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

Display in: French - Spanish

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

Previous comment

Legislative reform. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that the draft Bill on the Labour Code is being finalized and that it was the subject, in April 2023, of a memorandum of technical comments of the Office, in response to the Government’s request.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that it was not able to provide the information requested on the amount of damages awarded by the courts, in accordance with section 210(3) of the Labour Code, in disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or acts of interference by employers. The Committee notes, first, that section 466 of the draft Bill on the 2023 Labour Code reproduces exactly the provisions of section 210 and, second, that the Government reiterates that it does not have the information requested on the amount of damages in question, mainly owing to the disconnect between the departments involved, although spaces for collaboration seem to be opening up between the Ministry for Labour and the judiciary. Recalling that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 190 and 193), the Committee requests the Government to provide the information on the application in practice of section 210(3) of the current Labour Code and hopes that it will soon be able to provide the information requested on the amount of damages awarded by the courts under this section, owing to better collaboration among the departments concerned.
Further, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination or interference, under the terms of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, brought to the attention of the labour inspectorate or the competent courts, as well as the outcome of these procedures.
Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Procedure for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to describe both the collective dispute settlement procedures in force and the relevant procedures envisaged by the preliminary draft Labour Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the preliminary draft Labour Code, the National Social Dialogue Committee, including the departmental social dialogue committees, are called on to play a more active role than in the past and that one of the challenges will be the establishment and effective functioning of the departmental social dialogue committees. The Committee notes this information.
Right to collective bargaining in practice.The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered.

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

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2023, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.
Repetition
Legislative reforms. The Committee notes that the content of the Government’s report is identical to that provided in 2014 and notes with regret that the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code, to which the Government has been referring since 2014, has still not been provided.The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code in its next report and hopes that it will take fully into account the rights recognized by the Convention.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the amount of damages awarded by the courts, in accordance with section 210(3) of the Labour Code, in disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or acts of interference by employers. The Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that it does not have the information requested.Recalling that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application in practice (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 190), the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination or interference brought to the attention of the labour inspectorate or the competent courts, as well as the outcome of these procedures.
Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Procedure for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes. With reference to its previous comments on the decisions of the Recommendation Committee responsible for dealing with collective disputes in relation to collective bargaining, the Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that the preliminary draft Labour Code establishes a procedure for the resolution of collective disputes which is based on the mandate of the National Social Dialogue Committee.Recalling that procedures for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes should have the objective, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, of promoting free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to describe both the collective dispute settlement procedures in force and the relevant procedures envisaged by the preliminary draft Labour Code.
Right to collective bargaining in practice.The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered.

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

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2022, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.
Repetition
Legislative reforms. The Committee notes that the content of the Government’s report is identical to that provided in 2014 and notes with regret that the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code, to which the Government has been referring since 2014, has still not been provided. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code in its next report and hopes that it will take fully into account the rights recognized by the Convention.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the amount of damages awarded by the courts, in accordance with section 210(3) of the Labour Code, in disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or acts of interference by employers. The Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that it does not have the information requested. Recalling that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application in practice (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 190), the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination or interference brought to the attention of the labour inspectorate or the competent courts, as well as the outcome of these procedures.
Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Procedure for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes. With reference to its previous comments on the decisions of the Recommendation Committee responsible for dealing with collective disputes in relation to collective bargaining, the Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that the preliminary draft Labour Code establishes a procedure for the resolution of collective disputes which is based on the mandate of the National Social Dialogue Committee. Recalling that procedures for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes should have the objective, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, of promoting free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to describe both the collective dispute settlement procedures in force and the relevant procedures envisaged by the preliminary draft Labour Code.
Right to collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered.

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

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.
Repetition
Legislative reforms. The Committee notes that the content of the Government’s report is identical to that provided in 2014 and notes with regret that the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code, to which the Government has been referring since 2014, has still not been provided. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code in its next report and hopes that it will take fully into account the rights recognized by the Convention.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the amount of damages awarded by the courts, in accordance with section 210(3) of the Labour Code, in disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or acts of interference by employers. The Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that it does not have the information requested. Recalling that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application in practice (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 190), the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination or interference brought to the attention of the labour inspectorate or the competent courts, as well as the outcome of these procedures.
Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Procedure for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes. With reference to its previous comments on the decisions of the Recommendation Committee responsible for dealing with collective disputes in relation to collective bargaining, the Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that the preliminary draft Labour Code establishes a procedure for the resolution of collective disputes which is based on the mandate of the National Social Dialogue Committee. Recalling that procedures for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes should have the objective, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, of promoting free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to describe both the collective dispute settlement procedures in force and the relevant procedures envisaged by the preliminary draft Labour Code.
Right to collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.
Repetition
Legislative reforms. The Committee notes that the content of the Government’s report is identical to that provided in 2014 and notes with regret that the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code, to which the Government has been referring since 2014, has still not been provided. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code in its next report and hopes that it will take fully into account the rights recognized by the Convention.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the amount of damages awarded by the courts, in accordance with section 210(3) of the Labour Code, in disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or acts of interference by employers. The Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that it does not have the information requested. Recalling that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application in practice (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 190), the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination or interference brought to the attention of the labour inspectorate or the competent courts, as well as the outcome of these procedures.
Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Procedure for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes. With reference to its previous comments on the decisions of the Recommendation Committee responsible for dealing with collective disputes in relation to collective bargaining, the Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that the preliminary draft Labour Code establishes a procedure for the resolution of collective disputes which is based on the mandate of the National Social Dialogue Committee. Recalling that procedures for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes should have the objective, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, of promoting free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to describe both the collective dispute settlement procedures in force and the relevant procedures envisaged by the preliminary draft Labour Code.
Right to collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered.

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

Legislative reforms. The Committee notes that the content of the Government’s report is identical to that provided in 2014 and notes with regret that the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code, to which the Government has been referring since 2014, has still not been provided. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide the text of the preliminary draft Labour Code in its next report and hopes that it will take fully into account the rights recognized by the Convention.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the amount of damages awarded by the courts, in accordance with section 210(3) of the Labour Code, in disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or acts of interference by employers. The Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that it does not have the information requested. Recalling that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application in practice (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 190), the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination or interference brought to the attention of the labour inspectorate or the competent courts, as well as the outcome of these procedures.
Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Procedure for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes. With reference to its previous comments on the decisions of the Recommendation Committee responsible for dealing with collective disputes in relation to collective bargaining, the Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that the preliminary draft Labour Code establishes a procedure for the resolution of collective disputes which is based on the mandate of the National Social Dialogue Committee. Recalling that procedures for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes should have the objective, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, of promoting free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to describe both the collective dispute settlement procedures in force and the relevant procedures envisaged by the preliminary draft Labour Code.
Right to collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.
Repetition
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments the Committee requested information on the application in practice of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, including examples of damages awarded by the courts in disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it does not have this kind of information. The Committee reiterates its request and trusts that the Government will be able to provide information in its next report on the amount of damages awarded by the courts in the context of disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers.
Article 4. Collective bargaining on the deduction of trade union dues. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the check-off facility for trade union dues has been abolished and not replaced by any other mechanism and that at present it is up to the unions themselves to collect their members’ dues. However, the Government points out that it is planned to include a consensual provision in the new draft Labour Code. The Committee trusts that, in the context of the revision of the Labour Code, specific consideration will be given to the question of the deduction of trade union dues at source by employers and the transfer thereof to the unions, and it requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
Moreover, the Committee referred in its previous comments to the consequences of one of the parties challenging within the prescribed time limit the report of the Recommendations Committee responsible for dealing with collective disputes, including in collective bargaining, in accordance with section 246 of the Labour Code. The Committee recalls that the Government undertook to examine the issue in the context of the revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
Articles 1, 2, 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee previously asked the Government to indicate the legislation applicable to persons employed in public administrations which are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining is recognized, in general, for all state employees, with the exception of members of the armed forces and security forces, who are excluded from section 2 of the General Public Service Regulations.

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

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments the Committee requested information on the application in practice of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, including examples of damages awarded by the courts in disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it does not have this kind of information. The Committee reiterates its request and trusts that the Government will be able to provide information in its next report on the amount of damages awarded by the courts in the context of disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers.
Article 4. Collective bargaining on the deduction of trade union dues. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the check-off facility for trade union dues has been abolished and not replaced by any other mechanism and that at present it is up to the unions themselves to collect their members’ dues. However, the Government points out that it is planned to include a consensual provision in the new draft Labour Code. The Committee trusts that, in the context of the revision of the Labour Code, specific consideration will be given to the question of the deduction of trade union dues at source by employers and the transfer thereof to the unions, and it requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
Moreover, the Committee referred in its previous comments to the consequences of one of the parties challenging within the prescribed time limit the report of the Recommendations Committee responsible for dealing with collective disputes, including in collective bargaining, in accordance with section 246 of the Labour Code. The Committee recalls that the Government undertook to examine the issue in the context of the revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect.
Articles 1, 2, 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee previously asked the Government to indicate the legislation applicable to persons employed in public administrations which are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining is recognized, in general, for all state employees, with the exception of members of the armed forces and security forces, who are excluded from section 2 of the General Public Service Regulations.

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

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:
Repetition
The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it requested the Government to reply to the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 26 August 2009, on the subject of anti-union dismissals in the cement sector. It notes that the Government’s report does not contain any reply on this point. It requests the Government to conduct an investigation through the labour inspection services with a view to imposing legal penalties if the allegations are found to be true.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 210(1) of the Labour Code provides that it is prohibited for any employer to take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the granting of social benefits, as well as disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also noted that section 210(3) provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravenes subsections (1) and (2) shall be considered as unjustified and give rise to damages. The Government indicated in its report that it has no information on the damages awarded by the courts to workers who have been victims of acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers. The Committee once again recalls that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference is inadequate if it is not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are sufficiently dissuasive to ensure their application (see the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 230). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide any information available to it in its next report on the application in practice of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, particularly with regard to the amount of damages awarded to workers in the context of disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers.
Article 4. Collective bargaining on the deduction of trade union dues. The Committee hopes that the current reform of the Labour Code will provide the opportunity to ensure that the question of the deduction of trade union dues by employers and their transfer to trade unions can be included in the scope of collective bargaining.
The Committee also recalls that in its previous comments it noted that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that, when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee shall produce, within seven days, a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible, and that section 246 of the Labour Code provides that the parties concerned in the dispute have a period of four working days from the time of their notification of the report to challenge it, and that in the absence of a challenge the report becomes binding. The Committee notes that, in reply to its request for clarifications concerning the consequences of one of the parties challenging the report of the Recommendations Committee within the prescribed time limit, the Government indicates that in practice collective disputes have never reached the level of issuing recommendations and that there exists a legal void, which it plans to remedy in the context of the revision of the Labour Code. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the draft Labour Code to which it refers, and particularly the provisions respecting the two points raised above.
Articles 1, 2, 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee noted previously that section 2 of the Labour Code provides that persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code and that contractual public employees are governed by the special legislative provisions applicable to the public administration in relation to the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee also noted that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of Title VIII of the Labour Code (settlement of labour disputes) apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing salaried employees governed by the Labour Code. It reminds the Government, with regard to the application of Article 6 of the Convention, that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 200). The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not contain a reply to its previous comments on this point. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide the text of the legislation applicable to persons employed in public administrations which are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in relation to the rights set out in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

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

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it requested the Government to reply to the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 26 August 2009, on the subject of anti-union dismissals in the cement sector. It notes that the Government’s report does not contain any reply on this point. It therefore once again requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the ITUC.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 210(1) of the Labour Code provides that it is prohibited for any employer to take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the granting of social benefits, as well as disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also noted that section 210(3) provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravenes subsections (1) and (2) shall be considered as unjustified and give rise to damages. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that it has no information on the damages awarded by the courts to workers who have been victims of acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers. It once again reminds the Government that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference is inadequate if it is not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are sufficiently dissuasive to ensure their application (see the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 230). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide any information available to it in its next report on the application in practice of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, particularly with regard to the amount of damages awarded to workers in the context of disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers.
Article 4. Collective bargaining on the deduction of trade union dues. The Committee notes the Government’s confirmation that, since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991 when trade union pluralism was guaranteed, there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, this matter has been addressed in tripartite meetings, of which the outcome is that it is the responsibility of the trade unions to collect the dues from their members. The Committee understands that there is no formal prohibition upon trade unions from negotiating procedures for the deduction of trade union dues from their members’ pay. Noting that this matter is envisaged in the context of the current reform of the Labour Code, the Committee trusts that this reform will provide the opportunity to ensure that the question of the deduction of trade union dues by employers and their transfer to trade unions can be included in the case of collective bargaining.
The Committee also recalls that in its previous comments it noted that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that, when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee shall produce, within seven days, a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible, and that section 246 of the Labour Code provides that the parties concerned in the dispute have a period of four working days from the time of their notification of the report to challenge it, and that in the absence of a challenge the report becomes binding. The Committee notes that, in reply to its request for clarifications concerning the consequences of one of the parties challenging the report of the Recommendations Committee within the prescribed time limit, the Government indicates that in practice collective disputes have never reached the level of issuing recommendations and that there exists a legal void, which it plans to remedy in the context of the revision of the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the revised draft Labour Code, and particularly the provisions respecting the two points raised above.
Articles 1, 2, 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee noted previously that section 2 of the Labour Code provides that persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code and that contractual public employees are governed by the special legislative provisions applicable to the public administration in relation to the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee also noted that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of Title VIII of the Labour Code (settlement of labour disputes) apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing salaried employees governed by the Labour Code. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not contain a reply to its previous comments on this point. It reminds the Government, with regard to the application of Article 6 of the Convention, that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 200). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide the text of the legislation applicable to persons employed in public administrations which are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in relation to the rights set out in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 210(1) of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996, provides that it is prohibited for any employer to take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the granting of social benefits, disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also noted that section 210(3) of the Labour Code provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravene subsections (1) and (2) shall be considered as unjustified and give rise to damages. The Committee reminds the Government that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference are inadequate if they are not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are sufficiently dissuasive to ensure their application (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 230). It once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, and particularly on the amounts of damages that have been granted to workers in the context of disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers.

Article 4. Collective bargaining on the deduction of trade union dues. 
1. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s first report, since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee once again notes with regret that the Government has still not specified whether the abandonment of the check-off system in 1991 had the effect of barring trade unions from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee once again reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and their transfer to the unions is not a matter that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining and requests the Government to indicate whether the abolition of the check-off system in 1991 has led to such an exclusion.

2. The Committee noted previously that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee shall produce, within seven days, a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible. In this respect, the Committee recalls that section 246 of the Labour Code provides that if the report is not challenged by the parties to the dispute within four clear days of their notification, the report will become binding. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the consequences of one of the parties challenging the report of the Recommendations Committee within the prescribed time limit.

Article 6. Right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee noted previously that section 2 of the Labour Code provides that persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code and that contractual public employees are governed by the special legislative provisions applying to the public administration in relation to the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee also notes that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of Title VIII (settlement of labour disputes) of the Labour Code apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing salaried employees governed by the Labour Code.

With reference to Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that a distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly engaged in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 200). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide the legislation applicable to employees in the public administration who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in respect of the rights laid down in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 2009 and 2010, concerning anti-union dismissals in the cement sector and requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 210(1) of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996, provides that it is prohibited for any employer to take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the granting of social benefits, disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also noted that section 210(3) of the Labour Code provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravene subsections (1) and (2) shall be considered as unjustified and give rise to damages. The Committee reminds the Government that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference are inadequate if they are not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are sufficiently dissuasive to ensure their application (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 230). It once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, and particularly on the amounts of damages that have been granted to workers in the context of disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers.

Article 4. Collective bargaining on the deduction of trade union dues. 
1. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s first report, since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee once again notes with regret that the Government has still not specified whether the abandonment of the check-off system in 1991 had the effect of barring trade unions from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee once again reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and their transfer to the unions is not a matter that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining and requests the Government to indicate whether the abolition of the check-off system in 1991 has led to such an exclusion.

2. The Committee noted previously that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee shall produce, within seven days, a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible. In this respect, the Committee recalls that section 246 of the Labour Code provides that if the report is not challenged by the parties to the dispute within four clear days of their notification, the report will become binding. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the consequences of one of the parties challenging the report of the Recommendations Committee within the prescribed time limit.

Article 6. Right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee noted previously that section 2 of the Labour Code provides that persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code and that contractual public employees are governed by the special legislative provisions applying to the public administration in relation to the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee also notes that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of Title VIII (settlement of labour disputes) of the Labour Code apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing salaried employees governed by the Labour Code.

With reference to Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that a distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly engaged in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 200). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide the legislation applicable to employees in the public administration who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in respect of the rights laid down in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning anti-union dismissals in the cement sector and requests the Government to send its reply thereon.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the report provided by the Government does not contain the information requested by the Committee on the points that it has been raising for several years.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 210(1) of the Labour Code, as amended by Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996, provides that it is prohibited for any employer to take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the granting of social benefits, disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also noted that section 210(3) of the Labour Code provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravene subsections (1) and (2) shall be considered as unjustified and give rise to damages. The Committee reminds the Government that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference are inadequate if they are not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are sufficiently dissuasive to ensure their application (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 230). It once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, and particularly on the amounts of damages that have been granted to workers in the context of disputes relating to acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by employers.

Article 4. Collective bargaining on the deduction of trade union dues. 
1. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s first report, since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee once again notes with regret that the Government has still not specified whether the abandonment of the check-off system in 1991 had the effect of barring trade unions from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee once again reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and their transfer to the unions is not a matter that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining and requests the Government to indicate whether the abolition of the check-off system in 1991 has led to such an exclusion.

2. The Committee noted previously that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee shall produce, within seven days, a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible. In this respect, the Committee recalls that section 246 of the Labour Code provides that if the report is not challenged by the parties to the dispute within four clear days of their notification, the report will become binding. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the consequences of one of the parties challenging the report of the Recommendations Committee within the prescribed time limit.

Article 6. Right to collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee noted previously that section 2 of the Labour Code provides that persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code and that contractual public employees are governed by the special legislative provisions applying to the public administration in relation to the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee also notes that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of Title VIII (settlement of labour disputes) of the Labour Code apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing salaried employees governed by the Labour Code.

With reference to Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that a distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly engaged in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey of 1994, op. cit., paragraph 200). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide the legislation applicable to employees in the public administration who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in respect of the rights laid down in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be provided for examination by the Committee at its next session and that this report will contain comprehensive information on the matters addressed in the Committee’s previous comments, which read as follows.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes that according to section 210(1) of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996, employers shall not take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the grant of social benefits, disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also notes that section 210(3) of the Labour Code provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravenes subsections (1) and (2), will be treated as unjustified and giving rise to damages. The Committee reminds the Government that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference will be inadequate if they are not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are dissuasive enough to ensure their application. It requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, and particularly on the amounts of damages that have been granted to workers in redress for anti-trade union discrimination or interference by employers.

Article 4. 1. Collective bargaining on the deduction of trade union dues. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there is no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee notes that the Government does not specify whether, as a result of the abolition of check-off in 1991, trade union organizations are barred from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and the transfer of dues to unions is not an issue that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining, and requests the Government to indicate whether the abolition of check-off in 1991 has led to such an exclusion.

2. The Committee notes that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee must produce within seven days a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible. Furthermore, section 246 of the Labour Code provides that if it is not challenged by the parties to the dispute within four clear days of its notification to them, the report will become binding. The Committee requests the Government to specify what happens if one of the parties challenges the report within the prescribed time limit.

Article 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee notes that, according to section 2 of the Labour Code, persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code, and for contractual public employees exercise of the right to strike will be governed by special legislative provisions applying to the public administration. The Committee further notes that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of title VIII (settlement of labour disputes) of the Labour Code apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing workers governed by the Labour Code.

With regard to Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that a distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 200). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to provide the legislation applying to employees in the public administration who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in respect of the rights laid down in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes that according to section 210(1) of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996, employers shall not take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the grant of social benefits, disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also notes that section 210(3) of the Labour Code provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravenes subsections (1) and (2), will be treated as unjustified and giving rise to damages. The Committee reminds the Government that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference will be inadequate if they are not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are dissuasive enough to ensure their application. It requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, and particularly on the amounts of damages that have been granted to workers in redress for anti-trade union discrimination or interference by employers.

Article 4. 1. Collective bargaining on the deduction of trade union dues. The Committee notes that, since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there is no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee notes that the Government does not specify whether, as a result of the abolition of check-off in 1991, trade union organizations are barred from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and the transfer of dues to unions is not an issue that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining, and requests the Government to indicate whether the abolition of check-off in 1991 has led to such exclusion.

2. The Committee notes that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee must produce within seven days a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible. Furthermore, section 246 of the Labour Code provides that if it is not challenged by the parties to the dispute within four clear days of its notification to them, the report will become binding. The Committee requests the Government to specify what happens if one of the parties challenges the report within the prescribed time limit.

Article 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee notes that, according to section 2 of the Labour Code, persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code, and for contractual public employees exercise of the right to strike will be governed by special legislative provisions applying to the public administration. The Committee further notes that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of title VIII (settlement of labour disputes) of the Labour Code apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing workers governed by the Labour Code.

With regard to Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that a distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 200). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to provide the legislation applying to employees in the public administration who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in respect of the rights laid down in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

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

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

The Committee notes the Government’s first report with interest.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that according to section 210(1) of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996, employers shall not take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the grant of social benefits, disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also notes that section 210(3) of the Labour Code provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravenes subsections (1) and (2), will be treated as unjustified and giving rise to damages. The Committee reminds the Government that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference will be inadequate if they are not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are dissuasive enough to ensure their application. It requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, and particularly on the amounts of damages that have been granted to workers in redress for anti-trade union discrimination or interference by employers.

Article 4. 1. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there is no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. According to the Government, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee notes that the Government does not specify whether, as a result of the abolition of check-off in 1991, trade union organizations are barred from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and the transfer of dues to unions is not an issue that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining, and requests the Government to indicate whether the abolition of check-off in 1991 has led to such exclusion.

2. The Committee notes that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee must produce within seven days a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible. Furthermore, section 246 of the Labour Code provides that if it is not challenged by the parties to the dispute within four clear days of its notification to them, the report will become binding. The Committee requests the Government to specify what happens if one of the parties challenges the report within the prescribed time limit.

Article 6. The Committee notes that, according to section 2 of the Labour Code, persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code, and for contractual public employees exercise of the right to strike will be governed by special legislative provisions applying to the public administration. The Committee further notes that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of title VIII (settlement of labour disputes) of the Labour Code apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing workers governed by the Labour Code.

With regard to Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that a distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 200). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to provide the legislation applying to employees in the public administration who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in respect of the rights laid down in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s first report with interest.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that according to section 210(1) of the Labour Code as amended by Act No. 6-96 of 6 March 1996, employers shall not take into consideration membership of a trade union or the performance of trade union duties in taking decisions regarding, inter alia, hiring, conduct, distribution of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and the grant of social benefits, disciplinary measures and dismissal. Section 210(2) of the Labour Code prohibits acts of interference against workers’ organizations. The Committee also notes that section 210(3) of the Labour Code provides that any measure taken by an employer that contravenes subsections (1) and (2), will be treated as unjustified and giving rise to damages. The Committee reminds the Government that it considers that legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination and interference will be inadequate if they are not accompanied by prompt and efficient procedures and sanctions that are dissuasive enough to ensure their application. It requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 210(3) of the Labour Code, and particularly on the amounts of damages that have been granted to workers in redress for anti-trade union discrimination or interference by employers.

Article 4. 1. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, since the check-off system was abandoned in 1991, there is no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay. The Government also states in its report that, in practice, all unionized workers are expected to pay their dues to the trade union office. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not specify whether, as a result of the abolition of check-off in 1991, trade union organizations are barred from negotiating procedures allowing trade union dues to be deducted from members’ pay. The Committee reminds the Government that the deduction of trade union dues by employers and the transfer of dues to unions is not an issue that should be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining, and requests the Government to indicate whether the abolition of check-off in 1991 has led to such exclusion.

2. The Committee notes that section 245 of the Labour Code provides that when a collective dispute is referred to it, the Recommendations Committee must produce within seven days a report that includes recommendations to the labour inspector or the official responsible. Furthermore, section 246 of the Labour Code provides that if it is not challenged by the parties to the dispute within four clear days of its notification to them, the report will become binding. The Committee requests the Government to specify what happens if one of the parties challenges the report within the prescribed time limit.

Article 6. The Committee notes that, according to section 2 of the Labour Code, persons with indefinite appointments in the public administration are not subject to the Labour Code, and for contractual public employees exercise of the right to strike will be governed by special legislative provisions applying to the public administration. The Committee further notes that section 248-13 provides that the provisions of title VIII (settlement of labour disputes) of the Labour Code apply to the staff of public or private enterprises, bodies and establishments where such enterprises, bodies and establishments are responsible for the management of a service employing workers governed by the Labour Code.

With regard to Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that a distinction should be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 200). The Committee accordingly asks the Government to provide the legislation applying to employees in the public administration who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code in respect of the rights laid down in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

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