Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1996, Publication: 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Government supplied the following information:

A communication No. PD/3/1846 dated 21 April 1996 was forwarded to the Minister of State for Presidential Affairs, in which the Government recalled its communication (No. PD/3/1442) of 29 March 1994 on the steps being taken to amend Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 governing the structure of trade unions, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The ILO will be kept informed of progress in this regard.

A request No. PD/3/1840 of 21 April 1996 was also sent to the competent authorities to inform the Government of the steps taken to repeal section 160 of the Agricultural Relations Code No. 136 of 1958 concerning the prohibition of strikes by farmers and agricultural workers, and lockouts by employers. The draft in question also permanently modifies article 248 of the same Code and allows the labour inspector to inform the workers and their representatives as well as the employer and his representatives of his visit. The ILO will be kept informed of progress in this regard.

Communications were sent to the Peasants' Association (No. PD/3/1844 of 21 April 1996) and to the Craftsmen's Association (No. PD/3/1848) confirming previous communications concerning the appointment of their representatives to the tripartite commission in charge of examining the possible amendment of the Agricultural Labour Code and the Act concerning Peasants' Associations, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

In addition, a Government representative stated that the Government had this past month of May sent its response to the comments of the Committee of Experts, particularly those concerning the observation on the application of Convention No. 87. He indicated that a draft legislative decree had been submitted to the Council of Ministers. This draft modified the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 on the organization of workers, with the goal of bringing the legislation into line with the provisions of the Convention. The speaker expressed his surprise with the persistent comments of the Committee of Experts with respect to section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84, which did not grant foreign workers the right to join a trade union, unless they had been resident in the Syrian Arab Republic for one year and met the condition of reciprocity. He noted that the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic had already indicated to the Committee of Experts that a recent text had modified this section, so that it now provided the right to non-Arab foreign workers to join a trade union only under the condition of reciprocity. He added that the draft Legislative Decree amended the following provisions of Legislative Decree No. 84:

(1) Section 22, paragraph (a), stipulates that a trade union should proceed with its activities in accordance with the provisions of its statutes.

(2) Section 22, paragraph (b), states that the union is no longer compelled to send a percentage of its resources to the social assistance fund and trade union organizations, since this was now determined by its own statutes. In addition, the trade union determined in its statutes, the bases for financial control of the organization's resources.

(3) Section 25 grants the right to non-Arab foreign workers to join trade unions with the condition of reciprocity.

(4) Pursuant to section 56, professional organizations are now made up of voluntary trade union dues and other resources.

(5) Section 32, which concerned the need for any contributions made to the General Federation of Workers' Union to be approved by the Labour and Social Affairs Ministry, has been deleted.

(6) Section 35 concerning supervision by the Ministry of Finance over trade union organizations; paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of section 36 concerning the requirement for a trade union to allocate a certain percentage of its resources to larger trade unions; section 44, paragraph (b), which stipulated that the officers of the trade union should have exercised their profession for a period of at least seven months; and section 49, paragraph (c), which authorized the General Federation of Workers' Union to dissolve the office of any trade union organization in certain circumstances; have all been deleted.

The draft legislation concerning these amendments was presented to the competent authorities so that the corresponding laws and decrees could be enacted, after they were submitted to the Council of Ministers for review by the different committees making up this body. It was up to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour to follow up the application of the forthcoming new Legislative Decree, as the Government had already indicated to the ILO.

With respect to Act No. 21 of 1974, concerning peasants' cooperative associations, and Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969, concerning craftsmen's associations, the speaker indicated that a commission had been established to amend these texts to bring them into line with the provisions of the Convention.

As to the principle of pluralism, the General Federation of Workers' Union, as well as the General Federation of Farmers and the General Federation of Artisans, had expressed to the Government their attachment to the single trade union system which ensured their unity and their strength and guaranteed perfectly freedom of association. Nevertheless, the speaker noted that the Government and the mentioned federations had held some discussions to find a solution that would best reconcile their points of view with that of the Committee of Experts, with regard to the need to implement trade union pluralism to correctly apply the Convention.

With regard to the repeal of section 160 of Act No. 133 of 1958 concerning agricultural trade unions and prohibiting strikes in the agricultural sector, a draft law had been submitted and adoption of a legislative decree in this respect was envisaged.

The speaker noted that the information provided demonstrated the Government's will to amend the legislation through dialogue with the social partners, to bring it into conformity with the Convention. Nevertheless, it had to be considered that promulgation of any legislation required a fairly long procedure due to the different aspects that must be examined and the need for review by different competent authorities. The speaker noted that the Government was concerned with ensuring freedom of association, and gave priority to tripartite consultation. Lastly, he expressed the hope that the Committee would note the Government's sincere intentions to take all the necessary measures to bring the legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Workers' members noted that this case had an air of familiarity. While the case of the Syrian Arab Republic had not been prominently on the list, very similar cases concerning one-party States with a single trade union system tied to the Government, had come before this Committee on innumerable occasions. For the Syrian Arab Republic itself, the Committee of Experts had been bound to repeat again the comments it had been making over the years about Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 on trade unions, Decree No. 250 of 1969 regarding craftsmen's associations, Act No. 21 of 1974 about peasants' cooperative associations and section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code.

It was immaterial whether there were one or more trade union centres, so long as the workers themselves had the right to make the choice freely. What was necessary was to delete from the legislation the mention of a specific trade union federation, designated in the law as a General Federation of Workers' Union, so that workers themselves could decide whether or not to form other unions outside of the existing structure. Those unions once formed should have the right to conduct their own affairs based on their own rules. Decree No. 84 needed to be revised to limit government interference. Decree No. 84 also limited access to union offices in a manner that was contrary to the Convention.

The Workers' members noted with interest the pending legislation referred to by the representative of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic. They noted that while of course it was not sensible to make snap judgements on the proposed legislation, the initial reaction would be to raise serious doubts as to whether the proposals were to be satisfactory. For example, the Government representative noted that non-Arab foreign workers would be provided with the right of association, subject only to conditions of reciprocity. The Convention, however, provided that the right of association applied "to all workers, without distinction whatsoever" - certainly not mentioning a need for reciprocity on the part of another country as if the union and the country were one.

The Workers' members observed that all of these restrictions were not new to the Syrian Arab Republic, and thus urged the Government to take measures to revise its legislation so that it would come into conformity with the Convention.

The Employers' members noted that the Committee was already fairly familiar with these issues. From 1981 through to 1986, this Committee had been faced with the problem of freedom of association in the Syrian Arab Republic, and the latest discussion on the subject had been in 1992. Clearly, several changes were needed in order for the legislation to be brought into compliance with the Convention. The observation of the Committee of Experts set forth all the details and, so far, nothing had been done.

Basically, what was at stake once again was the question of the single union system which was actually provided for in the national legislation. But there were other restrictions on freedom of association, as well as restrictions affecting the administration and running of trade unions as well.

In 1992, the Government representative of the Syrian Arab Republic had stated that change was not necessary and that everything was just fine. The Employers' members noted that, since that time, the Government's attitude had changed substantially. Today, the Government representative had referred to numerous changes. However, these planned changes still had to go through various administrative stages of procedure before they were actually made effective.

With respect to the single trade union system, the Government representative had stated that the existing trade union did not want to change the status quo. The Employers' member reiterated that the text of the Convention was clear and the attitude of all the supervisory bodies was absolutely uniform on this matter. There never was any other view held here. The Employers' members noted that in practice, however, there could be trade union unity or pluralism. Both were possible under the Convention. It was just that a member State must not prescribe trade union unity, because in doing that, that State was curtailing the right of the individual to form or join a trade union. The Employers' members thus stressed that there should be the possibility for trade union pluralism to exist.

The Employers' members noted that the Government's written information included only very general statements which did not provide a lot of precise information. In this connection, the Employers' members requested that the Government be asked to submit an exhaustive report as soon as possible, so that the Committee of Experts could review the situation to assess what was really being changed. The Employers' members also requested that the Government should already provide copies of draft legislation, and noted that, if necessary, the International Labour Office would provide the technical assistance to speed up this process and ensure a positive conclusion. The Employers' members expressed their wish to see the Syrian Arab Republic continue along the path which it appeared to have embarked upon and to make rapid progress to eliminate the numerous discrepancies which appeared to exist between domestic legislation in the Syrian Arab Republic and the requirements of the Convention.

The Workers' member of the Syrian Arab Republic appreciated the efforts of the ILO to ensure that freedom of association was upheld and applied throughout the world. In his view, the Syrian legislation did not infringe freedom of association. Workers in the Syrian Arab Republic had freedom of association and trade union independence, and consequently the trade union movement in the Syrian Arab Republic had been strengthened. The General Federation of Workers' Union had been freely set up by the workers in 1938 and not established by law. Finally, he stated that several meetings had been held with representatives of the Ministry of Labour in an attempt to repeal parts of the national legislation in order to bring it more closely into line with Convention No. 87, which he hoped would be adopted soon.

The Workers' member of Japan regretted that law and practice in the Syrian Arab Republic had not been brought into harmony with Convention No. 87 despite the repeated observations of the Committee of Experts. Concerning the question of trade union unity, he declared that, as a matter of principle, trade unions should be independent from employers, political parties and the State. The question of trade union unity should be left entirely to the trade unions themselves and was not a matter for any State to fix by law. Concerning the prohibition against strikes in the agricultural sector, the speaker supported the observations of the Committee of Experts, which emphasized the importance of legislation not depriving unions of the right to strike, as this was one of the essential means by which they could promote and defend their interests. He requested the Government to speedily repeal the prohibitions of strike in the agricultural sector.

The Workers' member of Turkey stated that despite the Government representative's statement that trade union plurality existed in the Syrian Arab Republic, the problem in this case was that Legislative Decree No. 84 established only one specific trade union with extensive powers over the affiliated unions and that workers in the Syrian Arab Republic did not have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. He stressed the importance of ensuring voluntary trade union unity with the possibility of trade union pluralism, and that, as the Committee, the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association had stated, trade union monopoly violated Convention No. 87. He added that under the current legislation, the trade unions could receive donations and dispose of their property only with the prior consent of the General Federation of Workers' Union and the approval of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour. Furthermore, if one took into account the decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, there was sufficient evidence that sections 32, 33, 35 and 36 of Legislative Decree No. 84 were incompatible with the Convention. Finally, relating to the prohibition of strikes in the agricultural sector, although the Government informed the Committee in 1983 of its firm intention to delete section 160 of the Labour Code, nothing had changed in this respect.

The Workers' member of Greece stated that respect for Convention No. 87 covered two aspects. The first was the legal aspect, in which it was clear that the legislation of the Syrian Arab Republic was not in conformity with the Convention, but that the Committee had noted that this would be modified. The second aspect was the practice. Concerning trade union unity, certainly this was the best situation for workers, but only when it came about as a consequence of the will of the workers. Trade union unity had never worked when it was imposed by a force outside the union movement. He indicated that the Government should not impose trade union unity by law. Laws which were not in conformity with the international Conventions only served to discredit those countries, and in no way served the interests of the workers.

The Workers' member of Pakistan supported the request to bring the legislation into conformity with Convention No. 87, particularly concerning the unity of the workers which should be brought about through a voluntary process and must not be imposed by the Government. He hoped that the Government would amend the legislation, if necessary with the technical assistance of the ILO, to bring it into line with the ratified Convention.

Another Workers' member of the Syrian Arab Republic stated that he would like to see the Conventions fully applied, particularly Convention No. 87. He stated that the unions had discussed the proposed modifications of Legislative Decree No. 84 and had decided that, notwithstanding the observations made by the Committee of Experts, a single trade union system was best in the Syrian Arab Republic, particularly in light of economic globalization. He stated that the General Federation of Workers' Union had not been imposed by the Government, but had been freely constituted by the workers. In the Syrian Arab Republic, membership in unions was voluntary for all workers, and many highly placed trade union officials were not Syrian nationals.

Another Government representative stated that the Syrian Arab Republic did not have a single party system and there was no control over the trade unions by the state authorities. The 1952 Law on agricultural workers banned the right to strike to ensure production, but in fact this Law had never been invoked, and therefore, the Government was not bothered by this piece of legislation. In 1962, a clear text had been adopted prohibiting closures of companies and lockouts, but granting the right to strike. He referred again to draft laws which were under consideration which would bring the law closer into harmony with Convention No. 87.

The Employers' members stated that the problem of trade union unity had already been discussed by the Committee on numerous occasions and that no new arguments had been raised. They clarified that no one objected to trade union unity per se, as it was for the trade unions to decide for themselves what they wanted to do. But when unity was prescribed by law, it contravened Convention No. 87 because workers no longer had the free choice to join or establish a trade union organization. They stated that this was a logical and straightforward point that no amount of discussion would change, and should be made very clearly in the conclusions. Since the Syrian Arab Republic was not prepared to introduce any changes, the Committee was compelled to demand the changes which all the supervisory bodies in the ILO had agreed were necessary.

The Workers' members agreed with the conclusions of the Employers' members and noted that no new information had been supplied in respect of this case.

The Committee took note of the written and oral information supplied by the Government and of the ensuing discussion. The Committee recalled that for many years the Committee of Experts had been emphasizing the need for the legislation to be brought into conformity with the requirements of the Convention and noted with concern that the points raised by the Committee of Experts related to fundamental provisions in the Convention, in particular the right of all workers, without distinction whatsoever, be they nationals or foreign workers, to set up the trade union of their choice and to join that trade union. The Committee of Experts had also requested the Government to do away with restrictions on the rights of workers freely to elect their representatives and to lift the restrictions on the rights of trade unions to organize their management and their activities. The Committee noted that the Government stated once again that a draft law was in the process of elaboration. The Committee urged the Government to take appropriate measures, if necessary with the assistance of the ILO, to ensure that the draft law which was in preparation took into account all the comments and observations of the Committee of Experts and was adopted as soon as possible. The Committee voiced the firm hope that in the Government's next report reference would be made to decisive and substantial progress in this field, thus ensuring a full application of the Convention in both law and practice. It requested the Government to send copies of laws that had been repealed or amended as soon as they had been adopted.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

A Government representative first referred to Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 on trade unions, which should have been in conformity with the Convention. In consultation with the General Federation of Workers' Unions a draft Legislative Decree had been prepared to amend Legislative Decree No. 84 taking into account the observations of the Committee of Experts. This draft was sent to the Council of Ministers on 28 May 1992. The amendments proposed in the draft provided that: (1) each trade union shall be governed by its own statutes without any requirement that they correspond to the model established by the Federation, to attain its objectives in accordance with its own financial resources; (2) the prior agreement of the Federation and the Ministry of Labour in order to accept donations shall not be necessary (section 32 of Legislative Decree No. 84); (3) the provision which restricted the independence of management and the free administration of trade unions shall be repealed (section 35 of Legislative Decree No. 84); (4) the provision which permitted the dissolution of any trade union which did not observe the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 84 shall be repealed. Paragraph 4 of section 44 of Legislative Decree No. 84, which required a member to be engaged in a related occupation for six months before being eligible to trade union office, was repealed. In respect of section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 which required that, in order to become a trade union member, non-Arab foreign workers must have been resident for one year in Syria and be from a country that had reciprocal provisions, he stated that the condition of reciprocity was repealed as Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1980 had already eliminated the residency condition. Decree No. 30 was sent in due time to the ILO. In reference to Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 on associations of craftsmen, the Government representative stated that it had indicated to these associations that it was necessary for them to amend their statutes, and that it had requested information about the application of the Convention. The Government will supply to the Office any information that it receives. In referring to the single trade union system, he indicated that in his country trade union pluralism existed, which was evident from the reference in Legislative Decree No. 84 to different trade unions, which was also the case in Act No. 21 regarding peasants' associations. In these texts, reference was made to different types of associations (teachers, automobile salesmen, retailers) which dealt directly with employers. Each organisation had its own statutes, and for this reason he did not understand how one could speak about a single trade union system. The law authorised the creation of associations in each sector and occupational field, which participated fully in the decision-making process through their representations at the highest levels of the State. The percentage of workers and agricultural workers represented in Parliament was very high. Due to the divergence in interpretation between the Government and the Committee of Experts, the Government would contemplate appeal to the tribunal mentioned in its statement during the general discussion. Finally, he indicated that the draft contemplated the repeal of section 160 of the Labour Code of 1958, which prohibited strikes in the agricultural sector.

The Workers' members noted that the Committee of Experts had made comments for several years about the application of the Convention and that, even if the present case had not been dealt with in the recent past, it concerned a very serious problem. In the report supplied to the Committee of Experts a tripartite committee was referred to, responsible for giving advice on certain legislative matters in order to place it in conformity with international labour standards. However, it was the sole trade union, the General Federation of Workers' Unions, that provided such opinions, which concerned a limited number of questions. In effect, they did not involve the elimination of the single trade union system that was expressly provided for in the law, the extensive powers of the authorities to intervene in trade union finances, nor the restrictions on trade union rights of non-Arab foreign workers. In respect of the draft Legislative Decree seeking to remove the total prohibition of strikes in the agricultural sector, the information supplied in the Government's report was very limited and of a general nature. The Workers' members emphasised the importance of freedom of association as an essential condition for the development of a dynamic and responsible trade union movement. Regarding the restrictions on the freedom of association of non-Arab foreign workers, they referred to the position that they had held during the general debate concerning Convention No. 111. In effect, it involved an open and express discrimination which might have negative repercussions on the fundamental rights of migrant workers, particularly in respect of Conventions Nos. 95 and 96. They considered that one of the principal problems concerned the lack of complete information on questions raised by the Committee of Experts. They drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Syrian Arab Republic was among those countries which had for at least three years not responded, or had responded in an insufficient manner, to the requests of the Experts. As a result, the information concerning the work of the tripartite committee as a consultative body, to which the Government representative alluded, was very vague. Finally, the Workers' members stressed that the Government should strengthen its collaboration with the ILO and the supervisory bodies. In effect, specific details concerning the new draft Legislative Decree were necessary. They stated that they would continue to follow closely the evolution of the situation in order to be able to verify whether the legislation and national practice had been changed to conform with the Convention.

The Employers' members noted that the Government representative had raised three matters. Firstly, the changes that the Government wished to initiate gave the impression that the Government wanted to meet all the comments made by the Experts. Secondly, the representative did not understand the discrepancies raised by the Committee of Experts. Thirdly, in response to the comment that trade union pluralism was lacking, the Government representative insisted that there was no need for any change in this regard because there already was pluralism in the trade union movement. The Employers' members had difficulty reconciling the statements of the Government representative. In response to the Government representative's suggestion that the Experts had not referred to positive changes brought about by the Government, they noted that in 1990 there was no report available and therefore they were unable to discuss the matter. When the Government was invited to provide information as to why it was not fulfilling its reporting obligations, the Government representative had responded that a new draft Legislative Decree was before Parliament and that a number of changes to labour legislation were being made. However, it was clear that no progress had been made since then. This case had been the subject of comment by the Committee of Experts for more than ten years, and the Committee during the past ten years had dealt with the case at least six times. As mentioned by the Workers' members, there was a clear discrepancy between the national legislation and practice and the requirements of the Convention, in particular with regard to the question of the single trade union system. The Convention did not specify that there must be pluralism or that there must be a single trade union system; it only provided that pluralism must be possible. However, a decree of the Syrian Arab Republic referred in name to the central trade union organisation, and this amounted to a clear violation of the Convention. They stated that the issues concerning restrictions on trade union rights and governmental interference in trade union finances seemed to be clear, but they had serious reservations in respect of the right to strike in the agricultural sector. They noted that according to the criteria of the Committee of Experts, the feeding of the population could be an essential service, particularly during certain periods of the year, and strikes therefore could have catastrophic effects, particularly in developing countries. They did not pursue this point further, because of their belief that the details of the right to strike or to carry out trade union activities were a matter for national legislation. It was stressed that it was essential and urgent for the Government to submit a complete report covering all the points raised by the Committee of Experts, and most importantly, to indicate what would and what would not be changed. They expressed regret that there continued to exist a discrepancy between the requirements of the Convention and the law and practice in Syria, and requested that changes be undertaken as soon as possible.

The Workers' member of the Syrian Arab Republic recalled that the report of the Committee of Experts requested that the Government indicate whether the opinion of the General Federation of Workers' Unions was for or against the repeal of certain legislative texts. He noted that the situation in respect of the protection of the right to freedom of association was sound and that trade unions enjoyed the full right to this freedom, as well as other recognised rights. In addition, they participated in social and political decision-making and contributed in this way to guaranteeing and ensuring social peace. He indicated that 50 per cent of the Members of Parliament were representatives of workers and peasant farmers. Moreover, trade unions were represented in the production councils of enterprises and workers, and agricultural workers and craftsmen were represented on the Justice Committee. In addition, Legislative Decree No. 157 provided that workers were represented on the Social Security Council and the Economic, Health and Environment Committee. He also stressed that every worker was entirely free, pursuant to sections 48 and 49 of the Constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic, to form and to join associations and trade unions as well as to administer their own affairs. Trade union organisations in the Syrian Arab Republic are proud of the fact that they have been freely constituted; their leaders freely elected, and their rules, methods of functioning and commitment to freedom of association plurality self-established.

A Workers' member of the United Kingdom raised two points. Firstly, in addressing the question of pluralism, he stated that he did not object to a trade union movement choosing to form a single trade union or trade union structure, as is the case in many countries. However, it was unacceptable that such a situation be enshrined in legislation, even if this is asked for or agreed to by the trade unions. He asked whether the Government had removed from its legislation all references to a single trade union as requested, as an answer to this question would assist further examination of the matter. Secondly, he raised the issue of restrictions on strikes in the agricultural sector. While acknowledging that there were reservations by some employers about this matter, he stressed that as a rule a piece of legislation that denies a whole sector of the population the right to strike must be contrary to the Convention. He noted that arising from alleged human rights abuses in 1980 a strike was organised by the Doctors and Engineers' Association following which 100 medical professionals, dentists and veterinarians were arrested and imprisoned without trial; some of these persons were still in prison. As an example, he referred to a case brought to his attention by the Trade Union Section of Amnesty International, that of Dr. Tawfig Drag al-Siba'i who had been arrested at that time and remained in a military prison in Damascus without trial. It may be argued that such a strike at that time was illegal; but whether such strikes were illegal or not under the terms of Convention No. 87 was a matter for the Committee of Experts to decide having had their attention brought to them.

The Government representative stated that the last point raised by the Workers' member of the United Kingdom was not a matter for discussion. The discussion should be confined to the subject of the repeal of the ban on strikes, section 160 of the Labour Code of 1958, concerning which the Government informed the ILO that there was a new draft legislation to repeal this section, which implies that the Committee cannot examine section 160 itself.

The Workers' member of the United Kingdom reminded the Committee of the statement he had made during the General Discussion in which he had indicated that the best contribution which the ILO and the Committee could make to the UN Conference on Human Rights in 1993 was to ensure that no abuse of the human rights of trade unions would go unnoticed or uncondemned.

Another Workers' member of the Syrian Arab Republic indicated that he shared the same opinion as the Government representative in respect of the compatibility of Decree No. 84 with Convention No. 87, particularly concerning consultation with the General Federation of Workers' Unions. He stated that he had personally participated in some of these consultations where numerous matters had been addressed. For the purpose of these consultations it had been agreed that he would send a draft of the legislative decree to the Council of Ministers. He pointed out that the assertions of the speaker for the Workers' members and of the Worker member of the United Kingdom had no basis. He noted the history of the trade union movement in his country, where there were 2,500 trade union committees in all the provinces, and emphasised the importance of their activities.

A Workers' member of the Netherlands stated that Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 established universal values, the right to organise and bargain collectively. However, these universal values would be meaningless if interpreted differently by different countries. If there was to be flexibility in ILO labour standards, this flexibility must be found within the four corners of the instrument in question.

The Government representative stated that he wished that the debate had concentrated on the single area of disagreement, which was the single trade union system, as all the other points had been responded to, as the draft Legislative Decree that he had referred to - which had been communicated to the Office - had met all the observations of the Committee of Experts. He reiterated that in his country a single trade union did not exist. He had hoped that the statement of the Workers' member of the United Kingdom would be confined to examination of the observation concerning the single trade union system; instead, the matter of section 160 concerning strikes in the agricultural sector was raised - despite the fact that the Government has stated several times that there is a new draft amendment to repeal section 160. This amendment could not be instantly promulgated as if by magic; established channels needed to be followed. The Workers' member of the United Kingdom used section 160 to address old alleged strikes and to criticise his Government, deviating from the established practice and the comments to which he should have confined himself. The Employers' members said that the Government criticised the Committee of Experts; is it criticism to call attention to the fact that ten years after the repeal of the condition of one-year residence for non-Arabic foreign workers for the right to join a trade union (repealed by Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982), the Committee of Experts continues to call for its repeal? The Government representative stated that his Government wished to cooperate with the ILO and was, in fact, doing so. The Government wished to discuss and dialogue with the workers and employers.

The Workers' members stated that they had taken note of the intention of the Government to fully cooperate with the ILO and the present Committee. Nevertheless, they stressed that problems concerning the application of the Convention persisted, but that, in order to be able to continue the debates, it was absolutely indispensable that the reports containing the requested replies to the observations of the Committee of Experts be supplied on time. They considered the statements of the Government to be at first glance encouraging, but they could not satisfy themselves solely with oral statements. They were obliged to base their examination of the matter on the reports of the Committee of Experts, which were usually based on data and information that had been supplied on time.

The Employers' members reiterated their request that the Government provide a comprehensive written report. They also wished to know when the legislation referred to by the Government representative would be implemented and enter into force. Although they had stated that there could be differences of opinion regarding the scope of the right to strike, they stressed that there were no differences in respect of the freedom of association. The right to form and join a trade union of one's own choice must be ongoing and guaranteed. They wondered why the Government had not removed reference in its legislation to a single trade union organisation, if there really were different trade unions within the country.

The Committee took note of the information given by the Government. It understood that a Bill which intends to change the labour legislation under discussion has very recently been drafted and presented to the Council of Ministers. Recalling that it has been discussing these points for some years, it felt that it was necessary that the Bill which the Government referred to be studied carefully by the Committee of Experts at its next session. It understood that the Government will cooperate fully with the competent bodies of the ILO, and send therefore all the relevant documents. It hoped to be able to conclude at one of its next sessions that the situation is in complete conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon in its next report.

Article 2 of the Convention. Trade union monopoly. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated so as to repeal or amend the legislative provisions establishing a regime of trade union monopoly (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84; sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3, amending Legislative Decree No. 84; section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969; and sections 26–31 of Act No. 21 of 1974). The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the majority of workers confirmed their position independently by declaring, through their trade union congresses, their wish to hold on to the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) as a single union organization. The Committee notes that the Government’s statement is once again corroborated by the comments of the GFTU forwarded by the ITUC. While taking due note of the above information, the Committee must once again recall that although it is generally to the advantage of workers and employers to avoid proliferation of competing organizations, trade union unity, imposed directly or indirectly, by law runs counter to the standards expressly laid down in the Convention. Although it was clearly not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does at the very least require this diversity to remain possible in all cases (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 91). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which establish a regime of trade union monopoly so as to allow possible trade union diversity.

Article 3. Financial administration of organizations. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, so as to lift the power of the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the investment of trade union funds in financial services and industrial sectors. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the GFTU reiterated that it is a financially independent organization, that it has the full right to dispose of its funds in the manner it sees appropriate for their investment without the interference of anybody whatsoever in accordance with Act No. 25 of 2000, and that it invests its funds in particular in establishing hotels and tourist agglomerations, without interference. The Committee recalls, with regard to the financial administration of workers’ organizations, that legislative provisions that give authorities the right to restrict the freedom of trade unions to invest, administer and utilize their funds as they wish for normal and lawful trade union purposes are incompatible with the principles of freedom of association. Therefore, taking into account what appears to be the practice and in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the principle of freedom of association, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, in accordance with the abovementioned principle. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated in this respect in its next report.

Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which determine the composition of the GFTU Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84). The Committee notes that the Government does not refer to these issues in its report. The Committee recalls that it should be up to trade union constitutions and rules to establish the composition and presiding officers of trade union congresses; national legislation should only lay down formal requirements in this respect; any legislative provisions going beyond such formal requirements constitute interference contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 109 and 111). The Committee, therefore, once again requests the Government to provide specific information on the measures taken or contemplated to repeal or amend section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84, in accordance with the abovementioned principle. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated in this respect in its next report.

Furthermore in its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the provisions which explicitly amend section 44(B)(3) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow a certain percentage of trade union officers to be non-Arab. The Committee had noted that, according to the Government, Legislative Decree No. 25 of 2000 amending Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 explicitly provides for the right of non-Syrian workers to join occupational trade unions, and that the law does not set down any discriminatory restrictions or provisions on the possibility of election of workers as trade union officers, regardless of their nationality. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that every worker is allowed to become a member of a trade union to which he/she is affiliated, and that as long as he/she is affiliated to a trade union, he/she has the right to nominate himself/herself to leading union posts.

Right to strike. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the progress made with regard to the adoption of draft amendments to provisions which restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code). The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the amendment procedure takes time, that it will keep the Committee informed of any new developments and that the Ministry of Justice will take the Committee’s comments into account. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against 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. The Committee expresses the hope that the measures envisaged to bring the legislation in conformity with the Convention will be adopted in the near future, in accordance with the abovementioned principle. It requests the Government to provide, with its next report, a copy of the amendments as adopted.

The Committee reminds the Government that, if it so wishes, it may include the issues under this Convention when receiving the technical assistance of the Office it has requested under the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 29 August 2008, on issues previously raised by the Committee.

Article 2 of the Convention. Trade union monopoly. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which establish a regime of trade union monopoly (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84; sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3, amending Legislative Decree No. 84; section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969; and sections 26–31 of Act No. 21 of 1974). The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply indicating that the current law on the unity of trade union organizations has not been imposed on workers in any manner but rather reflects their choice, expressed through trade union congresses at various levels, in line with the Convention. Furthermore, the Trade Union Organization Act, like all the relevant laws and regulations, are being discussed within a tripartite structure before its adoption. Workers consider this issue as a red line which cannot be crossed and they are adamant on the clear expression of that choice, as provided for in the Convention. The Committee notes that the above is corroborated by the comments of the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) forwarded by the ITUC, according to which the reason for the existence of a single trade union system is that workers themselves reject union diversity because it harms their interests.

While taking due note of the above information, the Committee must once again note that although it is generally to the advantage of workers and employers to avoid proliferation of competing organizations, trade union unity, directly or indirectly, imposed by law runs counter to the standards expressly laid down in the Convention. Although it was clearly not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does at the very least require this diversity to remain possible in all cases (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 91). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which establish a regime of trade union monopoly in a manner which allows trade union diversity to remain possible in all cases (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84; sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3, amending Legislative Decree No. 84; section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969; and sections 26–31 of Act No. 21 of 1974).

Article 3. Financial administration of organizations. The Committee’s previous comments concerned legislative provisions which authorize the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the investment of trade union funds in the financial services and industrial sectors (section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982). The Committee recalls that according to the text of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended, a trade union can invest its funds in financial services and industrial sectors under conditions specified by Ministerial Decree after their approval by the Bureau of the GFTU. The Committee recalls that, in previous reports, the Government had indicated that the signature of the Minister is required merely as an administrative formality. It notes that according to the Government’s latest report, the text of the law is not enforced in practice; the investment projects of trade unions are managed by the unions themselves through tenders and procedures carried out without any interference by any body including the Ministry; the Government attaches as examples documents showing that the investment of trade union funds in a hotel was carried out through private agreements and tenders. While taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee considers that national law should be brought into line with the Convention and with what appears to be national practice. It also recalls that despite several legislative amendments introduced in 2000 to guarantee the freedom of trade unions to organize their administration and activities without interference, the provision in question was not amended. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to indicate in its next report the steps taken or contemplated to amend section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, so as to lift the power of the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the investment of trade union funds in financial services and industrial sectors.

Right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which determine the composition of the GFTU Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84). The Committee notes from the Government’s report that Legislative Decree No. 84 and the amendments made thereto have not been imposed on the workers and are the result of the struggle of the working class in the Syrian Arab Republic. The Committee recalls that it should be up to trade union constitutions and rules to establish the composition and presiding officers of trade union congresses; national legislation should only lay down formal requirements in this respect; any legislative provisions going beyond such formal requirements constitute interference contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 109 and 111). The Committee, therefore, once again requests the Government to provide specific information on the measures taken or contemplated to repeal or amend section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84, which determines the composition of the GFTU Congress and its presiding officers.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the provisions which explicitly amend section 44(B)(3) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow a certain percentage of trade union officers to be non-Arab. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, Legislative Decree No. 25 of 2000 amending Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 explicitly provides for the right of non-Syrian workers to join occupational trade unions; the law does not set down any discriminatory restrictions or provisions on the possibility of election of workers as trade union officers, regardless of their nationality. In this regard, the Committee once again observes that there are no provisions unequivocally amending section 44(B)(3) of Legislative Decree No. 84, which explicitly sets Arab nationality as a condition of eligibility for trade union office. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to explicitly and unequivocally amend section 44(B)(3) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow a certain percentage of trade union officers to be non-Arab.

Right to strike. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend legislative provisions which restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code). The Government indicates in this respect that the draft amendment of the General Penal Code contains provisions on this issue but has not yet been promulgated; a copy will be sent as soon as it is promulgated. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made with regard to the adoption of draft amendments to provisions which restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code) and to communicate the relevant text as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee finally notes that the Government does not provide any information in reply to the Committee’s previous request for measures to amend legislative provisions which impose forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities, by acting in a manner contrary to the plan (section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966, concerning the Code on economic penalties). The Committee notes that, in previous reports, the Government had indicated that the penalty of forced labour had been repealed by virtue of Act No. 34 of 2000. However, the Committee had noted that Act No. 34 of 2000 concerned amendments to the Agricultural Relations Act of 1958 and did not appear to repeal any penalty of forced labour. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the provisions which have been adopted or are being contemplated in order to repeal section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966, concerning the Code on economic penalties which imposes forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether the right to organize of public servants is governed by section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1996, as amended, or by other legislative provisions and, if so, to provide copies of the relevant legislation. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the right to organize of civil servants is governed by section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1996 which applies to every worker, since no exceptions have been introduced to this provision by any other legal text so far.

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which establish a regime of trade union monopoly (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84; sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3, amending Legislative Decree No. 84; section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969; and sections 26–31 of Act No. 21 of 1974). The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply indicating that the unity of trade union organization is not contrary to the substance of the Convention and results from the decisions and orders of the working class at different levels of the union assemblies; it would be illogical to pretend to defend workers’ freedom and then oppose the final trade union structure freely chosen by the workers themselves for their representation as an expression of their interests. The Committee recalls once again that although it is generally to the advantage of workers and employers to avoid proliferation of competing organizations, trade union unity directly or indirectly imposed by law runs counter to the standards expressly laid down in the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 91). The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which establish a regime of trade union monopoly (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84; sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3, amending Legislative Decree No. 84; section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969; and sections 26–31 of Act No. 21 of 1974).

The Committee’s previous comments concerned legislative provisions which authorize the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the investment of trade union funds in the financial services, and industrial sectors (section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the signature of the Minister is required merely as an administrative formality under the scope of his responsibility for the implementation of labour laws and related issues. The Committee recalls that several legislative amendments introduced in 2000, which were taken note of in the Committee’s previous comments, were aimed at guaranteeing the freedom of trade unions to organize their administration and activities without interference but did not explicitly amend the provision authorizing the Minister to set the conditions for investment of trade union funds. The Committee requests the Government to provide details in its next report on the specific conditions established by the Minister on the basis of section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84 (as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982) for the investment of trade union funds in the financial services, and industrial sectors.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the legislative provisions which determine the composition of the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84). The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply indicating that trade unions in the Syrian Arab Republic are independent, that their administration and activities are organized in accordance with their internal statutes and that their independence is secured by national legislation. Noting that the Government’s report does not address specifically the issue of the provisions which determine the composition of the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84), the Committee once again requests the Government to provide specific information on the measures taken or contemplated to repeal or amend these provisions.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 44(B)(3) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow a certain percentage of trade union officers to be non-Arab, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the country. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, by virtue of section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, as amended by section 1(c) of Act No. 25 of 2000, foreign non-Arab workers have the right to join an occupational trade union; consequently, according to the Government, they have the right to present themselves as candidates to trade union elections. The Committee notes, however, that section 44(B)(3) explicitly sets Arab nationality as a condition of eligibility to trade union office and that the provisions mentioned by the Government do not amend or repeal this provision. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions which explicitly amend section 44(B)(3) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow a certain percentage of trade union officers to be non-Arab.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend legislative provisions which restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code). The Government indicates in this respect that the relevant amendment of the Penal Code requires more time than other amendments and is currently being followed up on. The Committee recalls that sanctions for strike action should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations, and that both excessive recourse to the courts in labour relations and the existence of heavy sanctions for strike action may well create more problems than they resolve (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 177–178). The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made with regard to the adoption of amendments to the legislative provisions (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code) which restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend legislative provisions which impose forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities, by acting in a manner contrary to the plan (section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 concerning the Code on economic penalties). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the penalty of forced labour was repealed by virtue of Act No. 34 of 2000. The Committee notes however, that Act No. 34 of 2000 concerns amendments to the Agricultural Relations Act of 1958 and does not appear to repeal any penalty of forced labour. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the provisions which have been adopted or are being contemplated in order to repeal section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 concerning the Code on economic penalties which imposes forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report was received on 1 December 2006 in Arabic and is being translated.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in communications dated 31 August 2005 and 10 August 2006 on the application of the Convention.

Referring to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that it had requested the Government:

(1)   to indicate in its next report whether the right to organize of public servants is governed by section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1996, as amended, or by other legislative provisions and, if so, to provide copies of the relevant legislation;

(2)   to take the necessary measures to repeal or amend the following legislative provisions which:

–      establish a regime of trade union monopoly (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84, sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3 amending Legislative Decree No. 84, section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974);

–      authorize the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the use of trade union funds (section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84 as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982); and

–      determine the composition of the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986 amending Legislative Decree No. 84);

(3)   to amend section 44(3)(b) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow a certain percentage of trade union officers to be foreigners, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the country; and

(4)   to amend the legislative provisions which:

–      restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code); and

–      impose forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities, by acting in a manner contrary to the plan (section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 concerning the economic Penal Code).

The Committee will examine the abovementioned questions at its next session with the translation of the Government’s report.

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Trade union monopoly. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to repeal or amend a number of legislative provisions which established trade union monopoly, authorized the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the use of trade union funds, and determined the composition of the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) Congress and its presiding officers. In its report, the Government submits once again that both employers and workers reject the principle of multiple trade unions because it reinforces divisions and is contrary to their interests. The Government indicates that this position has been reasserted in decisions taken by trade union central congresses.

The Committee must once again recall that although it was clearly not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does at the very least require this diversity to remain possible in all cases. In this respect, there is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, a trade union monopoly established or maintained by law and, on the other hand, voluntary groupings of workers or unions which occur (without pressure from the public authorities, or due to the law) because they wish, for instance, to strengthen their bargaining position, coordinate their efforts to tackle ad hoc difficulties which affect all their organizations, etc. It is generally to the advantage of workers and employers to avoid proliferation of competing organizations, but trade union unity directly or indirectly imposed by law runs counter to the standards expressly laid down in the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 91). Therefore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take all necessary steps with a view to repealing or amending the legislative provisions which:

-  establish a regime of trade union monopoly (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84, sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3 amending Legislative Decree No. 84, section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974);

-  authorize the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the use of trade union funds (section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84 as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982); and

-  determine the composition of the GFTU Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986 amending Legislative Decree No. 84).

Nationality requirement. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to take all necessary measures with a view to amending section 44(3)(b) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow a certain percentage of trade union officers to be foreigners, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the country. In its report, the Government reiterates that, by virtue of section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 and amendments made thereto, workers of a nationality other than Arab can join a trade union of skilled workers.

The Committee must once again draw the Government’s attention to the issue at stake, namely the eligibility of foreigners for trade union office and not their right to join trade unions. In this respect, the Committee recalls that since provisions on nationality which are too strict could deprive some workers of the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, it considers that legislation should allow foreign workers not only the right to elect trade union officers but also the right to take up trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 118). The Committee once again urges the Government to take all necessary measures with a view to amending section 44(3)(b) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow at least a certain percentage of trade union officers to be foreigners, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the country.

Penal sanctions for strike action. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to amend the legislative provisions which restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment and forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities. In its report, the Government reiterates that the imposition of a penalty on strikes has been repealed by virtue of Act No. 34 of 2000. The Committee once again recalls that while having taken due note of Act No. 34 of 2000 in its previous comments, it also continued to express the need to amend the legislative provisions which imposed heavy prison sanctions for strike action and, furthermore, imposed forced labour for actions which caused prejudice to the general production plan and which were not affected by Act No. 34. Recalling that in its 2001 observation the Committee had noted with interest the establishment by the Ministry of Justice of a committee to consider amendments to the Syrian Penal Code, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect and in particular any measures taken or envisaged to amend the legislative provisions which:

-  restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code); and

-  impose forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities, by acting in a manner contrary to the plan (section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 concerning the economic Penal Code).

The Committee urges the Government to take all necessary measures at the earliest possible date to bring the national legislation concerning trade union monopoly, restrictions on union office for non-Arabs, and penal sanctions for exercising strike action into full conformity with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention.

Finally, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1996 (as amended) grants all workers, including those working in export processing zones, the right to join a trade union of their own choosing. The Government underlines that this general provision applies in all cases unless there is another text restricting the right to organize which applies. While taking due note of this information, the Committee observes that the Government has still not provided any information on public servants’ right to organize. The Committee urges the Government to indicate in its next report whether the right to organize of public servants is governed by section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1996 as amended or by other legislative provisions and, if so, to provide copies of the relevant legislation.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s comments, made in response to a communication by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

Trade union monopoly. The Committee notes the comments of the ICFTU to the effect that independent trade unions are outlawed. All workers’ organizations must be affiliated with the country’s sole official trade union federation, the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU), which is strictly controlled by the ruling Ba’ath party and controls most aspects of union activity, determines which sectors or areas of activity can have a union or a federation, and has the power to disband the executive committee of any union. The Committee takes note of the Government’s response according to which this issue has been addressed by the adoption of Legislative Decree No. 25 of 2000 which specifies that a trade union shall operate in accordance with the provisions of its internal statutes and thereby excludes any intervention on behalf of the authorities in trade union activities. The Committee notes that in its previous comments, it had already taken note of Legislative Decree No. 25 of 2000 which had amended a certain number of provisions upon which it had been commenting for many years, but had also indicated the need for further measures to amend, among others, the legislative provisions which established trade union monopoly, authorized the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the use of trade union funds, and determined the composition of the GFTU Congress and its presiding officers. The Committee once again urges the Government to take all necessary steps with a view to repealing or amending the legislative provisions which:

-  establish a regime of trade union monopoly (sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84, sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3 amending Legislative Decree No. 84, section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974);

-  authorize the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the use of trade union funds (section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84 as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982); and

-  determine the composition of the GFTU Congress and its presiding officers (section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986 amending Legislative Decree No. 84).

Nationality requirement. The Committee notes that according to the ICFTU, only workers of Arab nationality can stand for election to trade union office. The Committee notes that according to the Government, by virtue of section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 and amendments made thereto, workers of a nationality other than Arab can join a trade union of skilled workers. The Committee notes that these provisions relate to trade union membership, not the right to stand for trade union office. The Committee recalls in this respect that provisions on nationality which are too strict could deprive some workers of the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, for example migrant workers in sectors in which they account for a significant share of the workforce and considers that legislation should allow foreign workers to take up trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 118). Recalling that it has been commenting for many years on the need to amend legislation which subjects eligibility for trade union office to Arab nationality, the Committee once again urges the Government to take all necessary measures with a view to amending section 44(3)(b) of Legislative Decree No. 84 so as to allow at least a certain percentage of trade union officers to be foreigners, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the country.

Penal sanctions for strike action. The Committee notes that according to the ICFTU the right to strike is severely restricted by the threat of punishment, fines and jail terms of up to one year. Strikes involving more than 20 workers in certain sectors and any strike action which takes place on the public highways or in public places, or that involves the occupation of premises, are punishable by fines and prison sentences. Civil servants who disrupt the operation of public services risk losing their civil rights. Forced labour can be imposed on anyone who causes "prejudice to the general production plan". The Committee notes that according to the Government, the imposition of a penalty on strikes has been repealed by virtue of Act No. 34 of 2000. The Committee recalls that while having taken due note of Act No. 34 of 2000 in its previous comments, it also continued to express the need to amend the legislative provisions which imposed heavy prison sanctions for strike action and furthermore, imposed forced labour for actions which caused prejudice to the general production plan and which were not affected by Act No. 34. Recalling that in its 2001 observation the Committee had noted with interest the establishment by the Ministry of Justice of a committee to consider amendments to the Syrian Penal Code, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect and in particular, any measures taken or envisaged to amend the legislative provisions which:

-  restrict the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment (sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code); and

-  impose forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities, by acting in a manner contrary to the plan (section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 concerning the economic Penal Code).

The Committee hopes that the Government will take all necessary measures at the earliest possible date to bring the national legislation concerning trade union monopoly, restrictions on union office for non-Arabs, and penal sanctions for exercising strike action into full conformity with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. The Government is asked to provide information in its next report on progress made in this respect and to send copies of any amended laws. The Committee further asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether the right to organize of public servants is regulated by legislative provisions and, if so, to provide copies of them.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report. It further notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention and requests the Government to transmit its observations thereon.

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for many years on the following legislative provisions:

-  section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, which authorizes the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the use of trade union funds;

-  sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84, sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3 amending Legislative Decree No. 84, section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974 establishing trade union monopoly;

-  section 44(3)(b) of Legislative Decree No. 84 subjecting eligibility for trade union office to Arab nationality;

-  section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986 amending Legislative Decree No. 84 which determines the composition of the congress of the federation and its presiding officers;

-  sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949, issuing the Penal Code, restricting the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment; and

-  section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966, concerning the Economic Penal Code, which imposes forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities, by acting in a manner contrary to the plan.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement generally that it engages in dialogue and consultations with workers’ and employers’ organizations with the aim of amending the legislation on trade unions so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Government adds, however, that legislative amendments need time and careful examination.

With respect to section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, the Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that, in practice, the General Federation’s mandate is to determine and set down the conditions relating to the use of trade union funds in financial, industrial and service-related matters and that the Minister shall sign without amending any of the proposed provisions. The Government further states that it has addressed the General Federation with a view to amending this section. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this respect.

With regard to the legislative provisions establishing trade union monopoly, the Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s reports for several years, that the workers and employers support the principle of trade union unity in order to maintain their organizational strength. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that in spite of refusal by the workers’ and employers’ organization of the idea of multiple unions, it has transmitted the request of the Committee to the social partners. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this respect.

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee expresses the hope that measures will be taken at the earliest possible date to bring the national legislation concerning trade union monopoly, restrictions on non-nationals and penal sanctions for exercising strike action into full conformity with the Convention. The Government is asked to provide information in its next report on progress made in this respect and to send copies of any amended laws. The Committee further asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether the right to organize of public servants is regulated by legislative provisions and, if so, to provide copies of them.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not specifically reply to the previous direct request. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that, by virtue of Article 2 of the Convention, freedom of association is to be guaranteed not only to employers and workers in private industry but also to public servants, employees in public services and workers in nationalized industries. Persons in all these categories should be permitted to defend their interests by exercising the right to organize.

In this respect, the Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether the right to organize of public servants is regulated by legislative provisions and, if so, to provide copies of them.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report. It notes with satisfaction that several provisions of the national legislation which were inconsistent with the Convention have been repealed or amended. Section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code, which prohibited strikes in the agricultural sector, and section 262 of the same Code which provided that anyone instigating or participating in a strike or a lockout was liable to a term of imprisonment of from three months to one year, have been repealed by Act No. 34 of 2000. Furthermore, Legislative Decree No. 25 of 2000 repeals or amends the following provisions of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 on the organization of workers and Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 concerning craftworkers’ associations, on which the Committee has been commenting for many years:

-  section 32 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 6 of Legislative Decree No. 250, which prohibit unions from accepting gifts, donations and legacies without the prior agreement of the General Federation of Workers’ Unions and the approval of the Ministry;

-  section 35 of Legislative Decree No. 84 which conferred on the Ministry broad powers of intervention over trade union finances at every level;

-  section 36(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250 requiring first-level unions to allocate a certain percentage of their resources to higher level trade unions;

-  section 44(4)(b) of Legislative Decree No. 84 under which eligibility for trade union office was subject to prior exercise of the occupation for at least six months; and

-  section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended in 1982, which restricted the trade union rights of non-Arab foreign workers by continuing to subject them to a reciprocity requirement.

However, the Committee again points out that the following provisions need to be amended:

-  section 44(3)(b) of Legislative Decree No. 84 subjecting eligibility for trade union office to Arab nationality; and

-  section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986 amending Legislative Decree No. 84 which determines the composition of the congress of the Federation and its presiding officers.

With regard to section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, which authorizes the Minister to set the conditions and procedures for the use of trade union funds, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that the General Federation is not bound by such procedures. The Committee nonetheless recalls that this provision is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention, which establishes the right of workers’ organizations to organize their management and activities without intervention by the public authorities, and asks the Government to amend this clause in order to bring it into line with Article 3.

With regard to the legislative provisions establishing trade union monopoly (in particular sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84, sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 3 amending Legislative Decree No. 84, section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974), the Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s reports for several years, that the General Federation of Trade Unions and the General Federation of Farmers and Craftworkers support the principle of trade union unity in order to maintain their organizational strength. The Committee again recalls that laws which organize the structure of trade unions on a single union basis impair the right of workers to establish organizations of their choice and that workers should have the possibility of establishing another federation if they so wish. Although it was clearly not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does at the very least require this diversity to remain possible in all cases (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 91). The Committee therefore requests that the Government take the necessary measures to amend these provisions so as to ensure that trade union pluralism remains possible in all cases, in conformity with Article 2 of the Convention.

The Committee notes with interest that the Ministry of Justice has established a committee to consider amendments to the Syrian Penal Code. The Committee notes that the draft laws amending the Penal Code do not repeal sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949 issuing the Penal Code, restricting the right to strike by imposing heavy sanctions including imprisonment. The Committee recalls that it has been asking the Government for several years to repeal or amend these sections. Section 330 of the Penal Code provides for loss of civic rights for public servants who, as an organized group, hinder the functioning of a public service. Section 332 of the Penal Code imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine for any organized strike action by more than 20 workers in the transport, postal, telegraph and telecommunications, water and electricity-generating services and for strikes accompanied by demonstrations on roads or at public places or where strikers occupy offices and buildings (even peacefully). Section 333 imposes a term of imprisonment of from two months to one year or a fine not exceeding £50 on anyone who has encouraged a strike or lockout or assemblies on roads and at public places (reference to section 332(3)). A term of imprisonment of from two months to one year is enforceable under section 334 for anyone who refuses to execute or defers executing an arbitration award or any other decision by an industrial tribunal. The Committee recalls that the prohibition of the right to strike should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to employees in services which are essential in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see 1994 General Survey, paragraphs 158 and 159). Transport and postal services are not essential services in the strict sense of the term. Consequently, the Committee asks the Government to ensure that the above provisions of the law that impose restrictions on the right to strike that are enforceable by imprisonment are amended in order to ensure full observance of the abovementioned principle, in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee further recalls that it also asked the Government to repeal section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 concerning the Economic Penal Code which imposes forced labour on anyone causing prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities, by acting in a manner contrary to the plan. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard in its next report.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may seek technical assistance from the ILO, and expresses the hope that measures will be taken at the earliest possible date to bring the national legislation concerning trade union monopoly, restrictions on non-nationals and penal sanctions for exercising the right to strike into full conformity with the Convention. The Government is asked to provide information in its next report on progress made in this respect and to send copies of any amended laws.

The Committee is also addressing a request concerning other points directly to the Government.

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

The Committee recalls that, by virtue of Article 2 of the Convention, freedom of association is to be guaranteed not only to employers and workers in private industry, but also to public servants, employees in public services and workers in nationalized industries. Persons in all these categories should be permitted to defend their interests by exercising the right to organize.

In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether the right to organize of public servants is regulated by legislative provisions and, if so, to provide copies of them.

Furthermore, although the Convention guarantees the right to organize to workers in the public service, their corollary right to strike to further and defend their economic and social interests may be either limited or prohibited. In the view of the Committee, a too broad definition of the concept of public servant, which varies considerably from one country to another, is likely to result in a very broad restriction or even a prohibition of the right to strike for these workers. As a consequence, the Committee has always considered that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 156-158).

In this regard the Committee requests the Government to provide copies with its next report of the provisions of the national legislation which govern the exercise of the right to strike by public servants.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its last report. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the information provided previously and once again indicates that the competent authorities are examining four draft legislative decrees to amend the texts on which the Committee has been commenting for several years. The Government states that a tripartite committee is currently working on the preparation of these draft decrees. These should take into account the observations made by the Committee of Experts and will be transmitted to the Office in due time to ensure their full conformity with the Convention. The Committee once again recalls the need to amend the following provisions.

Act No. 136 of 1958 issuing the Agricultural Labour Code

-  Section 160, which prohibits strikes in the agricultural sector, and section 262 of the same Code, which provides that any person who instigates or participates in a strike or lockout is liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from three months to one year.

Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 respecting workers’
organizations and the amendments thereto up to 1986,
Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 respecting craftworkers’
associations and Act No. 21 of 1974 respecting rural
workers’ cooperative associations

-  Section 32 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 6 of Legislative Decree No. 250, which prohibit unions from accepting gifts, donations and legacies without the prior agreement of the General Federation of Workers’ Unions and the approval of the Ministry;

-  section 35 of Legislative Decree No. 84, which confers on the Ministry broad powers of intervention over trade union finances at every level;

-  section 36 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250, which require that first-level trade unions allocate a certain percentage of their resources to higher level trade unions;

-  section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, which confers on the Minister the authority to determine the methods for the use of trade union funds;

-  section 44(b)(3) and (4) of Legislative Decree No. 84, under which eligibility for trade union office is subject to the prior exercise of the occupation for at least six months and to Arab nationality;

-  section 49(c), which confers on the Federation the right to dissolve the executive committee of any trade union;

-  section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended in 1982, which continues to subject non-Arab workers to a condition of reciprocity, thereby restricting their trade union rights;

-  section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986, amending Legislative Decree No. 84, which determines the composition of the congress of the Federation and its presiding officers.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to amend the following provisions, which establish trade union monopoly in breach of the Convention:

-  sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84, which organize the structure of trade unions on a single union basis;

-  sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, amending Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, which designate the Federation as the single central trade union organization;

-  section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and sections 26-31 of Act No. 21 of 1974 respecting rural workers’ cooperative associations, which impose a single trade union system.

Penal codes

The Committee also recalls that it has been requesting the Government for several years to repeal or amend sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949 issuing the Penal Code, which restrict the right to strike and lockouts by imposing heavy sanctions, including imprisonment. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that it has also been requesting the Government for several years to repeal section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966, issuing the Economic Penal Code, which imposes forced labour on any person who causes prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities by acting in a manner contrary to the plan.

The Committee once again requests the Government to review its penal legislation and to indicate in its next report any measures which have been taken or are envisaged to bring it into conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee once again hopes that the amendments proposed in the four draft decrees will be adopted and enacted rapidly and urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to bring all of its national legislation into conformity with the Convention in the near future. The Committee recalls that the technical assistance of the Office is available to the Government. It requests the Government to keep it informed in its next report of any progress achieved and to provide copies of any provisions which have been repealed or amended.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report. It notes that the Government repeats the information supplied previously and again indicates that the competent authorities are studying four draft legislative decrees to amend the texts on which the Committee has commented. The Government states that it is still not in a position to send the results to date of the above study.

The Committee previously pointed out the need to modify the following provisions:

Agricultural Labour Code, Act No. 136 of 1958

-- section 160, which prohibits strikes in the agricultural sector, and section 262 of the same Code, which provides that any person who instigates or participates in a strike or lockout is liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from three months to one year.

Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 respecting workers' organizations and the amendments thereto up to and including 1986, Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 respecting craftsmen's associations and Act No. 21 of 1974 respecting peasants' cooperative associations

-- section 32 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 6 of Legislative Decree No. 250, which prohibit unions from accepting gifts, donations and legacies, without prior ministerial approval and that of the General Federation of Workers' Unions;

-- section 35 of Legislative Decree No. 84, which confers on the Ministry broad powers of intervention over trade union finances at every level;

-- section 36 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250, which require that first-level trade unions allocate a certain percentage of their resources to higher-level trade unions;

-- article 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended by section 4(5) of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, which confers on the Minister the authority to determine the methods of use of trade union funds;

-- section 44(b)/3 and /4 of Legislative Decree No. 84, under which eligibility for trade union office is subject to prior exercise of the occupation for at least six months and Arab nationality;

-- section 49(c), which confers on the General Federation the right to dissolve the executive committee of any trade union;

-- section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended in 1982, which continues to subject non-Arab workers to a condition of reciprocity, thereby restricting their trade union rights;

-- section 1(4) of Act No. 29 of 1986 amending Legislative Decree No. 84, which determines the composition of the congress of the General Federation and the latter's presiding officers.

Furthermore, the Committee asks the Government to secure the amendment of the following provisions, which establish trade union monopoly in breach of the Convention:

-- sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84, which organize the structure of trade unions on a single union basis;

-- sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982 amending Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, which designate the General Federation as the single central trade union organization;

-- section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974 respecting craftsmen's associations and peasants' cooperative associations, which impose a single trade union system.

Penal codes

The Committee also asks the Government to repeal or amend sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949 respecting the Penal Code, which restrict the right to strike and lockouts by imposing heavy sanctions, including imprisonment. It also asks the Government to repeal section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 respecting the Economic Penal Code, which imposes forced labour on any person who causes prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities by acting in a manner contrary to the plan. The Committee again requests the Government to review its penal legislation and to indicate in its next report any measures taken or envisaged to bring it into conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the amendments proposed in the four draft decrees will be rapidly promulgated in so far as they bring the provisions of the legislation into line with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. It urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring all of its national legislation into conformity with the Convention in the near future. The Committee recalls that the technical assistance of the Office is available to the Government, and requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress achieved in this area and to provide copies of any provisions which have been repealed or amended.

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

Article 3 of the Convention (Right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom). The Committee notes that section 44(b)/3 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 stipulates Arab nationality as a condition of eligibility to trade union office.

The Committee notes the Government's desire to amend its legislation to bring it into greater conformity with the Convention by granting trade union rights to all workers, including foreigners, and requests the Government to envisage amending section 44(b)/3 to enable foreign workers who have been legally resident in the country for a reasonable length of time access to trade union office.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its previous reports. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention, namely Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 respecting workers' organizations and the amendments to the Decree up to and including 1982, the Agricultural Labour Code No. 136 of 1958, Act No. 21 of 1974 respecting peasants' associations and Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 respecting craftsmen's associations. The Committee recalls the need to amend the following provisions:

-- section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code No. 136 of 1958, which prohibits strikes in the agricultural sector, and section 262 of the same Code, which provides that any person who instigates or participates in a strike or lockout is liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from three months to one year;

-- section 32 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 6 of Legislative Decree No. 250, which prohibit unions from accepting gifts, donations and legacies without prior ministerial approval or that of the General Federation of Workers' Union;

-- section 35 of Legislative Decree No. 84, which confers on the Ministry wide powers of intervention over trade union finances;

-- section 36 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250, which require that first-level trade unions allocate a certain percentage of their resources to higher-level trade unions;

-- section 44(b)/4 of Legislative Decree No. 84, which provides for the requirement of trade union membership for a period of at least six months prior to election to trade union office;

-- section 49(c), which confers on the General Federation the right to dissolve the Executive Committee of any trade union;

-- section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended in 1982, which subjects non-Arab workers to a condition of reciprocity, thereby restricting their trade union rights;

-- sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, which organizes the structures of trade unions on a single union basis;

-- sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982 amending Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, which designates the General Federation of Workers' Union as the single central trade union organization;

-- section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 regarding craftsmen's associations and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974 regarding peasants' cooperative associations, which impose a single trade union system.

The Committee moreover recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend or repeal sections 330, 332, 333 and 334 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949 respecting the Penal Code, which restricts the right to strike and lockouts by imposing heavy sanctions, including terms of imprisonment. Section 330 of the Penal Code provides for loss of civic rights for public servants who, as an organized group, hinder the functioning of a public service. Section 332 of the Penal Code imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine for any organized strike action by more than 20 workers in the transport, postal, telegraphic and telecommunications, water and electricity-generating services and for strikes accompanied by demonstrations on roads or at public places or where strikers occupy offices and buildings (even peacefully). Section 333 imposes a term of imprisonment of a maximum of one year, or a fine of not more than 50 Syrian pounds for any person who has encouraged a strike or lockout. A term of imprisonment ranging from two months to one year is enforceable under section 334 on any person who refuses to execute or who defers the carrying out of an arbitration sentence or any other decision handed down by an industrial tribunal.

Moreover, the Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government for several years to amend section 19 of Legislative Decree No. 37 of 1966 respecting the Economic Penal Code which imposes forced labour on any person who causes prejudice to the general production plan decreed by the authorities by acting in a manner contrary to the plan. The Committee had pointed out that a general prohibition of strike action provided for by legislation, directly or indirectly, could considerably restrict the right to strike by trade union organizations, which is contrary to Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. The Committee emphasizes that strike action is an intrinsic corollary of the right to organize and considers that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or to employees in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see the General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 159). The Committee trusts that the Government will review its penal legislation in the light of these considerations and will provide in its next report, any information on the measures taken or envisaged to bring its legislation into conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee notes with great interest the information provided by the Government in its previous reports to the effect that the Cabinet has recommended the approval and promulgation of the Bill to repeal section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code No. 134 of 1958, which prohibits strikes by farmers and agricultural workers, and the repeal of section 262 of this Code, which enforces a term of imprisonment on any person who encourages or participates in a strike. The Cabinet has also recommended the amendments of section 59(e) of Act No. 21 of 1974 respecting peasants' associations and sections 6 and 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 respecting craftsmen's associations.

The Committee also notes with interest that the Government reiterates its previous information and again indicates that the competent authorities are examining a new Bill amending sections 32, 35, 36(2), (3) and (4), 44(b)/4 and 49(c) of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, which restricts the freedom of trade unions to organize their administration and their activities and confers, in particular, wide powers of intervention on the authorities in respect of trade union finances, to bring these sections into conformity with the Convention.

The new Bill also amends certain sections of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, which continued to be incompatible with the Convention:

-- section 22(a), which is still in force, requires that trade union constitutions must correspond with the model established by the General Federation of Workers' Union. The legal obligation for first-level unions to conform to a model constitution and use such a model as a basis is contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which guarantees the right of workers' organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules without interference by the public authorities (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 111). The Committee takes due note of the proposed amendment which will bring this section into conformity with the provision of the Convention;

-- section 25 confers on foreign workers the right to join trade unions only on condition of reciprocity. This provision is incompatible with Article 2 of the Convention, which applies to all workers, without distinction whatsoever. The Committee takes due note of the proposed amendment to abolish the requirement for reciprocity;

-- section 36(5), currently in force, provides that trade unions must allocate 20 per cent of their actual resources to the General Federation of Workers' Union. This provision is not in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, which guarantees workers' organizations the right to organize their administration without the interference of the public authorities and, in particular, the right to autonomy and financial independence as well as the protection of its assets.

The Committee notes that the Bill in respect of section 22(b) provides that trade unions will make a "voluntary contribution" to the social security fund as well as to the Federation of Workers' Union. The Committee recalls that the financial participation by first-level trade unions to higher-level organizations imposed by law could constitute an act of interference, which is contrary to Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 111). Such provisions should be left to the rules of the trade unions and not set out in legislation.

The Committee recalls, moreover, that, despite the amendment of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, discrepancies exist between the Convention and section 18(a) of Legislative Decree No. 84. The provision provides that trade unions have the right to invest in financial or other projects, but only in the conditions and according to the methods determined by the Minister. The Convention establishes, in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3, the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and their activities without the interference of the public authorities.

The Committee notes further the information provided by the Government in its report to the effect that the General Federation of Workers' Union, as well as the General Federation of Peasants and the General Federation of Craftsmen adhere to the principle of trade union unity, in conformity with the decisions of their assemblies, in order to maintain the organizational force of each of the above federations, and have requested the Government to refrain from amending the legislation. The Committee, at the same time, is bound to emphasize that there is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, a trade union monopoly established or maintained by law and, on the other hand, voluntary groupings of workers or unions which occur, without pressure from the public authorities, or due to the law, because they wish, for instance, to strengthen their bargaining position. It is generally to the advantage of workers and employers to avoid proliferation of competing organizations, but trade union unity directly or indirectly imposed by law runs counter to the standard expressly laid down in the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 91). In this respect, the Committee, in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the General Survey, recognizes that certain legislation, in an attempt to establish a proper balance between imposed trade union unity and the fragmentation of organizations, establishes the concept of the most representative trade union. The Committee considers that this type of provision is not in itself contrary to the principle of freedom of association, provided that certain conditions are met. Firstly, the determination of the most representative organization must be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse. Furthermore, the distinction should generally be limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights, for example, for such purposes as collective bargaining. However, the freedom of workers to choose would be jeopardized if the distinction between the most representative and minority trade unions results, in law or in practice, in the prohibition of other trade unions that workers would like to join. This distinction should not therefore result in depriving those trade unions who are not recognized as being amongst the most representative of the essential means of defending the occupational interests of their members, and organizing their administration and activities, as provided for under the Convention.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend the following Legislative Decrees, as soon as possible, to institute a system of trade union unity and bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention:

-- sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84 which organizes the structure of trade unions on a single-union basis;

-- sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, which designates the General Federation of Workers' Union as the single central trade union organization;

-- section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969, which concerns craftsmen's associations, and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974, concerning peasants' cooperative associations, which imposes a single trade union system.

The Committee hopes that the proposed amendments will be rapidly adopted and promulgated and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring all of its national legislation into conformity with the Convention in the near future. The Committee, in this respect, recalls that the technical assistance of the Office is available to the Government, and requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress achieved in this area and to provide copies of any provisions which have been repealed or amended.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, as well as the information provided by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 1996 and the following discussions. The Government indicates that steps are being taken to amend Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 governing the structure of trade unions, in line with the provisions of the Convention, and to repeal section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code No. 136 of 1958 concerning the prohibition of strikes by farmers and agricultural workers. The Government adds that it has insisted in recent communications sent to the General Federation of Peasants and the General Federation of Craftsmen that they designate their representatives to serve on the tripartite commission responsible for preparing texts to amend Act No. 21 of 1974 on peasants' associations and Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 on craftsmen's associations.

The Committee notes that Legislative Decree No. 84 has already been amended by Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, the following provisions of which are still incompatible with the Convention:

- section 4 amending section 18(A) stipulates that trade union organizations have the right to invest their assets in financial and other projects, but only under the conditions and modalities determined by the Minister. This is contrary to Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Convention which provide for the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities without interference from the public authorities;

- section 6 amending section 22(A) contains the requirement that each trade union's by-laws should correspond to the model established by the General Federation of Workers' Union. This obligation enacted in legislation for first-level unions to follow a model constitution and use such a model as a basis is contrary to Article 3 which guarantees the right of workers' organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules without interference by the public authorities (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 111);

- section 7 amending section 25 confers on foreign workers the right to join trade unions only on condition of reciprocity. This provision is contrary to Article 2 which applies to all workers, without distinction whatsoever and therefore not subject to reciprocity on the part of another country;

- section 8 amending subsection 36(5) makes it compulsory for trade unions to allocate 20 per cent of their actual resources to the General Workers' Union. This provision is contrary to Article 3 which guarantees the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration without interference by the public authorities; this right includes in particular the autonomy and financial independence and the protection of the assets of these organizations (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 124);

- several provisions of Decree No. 30 of 1982 designate the General Federation of Workers' Union as the single central trade union organization (sections 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15). These references to the General Federation of Workers' Union are contrary to Article 2 under which workers, without distinction whatsoever and without previous authorization, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, outside the existing trade union structure if they so wish. While Article 2 is not intended as an expression of support for either the idea of trade union unity or trade union pluralism, pluralism should remain possible in all cases. Thus, while the General Federation of Workers' Union might have been freely constituted by the workers as stressed by the Government representative, this situation should not be formalized through the enactment of legislation.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay, to amend or repeal as appropriate, the above-mentioned provisions of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982 so as to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee further recalls that discrepancies remain between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

- sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 which organizes the structure of trade unions on a single union basis;

- section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 regarding craftsmen's associations and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974 regarding peasants' cooperative associations which impose a single trade union system;

- sections 32, 35, 36(2, 3 and 4), 44(b)(4) and 49(c) of Legislative Decree No. 84 and sections 6 and 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 restricting the free administration and independence of trade unions;

- section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code No. 136 of 1958 prohibiting strikes in the agricultural sector.

Although the Government states that various steps are being taken to amend or repeal the above-mentioned provisions in line with the Committee's comments, the Committee is bound to note that the Government has been giving similar assurances for many years now. Moreover, it notes with concern that Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982, which entered into force subsequently, contains provisions that are incompatible with the Convention and have been the subject of the Committee's comments for several years. The Committee would therefore urge the Government to take the appropriate steps shortly, and recalls that the technical assistance of the ILO is at its disposal, in order to ensure that all of its legislation is brought into conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to keep it informed in its next report of any progress made in this respect and to provide copies of provisions that have been repealed or amended as soon as they are adopted.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report indicating that the draft legislative decree to amend the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 on trade unions in line with certain comments made by the Committee for a number of years, has not yet been adopted. The Government adds that it has again asked the General Federation of Peasants and the General Federation of Craftsmen to designate their representatives to serve on the tripartite commission responsible for preparing texts to amend Act No. 21 of 1974 on peasants' associations and Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 on craftsmen's associations.

Since the Government's report, which arrived too late to be examined by the Committee at its session in February 1995, contains no further information on the situation, the Committee is bound to repeat once again the comments and requests it has been making for many years and recalls that there are still divergencies between the national legislation and the Convention, particularly on:

- Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 on trade unions (section 7) which organizes the structure of trade unions on a single union basis;

- Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 regarding craftsmen's associations (section 2) and Act No. 21 of 1974 regarding peasants' cooperative associations (sections 26 to 31) which impose a single trade union system;

- section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 which restricts the trade union rights of non-Arab foreign workers;

- sections 32, 35, 36, 44 and 49(c) of Legislative Decree No. 84 and sections 6 and 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 restricting the free administration and independence of management of trade unions;

- section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code of 1958 prohibiting strikes in the agricultural sector.

1. Single trade union system. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention is not intended as an expression of support for either the idea of trade union unity or trade union pluralism but to ensure that workers, without distinction whatsoever, and without previous authorization, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to delete from legislation the numerous references to the single central trade union organization designated in law as the General Federation of Workers' Union (FGST) and allow workers who so wish to establish organizations of their own choosing outside the existing trade union structure.

2. Restrictions to the right of non-Arab foreign workers employed in the Syrian Arab Republic. Section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 does not confer on foreign workers the right to join trade unions unless they have resided in Syria for one year and on condition of reciprocity. The Committee recalls that the guarantees of Article 2 of the Convention apply to all workers, without distinction whatsoever. It requests the Government to amend this Article to bring national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

3. Wide powers of intervention by the authorities over public finances. Several sections of Legislative Decree No. 84 (32, 35, 36, 44 and 49, paragraph (c)), and of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 (6 and 12) confer on the public authorities the discretionary power to inspect the books and other documents of organizations, to carry out investigations, to demand information at any time and to supervise trade union funds. The Committee requests the Government to abolish these impediments to the right of workers' organizations to organize their management and activity without interference from the public authorities in accordance with the requirements of Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

4. The need to belong to the occupation for a minimum of six months in order to be elected to trade union office. Section 44 of Legislative Decree No. 84 is liable to prevent qualified persons such as permanent trade union members and retired persons from exercising trade union office. The Committee requests the Government to make its legislation more flexible in order to allow the candidature of persons who formerly worked in the occupation and to lift the conditions on belonging to the occupation for a reasonable proportion of trade union officials in order to allow the candidature of persons from outside the occupation.

5. Prohibition on strikes in the agricultural sector. In regard to section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code forbidding agricultural workers to go on strike, the Committee notes with regret that the repeal of this text announced by the Government some time ago has not yet been adopted. The Committee once again emphasizes the importance it attaches to legislation not depriving trade union organizations of the right to strike, as this is one of the essential means by which they can promote and defend the occupational interests of their members, and requests the Government to repeal this provision.

The Committee must therefore request the Government once again to indicate in its next report the measures which have been taken to bring the whole of its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

[The Government is requested to provide full particulars to the Conference at its 83rd Session.]

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report and the information provided to the Conference at its 79th Session, as well as Decision No. 29 taken by the 22nd Congress of the General Federation of Workers' Union which affirms that the Congress is attached to national trade union unity. The Committee notes with interest that a draft legislative Decree to amend the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 on trade unions, in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention, has been prepared and was submitted to the Council of Ministers on 28 May 1992. This draft text includes the following changes:

(1) each trade union shall be governed by its own by-laws without any requirement that they correspond to the model established by the General Federation of Workers' Unions (section 22(a));

(2) non-Arab foreign workers have the right to freely join a trade union in their occupation, since the condition of reciprocity has been repealed and the residence requirements abolished by Legislative Decree No. 30 of 1982 (section 25);

(3) the resources of occupational federations shall be constituted through the voluntary participation of trade unions (section 56);

(4) the repeal of section 32, which required the prior agreement of the General Federation and the approval of the Ministry for a union to be able to accept donations and inheritances or give up a part of its assets;

(5) the repeal of section 35, which provided for the Ministry to exercise financial control over all levels of trade union organization;

(6) the repeal of section 36, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, which makes it compulsory for trade unions to allocate a percentage of their actual resources to higher trade union organizations;

(7) the repeal of section 44(b)(4), which makes it compulsory for a trade union officer to have actually exercised the occupation for a minimum period of six months;

(8) the repeal of section 49(c), which gives the committee of the General Federation the right to dismiss the officers of any trade union organization under certain conditions; and

(9) section 38 bis is added to the text of Legislative Decree No. 84, as amended, and provides that the assets of workers' trade union organizations, the services that they provide and their other operations and property are exempt from taxation of all types.

The Committee nevertheless notes that there are still divergencies between the national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

- sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, which organizes the structure of trade unions on a single union basis;

- section 2 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 regarding craftsmen's associations and sections 26 to 31 of Act No. 21 of 1974 regarding peasants' cooperative associations, which impose a single trade union system;

- sections 6 and 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 restricting the free administration and independence of management of trade unions; and

- section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code of 1958 prohibiting strikes in the agricultural sector.

The Committee regrets that measures have not been taken to amend the provisions in the national legislation which organize the single trade union system. It recalls that, under Article 2 of the Convention, workers, without distinction whatsoever, and without previous authorization shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. It also recalls that this Article is not intended as an expression of support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union pluralism; pluralism, however, should remain possible in all cases.

Since a government representative stated to the Conference Committee that there is in practice trade union pluralism in his country, the Committee requests the Government to bring its legislation into conformity with practice and the Convention by eliminating from its legislation the many references to the single central trade union organization designated in law as the General Federation of Workers' Unions (FGST).

With regard to Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 regarding craftsmen's associations, the Committee considers that the Government should take measures to amend the provisions which conflict with the Convention before requesting, as suggested by the government representative, craftsmen's associations to amend their by-laws.

The Committee also notes that, according to the government representative, the draft amendment to the Act respecting peasants' associations includes a provision to repeal section 160 which makes it unlawful for agricultural employers and tenant farmers to suspend agricultural work on their land and for agricultural workers to go on strike.

The Committee once again emphasizes that it is most important that legislation should not deprive trade union organizations of the right to strike, as this is one of the essential means by which they can promote and defend the occupational interests of their members.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the date of coming into force of the draft text to amend the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 and of the draft amendment to the Act regarding peasants' cooperative associations. It also requests the Government to indicate the other measures which have been taken to bring the whole of its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government's report to the effect that the committee composed of representatives of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, the General Federation of Workers' Unions (FGST), the General Federation of Peasants (FGP), the General Federation of Craftsmen (FGA) and the Chamber of Industry decided to obtain the written opinion of the FGA, FGP and FGST concerning the amendment of certain provisions of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 concerning trade unions, Act No. 21 of 1974 respecting peasants' associations, and Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 respecting craftsmen's associations, to bring them into line with the Convention. The Government adds that by 21 April 1991 only the FGST had issued an opinion on the possibility of repealing sections 25, 32, 36, 44(b)(4), 49(c) of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250. The Committee regrets, however, that the report does not indicate whether the FGST supported or opposed the repeal of the sections in question.

The Committee recalls that the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention concern the following:

- Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 concerning trade unions (section 7) which organises the structure of trade unions on a single union basis;

- Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 regarding craftsmen's associations (section 2) and Act No. 21 of 1974 regarding peasants' cooperative associations (sections 26 to 31) which impose a single trade union system;

- section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 restricting the trade union rights of non-Arab foreign workers;

- sections 32, 35, 36, 44, and 49(c) of Legislative Decree No. 84 and sections 6 and 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 restricting the free administration and independence of the management of trade unions;

- section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code of 1958 prohibiting strikes in the agricultural sector.

1. The single trade union system. The Committee recalls that, under Article 2 of the Convention, workers, without distinction whatsoever and without previous authorisation shall have the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing. It also recalls that this Article is not intended as an expression of support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union pluralism; pluralism, however, should remain possible in all cases.

The Committee regrets that neither the above-mentioned committee nor the FGST have issued an opinion on the repeal of the provisions in the national legislation which organise the single trade union system (sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 49(c) of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968, Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and Act No. 21 of 1974). According to the Government, the FGST has issued an opinion on the possibility of repealing section 49(c) of Legislative Decree No. 84 concerning the right of the General Federation to dissolve the management committee of any trade union.

Accordingly, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the very near future to remove from its legislation the numerous references to the single trade union federation designated in the law as the General Federation of Workers' Unions (FGST) so as to enable workers who so wish to establish trade union organisations of their own choosing outside the existing trade union structure, in conformity with Article 2.

2. Restrictions on the trade union rights of non-Arab foreign workers employed in the Syrian Arab Republic. Section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 only entitles such workers to form or join trade unions if they have been resident in Syria for one year and only if there are reciprocal rights. The Committee recalls that the guarantees set out in Article 2 of the Convention should apply to all workers and employees, without distinction whatsoever, and asks the Government to amend section 25 to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

3. The broad powers of intervention of the authorities in trade union finances. The Committee regrets that the opinion of the FGST concerns only section 32 of Legislative Decree No. 84 (the need for the prior consent of the FGST and the approval of the Ministry for the acceptance of gifts, donations and legacies) and sections 36 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250 (the obligation on unions to allocate a certain percentage of their income to the higher trade union bodies), and that it gave no opinion on section 35 of Legislative Decree No. 84 (financial supervision by the Ministry at all levels of the trade union organisation).

The Committee stresses the need to bring the legislation into line with Article 3 of the Convention which guarantees workers' organisations the right to organise their administration without any interference from the public authorities. The Committee has always considered that supervision of union finances should not normally go beyond a requirement for the periodic submission of financial reports, and that if the administrative authority has a discretionary power to inspect the books and other documents of organisations or to carry out investigations and demand information at any time, there exists a serious risk of interference in trade union affairs. The Committee therefore asks the Government to repeal the provisions which enable the Government to intervene in the financial administration of unions.

4. Requirement of six months in an occupation before being eligible for trade union office (section 44 of Legislative Decree No. 84). The Committee considers that provisions of this nature may prevent qualified persons, such as pensioners or full-time union officers from carrying out union duties. It therefore requests the Government to make its legislation more flexible by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned and by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of organisations, so as to allow the candidature of persons outside the profession.

5. Prohibition of strikes in the agricultural sector (section 160 of the Labour Code of 1958). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the draft amendment to the Act on the organisation of agricultural relations contains a provision repealing section 160 which makes it unlawful for agricultural employers and tenant farmers to suspend agricultural work on their land and for agricultural workers to go on strike.

The Committee again stresses that it is most important that legislation should not deprive trade union organisations of the right to strike, as this is one of the essential means by which they may promote and defend the occupational interests of their members.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that have been taken to bring all its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 79th Session.]

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

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

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the Government's brief report that a committee made up of representatives of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, the General Federation of Workers' Unions, the General Federation of Peasants' Associations, the General Federation of Craftsmen and the Chamber of Industry has been formed to examine its comments and that the conclusions of this committee will be communicated to the ILO. The Committee recalls that the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention concern the following: - Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 concerning trade unions (section 7); - Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 (section 2) and Law No. 21 of 1974 concerning peasants' co-operative associations (sections 26-31) which impose a single trade union system; - section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 restricting the trade union rights of non-Arab foreign workers; - sections 32, 35, 36, 44, 49(c) of Legislative Decree No. 84 and sections 6 and 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 restricting the free administration and independence of the management of trade unions; - section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code of 1958 prohibiting strikes in the agricultural sector 1. The single trade union system. The law provides (Legislative Decree No. 84 of 26 June 1968, Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and Law No. 21 of 1974) that only one trade union can be set up for the same occupation within the same "mouhafazat" (section 3). The unions in a "mouhafazat" can only group themselves into one federation of workers in the "mouhafazat" (section 5) and all can group themselves into the General Federation of Workers of Syria (section 7). In addition, only when this Federation has taken a decision can the occupations which may constitute groups of unions and the occupational groups which may constitute unions be determined (section 4), and the General Federation has the right to dissolve the management committee of any trade union (section 49(c)) The Committee has recognised, in paragraph 136 of its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining of 1983, that Article 2 of the Convention which guarantees workers the right to constitute and join organisations of their choice is not intended as an expression of support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union pluralism; pluralism, however, should remain possible in all cases. The Committee therefore asks the Government to ensure that workers wishing to form unions other than occupational associations (which they are entitled to set up) outside the established structure that is directly linked to the General Federation of Trade Unions, may do so in conformity with Article 2 2. Restrictions on the trade union rights of non-Arab foreign workers employed in the Syrian Arab Republic. Section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 only entitles such workers to form or join trade unions if they have been resident in Syria for one year and only if there are reciprocal rights. In the past, the Government has stated that reciprocal clauses are a matter of State sovereignty but that, in practice, every worker may belong to a union The Committee recalls that section 25 should be amended to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever are entitled to join a trade union 3. The wide powers of intervention of the authorities in trade union finances. - The need for the prior consent of the General Federation of Workers' Unions and the approval of the Ministry for the acceptance of gifts, donations and legacies (section 32 of Legislative Decree No. 84). - The obligation on unions to allocate a certain percentage of their income to the higher trade union bodies (section 36 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250). - Financial supervision by the Ministry at all levels of the trade union organisation (section 35 of Legislative Decree No. 84) Referring to the requirement of prior consent, the Government stated previously that it would not be logical for a trade union to accept a gift from a person or organisation if this was not in the interests of national objectives or if there were a risk of threat to the sovereignty of the country. The Government added, with regard to the obligation to allocate a certain percentage of trade union income to higher trade union bodies, that this concerned legally financed assistance. Finally, as regards the ministerial powers of supervision of trade union finances, the Government affirmed that this law was designed merely to ensure that the accounts are properly kept and should not affect the manner in which the trade unions use their funds nor the objectives of the unions. The instructions issued by the Ministry in 1968 concern the verification of funds and financial statements and the bodies dealing with financial management The Committee took note of these explanations but stressed the need for legislation to be brought into line with Article 3 of the Convention that guarantees workers' organisations the right to organise their administration without interference by the public authorities. It recalled that supervision of union finances should not normally go beyond a requirement for the periodic submission of financial reports. On the other hand, if the administrative authority has a discretionary power to inspect the books and other documents of organisations or to carry out investigations and demand information at any time, there exists a serious risk of interference in trade union affairs. It therefore requested the Government to provide detailed information concerning the authority of the Ministry in this connection and the manner in which it is exercised 4. Necessity to spend six months in an occupation before being eligible for trade union office (section 44 of Legislative Decree No. 84). The Government stated that this provision is designed to ensure that trade union leaders are competent and trained The Committee has indicated in paragraph 158 of its General Survey that provisions of this type may prevent qualified persons, such as pensioners or full-time union officers, from carrying out union duties. It therefore requests the Government to make its legislation more flexible by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned and by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of organisations, so as to allow the candidature of persons outside the profession 5. Prohibition of strikes in the agricultural sector (section 160 of the Labour Code of 1958). The Government stated previously that a draft law had been prepared to repeal this provision In the opinion of the Committee, it is most important that legislation should not deprive agricultural trade unions of the right to strike, as this is an essential means by which they may promote and defend the occupational interests of their members The Committee trusts that the Government will examine the above conclusions and observations closely, and requests it, in its next report, to give full particulars of the measures taken or contemplated to remove the single trade union system imposed by law, grant trade union rights to all workers including foreigners, and remove excessive restrictions on the right of workers' organisations to elect their representatives freely and to organise their administration and activities without interference by the public authorities, including with regard to the exercise of the right to strike.

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

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the Government's brief report that a committee made up of representatives of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, the General Federation of Workers' Unions, the General Federation of Peasants' Associations, the General Federation of Craftsmen and the Chamber of Industry has been formed to examine its comments and that the conclusions of this committee will be communicated to the ILO.

The Committee recalls that the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention concern the following:

- Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 concerning trade unions (section 7);

- Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 (section 2) and Law No. 21 of 1974 concerning peasants' co-operative associations (sections 26-31) which impose a single trade union system;

- section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 restricting the trade union rights of non-Arab foreign workers;

- sections 32, 35, 36, 44, 49(c) of Legislative Decree No. 84 and sections 6 and 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 restricting the free administration and independence of the management of trade unions;

- section 160 of the Agricultural Labour Code of 1958 prohibiting strikes in the agricultural sector.

1. The single trade union system. The law provides (Legislative Decree No. 84 of 26 June 1968, Legislative Decree No. 250 of 1969 and Law No. 21 of 1974) that only one trade union can be set up for the same occupation within the same "mouhafazat" (section 3). The unions in a "mouhafazat" can only group themselves into one federation of workers in the "mouhafazat" (section 5) and all can group themselves into the General Federation of Workers of Syria (section 7). In addition, only when this Federation has taken a decision can the occupations which may constitute groups of unions and the occupational groups which may constitute unions be determined (section 4), and the General Federation has the right to dissolve the management committee of any trade union (section 49(c)).

The Committee has recognised, in paragraph 136 of its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining of 1983, that Article 2 of the Convention which guarantees workers the right to constitute and join organisations of their choice is not intended as an expression of support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union pluralism; pluralism, however, should remain possible in all cases. The Committee therefore asks the Government to ensure that workers wishing to form unions other than occupational associations (which they are entitled to set up) outside the established structure that is directly linked to the General Federation of Trade Unions, may do so in conformity with Article 2.

2. Restrictions on the trade union rights of non-Arab foreign workers employed in the Syrian Arab Republic. Section 25 of Legislative Decree No. 84 only entitles such workers to form or join trade unions if they have been resident in Syria for one year and only if there are reciprocal rights. In the past, the Government has stated that reciprocal clauses are a matter of State sovereignty but that, in practice, every worker may belong to a union.

The Committee recalls that section 25 should be amended to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever are entitled to join a trade union.

3. The wide powers of intervention of the authorities in trade union finances.

- The need for the prior consent of the General Federation of Workers' Unions and the approval of the Ministry for the acceptance of gifts, donations and legacies (section 32 of Legislative Decree No. 84).

- The obligation on unions to allocate a certain percentage of their income to the higher trade union bodies (section 36 of Legislative Decree No. 84 and section 12 of Legislative Decree No. 250).

- Financial supervision by the Ministry at all levels of the trade union organisation (section 35 of Legislative Decree No. 84).

Referring to the requirement of prior consent, the Government stated previously that it would not be logical for a trade union to accept a gift from a person or organisation if this was not in the interests of national objectives or if there were a risk of threat to the sovereignty of the country. The Government added, with regard to the obligation to allocate a certain percentage of trade union income to higher trade union bodies, that this concerned legally financed assistance. Finally, as regards the ministerial powers of supervision of trade union finances, the Government affirmed that this law was designed merely to ensure that the accounts are properly kept and should not affect the manner in which the trade unions use their funds nor the objectives of the unions. The instructions issued by the Ministry in 1968 concern the verification of funds and financial statements and the bodies dealing with financial management.

The Committee took note of these explanations but stressed the need for legislation to be brought into line with Article 3 of the Convention that guarantees workers' organisations the right to organise their administration without interference by the public authorities. It recalled that supervision of union finances should not normally go beyond a requirement for the periodic submission of financial reports. On the other hand, if the administrative authority has a discretionary power to inspect the books and other documents of organisations or to carry out investigations and demand information at any time, there exists a serious risk of interference in trade union affairs. It therefore requested the Government to provide detailed information concerning the authority of the Ministry in this connection and the manner in which it is exercised.

4. Necessity to spend six months in an occupation before being eligible for trade union office (section 44 of Legislative Decree No. 84). The Government stated that this provision is designed to ensure that trade union leaders are competent and trained.

The Committee has indicated in paragraph 158 of its General Survey that provisions of this type may prevent qualified persons, such as pensioners or full-time union officers, from carrying out union duties. It therefore requests the Government to make its legislation more flexible by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned and by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of organisations, so as to allow the candidature of persons outside the profession.

5. Prohibition of strikes in the agricultural sector (section 160 of the Labour Code of 1958). The Government stated previously that a draft law had been prepared to repeal this provision.

In the opinion of the Committee, it is most important that legislation should not deprive agricultural trade unions of the right to strike, as this is an essential means by which they may promote and defend the occupational interests of their members.

The Committee trusts that the Government will examine the above conclusions and observations closely, and requests it, in its next report, to give full particulars of the measures taken or contemplated to remove the single trade union system imposed by law, grant trade union rights to all workers including foreigners, and remove excessive restrictions on the right of workers' organisations to elect their representatives freely and to organise their administration and activities without interference by the public authorities, including with regard to the exercise of the right to strike.