National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo
The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's latest report as well as the comments made by the Ceylon Workers' Congress, the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union, the Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya (National Employees' Union) and the Employers' Federation of Ceylon.
In its previous observation, the Committee had referred to the wide-ranging restrictions contained in the Emergency Regulations No. 1 of 6 January 1990 and had considered that these Regulations, contrary to Article 2 of the Convention, impaired the day-to-day functioning of workers representatives in the undertaking. While noting the Government's indication that such restrictions were necessary given the exceptional situation in the country, the Committee recalled that there was no provision in the Convention allowing the invocation of a state of emergency to justify exemption from the obligations arising under it, but that the ILO supervisory bodies have found that in circumstances of extreme gravity (e.g. serious disruption of civil order), restrictions may be justified on the conditions that they are limited in scope and duration to what is strictly necessary to deal with the situation in question. Once the acute emergency has subsided, bans or restrictions under state of emergency legislation should immediately be lifted. The Committee notes that several Emergency Regulations have been issued since its previous comments to supersede the earlier ones. The Committee trusts that any emergency restrictions on the functioning of and facilities available to workers' representatives have now been lifted and requests the Government to provide information in this respect in its next report.
The Committee notes the observation made by the Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya (National Employees' Union) in a communication dated 10 August 1992 relating to harassment of office-bearers by their employers. The Committee would recall that, in previous comments, it has drawn the Government's attention to the importance of effective protection of workers' representatives against any act prejudicial to them - including dismissal - based on their status or activities as workers' representatives and to the need to adopt measures in this regard beyond the approval and appeals procedures provided for in the Termination of Employment of Workmen (Special Provisions) Act, 1971, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1967. In its report for the period ending 30 June 1987, the Government indicated that the legislation would be reviewed and this matter pursued as soon as the situation prevailing in the country permitted. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government is now in a position to review its legislation and to take the necessary measures to ensure the protection of workers' representatives in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. The Government is requested to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.
The comments of the Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union dated 30 July 1992 have been examined by the Committee in 1994 under Convention No. 98.
[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]