Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2000, Publicación: 89ª reunión CIT (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments and that the Government merely reiterates in its latest report that tripartite consultations are in progress to codify labour laws to ensure their compatibility with the Convention. The Committee expresses, once again, the hope that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous observation which concerned the following.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization and for these organizations to organize their administration and activities and formulate their programmes.  The Committee’s previous comments concerned the need to modify sections 11(3) and 12(1) of the Trade Union Ordinance of 1941, and section 3(4) of the Industrial Relations Act No. 299 of 1965, which, respectively, impose a single trade union system and grant the Registrar extensive powers regarding the registration of trade unions and the approval of negotiators. The Committee had noted the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee on Labour (NACL) to amend the sections in question.

The Committee had also noted that the Emergency Powers Act, 1994 (Act No. 472) allows prohibition in particular of public meetings and processions in areas which had been under a state of emergency. In this connection, the Committee recalled that recourse to a state of emergency may not be made to justify restrictions on the civil liberties that are essential to the proper exercise of trade union rights, except in circumstances of extreme gravity (acts of God, serious disruption of civil order, etc.) and on condition that any measures affecting the application of the Convention are limited in scope and duration to what is strictly necessary to deal with the situation in question (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 41). The Committee firmly hopes that measures will be taken at an early date to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures effectively taken in this connection.

The Committee had also noted that the procedure for resolving disputes as defined by the Act of 1965 provides under its section 18 for compulsory arbitration by the minister if one of the parties to the dispute thinks fit. In this regard, the Committee considers that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is acceptable either when called for by both parties to the dispute, or in cases where the strike may be limited, or even prohibited, that is in cases of conflict concerning public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in the case of acute national crisis. The Committee therefore requests once again the Government to amend its legislation regarding the resolution of disputes so as to restrict the minister’s authority to refer a dispute to compulsory arbitration to the cases listed above, and to transmit to it statistics on the number of strikes declared illegal, as well as the grounds for their illegality.

Finally, the Committee had noted that under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1965, a person declaring, instigating or inciting others to take part in a strike considered to be illegal is liable to a fine or of one year’s imprisonment, or both.

The Committee recalled in this regard that penal sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Any sanction applied as a result of activities arising from illegal strikes should be in proportion to the offence committed, and the authorities should not impose measures of imprisonment on those organizing or taking part in a peaceful strike (see General Survey, op. cit, paragraph 177). In an earlier report, the Government had indicated that, even though records available indicate that all strikes in Ghana have been illegal because of non-compliance with the dispute settlement procedure laid down in the Industrial Relations Act, 1965, no worker had been prosecuted on the grounds that he had embarked on strike action or incited others to strike. Noting once again the absence of comments by the Government in its latest report on this question, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with national practice and amend it accordingly and to keep it informed of all developments in this regard.