Interim Report - Report No 307, June 1997

1. 88. In a communication dated 7 March 1996, the National Union of Public Sector Workers (NUPW) submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Barbados. The Public Service International supported the complaint in a communication dated 29 March 1996. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 27 May 1997.
2. 89. Barbados has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 90. In its communication of 7 March 1996, the NUPW alleges that the Government of Barbados has departed from any established collective bargaining practices by unilaterally imposing pay increases on the majority of public workers.
2. 91. According to the NUPW, it submitted by letter dated 5 May 1995, comprehensive proposals for increased pay, the payment of a productivity bonus and improved employment conditions to form the basis for negotiations for a collective agreement. The NUPW alleges that after four meetings (30 June 1995; 14 July 1995; 6 December 1995; and 26 January 1996), the Government proceeded to the House of Assembly and unilaterally imposed pay increases on the majority of public workers. According to the NUPW, the Government's various excuses for the reprehensible action included:
   • (i) that the other workers' organizations had reached agreement with it;
   • (ii) that the NUPW's membership constitutes a minority of the public workers;
   • (iii) that Government wanted a determination of public workers' pay before the new Financial Year (1 April);
   • (iv) that there cannot be a two-tier pay system in the public service.
3. 92. The NUPW further alleges that although there are six other workers' organizations that have accreditation as bargaining bodies, the complainant's membership is substantially larger than the combined membership of the other organizations and that they transcend more categories of workers.
4. 93. Finally, the NUPW claims that the Government's persistent refusal to genuinely discuss the merits or otherwise of a productivity bonus is contrary to the provisions of two Protocols on Pay and Prices (section 3(e) of 1991-93 Protocol and section 3(f) of 1995-97 Protocol).

B. The Government's reply

1. 94. In a communication dated 27 May 1997, the Government indicates that contrary to the complainant's claim, the Government did reach an agreement with a majority of trade union bodies representing the majority of civil servants.
2. 95. As far as the allegations of the Government's refusal to genuinely discuss the merits or otherwise of a productivity bonus are concerned, the Government indicates that after having reached an agreement with the social partner for the period 1993-95, in April 1995, continued fragile economic conditions dictated that the social partners enter into a second protocol for the implementation of a prices and income policy (1995 to 1997) to succeed the one which expired in March 1995. After these negotiations, a second protocol was signed for the period 1995-97 in which increases, including a productivity bonus, were granted and accepted by the majority of trade union bodies representing the majority of civil servants.
3. 96. Finally, the Government indicates that it did not act in bad faith nor in a manner contrary to the protocol and that it could not pay the members of the complainant at one rate and members of the umbrella body of trade unions at another rate.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 97. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case refer to restrictions on collective bargaining in the public sector by the Government which imposed unilaterally a new wage plan on the majority of public workers.
2. 98. The Committee first would like to recall the importance which it attaches to the obligation to negotiate in good faith for the maintenance of the harmonious development of labour relations as well as the importance to make every effort to reach an agreement (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 814). The Committee is aware that collective bargaining in the public sector calls for verification of the available resources in the various public bodies or undertakings, that such resources are dependent upon state budgets and that the period of duration of collective agreements in the public sector does not always coincide with the duration of budgetary laws. However, it considers that the authorities should give preference as far as possible to collective bargaining in determining the conditions of employment of public servants (see Digest, op. cit., para. 899).
3. 99. In this respect, the Committee notes that before proceeding to the House of Assembly and imposing a new wage plan on the public workers, the Government had four meetings with the complainant organization over a period of seven months. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government had reached an agreement with six other workers' organizations. While the question as to whether or not one party adopts an amenable or uncompromising attitude towards the other party is a matter for negotiation between the parties, both employers and trade unions should bargain in good faith making every effort to reach an agreement (see Digest op. cit., para. 817). Therefore, the Committee cannot conclude from the allegations at hand that the Government had refused collective bargaining altogether, nor can it see that the Government had negotiated in deliberate bad faith.
4. 100. With regard to the allegation that a minority agreement between the Government and other public sector bargaining bodies was imposed on the general public services, this raises the question of the recognition of the most representative organizations in an industrial relations system, according to which the negotiating agent representing the most representative trade unions has a priority with regard to collective bargaining. While the NUPW claims that its membership is larger than the other workers' organizations that have accreditation as bargaining bodies, the Government seems to claim that the NUPW's membership constitutes a minority of the public workers. Concerning this aspect of the case, the Committee recalls that the competent authorities should, in all cases, be able to proceed to an objective verification of any claim by a union that it represents the majority of the workers in an undertaking, provided that such a claim appears to be plausible. Therefore, since there seems to be a fundamental disagreement on this issue between the complainant organization and the Government, the Committee considers that the Government should proceed to such a verification as to whether or not the NUPW represents the majority of the workers in the public sector. The Committee requests the Government to send it the results of this verification.