Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2016, Publicación: 106ª reunión CIT (2017)

Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (núm. 87) - Turkmenistán (Ratificación : 1997)

Otros comentarios sobre C087

Observación

2022

Solicitud directa

2018
2016
2012
2010

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.

The Committee notes the following new laws: the Law on Organizing and Holding Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations and Other Mass Events (2015), the Law on Public Associations (2014) and the Law on Trade Unions (2013).

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. Trade union monopoly. The Committee had previously noted that the Government’s report seemed to imply that there was only one trade union centre in Turkmenistan, the National Centre of Trade Unions of Turkmenistan (NCTUT) and requested the Government to indicate whether workers could create a trade union organization outside of that structure. The Committee notes with interest that pursuant to section 11 of the Law on Trade Unions, trade unions may create trade union centres, unions and other associations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no application for the registration of other independent unions has been submitted to the Ministry of Justice since 1996, when the NCTUT was registered. It further notes that while section 12 of the Law on Trade Unions clearly provides that the state registration is carried out by the Ministry of Justice, the Government indicates that the NCTUT registers sectoral trade unions and provides them with general guidance. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether in practice, there is an obligation imposed on all unions to be members of the NCTUT, and the role of the latter in establishing and registering trade unions in the country.

Article 3. Right of organizations to organize their administration without interference by the public authorities. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 27(3) of the Law on Public Associations (applicable to employers’ organizations), upon a request from the Ministry of Justice, public associations must submit copies of decisions taken by their governing bodies and officers, as well as reports about their operations. A similar provision is contained in section 16(2) of the Law on Trade Unions. The Committee considers that these provisions give the authorities powers of control which go beyond those acceptable under the Convention. In this respect, it recalls that the supervision of workers’ and employers’ organizations should be limited to the obligation of submitting periodic financial reports or, if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law (which should not infringe the principles of freedom of association), such verification should be limited to exceptional cases, for example, in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement, and should not take the form of permanent control by the authorities. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend sections 16(2) of the Law on Trade Unions and 27(3) of the Law on Public Associations, in so far as it applies to employers’ organizations, to ensure the application of the principle above. It requests the Government to report on all measures taken or envisaged to that end.

Right to strike. The Committee had previously noted that the provisions of the Labour Code concerning collective labour disputes did not refer to the right to strike; that according to the Government, collective labour disputes were resolved through mediation or in case of a failure, in courts; that the parties could not refuse to participate in dispute resolution procedures; and that there were no registered cases of strikes in the country. The Committee considered in this respect that while strike action was not an end in itself, it was an essential means available to workers and their organizations to protect their interests. It further considered that in so far as compulsory arbitration, including through judicial proceedings, prevents strike action, it was contrary to the right of trade unions to organize freely their activities and could only be justified in the public service for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, in order to ensure the application of this principle in law and in practice. The Committee notes that the Government considers the Committee’s request to be beyond the scope of the Convention and reiterates the information it had previously provided. The Committee recalls that the matters raised fall within its well-recognized mandate to undertake an impartial and technical analysis of how the Convention is applied in law and practice for all ratifying member States and once again requests the Government to indicate all measures taken or envisaged to ensure the application of the abovementioned principle in law and in practice.