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

The Committee notes the Government's report received in the Office on 18 October 1990, and the comments of the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (USS), made in a communication dated 5 February 1991.

According to the Government, the legislation does not establish a conciliation or arbitration procedure through which public servants (who are forbidden to strike by section 23(1) of the Federal Act of 30 June 1927 respecting the conditions of service of federal employees) may defend their economic and social interests and put their claims to an impartial body that issues binding awards. The Committee also notes, from the information supplied by the Government in its report, that following a two-week go-slow in September 1989 by the Swiss Locomotive Mechanics Union, 20 strikers were sentenced to disciplinary measures by the court of first instance, ranging from reprimands to suspension, with a corresponding reduction in wages.

The USS states that, in its opinion, there is no justification for the denial of the right to strike in the federal administration and in many cantonal administrations, and that the situation is made worse by the lack of conciliation and arbitration procedures. The "peace at work" referred to by the Government can only be a result of a full negotiating process and cannot be based on restrictions that are imposed on the staff of the public services. The USS affirms that the trade unions of employees in the public service maintain their refusal of the absolute prohibition of strikes and that their latest action in 1986 to have the legislation amended was unproductive, as were several previous such interventions.

1. In the opinion of the Committee, the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services would become meaningless if the legislation defined the public service or essential services too broadly. The Committee therefore points out that the prohibition should be confined to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Moreover, workers who are thus denied one of the essential means of defending their occupational interests should be afforded, to offset these restrictions, adequate impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage and in which the awards should in all cases be binding on both parties. Such awards, once rendered, should be rapidly and fully implemented (1983 General Survey, para. 214).

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that it intends to take to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention in the sense of the above comments.

2. With regard to the sanctions imposed upon railwaymen for striking, the Committee recalls that by virtue of Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention, workers' organisations, subject to the reservations referred to above, shall have the right to organise in full freedom their activities to further and defend the interests of their members - which should include being able to exercise the right to strike - and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. The Committee notes that the workers appear in this case to have been subjected to disciplinary sanctions for undertaking a go-slow which, by the Government's admission, only slightly disturbed traffic.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the circumstances of this affair and to supply it with the text of the rulings relating to the appeals made by the workers concerned. It also requests it to indicate whether the courts have handed down other decisions concerning cases of disciplinary sanctions for strikes or similar action.