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

Display in: French - Spanish

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

The Committee previously requested the Government to provide detailed information on the allegations raised by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in its 2018 observations, which concern alleged union busting practices, blacklisting and anti-union dismissals and suspensions in three companies. Regretting the absence of information in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on these allegations and, should this not yet be the case, to take the necessary measures to address them without delay.
Article 4 of the Convention. Categories of workers covered by collective bargaining. In its previous comments relating to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee noted the Government’s indication that under section 253 of the Labour Code, only employees (workers covered by an employer-employee relationship) may join trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining, whereas ambulant, intermittent, itinerant, self-employed and rural workers, as well as those without any definite employer may only form labour organizations for their mutual aid and protection. The Committee had also previously noted such restrictions on other categories of workers, including workers in managerial positions or with access to confidential information (section 255 of the Labour Code), firefighters, prison guards and certain other public sector workers authorized to carry firearms (Rule II, section 2 of the Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize). The Government provides similar information in its latest report, pointing, in particular, to Department Order No. 40, 2003, as amended, which sets out the distinction between labour organizations established for collective bargaining (trade unions) and labour organizations organized for the mutual aid and protection of its members or for any legitimate purpose other than collective bargaining (workers’ associations, including in the informal economy). The Committee understands from the above that certain categories of workers may only form and join associations for purposes other than collective bargaining and are therefore not able to fully benefit from the guarantees of the Convention in terms of collective bargaining. The Committee wishes to recall in this regard that, with the exception of organizations representing categories of workers which may be excluded from the scope of the Convention (the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State), recognition of the right to collective bargaining is general in scope and all other organizations of workers in the public and private sectors must benefit from it, including prison staff, fire service personnel, self-employed and temporary workers, outsourced or contract workers, non-resident workers, part-time workers, agricultural workers and domestic and migrant workers. In line with the above and with its previous comments under Convention No. 87 and recalling that a number of legislative reforms addressing the right to organize of the above-mentioned categories of workers have been pending in Congress for many years, the Committee firmly expects the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers covered by this Convention, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police, and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6), can effectively benefit from the rights enshrined in the Convention, including the right to collective bargaining. The Committee further invites the Government to initiate a dialogue with the social partners concerned to identify the appropriate adjustments to be made to the collective bargaining mechanisms in order to facilitate their application to the various categories of self-employed and non-standard workers mentioned above.
Content of collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities and requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, so as to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits and allowances, and working time. The Committee previously observed that two bills aimed at establishing a Civil Service Code were pending in Congress and that, following ratification of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), the Government would develop a labour relations framework in the public sector that is aligned with that Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s observations that the mentioned bills were not yet enacted into law and that three bills with the same subject-matter were filed in the 19th Congress – Senate Bill No. 587 and House Bills Nos 550 and 1513. The Committee understands from the above that no substantial progress appears to have been achieved in expanding the subjects covered by collective bargaining for public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State and wishes to recall that Article 4 of the Convention calls for measures to be taken to promote machinery for voluntary negotiation on terms and conditions of employment for all workers, including those in the public service, with the exception only of those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and that the negotiable terms and conditions of work include wages, benefits and allowances, and working time. In line with the above and with its comments under Convention No. 151, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including in the context of developing a labour relations framework aligned with Convention No. 151, to ensure that all workers covered by this Convention, including public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State (teachers, health-care workers, etc.), will be able to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including with respect to wages, benefits and allowances, and working time. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect.
Requirements for negotiation and adoption of collective bargaining agreements in the electricity sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations from the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) denouncing the Philippine National Electrification Administration (NEA) policies for directing electric cooperatives to have their bargaining agreements ratified by entities other than those provided for in the law. The Committee notes the Government’s clarification in this regard that the issues that gave rise to the complaint by SENTRO evolved around the NEA Memorandum No. 2014-003, instituting Multi-Sectoral Electrification Advisory Council (MSEAC) representatives as part of a consultative panel for the review and negotiation of proposed collective bargaining and collective negotiation agreements in each electric cooperative. The Government informs that the Associated Labour Unions-Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (ALU-TUCP) challenged the Memorandum at the Court of Appeals, alleging that it was contrary to the law on collective bargaining. The Appeals Court, however, considered, in its October 2015 ruling, that the Memorandum was not contrary to the law as it aimed at strengthening harmonious relations between employers and member-consumers and at promoting their well-being through increased transparency and a consultative approach. The Court of Appeals also considered that the rules of the Memorandum do not stifle collective bargaining as they only deal with prior or subsequent activities – the matters subject to review and negotiation by the consultative panel only refer to proposed collective bargaining provisions and not those already agreed upon. In addition, this allows the participants to be aware of the broader picture in which negotiations take place. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in July 2017, the Supreme Court denied with finality the petition for review on certiorari filed by the union and that these issues are thus deemed judicially resolved. The Government further informs that, like in other sectors and industries, the entry into force of collective agreements in the electricity sector does not require prior approval of labour administration authorities.
While taking due note of the above, the Committee observes from the text of Memorandum No. 2014-003 that, according to the NEA, some unions did not heed its advice to have more reasonable economic and non-economic demands in negotiations so as to avoid financial difficulties affecting the delivery of electric service, and that there was therefore a need to strengthen harmonious relationships, promote the well-being of employees and the welfare of member-consumers, and to that effect, transparency requiring consultation and involvement of other sectors and stakeholders was necessary. The Memorandum thus requires the participation of MSEAC representatives in a consultative panel for the review and negotiation of proposed provisions of collective bargaining agreements, which are later ratified by a plurality of votes of the General Membership Assembly, after the management has thoroughly analysed whether they offer a balanced welfare for both employees and member-consumers and overall financial standing of the electric corporation.
While it did not receive specific information on the exact composition of the MSEAC and the consultative panel, the Committee understands from the above that Memorandum No. 2014-003 seems to expand the practice of collective bargaining in electric corporations beyond the parties, that is, the relevant trade unions and the electric corporations, as employers, by providing for the express involvement of a multi-sectoral consultative panel for review and negotiation of proposed collective agreements, as well as for the approval of collective agreements by the corporation’s general assembly of members. Although it was not provided with information on the exact involvement of the panel in negotiations, the Committee wishes to underline that provisions requiring agreements to be negotiated with the involvement of third parties may raise problems of compatibility with the Convention, as such third-party involvement considerably alters the bipartite nature of the negotiating process and may not be conducive to promoting voluntary collective bargaining within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls in this regard that, the Convention tends essentially to promote bipartite negotiation of terms and conditions of employment, namely between employers and employers’ organizations, on the one hand, and workers’ organizations, on the other, so that the parties enjoy full autonomy in determining the content of any agreements concluded. Furthermore, such agreements should not be subject to prior approval by entities other than the parties concerned. In line with the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the composition of the consultative panel and the manner of its involvement in negotiations of collective bargaining agreements in the electricity sector. It further calls on the Government to consider reviewing Memorandum No. 2014-003 and its implementation, together with the social partners, so as to ensure that employees of electric corporations may fully exercise their rights under the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to report on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the electricity sector and the number of workers covered by these agreements, as well as on any other measures taken to encourage and promote voluntary and good-faith collective bargaining in the sector.
Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s observations on the number of collective agreements registered for the past six years and notes that the Government points to a trend in registration of collective agreements that is consistent with the number of agreements that expire over the same period. The Government indicates, in particular, that, in 2020, the number of collective agreements registered that year declined from 263 to 175, covering more than 60,000 workers, which is associated with the restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in 2021, the number of registered collective agreements increased again to 319, covering about 63,000 workers, and during the period from 1 January to May 2022, 162 collective agreements were registered covering around 39,000 workers. In this respect, the Committee also notes with concernthat according to ILOSTAT, only 1.4 per cent of employees in the country are covered by collective agreements. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all the necessary legal and practical measures to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention, including those mentioned in the present comment, and to provide information in this respect. The Committee furthers requests the Government to continue to report on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Ratification requirements for collective agreements in the electricity sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations from the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) denouncing the Philippine National Electrification Administration (NEA) policies for directing electric cooperatives to have their bargaining agreements ratified by entities other than those provided for in the law. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication of the steps taken to address this matter through meetings between the Department of Labor and Employment and the NEA and the proposed Memorandum of Agreement which included a regular dialogue to craft joint guidelines government private sector participation to ensure that the rights of employees of electric cooperatives are protected, including as regards collective bargaining. Observing that the finalization of the Memorandum has stalled, the Committee requests the Government to inform in future reports of any progress made in this regard so as to ensure that NEA employees may fully exercise their rights under the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the entry into force of collective agreements in the electricity sector requires the prior approval of the labour administration.

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

The Committee notes the observations received from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 1 September 2018 concerning challenges to the application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the allegations raised therein.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on steps taken to ensure that all remaining allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference raised by the national and international workers’ organizations in their previous observations are addressed and, if need be, appropriate measures of redress are taken and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions imposed, so as to ensure the effective protection of the right to organize. The Committee takes due note of the detailed information provided by the Government and the resolution of these cases.
Concerning the need to take measures to strengthen in practice the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee notes with interest the issuance on 18 October 2017 of Department Order No. 183 on new regulations on labour law inspection and the Revised Rules on the Administrative and Enforcement of Labor Laws which seek to strengthen the implementation of the visitorial and enforcement powers under the Labor Code towards securing a higher level of compliance with labor law standards. It further notes with interest the steps taken to ensure the participation of labor and employer organizations in the inspection of establishments provided through Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Administrative Order No. 164 of 2017 and the subsequent deputization of 126 trade union inspectors. Overall, the Government informs that out of more than 900,000 establishments nationwide, 136,986 were inspected from June 2016–June 2018. The intensified labour enforcement system has given rise to 217,491 workers being regularized.
As regards the authority to inspect in the export processing zones (EPZs) and special economic zones, the Government indicates that the Memorandum of Agreement which had been established between DOLE and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) was revoked on 8 January 2018 thereby affirming DOLE’s authority to inspect establishments in these zones. DOLE additionally undertakes to intensify the conduct of inspections of all establishments within the zones in order to strictly enforce labour, technical and occupational safety and health standards
The Committee further notes with interest the information concerning the progress made within the framework of the DOLE–ILO–EU–GSP+ Development Cooperation Project aimed at further improving the capacity of labour, employers and government toward the better implementation of freedom of association and collective bargaining.
Article 4. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities and requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, so as to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits and allowances, and working time in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that House Bills Nos 4553 and 5477 towards establishing a Civil Service Code have been filed and are pending in Congress. The Committee further notes with interest the recent ratification of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Government’s indication that it still needs to develop a labour relations framework in the public sector that is aligned to Convention No. 151. The Committee expects that when designing this framework it shall bear in mind that Article 4 of this present Convention calls for measures to be taken to promote machinery for voluntary negotiation on terms and conditions of employment for all workers, including those in the public service, with the exception only of those who are engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers included in the scope of this Convention (including teachers, health-care workers, etc.) will be able to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including with respect to wages, benefits and allowances, and working time and requests it to keep it informed of developments in this respect.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Ratification requirements for collective agreements in the electricity sector. The Committee notes that the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) denounces the Philippine National Electrification Administration (NEA) policies, in particular a Memorandum from January 2014, directing electric cooperatives to have their bargaining agreements ratified by entities other than those provided for in the law, thus restricting freedom of collective bargaining. The Government replies that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has met with the NEA and agreed to issue a Memorandum of Agreement to establish a continuing dialogue, draft joint guidelines and conduct other joint activities to ensure that the rights of employees of electric cooperatives, including the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, are protected. According to the Government, this Memorandum of Agreement was sent to the social partners for comments before finalization. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to indicate what additional ratification requirements are imposed on electric cooperatives by the NEA policies and to provide information on any developments in relation to this matter, including how it is addressed by the DOLE–NEA Memorandum of Agreement.

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

The Committee notes the observations received from the following workers’ organizations: (i) the Trade Union Confederation Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) (25 June 2013) referring to matters before the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 3037); (ii) the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) (1 September 2015); (iii) Education International (EI) and the National Alliance of Teachers and Office Workers (SMP–NATOW) (28 September 2015); and (iv) the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) (1 October 2015). The Committee also notes the comments received from the Government in reply to the observations received from the ITUC, IE and the SMP–NATOW; and the SENTRO. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the pending observations of the SENTRO, in particular with regard to the requirements for union certification elections.
The Committee had previously noted the Government’s comments on the 2011 ITUC observations on anti-union dismissals and acts of interference on the part of the employer and requested the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s comments on the progress made in these cases, in particular the closure of two out of the seven cases, in which the parties had reached a settlement, facilitated by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), and the indication that the remaining five cases are being addressed. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any further developments in this regard as well as in relation to the pending 2012 ITUC observations.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s comments on the observations submitted by the ITUC in 2010 and previous years on alleged anti-union practices, acts of anti-union discrimination including dismissals, and employer interference, as well as cases of replacement of trade unions by non-independent company unions, dismissals and blacklisting of activists, as well as other anti-union tactics in export processing zones (EPZs) and other special economic zones. The Committee had requested the Government to continue to provide information concerning any developments with regard to the investigation of these allegations. The Committee notes that the Government states that: (i) the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council-Monitoring Body (NTIPC-MB) issued Resolution No. 8 of 2012 to facilitate gathering of information on 17 cases of alleged violations of trade union rights within economic zones that were presented by the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) in its observations from 30 September 2009; and (ii) many of the cases have already been settled or are being addressed. In this respect, the Committee also notes the Government’s comments on the 2015 ITUC and SENTRO observations alleging further violations of trade union rights and anti-union practices (including anti-union dismissals and employer interference, blacklisting of trade union members and activists and replacement of strikers), indicating that: (i) the specific cases of anti-union acts and interference reported by the ITUC and the SENTRO have been validated and settled or are being monitored by the NTIPC-MB and the Regional Tripartite Monitoring Bodies (RTMBs); and (ii) the number of unfair labour practices cases filed before the NCMB and its regional branches has considerably decreased. The Committee takes note of this information and trusts that the Government will continue to take steps to ensure that all remaining allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, including in EPZs, are addressed and, if need be, appropriate measures of redress are taken and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions imposed, so as to ensure the effective protection of the right to organize. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on any developments in this regard.
Concerning the strengthening in practice of the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee noted in its previous comments the Government’s indication of specific measures taken in this regard. The Committee welcomes the additional information provided by the Government in its report on the Incentivizing Compliance Program, referred to as the new Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Labor Laws Compliance System (LLCS), in particular the indications that: (i) the LLCS combines both regulatory and developmental approaches and involves a joint tripartite assessment and certification process to determine compliance by establishments with all labour laws, including freedom of association and collective bargaining; (ii) for a more effective monitoring, compliance officers are provided with an electronic checklist of labour law compliance based on decent work indicators, which makes data instantly available for viewing and processing in order to generate reports, statistics, and summonses; (iii) in case of deficiencies in compliance with labour standards, DOLE regional officers and compliance officers can provide technical assistance and educate employers and workers on labour laws; and (iv) to improve the efficiency of the LLCS, the Secretary of Labor and Employment issued an administrative order specifying five compliance assessment modalities. Taking note of these developments, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the functioning of the LLCS in practice, including on the participation of the social partners in the establishment of assessments of compliance of enterprises with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining, and to continue providing information on any legislative or other measures taken or envisaged to strengthen, in law and in practice, the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones.
In its previous comments, the Committee noted with concern that, under item 14(a) of the Standard Employment Contract used by the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) provided by the Government in 2012, engaging in trade union activities constitutes a ground for termination of the contract. The Committee requested the Government to take all necessary measures to remove this ground for termination from item 14(a) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract and to provide an estimate of the number of workers governed by this sample contract. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the provision in the Standard Employment Contract making the act of engaging in trade union activities a ground for termination of employment was removed in December 2008 pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 08 of 2008.
Article 4. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities. The Committee noted that the areas that may be subject to collective negotiation do not include such important aspects of conditions of work as wages, benefits and allowances, and working time, and requested the Government to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, in order to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and the conditions of employment. In this regard, the Committee notes the observations of EI and the SMP–NATOW, as well as those of the SENTRO, referring to: (i) the limitations on the subjects of collective bargaining in the public sector; (ii) the decrease in the number of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), including in the public sector; and (iii) the non-ratification of the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151). The Committee observes that in its comments the Government provides statistical data on union membership and on workers covered by CBAs and states that the CBA coverage range has been fluctuating in recent years mostly due to the fact that, while every year new CBAs are concluded, others expire. The Committee also notes that the Government informs about the adoption by the NTIPC of Resolution No. 6 of 2014, recommending: (i) the issuance of an Executive Order institutionalizing social dialogue in the public sector; (ii) the amendment of Executive Order No. 180, which limits the form in which government workers can bargain collectively by prohibiting their right to strike; and (iii) the ratification of Convention No. 151. The Resolution also urges the concerned agencies to revoke resolutions with provisions violating the rights of public sector workers to organize and negotiate collectively, and to review and modify the implementation of Executive Order No. 80, which limits collective negotiation in the public sector since it precludes negotiation on cash incentives. The Government further indicates the adoption of two resolutions calling on the DOLE to pursue the ratification of Convention No. 151. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, so as to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits and allowances, and working time in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. It requests the Government to continue to indicate any developments in this regard and to provide copies of any relevant legislation adopted.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 4 August 2011, alleging anti-union dismissals and acts of anti-union interference on the part of the employer, as well as the Government’s observations thereon, in particular that the relevant cases reported by the ITUC were all classified as possibly labour-related and taken cognizance of by the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) Monitoring Body. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information on any developments in this regard.
The Committee further notes the communication dated 31 July 2012 from the ITUC in which it provides its comments on the application of the Convention in law and in practice and refers to certain violations of trade union rights in 2011, including alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and anti-union interference on the part of the employer. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on these allegations.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the Government’s observations on the comments submitted by the ITUC in 2010 and previous years on the alleged anti-union practices, acts of anti-union discrimination including dismissals, and employer interference, as well as cases of replacement of trade unions by non-independent company unions, dismissals and blacklisting of activists and other anti-union tactics in export processing zones (EPZs) and other special economic zones. In particular, it notes with interest that the Government reports the following positive measures: (i) the submission of the ITUC allegations to the NTIPC Monitoring Body and the information provided concerning the NTIPC’s activity since its establishment; (ii) the creation of a tripartite team for an enterprise in the electronics sector (TTCEC) from among the members of the TIPC Monitoring Body with the mandate to conduct plant-level verification of the parties’ claims and make recommendations to the TIPC Monitoring Body; and the management’s willingness to negotiate with the union; (iii) the establishment of a tripartite team for an enterprise in the automobile sector (TTTAPI) to conduct plant-level verification of the parties’ claims; and (iv) the classification by the NTIPC Monitoring Body as labour-related of 17 cases of alleged trade union rights violations in EPZs and their referral to the concerned agencies for immediate resolution. The Committee trusts that the Government will continue to take steps to ensure that the above allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, including in EPZs, are expeditiously examined and, if need be, appropriate measures of redress are taken and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions imposed, so as to ensure the effective protection of the right to organize. It requests the Government to continue to provide information concerning any developments in this regard.
Concerning the strengthening in practice of the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones, the Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that, for the purpose of enforcing labour laws and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, especially in EPZs, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has combined its routine inspection function with developmental approaches through the DOLE Kapatiran WISE-TAV Program, which seeks to ensure compliance in supply chains, and the Incentivizing Compliance Program or Tripartite Certification of Labor Laws Compliance, which consists of several tripartite certification hurdles, including the Tripartite Certification for Labor Standards Compliance and the Tripartite Certification for Industrial Peace, before the Tripartite Seal of Excellence can be achieved. The Government adds that DOLE and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) agreed to include all public zones in the Kapatiran and Incentivizing Programs, and ensure the continuous implementation of the 2006 DOLE-PEZA Memorandum of Agreement on labour-management education, joint inspection and conciliation–mediation in ensuring industrial peace. Furthermore, both DOLE and PEZA are part of the Verite Multi-Stakeholder Initiative, which started in 2010 and is currently being pilot tested through conduct of social audits in select garment and electronics firms inside the economic zones covering freedom of association, labour standards and occupational health and safety standards. The Committee also notes the national plan of action 2012–13 towards full freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in EPZs concluded by the Government (including DOLE and PEZA) and representatives of national federations of workers’ organizations, which seeks to take steps to achieve improved compliance with the relevant ILO Conventions. The Committee welcomes this information and requests the Government to continue to provide information concerning any legislative or other initiatives taken or envisaged to strengthen in practice the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of complaints of unfair practices and inspections carried out on these matters in EPZs and special economic zones.
Lastly, the Committee notes the copy of the Standard Employment Contract used by the Philippines Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), provided by the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Committee notes with concern that, under item 14(a) of the current POEA Standard Employment Contract, engaging in trade union activities constitutes a ground for termination of the contract. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to delete the engagement in trade union activities from the list of grounds for termination in item 14(a) of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. It further requests the Government to provide an estimate of the number of workers governed by this sample contract.
Article 4. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of the Government’s indication that, under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities. The Government had further stated that matters relating, inter alia, to wages and all other forms of pecuniary remuneration, retirement benefits, appointment, promotion and disciplinary action were not negotiable. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on measures taken to fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment.
The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, in particular that the Government indicates that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State are afforded the right to self-organize, and that a registered government employees’ organization may negotiate, on behalf of the members of the negotiating unit, terms and conditions of employment, provided that it is able to secure an accreditation from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as sole and exclusive negotiating agent for a particular negotiating unit (i.e. constitutional bodies and their regional offices; the executive department, including services and staff bureaux and regional offices; line bureaux and their regional offices; attached agencies; the legislature; the judiciary; state universities and colleges; government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters; and provinces, cities and municipalities). The following may be subject of negotiation: (a) schedule of vacation and other leaves; (b) personal growth and development; (c) communication system-internal (lateral and vertical), external; (d) work assignment/reassignment/detail/transfer; (e) distribution of workload; (f) provision for protection and safety; (g) provision for facilities for handicapped personnel; (h) provision for first aid medical services and supply; (i) physical fitness programme; (j) provision for family planning services for married women; (k) annual medical/physical examination; (l) recreational, social, athletic and cultural activities and facilities; (m) CNA incentive pursuant to PSLMC Resolution No. 4, s. 2002 and Resolution No. 2, s. 2003; and (n) such other concerns which are not prohibited by law and CSC rules and regulations.
The Committee notes that the subjects covered by collective bargaining do not appear to include such important aspects of conditions of work as wages, benefits and allowances, and working time. The Committee recalls in this connection that section 276 of the Labor Code provides that the terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the Constitution. Noting that the ITUC, in its most recent communication, confirms these restrictions on bargaining rights in the public sector, the Committee recalls that the Convention is compatible with systems requiring parliamentary approval of certain labour conditions or financial clauses of collective agreements, as long as the authorities respect the agreement adopted. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures in order to expand the subjects covered by collective bargaining, in order to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits and allowances, in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to indicate any developments in this regard and provide copies of any relevant legislation adopted.

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

The Committee notes a communication dated 24 August 2010 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in which it provides its comments on the application of the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous observation, it noted the recommendations of the High-level mission which visited the country in September 2009, and the commitment expressed by the Government to embark upon a comprehensive technical cooperation programme on freedom of association and to create a high-level tripartite monitoring body to review the progress. The Committee welcomes the extensive information provided by the Government on the measures taken in this regard as detailed in the comments on the application of Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the Government’s observation on the comments submitted by the ITUC in 2009 on the application of the Convention and, in particular, on the allegation relating to the use of contractual labour as a method to deunionize the workforce. The Committee notes, in particular, the Government’s statement that, under section 243 of the Labor Code, all employees, whether employed for a definite period of time or not,  whether undergoing a period of work probation or not, may establish and join a trade union to bargain collectively. Coercing employees in the exercise of their legitimate rights to organize is a prohibited act. According to the Government, violations of the provisions of the Labor Code regulating contractual engagements would result in regularization of employment status with the contractor/subcontractor or the company.

The Committee notes that for several years it has been requesting the Government to respond to the comments made by the ITUC with regard to the alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and employer interference, as well as cases of replacement of trade unions by non-independent company unions, dismissals and blacklisting of activists in export processing zones (EPZs) and other special economic zones. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. The Committee notes with concern further allegations of anti-union tactics in the EPZs contained in a 2010 ITUC communication, as well as the allegations of anti-union dismissal and anti-union practices at the Temic Automotive Philippines Inc. and Cirtec Electronic Corporation submitted by the Trade Federation for Metals, Electronics and Other Allied Industries-Federation of Free Workers (TF4). The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon. It further requests the Government to submit these specific allegations to the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC), established on 20 January 2010 as a high‑level monitoring body on the application of international labour standards, and to provide information on the assessment and recommendations made by this body.

The Committee further welcomes the two regional seminars that were conducted in April 2010 on civil rights, freedom of association, collective bargaining, and labour law implementation and enforcement in the economic zones. The Committee encourages the Government to pursue these actions aimed at strengthening the capacity of all relevant government institutions and the social partners in the promotion and protection of labour rights in EPZs.

The Committee had previously noted that certain of the reported acts of anti‑union discrimination and interference related to certification procedures and elections and requested the Government to provide a copy of the relevant legislation, which, according to the Government, eliminates the employer’s interference in such processes. The Committee notes that House Bill No. 1351, previously referred to by the Government, became Republic Act No. 9481 on
25 May 2007, which amended the Labor Code. The Committee notes with satisfaction new section 258-A providing that an employer is not a party to the certification process and therefore cannot oppose a petition for certification election.

The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate any developments as well as any legislative or other measures taken or contemplated to accelerate the procedures and strengthen in practice the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of complaints of unfair practices and inspections carried out on these matters in EPZs and special economic zones.

Article 4. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of the Government’s indication that, under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the government authorities. The Government had further stated that such matters as the scheduling of vacation leave, the work assignment of pregnant women and recreational, social, athletic and cultural activities are negotiable; however, matters relating, inter alia, to wages and all other forms of pecuniary remuneration, retirement benefits, appointment, promotion and disciplinary action were not negotiable. The Committee recalled in this connection that article 76 of the Labor Code provided that the terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the Constitution. The Committee noted, moreover, that the Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK), in its communication dated 15 September 2008, also referred to the restrictions on bargaining rights in the public sector. The Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no information on measures taken to fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. In these circumstances, while considering that the Convention is compatible with systems requiring parliamentary approval of certain labour conditions or financial clauses of collective agreements, as long as the authorities respect the agreement adopted, the Committee stresses the importance of the development of collective bargaining in enterprises and institutions in the public sector that are covered by the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to indicate the developments in this regard and provide copies of any relevant legislation adopted.

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

The Committee notes with interest that an ILO High-level Mission took place from 22 to 29 September 2009 with a mandate to review its comments in relation to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the pending cases before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee observes that the matters considered by the High-level Mission touch also upon those matters it has been raising in previous years under this Convention. The Committee will thus examine all of the outstanding points in relation to the application of the Convention in both law and in practice next year when it will have at its disposal the detailed mission report and any comments which the Government and the workers’ and employers’ organizations may wish to make. It requests the Government to provide a detailed report in reply to its previous comments for examination next year.

The Committee further notes the detailed information provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in relation to the application of the Convention and requests the Government to reply to these comments in its next report.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It also notes the lengthy comments communicated by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in communications dated 29 August and 1 September 2008; the Kilosang Mayo Uno in a communication dated 15 September 2008; and the Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK) in a communication dated 15 September 2008. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on these comments.

1. Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes that for several years it has been requesting the Government to respond to comments made by the ITUC with regard to numerous acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the latest detailed comments made by the ITUC, reporting extensive anti-union discrimination and employer interference, cases of replacement of trade unions by non-independent company unions, dismissals and blacklisting of activists in export processing zones (EPZs) and other special economic zones. The ITUC also referred in its 2006–07 comments to an order promulgated in 2004 (the labour standards enforcement framework) which essentially abandons the principle of government labour inspection for workplaces with more than 200 workers; self-regulation will be conducted in large companies at least once a year by an employer–worker committee based on a government-issued checklist and in companies where there is a registered collective bargaining agreement.

The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in several cases concerning acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the most recent being Case No. 2488 which illustrates the considerable difficulties faced by workers in their efforts to have their grievances examined through protracted litigation and long and complex judicial proceedings which give rise to a situation of prolonged legal uncertainty (350th Report, paragraph 202).

The Committee emphasizes that Article 3 of the Convention requires effective machinery for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organize as defined in Articles 1 and 2. Acts of anti-union discrimination and interference are serious violations of the right to organize as they may jeopardize the very existence or independence of trade unions. Thus, the Committee stresses that national procedures against such acts should be prompt and accompanied by appropriate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Noting that certain of the reported acts of anti-union discrimination and interference relate to certification procedures and elections, the Committee notes that according to information provided by the Government to the Committee on Freedom of Association in the context of Case No. 2252, House Bill No. 1351, which has been approved by the House of Representatives and is currently being considered by the Senate, seeks, among other things to: (1) eliminate employer interference, which is, according to the Government, an incessant cause of delay in certification proceedings; (2) restrict the grounds for cancellation of union registration; and (3) clarify that the filing of a petition for cancellation of registration does not suspend a petition for certification election (346th Report, paragraph 176).

The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report a copy of House Bill No. 1351 and to indicate any developments as well as any additional legislative or other measures taken or contemplated to accelerate the procedures and strengthen in practice the protection available against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, with special emphasis on EPZs and special economic zones. The Committee also requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of complaints of unfair practices and inspections carried out on these matters in EPZs and special economic zones.

Article 4. Development of collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of the Government’s indication that, under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the Government authorities. The Government had further stated that such matters as the scheduling of vacation leave, the work assignment of pregnant women and recreational, social, athletic and cultural activities are negotiable; however, matters relating, inter alia, to wages and all other forms of pecuniary remuneration, retirement benefits, appointment, promotion, and disciplinary action are not negotiable. The Committee recalls in this connection that article 276 of the Labour Code provides that the terms and conditions of employment of all Government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the new Constitution. The Committee notes, moreover, that the ITUC confirms these restrictions on bargaining rights in the public sector. In these circumstances, while recalling that the Convention is compatible with systems requiring parliamentary approval of certain labour conditions or financial clauses of collective agreements, as long as the authorities respect the agreement adopted, the Committee once again recalls the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and repeats its firm hope that the amendments to the Labour Code or other legislation would be adopted in the near future and that it will fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to indicate the developments in this regard and provide copies of any legislation once adopted.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee further notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 31 August 2005 and 10 August 2006, and the response of the Government to the first of these communications. These comments concern legislative issues raised by the Committee in its previous observation, as well as problems regarding the application of the Convention in practice, including anti-union dismissals.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Development of collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 13 of Executive Order No. 180, only terms and conditions not otherwise fixed by law may be negotiated between public sector employees’ organizations and the Government authorities. The Government further states that whereas such matters as the scheduling of vacation leave, the work assignment of pregnant women and recreational, social, athletic and cultural activities are negotiable, matters relating, inter alia, to wages and all other forms of pecuniary remuneration, retirement benefits, appointment, promotion, and disciplinary action are not. The Committee recalls in this connection that article 276 of the Labor Code provides that the terms and conditions of employment of all Government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the new Constitution. The Committee notes, moreover, that the ICFTU confirms these restrictions of bargaining rights in the public sector. In these circumstances, while recalling that the Convention is compatible with systems requiring parliamentary approval of certain labour conditions or financial clauses of collective agreements, as long as the authorities respect the agreement adopted, the Committee once again recalls the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and repeats its firm hope that the Labor Code or other legislation would be adopted in the near future and that it will fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard and provide copies of any legislation once adopted.

2. Comments of the ICFTU. The Committee requests the Government to respond specifically to the ICFTU comments of 2006 on the application of the Convention, according to which: (1) an order promulgated in 2004 (the labor standards enforcement framework) essentially abandons the principle of government labour inspection for workplaces with more than 200 workers; (2) anti-union dismissals and acts of interference by employers are frequently committed in export processing zones and other sectors. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the number of complaints of unfair practices concerning trade union rights, and to provide statistical information on the number of inspections on these matters undertaken in small enterprises.

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

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication of 31 August 2005. It requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

The Committee will examine the questions raised in its 2004 observation (see observation 2004, 75th Session) under the regular reporting cycle in 2006.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and, in particular, the information that it has taken note of the Committee’s previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee recalls that article 276 of the Labor Code provides that the terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations, and that their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the new Constitution. The Committee further recalls that section 3 of the Administrative Code is of a similar effect.

The Committee notes, however, that the Government has not provided further information in relation to the Committee’s hope that the draft Civil Service Code, which was adjourned without being passed by the 12th Congress, and which the Civil Service Commission had intended to refile before the 13th Congress, would be adopted in the near future.

The Committee once again recalls the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and the fact that the draft Civil Service Code was first filed before Congress over ten years ago. The Committee repeats its firm hope that the Code will be adopted in the near future and that it will fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the Civil Service Code as soon as it is adopted.

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

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code, which had reached the various legislative processes during the 12th Congress, had been adjourned by the Congress without being passed. The Civil Service Commission will now re-file the draft Code before the 13th Congress.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and the fact that the draft Civil Service Code was first filed before Congress over ten years ago, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will be adopted in the near future. It further trusts that the said legislation will fully grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft Civil Service Code as soon as it is adopted.

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

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code, which was refiled as Senate Bill No. 15111 on 10 March 1999, is now pending before the Senate's Civil Service and Finance Committees.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will grant to public sector employees not engaged in the administration of the State the right to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft Civil Service Code as soon as it is adopted.

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

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code is still pending before the Senate Committee on Civil Service.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector with the only possible exception of public servants engaged in the administration of the State and noting that the draft Civil Service Code was submitted to the above-mentioned Senate Committee on 27 June 1995, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will be adopted shortly. It once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the above-mentioned Code as soon as it is adopted.

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

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

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee had noted the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code is still being reviewed by Parliament which has yet to approve it before its adoption.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector with the only possible exception of public servants engaged in the administration of the State in order to ensure the full application of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will be adopted shortly. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the above-mentioned Code as soon as it is adopted.

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

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code is still being reviewed by Parliament which has yet to approve it before its adoption.

Recalling the importance of the development of collective bargaining in the public sector with the only possible exception of public servants engaged in the administration of the State in order to ensure the full application of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, the Committee firmly hopes that the said legislation will be adopted shortly. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the above-mentioned Code as soon as it is adopted.

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

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to encourage and promote collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its report according to which the draft Civil Service Code is currently being reviewed before it is submitted to the President for signing.

The Committee hopes that the said legislation will provide for the development of collective bargaining in the public sector in order to ensure the full application of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the above-mentioned Code as soon as it is adopted.

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

The Committee takes note of the information supplied in the Government's reports, in particular concerning the filing before Congress of a Bill to consolidate all laws pertaining to the government service. It also notes the passage of Act No. 6715, which came into force on 2 March 1989, to strengthen, inter alia, the part of the Labor Code concerning unfair labour practices and collective bargaining, and the Regulations issued thereunder of 7 June 1989.

In relation to Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention and the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the progress of the above-mentioned consolidation Bill (referred to as the draft "Civil Service Code") and to provide a copy of the legislation if and when it becomes law.

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

1. Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the information contained in the reports submitted by the Government. In particular, it notes that Executive Orders Nos. 126 and 251 of 1987 provide for the establishment of a National Conciliation and Mediation Board and of a Voluntary Arbitration Fund which can be used to subsidise the cost of voluntary arbitration. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed as to the operation of both the Board and the Fund.

2. Articles 4 and 6. As regards the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, the Committee notes with interest the promulgation of Executive Order No. 180 in June 1987. This Order called for the creation of a Public Sector Labour Management Council and set out guide-lines for the exercise of the right to organise of government employees. The Committee further notes that the Tripartite Review Committee endorsed an alternative proposal for the creation of a Public Sector Labour Board with responsibility, inter alia, for developing the process of collective bargaining and dispute resolution in the public sector. The tripartite committee also prepared a draft bill to establish such a board.

The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed as to the developments in this area, and to provide a copy of the legislation if and when it becomes a law.

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