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) - Guinea (Ratificación : 1959)

Otros comentarios sobre C087

Observación

Solicitud directa

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 new Labour Code (Act No. L/2014/072/CNT of 10 January 2014).

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that its previous comments related to the need to take measures to establish an independent body having the confidence of the parties which can rapidly resolve any disagreements between parties with respect to the determination of the minimum service in the transport and communication services. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its 2015 report that a national forum has validated the work of a tripartite initiative committee which formulated a National Social Dialogue Charter, internal regulations and a framework for concerted social dialogue. In the view of the Government, this framework for concerted social dialogue, which enjoys the confidence of the parties, could have the function of preventing and resolving disputes, including those relating to the determination of minimum services in the event of disagreement between the parties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the determination of minimum services in the context of collective disputes by the framework for concerted social dialogue, and particularly to indicate the minimum services determined in the transport and communications services, where difficulties had previously been reported.

The Committee notes that, in the event of the failure of conciliation prior to a strike, under the terms of section 431(5) of the Labour Code, employed persons have the right to cease working completely, subject to ensuring indispensable security measures and a minimum service. In this regard, the Committee reminds the Government that the maintenance of minimum services in the event of a strike should only be possible in certain situations, namely: (i) in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (or essential services “in the strict sense of the term”); (ii) in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term, but in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration could cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence of the population; and (iii) in public services of fundamental importance (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 136). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 431(5) of the Labour Code in order to limit the possibilities of establishing a minimum service to the situations recalled above, and to report any progress achieved in this respect.

The Committee notes that, under the terms of sections 433(1) and 434(4) of the Labour Code, read jointly, recourse to arbitration may be compulsory in the following cases: (i) in a dispute of such a nature as to compromise the normal functioning of the national economy; (ii) in a strike in services the interruption of which could endanger life, personal safety and health; and (iii) during a period of acute national crisis. In this regard, the Committee recalls that compulsory recourse to arbitration to bring an end to a collective labour dispute or a strike is only acceptable in cases where strikes may be subject to restrictions, or even prohibited, namely: (i) in the case of disputes concerning public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (ii) in conflicts in essential services in the strict sense of the term; or (iii) in situations of acute national or local crisis, but only for a limited period of time and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 153). The Committee also notes that the possibility envisaged in section 434(4) of the Labour Code to make executory an arbitration award despite the expressed opposition of one of the parties within the time period set out in the law amounts to empowering the public authorities to bring an end to a strike or a lock-out, instead of the highest judicial authorities, which in the view of the Committee is not compatible with the Convention. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 434(4) of the Labour Code as indicated above, and to report any progress achieved in this regard.