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

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

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

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 to freely organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. Compulsory arbitration. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 19 of the Industrial Court Act 1976, which permits the referral of a dispute to the court by the minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting strike action. The Committee notes that the Government states in its report that it has no intention to change its position at this time as regards the power of the minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action. In this regard, the Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action should be limited to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to cases of acute national crisis, or at the request of both parties. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 19 of the Industrial Court Act 1976 taking into account the abovementioned principles.

Prohibition of strikes. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 21 of the Industrial Court Act 1976 which permits injunctions against legal strikes when the national interest is threatened or affected. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a concerted effort will be made to bring the Industrial Court Act 1976 into conformity with the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee hopes that measures will be taken to amend section 21 of the Industrial Court Act 1976 and requests the Government to communicate any developments in this regard.

Essential services. The Committee had also requested the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code, in particular with respect to the government printing office and the port authority. In this regard, it notes the comments of the Government that the government printing office could be excluded from the list of essential services. It further notes that the Government considers it imperative to note that, as Antigua and Barbuda is a relatively small country and what works in other industrial countries cannot be expected to work there, an extended strike at the port authority could have damaging consequences for the economy as this is the major trans-shipment point for goods into the country. According to the Government, strikes at the port should not be banned, but should be controlled. The Committee notes that the Government adds that it has amended the list of essential services in the Labour Code. Recalling that the implementation of a minimum service for workers at the port authority would be in conformity with the Convention, the Committee appreciates the Government’s comments in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to provide, with its next report, details of any legislative amendment to the list of essential services so as to eliminate from the list the government printing office and the port authority, which are not essential services in the strict sense of the word, and to transmit a copy of the current list of essential services.

Sanctions. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 20(3), (4) and (7) of the Industrial Court Act 1976 which provide for penalties of imprisonment ranging from three months to two years for participating in strikes or lock-outs declared unlawful under that section. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and therefore measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Nevertheless, even in the absence of violence, if the strike modalities had the effect of making the strike illegitimate, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed against strikers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a concerted effort will be made to bring the Industrial Court Act 1976 into conformity with the Convention. The Committee hopes that that measures will be taken to amend section 20(3), (4) and (7) of the Industrial Court Act 1976, taking into account the abovementioned principles.

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

The Committee regrets that once again, the Government failed to reply to the specific comments and questions concerning the application of the Convention made by the Committee during several years. The Committee trusts that the Government will endeavour to be more responsive to its specific questions in its next report.

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the Minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting any strike action, under penalty of imprisonment, and which permit injunctions against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected, as well as the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code.

On the matter of essential services, the Committee notes the inclusion of the Government printing office and the port authority in the schedule of essential services in the Labour Code and considers that such services cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 160 of its General Survey of 1994 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 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. As concerns the Minister’s power to refer disputes in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee notes that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to the court under sections 19 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act would appear to apply to situations going beyond the notion of an acute national crisis. Under section 19(1), this authority of the Minister appears to be discretionary since, under section 21, this power may be used in the national interest which would appear to be broader than the strict notion of a specific situation of acute national crisis where the restrictions imposed must be for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 152).

In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that: (1) the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action is restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in case of an acute national crisis; (2) a binding referral of a collective dispute to the court can only be made at the request of both parties, and not any one of the parties as appears to be the case in section 19(2); and, (3) the schedule of essential services in the Labour Code is modified in order to eliminate all those services that are not essential in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in order to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions in the very near future and reminds it that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

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

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

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the Minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting any strike action, under penalty of imprisonment, and which permit injunctions against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected, as well as the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code.

On the matter of essential services, the Committee notes the inclusion of the government printing office and the port authority in the list and considers that such services cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 160 of its General Survey of 1994 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 rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. As concerns the Minister’s power to refer disputes in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee notes that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to the court under sections 19 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act would appear to apply to situations going beyond the notion of an acute national crisis. Under section 19(1), this authority of the Minister appears to be discretionary since, under section 21, this power may be used in the national interest which would appear to be broader than the strict notion of a specific situation of acute national crisis where the restrictions imposed must be for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 152).

In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action is restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in case of an acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a binding referral of a collective dispute to the court can only be made at the request of both parties, and not any one of the parties as appears to be the case in section 19(2).

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

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

The Committee notes the Government’s very brief report. The Committee regrets that once again, the Government failed to reply to the specific comments and questions concerning the application of the Convention made by the Committee during several years. The Committee trusts that the Government will endeavour to be more responsive to its specific questions in its next report.

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the Minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting any strike action, under penalty of imprisonment, and which permit injunctions against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected, as well as the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code.

On the matter of essential services, the Committee notes the inclusion of the government printing office and the port authority in the list and considers that such services cannot be considered essential in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Committee would draw 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 rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. As concerns the Minister’s power to refer disputes in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee notes that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to the court under sections 19 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act would appear to apply to situations going beyond the notion of an acute national crisis. Under section 19(1), this authority of the Minister appears to be discretionary since, under section 21, this power may be used in the national interest which would appear to be broader than the strict notion of a specific situation of acute national crisis where the restrictions imposed must be for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 152).

In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action is restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in case of an acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a binding referral of a collective dispute to the court can only be made at the request of both parties, and not any one of the parties as appears to be the case in section 19(2).

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

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

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the Minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting any strike action, under penalty of imprisonment, and which permit injunctions against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected, as well as the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code.

On the matter of essential services, the Committee notes the inclusion of the government printing office and the port authority in the list and considers that such services cannot be considered to be essential in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Committee would draw 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 rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. As concerns the Minister’s power to refer disputes in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee notes that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to the court under sections 19 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act would appear to apply to situations going beyond the notion of an acute national crisis. Under section 19(1), this authority of the Minister appears to be discretionary, since under section 21 this power may be used in the national interest which would appear to be broader than the strict notion of a specific situation of acute national crisis where the restrictions imposed must be for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 152).

In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action is restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in case of an acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a binding referral of a collective dispute to the court can only be made at the request of both parties, and not any one of the parties as appears to be the case in section 19(2).

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

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

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

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the Minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting any strike action, under penalty of imprisonment, and which permit injunctions against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected, as well as the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication in its latest report that the interruption of all these services on the list of essential services in the Labour Code would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Government further stated that the Minister is obliged to refer disputes to binding arbitration in cases of acute national crisis.

On the matter of essential services, the Committee notes the inclusion of the government printing office and the port authority in the list and considers that such services cannot be considered to be essential in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Committee would draw 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 rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. As concerns the Minister’s power to refer disputes in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee notes that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to the court under sections 19 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act would appear to apply to situations going beyond the notion of an acute national crisis. Under section 19(1), this authority of the Minister appears to be discretionary, since under section 21 this power may be used in the national interest which would appear to be broader than the strict notion of a specific situation of acute national crisis where the restrictions imposed must be for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 152).

In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action is restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in case of an acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a binding referral of a collective dispute to the court can only be made at the request of both parties, and not any one of the parties as appears to be the case in section 19(2).

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

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the Minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting any strike action, under penalty of imprisonment, and which permit injunctions against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected, as well as the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication in its latest report that the interruption of all these services on the list of essential services in the Labour Code would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Government further stated that the Minister is obliged to refer disputes to binding arbitration in cases of acute national crisis.

On the matter of essential services, the Committee notes the inclusion of the government printing office and the port authority in the list and considers that such services cannot be considered to be essential in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Committee would draw 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 rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. As concerns the Minister’s power to refer disputes in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee notes that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to the court under sections 19 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act would appear to apply to situations going beyond the notion of an acute national crisis. Under section 19(1), this authority of the Minister appears to be discretionary, since under section 21 this power may be used in the national interest which would appear to be broader than the strict notion of a specific situation of acute national crisis where the restrictions imposed must be for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 152).

In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action is restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in case of an acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a binding referral of a collective dispute to the court can only be made at the request of both parties, and not any one of the parties as appears to be the case in section 19(2).

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

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

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

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the Minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting any strike action, under penalty of imprisonment, and which permit injunctions against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected, as well as the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication in its latest report that the interruption of all these services on the list of essential services in the Labour Code would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Government further stated that the Minister is obliged to refer disputes to binding arbitration in cases of acute national crisis.

On the matter of essential services, the Committee notes the inclusion of the government printing office and the port authority in the list and considers that such services cannot be considered to be essential in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Committee would draw 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 rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. As concerns the Minister’s power to refer disputes in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee notes that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to the court under sections 19 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act would appear to apply to situations going beyond the notion of an acute national crisis. Under section 19(1), this authority of the Minister appears to be discretionary, since under section 21 this power may be used in the national interest which would appear to be broader than the strict notion of a specific situation of acute national crisis where the restrictions imposed must be for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 152).

In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action is restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in case of an acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a binding referral of a collective dispute to the court can only be made at the request of both parties, and not any one of the parties as appears to be the case in section 19(2).

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

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the Minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting any strike action, under penalty of imprisonment, and which permit injunctions against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected, as well as the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its latest report that the interruption of all these services on the list of essential services in the Labour Code would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Government further states that the Minister is obliged to refer disputes to binding arbitration in cases of acute national crisis.

On the matter of essential services, the Committee notes the inclusion of the government printing office and the port authority in the list and considers that such services cannot be considered to be essential in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Committee would draw 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 rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. As concerns the Minister’s power to refer disputes in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee notes that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to the court under sections 19 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act would appear to apply to situations going beyond the notion of an acute national crisis. Under section 19(1), this authority of the Minister appears to be discretionary, since under section 21 this power may be used in the national interest which would appear to be broader than the strict notion of a specific situation of acute national crisis where the restrictions imposed must be for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 152).

In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action is restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in case of an acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a binding referral of a collective dispute to the court can only be made at the request of both parties, and not any one of the parties as appears to be the case in section 19(2).

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received.

It refers to its previous comments on the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Courts Act, 1976, and the extensive list of essential services in the Labour Code which can be applied to prohibit the right to strike at the request of one party. Under these provisions, a trade dispute may be referred to the court at any stage by the minister when he is informed of its existence, and by one party within ten days of such knowledge. Strikes are then prohibited under penalty of imprisonment. In addition, an injunction may be issued against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected.

The Committee notes with interest the conciliatory/mediatory report in the case of Employees at Federal Express v. Federal Express dated 26 August 1999 sent by the Government. However, it would ask once again the Government to indicate in its next report the legislative measures taken or contemplated to ensure that the powers of the minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration to ban a strike are restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, only those 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 or in relation to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, in order to bring its legislation into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association as soon as possible.

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

The Committee refers to its previous comments on the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Courts Act, 1976, and the extensive list of essential services in the Labour Code, which can be applied to prohibit the right to strike at the request of one party. Under these provisions a trade dispute may be referred to the court at any stage by the Minister when he is informed of its existence, and by one party within ten days of such knowledge, and strikes are then prohibited under penalty of imprisonment. In addition, an injunction may be issued against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected.

Having noted with interest the judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dated February 1993, which had held that in Case No. 1296, examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association, dismissal of strikers had been unfair, the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of any legislative developments with respect to the right to strike in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

The Government indicated in its report in 1995 that in its opinion the Antigua legislation in relation to the right to strike is in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and the limitations would be in the interest of a civilized and orderly society. It had also given the long list of essential services where there is an established process to address industrial matters as laid down in the Labour Code and in the Industrial Courts Act.

The Committee takes note of this information. However, it would ask once again the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that the powers of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration to ban a strike are restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, only those 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 or in relation to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, in order to bring its legislation into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association as soon as possible.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1999.]

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

Further to its previous comments in relation to the limitation on the right to strike, the Committee noted with interest the judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dated February 1993, which reversed the decisions of the lower court and held that in a case of strike - which had been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1296 - dismissal of the strikers had been unfair.

It requests the Government to keep it informed of any legislative developments with respect to the right to strike in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

Observation (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 must therefore repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

The Committee refers to its previous comments on the need to amend sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Industrial Courts Act, 1976, which can be applied in practice to place a general prohibition on the right to strike at the initiative of one party, as illustrated by the decision of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1296. The Committee notes that this question has been forwarded to the Cabinet for a re-examination of the provisions on the right to strike. The Committee has acknowledged that the right to strike may be limited in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In view of the fact that the Act provides that arbitration may be compulsory and can be invoked by only one of the parties, for these provisions to be in accordance with the Convention, the arbitration award would have to be accepted by both parties to the dispute and, failing agreement, the workers should still have the right to strike. With respect to the provisions allowing the grant of an injunction putting an end to a legal strike, the Committee recalls that such measures can only be justified in situations of acute national crisis, and then only for a limited period. The Committee trusts that the Government will adopt the necessary measures to amend sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Industrial Courts Act, taking into account the above comments. It requests the Government to transmit to it rapidly the text of the amendments and to keep it informed of any new development in this respect.

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

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

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

The Committee refers to its previous comments on the need to amend sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Industrial Courts Act, 1976, which can be applied in practice to place a general prohibition on the right to strike at the initiative of one party, as illustrated by the decision of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1296. The Committee notes that this question has been forwarded to the Cabinet for a re-examination of the provisions on the right to strike. The Committee has acknowledged that the right to strike may be limited in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In view of the fact that the Act provides that arbitration may be compulsory and can be invoked by only one of the parties, for these provisions to be in accordance with the Convention, the arbitration award would have to be accepted by both parties to the dispute and, failing agreement, the workers should still have the right to strike. With respect to the provisions allowing the grant of an injunction putting an end to a legal strike, the Committee recalls that such measures can only be justified in situations of acute national crisis, and then only for a limited period. The Committee trusts that the Government will adopt the necessary measures to amend sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Industrial Courts Act, taking into account the above comments. It requests the Government to transmit to it rapidly the text of the amendments and to keep it informed of any new development in this respect.

TEXT The Committee expresses once again its hope that the Government will take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

The Committee refers to its previous comments on the need to amend sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Industrial Courts Act, 1976, which can be applied in practice to place a general prohibition on the right to strike at the initiative of one party, as illustrated by the decision of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1296. The Committee notes that this question has been forwarded to the Cabinet for a re-examination of the provisions on the right to strike.

The Committee has acknowledged that the right to strike may be limited in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In view of the fact that the Act provides that arbitration may be compulsory and can be invoked by only one of the parties, for these provisions to be in accordance with the Convention, the arbitration award would have to be accepted by both parties to the dispute and, failing agreement, the workers should still have the right to strike. With respect to the provisions allowing the grant of an injunction putting an end to a legal strike, the Committee recalls that such measures can only be justified in situations of acute national crisis, and then only for a limited period.

The Committee trusts that the Government will adopt the necessary measures to amend sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Industrial Courts Act, taking into account the above comments. It requests the Government to transmit to it rapidly the text of the above amendments and to keep it informed of any new development in this respect.

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

Referring to its previous comments, the Committee must reiterate its earlier concerns with respect to sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Industrial Courts Act 1976, which can be applied in practice to place a general prohibition on the right to strike, at the initiative of one party, as illustrated by Case No. 1296, examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in March 1986. Under these provisions a trade dispute may be referred to the Court at any stage by the minister (section 19(1)) when he is informed of its existence, and by a party within ten days of such knowledge (section 19(2)); strikes and lock-outs are then prohibited. Furthermore, an injunction may be issued against a legal strike when national interest is threatened or affected (section 21(1)).

The Committee therefore requests once more the Government to re-examine its legislation in respect of the right to strike and to take measures to ensure that the settlement of disputes through conciliation does not lead to restrictions on the right to strike, which can be admitted only in respect of essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say the services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. As regards the provisions of the Act relating to compulsory arbitration which can be invoked by one of the parties, the Committee reiterates its view that these would be in conformity with the Convention where the arbitration award is to be accepted by both parties to the dispute and, failing agreement, if the workers still have the right to strike. With respect to the provisions allowing the issuance of an injunction putting an end to a legal strike, the Committee recalls that such measures can only be justified in situations of acute national crisis, and then only for a limited period.

As regards section 3 of the Public Order Act, 1972, under which no public meeting may be organised or held without a permit of the Chief of Police, the Committee takes due note of the Government's statement that permission is refused only if the Commissioner of Police has cause to believe that public order and safety may not be ensured, as provided furthermore by section 5(1) of the above-mentioned Acts. In addition, it also notes that the definition of "public march" exempts trade unions from obtaining a permit to organise a march in furtherance of a trade dispute or for the celebration of Labour Day.