibility of trade union pluralism. The Committee notes that section 1 of Book III of the Code, as amended by the new Act, provides amongst other things that persons engaged in the same occupation, similar crafts or allied trades in the manufacture of specific products or the same liberal profession may establish an occupational trade union and that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, may freely join trade unions of their own choosing within their occupation.

In a communication of 21 March 1993 the CGTM states that the Public Prosecutor refuses to recognize the CGTM on the grounds that the Labour Code provides for a single central organization. In response, the Government indicates that since the promulgation of Act No. 93.038 the authorities have not, to date, refused to recognize any trade union organization. It states that by establishing itself from the outset as a confederation the CGTM was in breach of the law, which requires that, before federations or confederations may be formed, base-level unions must be established and must then meet in congress if they wish to form a federation or confederation. The Government adds that the CGTM has now recognized its error and has begun to organize meetings of the general assemblies of occupational unions and to apply to the competent authorities for recognition of these unions.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the information provided by the CGTM on 5 January 1994, according to which the Prosecutor has established, by a decision of 4 January 1994, that the constitution of the confederation is legal, and that it should be given the certification documents. The Committee trusts that in future workers and their organizations will be able to establish first-level unions, federations and confederations without prior authorization.

2. Article 3. Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee notes with regret that section 7 of Book III of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 93-038 of 20 July 1993, further restricts eligibility for trade union office by confining it to Mauritanian nationals, whereas before amendment, the provision in question provided that members in charge of the administration or management of a union had to be of Mauritanian nationality or nationals of any other State with which Mauritania has concluded agreements respecting specific establishments.

The Committee reminds the Government that it considers that the legislation should be amended in order to permit organizations to choose their leaders without hindrance and to permit foreign workers to hold trade union office at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country. (See 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, para. 118.) It asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to bring its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

3. Article 3. Right of organizations to organize their activities freely and to formulate their programmes so as to promote and defend the interests of their members. The Committee regrets to note that sections 39, 40, 45 and 48 of Book IV of the Labour Code which impose restrictions on the right to strike have not been amended and that the Government's report provides no information on this matter. While noting the information supplied by a Government representative at the Conference in June 1993 to the effect that the final draft of the Labour Code, which was prepared with ILO assistance, could be submitted to Parliament before the end of the year, the Committee asks the Government to take the necessary steps at the earliest possible date to ensure that the new Labour Code is adopted and that its provisions guarantee the right of trade union organizations to strike in order to defend the social, economic and occupational interests of their members. It asks the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect and to provide a copy of the new Code as soon as it has been adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

With reference to the comments that it has been making for several years on the need to amend the legislation to permit the possibility of trade union pluralism, repeal the provisions on the single trade union system set out in the legislation (sections 1, 2 and 22 of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 70-030 of 23 January 1970) and limit the scope of the restrictions on the right to strike (imposed by sections 39, 40, 45 and 48 of the Code), in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, the Committee notes the assurances given by the Government during the direct contacts mission in May 1992 to the effect that the Government accepts without reservation the suggestions made to it and the draft texts proposed.

The Committee notes in this respect that, according to the Government's report, a national technical commission which has been established to review the draft Labour Code formulated with the assistance of the ILO in order to adapt it to the political, economic and social changes which have occurred in the country since the adoption of the new Constitution on 20 July 1991, will complete its work in the near future and that the final adoption of the draft text by Parliament is planned for April 1993. It also notes the information contained in the Government's report to the effect that the draft Labour Code explicitly recognizes trade union pluralism and freedom of association.

The Committee also notes that section 10 of the new Constitution of 20 July 1991 provides that all citizens are free to join any trade union organization of their choosing.

In view of the difficulties noted by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1088 and 1597, the Committee of Experts expresses the firm hope, in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association, that the Government will make every effort to ensure that in the near future trade union freedoms and rights are guaranteed in Mauritania, including the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing outside the existing trade union structure, if they so wish, and the right of trade union organizations to call strikes in defence of the occupational, economic and social interests of their members.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress achieved in this respect and to supply a copy of the draft Labour Code.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 80th Session and to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the assurances given by the Government in its report that it took note of the Committee's comments and that it will take all necessary measures to initiate the amendment and repeal procedure of the various provisions in respect of which the Committee had made comments.

The Committee recalls that the divergencies between the national legislation and the Convention relate to the single-trade-union system established in the legislation and the prohibition of a strike where a collective dispute has been referred to compulsory arbitration, even where this does not affect an essential service in the strict sense of the term.

1. As regards the question of the single-trade-union system, the Government stated to the Conference Committee in 1987 that nothing in the legislation prohibits unions from creating unions or confederations other than the Trade Union Federation of Mauritania since, although the legislation provides for only one trade union per occupation, those unions can in turn form other central trade union organisations. Furthermore, the Government added that the current system is the expression of the wish of the workers and it is not for the Government to impose a different situation if the workers are satisfied with the current trade union structure.

While noting these statements, the Committee is once again bound to note that Book III of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 70-030 of 23 January 1970, by providing in section 1 that one occupational association may be established per occupation and, in section 22, read in conjunction with sections 1 and 2, that trade unions can only be established by occupation, does not permit workers or their base-level organisations to establish, respectively, organisations and federations of their own choosing, contrary to Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention.

The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the purpose of the Convention is not to express support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union pluralism. However, even in a situation where, at some point in the history of a nation, all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should, however, be able to safeguard their freedom to set up, should they so wish in the future, unions outside the established trade union structure, which is not permitted by the legislation when it establishes a single-trade-union system.

The Committee noted that sections 226, 228 and 229 of the draft Labour Code of 1984 provided that persons carrying on the same occupation, similar crafts or allied trades may establish an occupational association, although the draft omitted to add, as the 1979 draft drawn up with the assistance of the ILO had provided, that any worker or employer must be able to join freely an association of his own choosing within his occupation.

It also referred to the difficulties in trade union life noted by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1088 of 1982 which continued to exist.

The Committee therefore requests once again the Government to amend the legislation to enable workers who so wish, to freely establish and join associations of their own choosing, as set out in Article 2 of the Convention, which, as already indicated by the Committee, would contribute to finding a solution to the problems in question.

2. With regard to the prohibition on strikes after a dispute has been referred to compulsory arbitration (sections 39, 40, 45 and 48 of Book IV of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 74-149 of 11 July 1974), the Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that strikes are not really a solution to the crucial problems of the social partners. According to the Government, consultation should prevail and recourse to strikes should only occur when the possibility no longer exists for the workers to obtain satisfaction for their legitimate claims. Referral to compulsory arbitration with the possibility of appeal should avoid recourse strikes.

The Committee once again draws the Government's attention to the fact that the provisions of Book IV respecting the settlement of disputes, which are taken up in the draft Code of 1984 (sections 292, 293, 298 and 301), by empowering the Minister (after taking into account, inter alia, the circumstances and effects of the dispute) to submit the dispute to arbitration by the Labour Court whose decision is without appeal (except for the power of review on points of law), are such as to restrict the exercise of the right to strike, which should only be restricted or forbidden in the case of public servants acting as agents of the public authority or in essential services, in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in the event of an acute national crisis.

The Committee requests once again the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to amend the legislation in order to limit restrictions on the right to strike to the cases mentioned above.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 78th Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that the divergencies between the national legislation and the Convention relate to the single-trade-union system established in the legislation and the prohibition of a strike where a collective dispute has been referred to compulsory arbitration, even where this does not affect an essential service in the strict sense of the term. For several years, the Committee has been asking the Government: - to repeal the provisions of Act No. 70-030 of 23 January 1970 that amend certain provisions of Book III of the Labour Code: - section 1: providing that persons carrying on the same occupation, similar crafts or allied trades associated with the preparation of given products or belonging to the same profession may establish only "one occupational association" per class of persons as defined above and that any worker or employer may freely join the trade union of his occupation; - section 2: providing that that any natural person or physical entity may freely join the trade union of his occupation; - the amendment of the provisions of Book IV of the Labour Code (as amended by Act No. 74-149 of 11 July 1974): - sections 39, 40 and 45 empowering the Minister of Labour, where an objection to the recommendations of the Mediation Board has been notified, taking into account the circumstances and the effects of the dispute, to submit the dispute to compulsory arbitration; - section 48 prohibiting a strike after a decision of the Minister to resort to arbitration. 1. As regards the question of the single-trade-union system, the Government stated to the Conference Committee in 1987 that nothing in the legislation prohibits unions from creating unions or confederations other than the Trade Union Federation of Mauritania since, although the legislation provides for only one trade union per occupation, those unions can in turn form other central trade union organisations. Furthermore, the Government adds that the current system is the expression of the wish of the workers and it is not for the Government to impose a different situation if the workers are satisfied with the current trade union structure. While noting these statements, the Committee is once again bound to note that Book III of the Labour Code, as amended, by providing in section 1 that one occupational association may be established per occupation and, in section 22, read in conjunction with sections 1 and 2, that trade unions can only be established by occupation, does not permit workers or their base-level organisations to establish, respectively, organisations and federations of their own choosing, contrary to Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the purpose of the Convention is not to express support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union pluralism. However, even in a situation where, at some point in the history of a nation, all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should, however, be able to safeguard their freedom to set up, should they so wish in the future, unions outside the established trade union structure, which is not permitted by the legislation when it establishes a single-trade-union system. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that sections 226, 228 and 229 of the draft Labour Code of 1984 provided that persons carrying on the same occupation, similar crafts or allied trades may establish an occupational association, although the draft omitted to add, as the 1979 draft drawn up with the assistance of the ILO had provided, that any worker or employer must be able to join freely an association of his own choosing within his occupation. It also referred to the difficulties in trade union life noted by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1088 of 1982 which continued to exist. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend the legislation to enable workers who so wish, to freely establish and join associations of their own choosing, as set out in Article 2 of the Convention, which, as already indicated by the Committee, would contribute to finding a solution to the problems in question. 2. With regard to the prohibition on strikes after a dispute has been referred to compulsory arbitration, the Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that strikes are not really a solution to the crucial problems of the social partners. According to the Government, consultation should prevail and recourse to strikes should only occur when the possibility no longer exists for the workers to obtain satisfaction for their legitimate claims. Referral to compulsory arbitration with the possibility of appeal should avoid recourse strikes. The Committee once again draws the Government's attention to the fact that the provisions of Book IV respecting the settlement of disputes, which are taken up in the draft Code of 1984 (sections 292, 293, 298 and 301), by empowering the Minister (after taking into account, inter alia, the circumstances and effects of the dispute) to submit the dispute to arbitration by the Labour Court (whose decision is without appeal except for the power of review on points of law), are such as to restrict the exercise of the right to strike, which should only be restricted or forbidden in the case of public servants engaged in the administration of the State or in essential services, in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in the event of an acute national crisis. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to amend the legislation in order to limit restrictions on the right to strike to the cases mentioned above.

TEXT

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future. [The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 77th Session.]