Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 1991, Publicación: 78ª reunión CIT (1991)

The Committee notes the comments of the Ceylon Federation of Trade Unions dated 10 October 1990 alleging that workers' representatives need adequate legal protection to discharge their duties as such. It also notes the Government's reply to these comments.

The Federation indicates that workers' representatives' functions become impossible to carry out when the Government declares a state of emergency and prohibits the holding of union meetings, the distribution of union leaflets or any other trade union manifestations.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, article 14 of the national Constitution guarantees the exercise of fundamental rights subject to restrictions in times of public disorder. Such restrictions are imposed on the holding of meetings, the distribution of leaflets and the conducting of processions. The Committee also notes that the Government stresses the exceptional situation which has prevailed in Sri Lanka over the past few years.

The Committee would first note the wide-ranging restrictions contained in the Emergency (prevention of subversive political activity) Regulations No. 1 of 6 January 1990 which ban "any activity, politicial or otherwise, ... designed to adversely affect the due functioning of such workplace", any meeting or procession and the posting of any posters or signs, the penalty for non-compliance being imprisonment for a term of not less than three months and not exceeding five years and a fine of not less than 500 rupees and not exceeding 5,000 rupees. The Committee considers, as indicated by the Ceylon Federation of Trade Unions, that the day-to-day functioning of workers' representatives in undertakings has been impaired by the Emergency Regulations contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee, while taking into account the Government's justification for these restrictions on the rights of workers' representatives in the undertaking, would point out that the Convention makes no provision for derogation in times of civil unrest. At the same time, the Committee recalls that the ILO supervisory bodies have in similar exceptional factual situations accepted such restrictions as long as they are imposed for a limited period of time and are limited to the geographical areas directly affected by hostilities or public disorder. Once such an acute emergency has subsided, bans or restrictions under state of emergency legislation should immediately be lifted.

Accordingly, the Committee trusts that the Government's next report (due next year) will contain information on the lifting of the emergency restrictions on the functioning and facilities available to workers' representatives in the undertaking.

As regards the comments of the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union dated 4 December 1989, see the Committee's observation under Convention No. 98.