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

Referring to its previous comments on the dispute settlement procedure which empowers the Minister, at the request of one of the parties only, to submit unresolved disputes to binding arbitration after the conciliation stage (sections 27 and 34 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976), the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that the initiation of the arbitration procedure does not prevent trade unions from calling strikes or engaging in other types of industrial action to press their claims. According to the Government, these provisions are intended to protect the weaker party in disputes, particularly where the stronger party is not prepared to accept arbitration.

The Committee points out, however, that binding arbitration procedures, whether or not preceded by a conciliation stage, must be designed to facilitate bargaining between the two sides. This means that it is for the parties to decide whether or not they wish to refer any matters in dispute to binding arbitration.

The Committee notes with interest that the Government is currently examining the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act with the intention of introducing amendments and that its comments will be taken into consideration in this re-examination. The Committee requests the Government once again to indicate in its next report the legislative measures that have been taken to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention by establishing a system in which recourse to binding arbitration involving the prohibition or interruption of strikes is confined to: (a) public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority; (b) essential services, namely those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; (c) situations of acute national crisis; or (d) cases in which both parties request such arbitration.