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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations freely to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that it has been referring, for a number of years, to the need to amend legislation so as to exclude the banana, citrus and coconut industries as well as the port authority, from the schedule of essential services annexed to Act No. 18 of 1986 on industrial relations, which makes it possible to stop a strike in these sectors by compulsory arbitration. The Committee recalls that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 160).

The Committee had also requested the Government to amend sections 59(1)(b) and 61(1)(c) of the Act that empowers the minister to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration if they concerned serious issues in his or her opinion. The Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute and a strike is acceptable only if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or if the strike in question may be restricted or prohibited (as mentioned above, i.e. for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term).

The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there has been no change in the legislation or practice since its last report.

In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation to bring it into conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate in its next report any evolution in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. The Committee has been referring, for a number of years, to the need to amend legislation so as to exclude the banana, citrus and coconut industries as well as the Port Authority, from the schedule of essential services annexed to Act No. 18 of 1986 on industrial relations, which makes it possible to stop a strike in these sectors by compulsory arbitration.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Minister for Labour received the recommendations of the Industrial Relations Advisory Committee (IRAC) for the removal of the citrus and coconut industries from the list of essential services (the registered trade unions were consulted and the majority concurred with the IRAC on the matter). Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that no further action has been taken by the political directorate in this regard and that the Government hopes that when a new committee is appointed another attempt will be made to draw to the attention of the competent authority the need for immediate action on this matter. The Committee recalls that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 160). The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in eliminating citrus and coconut industries from the list of essential services as well as the measures taken or envisaged to amend the list of essential services in respect of the banana industry and the Port Authority or to establish a requirement of a minimum service, in the determination of which relevant employers’ and workers’ organizations should be involved.

The Committee has also noted on several occasions that sections 59(1)(b) and 61(1)(c) of the Act empowered the Minister to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration if they concerned serious issues in his or her opinion. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that there was only one significant dispute referred to compulsory arbitration. The Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute and a strike is acceptable only if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or if the strike in question may be restricted or prohibited (as mentioned above, i.e. for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term). The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to amend the legislation in this regard.

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

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

The Committee has been referring for a number of years to the need to amend legislation so as to exclude the banana, citrus and coconut industries as well as the port authority, from the schedule of essential services annexed to Act No. 18 of 1986 on industrial relations, which makes it possible to stop a strike in these sectors by compulsory arbitration. The Committee had also noted that sections 59(1)(b) and 61(1)(c) of the Act empowered the Minister to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration if they concerned serious issues in his or her opinion. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in restricting the list of essential services in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers in the banana industry and the port authority may also have recourse to industrial action. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 160).

Finally, concerning the practical application of these provisions, the Committee requests the Government to transmit any available statistical data on the number, content and outcome of disputes which have been referred to compulsory arbitration, because they concerned the banana, citrus and coconut industries, the port authority, or issues considered serious by the Minister.

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

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

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

The Committee has been referring for a number of years to the need to amend legislation so as to exclude the banana, citrus and coconut industries as well as the port authority, from the schedule of essential services annexed to Act No. 18 of 1986 on industrial relations, which makes it possible to stop a strike in these sectors by compulsory arbitration. The Committee had also noted that sections 59(1)(b) and 61(1)(c) of the Act empowered the Minister to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration if they concerned serious issues in his or her opinion. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in restricting the list of essential services in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers in the banana industry and the port authority may also have recourse to industrial action. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 160).

Finally, concerning the practical application of these provisions, the Committee requests the Government to transmit any available statistical data on the number, content and outcome of disputes which have been referred to compulsory arbitration, because they concerned the banana, citrus and coconut industries, the port authority, or issues considered serious by the Minister.

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

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

The Committee has been referring for a number of years to the need to amend legislation so as to exclude the banana, citrus and coconut industries as well as the port authority, from the schedule of essential services annexed to Act No. 18 of 1986 on industrial relations, which makes it possible to stop a strike in these sectors by compulsory arbitration. The Committee had also noted that sections 59(1)(b) and 61(1)(c) of the Act empowered the Minister to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration if they concerned serious issues in his or her opinion. The Committee notes with interest from the Government’s latest report that the Industrial Relations Advisory Committee has submitted recommendations to the Government for the removal of the citrus and coconut industries from the list of essential services. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in restricting the list of essential services in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers in the banana industry and the port authority may also have recourse to industrial action. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 160).

Finally, concerning the practical application of these provisions, the Committee requests the Government to transmit any available statistical data on the number, content and outcome of disputes which have been referred to compulsory arbitration, because they concerned the banana, citrus and coconut industries, the port authority, or issues considered serious by the Minister.

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

The Committee notes with regret the indication in the Government’s report that there has been no change in legislation or practice concerning the issues raised in the Committee’s previous observation. The Committee has been referring for a number of years to the need to amend legislation so as to exclude the banana, citrus and coconut industries as well as the port authority, from the schedule of essential services annexed to Act No. 18 of 1986 on industrial relations, which makes it possible to stop a strike in these sectors by compulsory arbitration. The Committee had also noted that sections 59(1)(b) and 61(1)(c) of this Act empowered the Minister to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration if they concerned serious issues in his or her opinion.

The Committee urges the Government once again to take the necessary measures in the very near future to ensure that strikes may only be prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term, in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the application of the abovementioned provisions in practice. The Committee requests the Government in particular to transmit statistical data on the number, content and outcome of disputes which have been referred to compulsory arbitration, because they concerned the banana, citrus and coconut industries, the port authority, or issues considered serious by the Minister.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not reply to its previous comments on the following points.

The Committee has been referring for a number of years to the need to amend legislation so that restrictions on the right to strike would only be imposed in the case of essential services, meaning the services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in case of an acute national crisis. The Committee had noted that the banana, citrus and coconut industries, as well as the port authority, were included in the schedule of essential services annexed to Act No. 18 of 1986 on industrial relations, making it possible to stop a strike by compulsory arbitration, and that sections 59(1)(b) and 61(1)(c) of this Act empowered the Minister to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration if in his or her opinion it concerned serious issues.

In this respect, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 160 of its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining wherein it states that, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility, like the port authority, rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee urges the Government once again to take the necessary measures in the very near future to ensure that strikes may only be prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term, in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention. It draws the Government’s attention to the availability of the technical assistance of the Office in this respect should it so desire.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the need to amend legislation so that restrictions on the right to strike would only be imposed in the case of essential services, meaning the services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in case of an acute national crisis. The Committee noted that the banana, citrus and coconut industries were included in the schedule of essential services annexed to Act No. 18 of 1986 on industrial relations, making it possible to stop a strike by compulsory arbitration, and that sections 59(1)(b) and 61(1)(c) of this Act empowered the Minister to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration if in his opinion it concerned serious issues.

The Committee further notes that the port authority still appears to be on the list of essential services. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 160 of its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining wherein it states that, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility, like the port authority, rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indications that the draft bill drawn up with the assistance of the ILO, which envisaged the deletion of the banana, citrus and coconut industries from the schedule of essential services and limited the powers of the competent minister to refer a dispute to compulsory arbitration to end a strike, was not yet complete. The Committee notes from the Government’s latest report that there has been no change in the legislation or practice.

The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures in the very near future to bring legislation on industrial relations into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association and requests it to supply information in its next report on all progress in this area.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government's report.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the need to amend legislation so that restrictions on the right to strike would only be imposed in the case of essential services, meaning the services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in case of an acute national crisis. The Committee noted that the banana, citrus and coconut industries were included in the schedule of essential services annexed to Act No. 18 of 1986 on industrial relations, making it possible to stop a strike by compulsory arbitration, and that sections 59(1)(b) and 61(1)(c) of this Act empowered the Minister to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration if in his opinion serious questions were in cause.

The Committee notes that the Government reiterates in its last report that the draft bill drawn up with the assistance of the ILO, which envisaged the deletion of the abovementioned sectors from the schedule of essential services and limited the powers of the competent minister to refer a dispute to compulsory arbitration to end a strike, is not yet complete.

The Committee firmly hopes once again that measures will be taken at an early date to bring legislation on industrial relations into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association. It asks the Government to supply information in its next report on all progress in this area and to transmit a copy of the legislation in question.

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

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

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the need to amend legislation so that restrictions on the right to strike would only be imposed in the case of essential services, meaning services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in case of an acute national crisis. In particular, the Committee had noted that the banana, citrus and coconut industries were included in the schedule of essential services to the Industrial Relations Act of 1975 and that Act No. 18 of 1986 empowered the Minister to refer certain disputes to compulsory arbitration.

The Committee had noted that the Government had referred in its latest report to a draft Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Act prepared in 1993 with the assistance of the ILO. It noted with interest, in particular, that this Bill proposed the deletion of the above-mentioned sectors from the schedule of essential services and limited the powers of the Minister to refer a dispute to arbitration. It further noted the Government's indication that steps had been taken to submit this Bill to Parliament. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in its next report of any developments made in amending the legislation to bring it into full conformity with the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's latest report.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the need to amend legislation so that restrictions on the right to strike would only be imposed in the case of essential services, meaning services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in case of an acute national crisis. In particular, the Committee had noted that the banana, citrus and coconut industries were included in the schedule of essential services to the Industrial Relations Act of 1975 and that Act No. 18 of 1986 empowered the Minister to refer certain disputes to compulsory arbitration.

The Committee notes that the Government refers in its latest report to a draft Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Act prepared in 1993 with the assistance of the ILO. It notes with interest, in particular, that this Bill proposes the deletion of the above-mentioned sectors from the schedule of essential services and limits the powers of the Minister to refer a dispute to arbitration. It further notes the Government's indication that steps have been taken to submit this Bill to Parliament. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in its next report of any developments made in amending the legislation to bring it into full conformity with the Convention.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report contains no new information. It is therefore bound to repeat the comments it has been making for several years concerning the following points.

1. With reference to its previous comments on the inclusion of the banana, citrus and coconut industries in the schedule of essential services, thereby denying the right to strike to workers employed in these sectors, the Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that, despite the Cabinet decision which had been taken to remove these industries from the list of essential services (schedule), they still appear in the revised Law of the Commonwealth of Dominica. The Government adds, however, that the Industrial Relations Act is not used to prohibit strikes in those industries but, rather, that unions have negotiated a "no strike agreement" in the banana industry, between the company and the union.

The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any legislative developments in the matter to delete the banana, citrus and coconut industries from the schedule of essential services.

2. Referring to its previous comments on the provisions of Act No. 18 empowering the Minister to refer a dispute, under certain circumstances, to arbitration (which precludes recourse to strikes) the Committee notes the Government's indication that amendments will be given consideration in the draft labour legislation.

The Committee recalls that it has made comments on that matter for many years. It hopes that the Government will re-examine its legislation with a view to confining the prohibition of strikes to cases in which a prolonged stoppage of work resulting from the strike would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

It asks the Government once again to indicate in its next report if the Minister has referred a dispute to arbitration and, if so, in which circumstances and which sector, industry or service, and to keep it informed of any developments on this issue and particularly on the proposed amendments.

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

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:

1. With reference to its previous comments on the inclusion of the banana, citrus and coconut industries in the schedule of essential services, thereby denying the right to strike to workers employed in these sectors, the Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that, despite the Cabinet decision which had been taken to remove these industries from the list of essential services (schedule), they still appear on the revised Law of the Commonwealth of Dominica. The Government adds, however, that the Industrial Relations Act is not used to prohibit strikes in those industries but, rather, that unions have negotiated a "no strike agreement" in the banana industry, between the company and the union (WAWU). The Government emphasizes that, in fact, there is no written agreement stating precisely that there will not be a strike in that industry: it is an undertaking solely by the union indicating that where banana is concerned there will be no industrial action.

The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any legislative developments in the matter to delete the banana, citrus and coconut industries from the schedule of essential services.

2. Referring to its previous comments on the provisions of Act No. 18 empowering the Minister to refer a dispute, under certain circumstances, to arbitration (which precludes recourse to strikes) the Committee notes the Government's indication that amendments will be given consideration in the draft labour legislation.

The Committee recalls that it has made comments on that matter for many years. It hopes that the Government will re-examine its legislation with a view to confining the prohibition of strikes to cases in which a prolonged stoppage of work resulting from the strike would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

It asks the Government to indicate in its next report if the Minister has referred a dispute to arbitration and, if so, in which circumstances and which sector, industry or service, and to keep it informed of any developments on this issue and particularly on the proposed amendments.

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

1. With reference to its previous comments on the inclusion of the banana, citrus and coconut industries in the schedule of essential services, thereby denying the right to strike to workers employed in these sectors, the Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that, despite the Cabinet decision which had been taken to remove these industries from the list of essential services (schedule), they still appear on the revised Law of the Commonwealth of Dominica. The Government adds, however, that the Industrial Relations Act is not used to prohibit strikes in those industries but, rather, that unions have negotiated a "no strike agreement" in the banana industry, between the company and the union (WAWU). The Government emphasizes that, in fact, there is no written agreement stating precisely that there will not be a strike in that industry: it is an undertaking solely by the union indicating that where banana is concerned there will be no industrial action.

The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any legislative developments in the matter.

2. Referring to its previous comments on the provisions of Act No. 18 empowering the Minister to refer a dispute, under certain circumstances, to arbitration (which precludes recourse to strikes) the Committee notes the Government's indication that amendments will be given consideration in the draft labour legislation.

The Committee recalls that it has made comments on that matter for many years. It hopes that the Government will re-examine its legislation with a view to confining the prohibition of strikes to cases in which a prolonged stoppage of work resulting from the strike would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

It asks the Government to indicate in its next report if the Minister has referred a dispute to arbitration and, if so, in which circumstances and which sector, industry or service, and to keep it informed of any developments on this issue and particularly on the proposed amendments.

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

The Committee notes that for the second year in succession 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:

1. With reference to its previous comments on the inclusion of the banana, citrus and coconut industries in the schedule of essential services, thereby denying the right to strike to workers employed in these sectors, the Committee notes with interest that by a decision dated 8 March 1988, economic activities have been deleted from the list of essential services (Schedule to the Industrial Relations Act No. 18 of 1986).

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the amending text.

2. Referring to its previous comments on the provisions of Act No. 18 empowering the Minister to refer a dispute to arbitration (which precludes recourse to strikes) where he is satisfied that there are serious questions to be settled and that the dispute would be more suitably resolved by submitting it to arbitration or quasi-judicial settlement, the Committee notes that the Government is giving active consideration to this issue, is discussing it and will forward a reply shortly.

In this respect, the Committe recalls its previous comments which read as follows:

In the Committee's view, enabling the Minister to use his discretion in referring a dispute to compulsory arbitration is liable to restrict the exercise of the right to strike and impair observance of Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention which provide that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of workers' and employers' organizations to promote and to defend their interests. The Committee considers that there should only be recourse to compulsory arbitration at the request of both parties to a dispute.

The Committee recalls that, if strikes are prohibited in essential services, such a prohibition must be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. However, this does not rule out the possibility of adopting measures when a prolonged stoppage of work in another sector of the economy is liable to cause an acute national crisis. Referring to its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining of 1983 (paragraph 215), the Committee again draws the Government's attention to the fact that, in such circumstances, the maintenance of a minimum service, restricted to operations that are strictly necessary and in whose definition the workers' and employers' organizations should be able to participate, could help overcome difficult situations.

Therefore, the Committee asks the Government once again to re-examine its legislation with a view to confining the prohibition of strikes to cases in which a prolonged stoppage of work resulting from the strike would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or to cases of acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to keep it informed, as soon as possible, of the results of the current discussions taking place on this issue.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

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

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:

1. With reference to its previous comments on the inclusion of the banana, citrus and coconut industries in the schedule of essential services, thereby denying the right to strike to workers employed in these sectors, the Committee notes with interest that by a decision dated 8 March 1988, economic activities have been deleted from the list of essential services (Schedule to the Industrial Relations Act No. 18 of 1986).

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the amending text.

2. Referring to its previous comments on the provisions of Act No. 18 empowering the Minister to refer a dispute to arbitration (which precludes recourse to strikes) where he is satisfied that there are serious questions to be settled and that the dispute would be more suitably resolved by submitting it to arbitration or quasi-judicial settlement, the Committee notes that the Government is giving active consideration to this issue, is discussing it and will forward a reply shortly.

In this respect, the Committe recalls its previous comments which read as follows:

In the Committee's view, enabling the Minister to use his discretion in referring a dispute to compulsory arbitration is liable to restrict the exercise of the right to strike and impair observance of Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention which provide that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of workers' and employers' organisations to promote and to defend their interests. The Committee considers that there should only be recourse to compulsory arbitration at the request of both parties to a dispute.

The Committee recalls that, if strikes are prohibited in essential services, such a prohibition must be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. However, this does not rule out the possibility of adopting measures when a prolonged stoppage of work in another sector of the economy is liable to cause an acute national crisis. Referring to its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining of 1983 (paragraph 215), the Committee again draws the Government's attention to the fact that, in such circumstances, the maintenance of a minimum service, restricted to operations that are strictly necessary and in whose definition the workers' and employers' organisations should be able to participate, could help overcome difficult situations.

Therefore, the Committee asks the Government once again to re-examine its legislation with a view to confining the prohibition of strikes to cases in which a prolonged stoppage of work resulting from the strike would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or to cases of acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to keep it informed, as soon as possible, of the results of the current discussions taking place on this issue.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government's report.

1. With reference to its previous comments on the inclusion of the banana, citrus and coconut industries in the schedule of essential services, thereby denying the right to strike to workers employed in these sectors, the Committee notes with interest that by a decision dated 8 March 1988, economic activities have been deleted from the list of essential services (Schedule to the Industrial Relations Act of 1986, No. 18).

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the amending text.

2. Referring to its previous comments on the provisions of Act No. 18 empowering the Minister to refer a dispute to arbitration (which precludes recourse to strikes) where he is satisfied that there are serious questions to be settled and that the dispute is suitable for submission to arbitration or quasi-judicial settlement, the Committee notes that the Government is giving active consideration to this issue, is discussing it and will forward a reply shortly.

In this respect, the Committe recalls its previous comments which read as follows:

In the Committee's view, enabling the Minister to use his discretion in referring a dispute to compulsory arbitration is liable to restrict the exercise of the right to strike and impair observance of Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention which provide that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of workers' and employers' organisations to promote and to defend their interests. The Committee considers that there should only be recourse to compulsory arbitration at the request of both parties to a dispute.

The Committee recalls that, although strikes may be prohibited in essential services, the meaning of the term "essential services" is the one given above. However, this does not rule out the possibility of adopting measures when a prolonged stoppage of work in another sector of the economy is liable to cause an acute national crisis. Referring to . . . its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining of 1983 (paragraph 215), the Committee again draws the Government's attention to the fact that, in such circumstances, the maintenance of a minimum service, restricted to operations that are strictly necessary and in whose definition the workers' and employers' organisations should be able to participate, could help overcome difficult situations.

Therefore, the Committee asks the Government once again to re-examine its legislation with a view to confining the prohibition of strikes to cases in which a prolonged stoppage of work resulting from the strike would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or to cases of acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to keep it informed, as soon as possible, of the results of the current discussions taking place on this issue.

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

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with regret that the Industrial Relations (Consolidation) Act (No. 18) of 1986 which repeals the Industrial Relations Act (No. 35) of 1975 does not take account of its previous request.

The Committee noted that Act No. 35 of 1975 enables strikes in the banana and citrus industries to be halted, as these are listed as essential services in the schedule annexed to the Act. The Committee recalled its opinion that the prohibition or restriction of the exercise of the right to strike should be confined to essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e., those services whose interruption is liable to endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes that Act No. 18 of 1986 retains the provisions of the former Act in this regard and extends the concept of essential services to the coconut industry, whereas it had indicated previously that economic activities were to be removed from the schedule of essential services. It recalls that the inclusion of banana, citrus and coconut industries in essential services is not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee also notes that Act No. 18 of 1986 enables the Minister to have recourse to compulsory arbitration not, as was the case under Act No. 35 of 1975, if he considers that a dispute occurs in a major trade or industry (as defined in Act No. 35 of 1975), but when he is satisfied, after notification from one of the parties, that the issues involved are serious and that the dispute is suitable for submission to arbitration.

In the Committee's view, enabling the Minister to use his discretion in referring a dispute to compulsory arbitration is liable to restrict the exercise of the right to strike and impair observance of Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention which provide that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of workers' and employers' organisations to promote and to defend their interests. The Committee considers that there should only be recourse to compulsory arbitration at the request of both parties to a dispute.

The Committee recalls that, although strikes may be prohibited in essential services, the meaning of the term "essential services" is the one given above. However, this does not rule out the possibility of adopting measures when a prolonged stoppage of work in another sector of the economy is liable to cause an acute national crisis. Referring to its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining of 1983 (paragraph 215), the Committee again draws the Government's attention to the fact that, in such circumstances, the maintenance of a minimum service, restricted to operations that are strictly necessary and in whose definition the workers' and employers' organisations should be able to participate, could help overcome difficult situations.

The Committee asks the Government to re-examine its legislation with a view to confining the prohibition of strikes to cases in which a prolonged stoppage of work resulting from the strike would endanger the life, health or personal safety of the whole or part of the population, or to cases of acute national crisis.