Repetition

Article 4 of the Convention. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee has previously requested the Government to take measures to ensure that, if no union represents the required percentage of workers (50 per cent in Barbados) to be declared the exclusive bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee notes that the Government once again states that more than one union can and does gain recognition as the accredited bargaining agent for the respective bargaining units within a particular workplace, as it is a standard practice under the process of volunteerism. While taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide exhaustive information on the possibility for unions to enjoy collective bargaining rights in cases where there is no union representing 50 per cent of the workers concerned, and in particular to give additional concrete examples of collective agreements signed under the above-mentioned circumstances.

Promotion of collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements.

Repetition

The Committee had noted the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 31 August 2014. The Committee requests once again the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had previously noted that the new Employment Rights Act (ERA) only covered cases of anti-union dismissals (section 27) and limited this protection to employees continuously employed for a period of over one year. The Committee had recalled that the Government had adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination which should not be confined to penalizing dismissal on anti-union grounds, but should cover all acts of anti-union discrimination (demotions, transfers and other prejudicial acts) at all stages of the employment relationship, regardless of the employment period, including at the recruitment stage, and had therefore requested the Government to amend the new Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that section 40A of the Trade Union Act provides protection against acts of anti-union discrimination stating that an employer who dismisses a worker or adversely affects the employment or alters the positions of a worker to his prejudice because that worker takes part in trade union activities is guilty of an offence. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that under the proposed Employment (Prevention and Discrimination) Act, which is currently in an advanced stage of preparation, a person discriminates against another when that person on a ground specified (subsection (2)) creates an exclusion or shows a preference, the intent or effect of which is to subject the other person to any disadvantage, restrictions or other detriment, and that the Government will take immediate steps to include “trade union membership or trade union status” as a ground established in subsection (2). The Government further indicates that under the proposed Act, the Employment Rights Tribunal will have the power to make a range of orders, including paying to the complainant a compensation in an amount that may include exemplary damages. The Committee trusts that the new legislation will soon be adopted and will ensure adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

In its previous comment, the Committee had further noted that while sections 33–37 of the new ERA provided for the possibility of reinstatement, re engagement and compensation, the maximum amount of compensation awarded to workers who have been employed for less than two years is five-weeks wages, which, depending on the number of years of continuous employment, is increased by between two-and-a-half and three-and-a-half weeks wages for each year of that period (Fifth Schedule). The Committee had considered that the prescribed amounts do not represent sufficiently dissuasive sanctions for anti-union dismissal, and had therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Fifth Schedule of the new ERA so as to bring the compensation amount to an adequate level. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is proposing an amendment to the ERA that: (i) would allow the Chief Labour Officer to lodge cases before the Employment Rights Tribunal which may include persons employed for less than one year and where anti-union discrimination is being alleged; and (ii) gives power to the Tribunal to order an amount not exceeding 52 weeks’ wages. The Committee recalls that the compensation envisaged for anti-union dismissal should: (i) be higher than that prescribed for other kinds of dismissal, with a view to the effective dissuasion of this type of dismissal; and (ii) be adapted in accordance with the size of the enterprises concerned (it has considered, for example, that while compensation of up to six months’ wages may be a deterrent for small and medium-sized enterprises, that is not necessarily the case for highly productive and large enterprises). The Committee trusts that the Government will take all the necessary measures to amend the ERA in line with the principles set out above, and requests the Government to provide information on any development in relation to the envisaged legislative amendment and its application in practice.

Repetition

The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on the recognition in practice, by employers, of trade unions wishing to bargain in the name of their members despite representing less than 50 per cent of the workers in a bargaining unit. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that recognition is usually only sought when a trade union represents 50 per cent of workers or more. However, in the event that a union does not have the required membership, the decision to recognize is at the employer’s discretion. The Government adds that, in case where recognition is resisted, a trade union can seek the conciliation services in the Labour Department, which can be used by a trade union to negotiate. The Committee considers that under a system of the designation of an exclusive bargaining agent, if no union represents the required percentage of workers (50 per cent in Barbados) to be declared the exclusive bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if no union represents the required percentage of workers to be declared the exclusive bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. It requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Repetition

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 31 August 2014. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had previously requested the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that in addition to covering cases of anti-union dismissals, a new legislation on employment rights would provide for adequate protection against all other acts of anti-union discrimination envisaged by Article 1 of the Convention, as well as for adequate and dissuasive sanctions aimed at ensuring respect for the right to organize. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Employment Rights Act has been passed in Parliament and is now awaiting proclamation. The Committee notes, however, that the Act covers only cases of anti-union dismissals (section 27) and further limits this protection to employees continuously employed for a period of over one year. The Committee recalls that adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should not be confined to penalizing dismissal on anti-union grounds, but should cover all acts of anti-union discrimination (demotions, transfers and other prejudicial acts) at all stages of the employment relationship, regardless of the employment period, including at the recruitment stage. The Committee reiterates its previous comments and requests the Government to amend the new Act in line with the above. It requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee further notes that while sections 33–37 of the Act provide for the possibility of reinstatement, re-engagement and compensation, the maximum amount of compensation awarded to workers who have been employed for less than two years is five-weeks wages, which, depending on the number of years of continuous employment, is increased by between two-and-a-half and three and a half weeks wages for each year of that period (Fifth Schedule). The Committee considers that the prescribed amounts do not represent sufficiently dissuasive sanctions for anti-union dismissal. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Fifth Schedule of the Act so as to bring the compensation amount to an adequate level, which would constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union dismissals.

Repetition

The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on the recognition in practice, by employers, of trade unions wishing to bargain in the name of their members despite representing less than 50 per cent of the workers in a bargaining unit. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that recognition is usually only sought when a trade union represents 50 per cent of workers or more. However, in the event that a union does not have the required membership, the decision to recognize is at the employer’s discretion. The Government adds that, in case where recognition is resisted, a trade union can seek the conciliation services in the Labour Department, which can be used by a trade union to negotiate. The Committee considers that under a system of the designation of an exclusive bargaining agent, if no union represents the required percentage of workers (50 per cent in Barbados) to be declared the exclusive bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if no union represents the required percentage of workers to be declared the exclusive bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. It requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Repetition

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 31 August 2014. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had previously requested the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that in addition to covering cases of anti-union dismissals, a new legislation on employment rights would provide for adequate protection against all other acts of anti-union discrimination envisaged by Article 1 of the Convention, as well as for adequate and dissuasive sanctions aimed at ensuring respect for the right to organize. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Employment Rights Act has been passed in Parliament and is now awaiting proclamation. The Committee notes, however, that the Act covers only cases of anti-union dismissals (section 27) and further limits this protection to employees continuously employed for a period of over one year. The Committee recalls that adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should not be confined to penalizing dismissal on anti-union grounds, but should cover all acts of anti-union discrimination (demotions, transfers and other prejudicial acts) at all stages of the employment relationship, regardless of the employment period, including at the recruitment stage. The Committee reiterates its previous comments and requests the Government to amend the new Act in line with the above. It requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee further notes that while sections 33–37 of the Act provide for the possibility of reinstatement, re-engagement and compensation, the maximum amount of compensation awarded to workers who have been employed for less than two years is five-weeks wages, which, depending on the number of years of continuous employment, is increased by between two-and-a-half and three and a half weeks wages for each year of that period (Fifth Schedule). The Committee considers that the prescribed amounts do not represent sufficiently dissuasive sanctions for anti-union dismissal. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Fifth Schedule of the Act so as to bring the compensation amount to an adequate level, which would constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union dismissals.

Repetition

The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on the recognition in practice, by employers, of trade unions wishing to bargain in the name of their members despite representing less than 50 per cent of the workers in a bargaining unit. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that recognition is usually only sought when a trade union represents 50 per cent of workers or more. However, in the event that a union does not have the required membership, the decision to recognize is at the employer’s discretion. The Government adds that, in case where recognition is resisted, a trade union can seek the conciliation services in the Labour Department, which can be used by a trade union to negotiate. The Committee considers that under a system of the designation of an exclusive bargaining agent, if no union represents the required percentage of workers (50 per cent in Barbados) to be declared the exclusive bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if no union represents the required percentage of workers to be declared the exclusive bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. It requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Repetition

The Committee had noted that according to the Barbados Employers’ Confederation, trade unions which represent more than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit may be granted recognition. It had requested the Government to provide information on the collective bargaining process that applies where a trade union represents less than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit. The Committee had noted from the Government’s report that where a recognition survey reveals that union membership is less than 50 per cent in a unit, recognition is usually left to the discretion of the employer in accordance with the voluntaristic industrial relations system of Barbados.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that if union membership in an organization is “50 per cent plus 1” at the date of the request for recognition, the employer usually acknowledges the union as bargaining agent. The Government’s report adds that there is generally a high rate of positive responses from employers when a union requests recognition.

The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report information on the recognition in practice, by employers, of trade unions wishing to bargain in the name of their members despite representing less than 50 per cent of the workers in a bargaining unit.

Repetition

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 4 August 2011 indicating that the right to collective bargaining has still not been regulated by law, stripping the mechanism of its effectiveness and that legislation tolerating certain anti-union practices, such as dismissal for union activities, is also still in place. The Committee also notes the comments submitted by the Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU) in a communication dated 1 September 2011 concerning issues already raised by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee recalls that in previous observations, it had requested the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation provides adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, in taking up employment and throughout the course of employment, including at the time of termination, and covering all measures of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, demotions, transfers and other prejudicial acts) as well as adequate and dissuasive sanctions. The Committee also noted the comments made by the ITUC referring to the inadequacy of remedies for workers discharged for their union activity since courts may not reinstate dismissed workers. The Committee had noted that the Government indicates in its report that section 40A of the Trade Union Act, CAP 361 provides that any employer who dismisses a worker or adversely affects the employment or alters the position of a worker, or threatens to dismiss or to adversely affect or alter the position of a worker, because that worker is, or seeks to become, an officer, delegate or member of a trade union or takes part in trade union activities can be subject to a fine not exceeding US$1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both. As regards the amount of the fines, the Committee recalls again the importance of making sanctions sufficiently dissuasive against acts of anti-union discrimination or interference. The Committee had previously noted with interest that the Government indicated that it was in the final stages of drafting a new employment rights legislation, which will, inter alia, make provisions for an employment rights tribunal to hear cases of unfair dismissals and to make awards where necessary. Given that it appears that the envisaged protection would only cover cases of unfair dismissals, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention as regards not only anti-union dismissals, but also other prejudicial acts perpetrated against union leaders and members because of their affiliation or trade union activities and in particular, to strengthen the amount of the legal fines and other relevant means which can be applied by the tribunal. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new employment rights legislation once adopted.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

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

In a previous direct request, the Committee had noted that according to the Barbados Employers’ Confederation, trade unions which represent more than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit may be granted recognition. It had requested the Government to provide information on the collective bargaining process that applies where a trade union represents less than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit. The Committee had noted from the Government’s report that where a recognition survey reveals that union membership is less than 50 per cent in a unit, recognition is usually left to the discretion of the employer in accordance with the voluntaristic industrial relations system of Barbados.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that if union membership in an organization is “50 per cent plus 1” at the date of the request for recognition, the employer usually acknowledges the union as bargaining agent. The Government’s report adds that there is generally a high rate of positive responses from employers when a union requests recognition.

The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report information on the recognition in practice, by employers, of trade unions wishing to bargain in the name of their members despite representing less than 50 per cent of the workers in a bargaining unit.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply to the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 26 August 2009. The Committee also notes the communication made by the International ITUC dated 24 August 2010.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee recalls that in previous observations, it had requested the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation provides adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, in taking up employment and throughout the course of employment, including at the time of termination, and covering all measures of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, demotions, transfers and other prejudicial acts) as well as adequate and dissuasive sanctions. The Committee also noted the comments made by the ITUC referring to the inadequacy of remedies for workers discharged for their union activity since courts may not reinstate dismissed workers. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that section 40A of the Trade Union Act, CAP 361 provides that any employer who dismisses a worker or adversely affects the employment or alters the position of a worker, or threatens to dismiss or to adversely affect or alter the position of a worker, because that worker is, or seeks to become, an officer, delegate or member of a trade union or takes part in trade union activities can be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both. As regards the amount of the fines, the Committee recalls the importance of making sanctions sufficiently dissuasive against acts of anti-union discrimination or interference. The Committee notes with interest that the Government indicates in its report that it is in the final stages of drafting a new employment rights legislation, which will, inter alia, make provisions for an employment rights tribunal to hear cases of unfair dismissals and to make awards where necessary. Given that it appears that the envisaged protection would only cover cases of unfair dismissals, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention as regards not only anti-union dismissals, but also other prejudicial acts perpetrated against union leaders and members because of their affiliation or trade union activities and  in particular, to strengthen the amount of the legal fines and other relevant means which can be applied by the tribunal. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new employment rights legislation once adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee takes note of the response of the Government, dated 19 January 2009, to the comments received and previously noted from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), as well as the comments by the ITUC, dated 26 August 2009.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. The Committee recalls that in previous observations, it requested the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that its legislation provides adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, in taking up employment and throughout the course of employment, including at the time of termination and covering all measures of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, demotions, transfers and other prejudicial acts) as well as adequate and dissuasive sanctions. The Committee notes that the ITUC refers to the inadequacy of remedies for workers discharged for their union activity, since courts may not reinstate dismissed workers. In addition, the ITUC refers to section 40A of the Trade Union Act which states that an employer who dismisses, adversely affects, or threatens to dismiss or adversely affect a worker due to their trade union membership or activities can be subject to a fine of US$1,000 and imprisonment for up to six months. The Committee also notes with interest that the Government’s report refers to the drafting of new employment rights legislation which would create an independent tribunal to hear cases alleging unfair dismissals and to issue adequate awards. The Committee requests the Government in its next report to include a copy of the draft legislation. The Committee hopes that the Government will enforce section 40A of the Trade Union Act to ensure that employees are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination. Once again, the Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention in the very near future.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 29 August 2008, concerning anti-union interference and strategies for avoiding collective bargaining in an enterprise of the telecommunication sector, as well as the comments submitted by the Congress of Trade Union and Staff Associations of Barbados concerning issues already raised by the Committee. It requests the Government to provide its observations concerning the ITUC’s comments.

Article 1 of the Convention. Lack of protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee recalls that, in its previous observations, it had indicated that Article 1 of the Convention guarantees workers adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, in taking up employment and throughout the course of employment, including at the time of termination and covers all measures of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, demotions, transfers and other prejudicial acts) and that legislation prohibiting acts of discrimination is inadequate if not coupled with effective, expeditious procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 223 and 224). In this connection, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that its legislation provides adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, as well as adequate and dissuasive sanctions.

Finally, the Committee points out to the Government that it may seek technical assistance from the Office in solving this serious problem.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments and to recall that Article 1 of the Convention guarantees workers adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, in taking up employment and throughout the course of employment, including at the time of termination and covers all measures of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, demotions, transfers and other prejudicial acts). The Committee considers, moreover, that legislation prohibiting acts of discrimination is inadequate if not coupled with effective, expeditious procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 223–224). In this connection, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that its legislation provides adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination as well as adequate and dissuasive sanctions.

The Committee also takes note of the set of comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) which refers to recognition of trade unions and anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government in its reply only refers to a case concerning the hotel industry and requests the Government to reply to the whole set of ITUC’s comments.

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

The Committee notes the report of the Government.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had previously asked the Government to indicate the legislative provisions that provide for protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, including the applicable sanctions. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that there have been no new measures taken in this regard, as well as the comment of the Barbados Workers’ Union confirming that there have been no new developments respecting this matter. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls that Article 1 of the Convention guarantees workers adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, in taking up employment and throughout the course of employment, including at the time of termination, and covers all measures of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, demotions, transfers and other prejudicial acts). The Committee considers, moreover, that legislation prohibiting acts of discrimination is inadequate if not coupled with effective, expeditious procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 223-224). In this connection, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that its legislation provides adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Concerning its previous request for information on the issue of redress for victims of anti-union discrimination, the Committee had noted that the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados considers in its comments on the Government’s report that the Trade Union Act could be strengthened to give added protection to persons who join or contemplate joining a trade union, in particular, by introducing provisions imposing sanctions on an employer who discriminates against a worker on the basis of his/her trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the legislative provisions which provide workers with protection against acts of anti-union discrimination including the applicable sanctions, and any relevant information on the practical application of these provisions.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that according to the Barbados Employers’ Confederation (BEC), trade unions which represent more than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit may be granted recognition and had requested the Government to provide information on the collective bargaining process that applies where a trade union represents less than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that where a recognition survey reveals that union membership is less than 50 per cent in a unit, recognition is usually left to the discretion of the employer in accordance with the voluntaristic industrial relations system of Barbados. The Committee takes note of this information.

2. Concerning its previous request for information on the issue of redress for victims of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados considers in its comments on the Government’s report that the Trade Union Act could be strengthened to give added protection to persons who join or contemplate joining a trade union, in particular, by introducing provisions imposing sanctions on an employer who discriminates against a worker on the basis of his/her trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the legislative provisions which provide workers with protection against acts of anti-union discrimination including the applicable sanctions, and any relevant information on the practical application of these provisions.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

Based on the comments made by the Barbados Employers’ Confederation (BEC), the Committee notes that trade unions have to convince the Labour Department that they represent more than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit before being granted recognition. This may create problems as a majority union which fails to secure an absolute majority might be denied the possibility of bargaining. In its 1994 General Survey (paragraph 241), the Committee had expressed the view that, in such situations, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the collective bargaining process that applies where a trade union represents less than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit.

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 8 July 2002. The ICFTU states that: (1) while workers’ rights to collective bargaining are provided for by law, there is no specific requirement for the recognition of a union by an employer; in this context, several foreign multinationals tried to exploit this legal omission in order to refuse recognition of their employees’ trade union; and (2) there are legal protections of workers’ rights, including prohibition of anti-union discrimination, but insufficient redress for victims of such discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to transmit its comments thereon.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

Based on the comments made by the Barbados Employers’ Confederation (BEC), the Committee notes that trade unions have to convince the Labour Department that they represent more than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit before being granted recognition. This may create problems as a majority union which fails to secure an absolute majority might be denied the possibility of bargaining. In its 1994 General Survey (paragraph 241), the Committee had expressed the view that, in such situations, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the collective bargaining process that applies where a trade union represents less than 50 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report reiterates the information already provided. It hopes that a new report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1505 (275th Report, paragraphs 152-166) that the requirements of Cabinet approval for negotiated agreements and of conformity with the policy and guidelines unilaterally set for the public sector were not in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association as concerned public servants who were not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee requested the Government to take measures to encourage and promote free negotiations between employers and workers with a view to regulating terms and conditions of employment by means of freely concluded collective agreements.

In its latest report, the Government has only indicated that it remains committed to the information which it had provided in Case No. 1505. At that time, the Government had indicated that the statutory bodies which were negotiating with the workers' organizations were financed through public funds and therefore the Cabinet had to ensure the precedence of the country's collective interest over the temporary interest of any single group. While appreciating the Government's concern, the Committee on Freedom of Association pointed out that the final decision had to remain with the parties to the agreement.

When considering the autonomy of the parties to collective bargaining with respect to public sector workers covered by the Convention, the Committee has observed that the special characteristics of the public service may require some flexibility in its application. In this regard, the Committee has indicated that legislative provisions which allow Parliament or the competent budgetary authority to set upper and lower limits for wage negotiations or to establish an overall "budgetary package" within which the parties may negotiate monetary or standard-setting clauses or those which give the financial authorities the right to participate in collective bargaining alongside the direct employer are compatible with the Convention, provided they leave a significant role to collective bargaining. It is essential, however, that workers and their organizations be able to participate fully and meaningfully in designing this overall bargaining framework, which implies in particular that they must have access to all the financial, budgetary and other data enabling them to assess the situation on the basis of the facts. (See the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 263.) The Committee asks the Government to ensure that the Cabinet Directive of 1987 and the laws establishing Statutory Boards are applied in accordance with the principle of freedom of association and to supply in its next report information on any development in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1505 (275th Report, paras. 152-166) that the requirements of Cabinet approval for negotiated agreements and of conformity with the policy and guidelines unilaterally set for the public sector were not in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association as concerned public servants who were not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee requested the Government to take measures to encourage and promote free negotiations between employers and workers with a view to regulating terms and conditions of employment by means of freely concluded collective agreements.

In its latest report, the Government has only indicated that it remains committed to the information which it had provided in Case No. 1505. At that time, the Government had indicated that the statutory bodies which were negotiating with the workers' organizations were financed through public funds and therefore the Cabinet had to ensure the precedence of the country's collective interest over the temporary interest of any single group. While appreciating the Government's concern, the Committee on Freedom of Association pointed out that the final decision had to remain with the parties to the agreement.

When considering the autonomy of the parties to collective bargaining with respect to public sector workers covered by the Convention, the Committee has observed that the special characteristics of the public service may require some flexibility in its application. In this regard, the Committee has indicated that legislative provisions which allow Parliament or the competent budgetary authority to set upper and lower limits for wage negotiations or to establish an overall "budgetary package" within which the parties may negotiate monetary or standard-setting clauses or those which give the financial authorities the right to participate in collective bargaining alongside the direct employer are compatible with the Convention, provided they leave a significant role to collective bargaining. It is essential, however, that workers and their organizations be able to participate fully and meaningfully in designing this overall bargaining framework, which implies in particular that they must have access to all the financial, budgetary and other data enabling them to assess the situation on the basis of the facts. (See the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, para. 263.) The Committee asks the Government to ensure that the Cabinet Directive of 1987 and the laws establishing Statutory Boards are applied in accordance with the principle of freedom of association and to supply in its next report information on any development in this regard.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1505 (275th Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its November 1990 Session).

Articles 4 and 6. The Committee recalls, as did the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1505, that the requirements of Cabinet approval for negotiated agreements and of conformity with the policy and guidelines unilaterally set for the public sector are not in full conformity with the principles on freedom of association, as far as public servants not engaged in the administration of the State are concerned. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to encourage and promote free negotiations between employers and workers, with a view to regulating terms and conditions of employment by means of freely concluded collective agreements.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to bring its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1505 (275th Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its November 1990 Session).

Articles 4 and 6. The Committee recalls, as did the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1505, that the requirements of Cabinet approval for negotiated agreements and of conformity with the policy and guide-lines unilaterally set for the public sector are not in full conformity with the principles on freedom of association, as far as public servants not engaged in the administration of the State are concerned. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to encourage and promote free negotiations between employers and workers, with a view to regulating terms and conditions of employment by means of freely concluded collective agreements.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to bring its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report to the effect that no measures have been taken to adopt a legislative provision protecting workers' organisations against acts of interference by employers' organisations, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention.

The Committee recalls, however, as it did in its General Survey submitted to the 69th (1983) Session of the International Labour Conference (paragraphs 283 and 284) and in its 1987 direct request, that specific action, particularly by legislative means, should be taken to ensure that protection. The Committee hopes that the Government will take such action in the near future.