Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2003, Publicación: 92ª reunión CIT (2004)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the need to amend sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the Minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting any strike action, under penalty of imprisonment, and which permit injunctions against a legal strike when the national interest is threatened or affected, as well as the overly broad list of essential services in the Labour Code. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication in its latest report that the interruption of all these services on the list of essential services in the Labour Code would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Government further stated that the Minister is obliged to refer disputes to binding arbitration in cases of acute national crisis.

On the matter of essential services, the Committee notes the inclusion of the government printing office and the port authority in the list and considers that such services cannot be considered to be essential in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 160 of its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining wherein it states that, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which would be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. As concerns the Minister’s power to refer disputes in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee notes that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to the court under sections 19 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act would appear to apply to situations going beyond the notion of an acute national crisis. Under section 19(1), this authority of the Minister appears to be discretionary, since under section 21 this power may be used in the national interest which would appear to be broader than the strict notion of a specific situation of acute national crisis where the restrictions imposed must be for a limited period and only to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey, 1994, paragraph 152).

In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the power of the Minister to refer a dispute to binding arbitration resulting in a ban on strike action is restricted to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in case of an acute national crisis. It further requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that a binding referral of a collective dispute to the court can only be made at the request of both parties, and not any one of the parties as appears to be the case in section 19(2).

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.