Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 1992, Publicación: 79ª reunión CIT (1992)

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:

1. With reference to its previous comments on the inclusion of the banana, citrus and coconut industries in the schedule of essential services, thereby denying the right to strike to workers employed in these sectors, the Committee notes with interest that by a decision dated 8 March 1988, economic activities have been deleted from the list of essential services (Schedule to the Industrial Relations Act No. 18 of 1986).

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the amending text.

2. Referring to its previous comments on the provisions of Act No. 18 empowering the Minister to refer a dispute to arbitration (which precludes recourse to strikes) where he is satisfied that there are serious questions to be settled and that the dispute would be more suitably resolved by submitting it to arbitration or quasi-judicial settlement, the Committee notes that the Government is giving active consideration to this issue, is discussing it and will forward a reply shortly.

In this respect, the Committe recalls its previous comments which read as follows:

In the Committee's view, enabling the Minister to use his discretion in referring a dispute to compulsory arbitration is liable to restrict the exercise of the right to strike and impair observance of Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention which provide that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of workers' and employers' organisations to promote and to defend their interests. The Committee considers that there should only be recourse to compulsory arbitration at the request of both parties to a dispute.

The Committee recalls that, if strikes are prohibited in essential services, such a prohibition must be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. However, this does not rule out the possibility of adopting measures when a prolonged stoppage of work in another sector of the economy is liable to cause an acute national crisis. Referring to its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining of 1983 (paragraph 215), the Committee again draws the Government's attention to the fact that, in such circumstances, the maintenance of a minimum service, restricted to operations that are strictly necessary and in whose definition the workers' and employers' organisations should be able to participate, could help overcome difficult situations.

Therefore, the Committee asks the Government once again to re-examine its legislation with a view to confining the prohibition of strikes to cases in which a prolonged stoppage of work resulting from the strike would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or to cases of acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to keep it informed, as soon as possible, of the results of the current discussions taking place on this issue.