Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2021, Publicación: 110ª reunión CIT (2022)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - Guinea-Bissau (Ratificación : 1977)

Otros comentarios sobre C098

Observación

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Sufficiently dissuasive penalties. The Committee had noted the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) pointing to the inadequate provisions in the General Labour Act regarding protection against anti-union discrimination, as well as the observations of the National Workers Union of Guinea (UNGT-CS) referring to the need to strengthen the capacity of the general labour inspectorate and the courts to enforce the labour legislation. Noting the Government’s indication that progress needed to be made in this regard, the Committee requested the Government to take all necessary measures to reinforce protection mechanisms against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new Labour Code contains various provisions on protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. At the same time, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that no measures have been taken to reinforce protection mechanisms against acts of anti-union discrimination, while stating that it has noted the Committee’s recommendations and will communicate additional information when measures have been taken in this area. The Committee observes in this regard that although the Labour Code provides a special protection for workers’ representatives against acts of anti-union discrimination, with penalties that could be sufficiently dissuasive, such as reintegration and/or compensation (sections 398, 401 and 402), the Code does not precisely define penalties to be imposed in case of anti-union discrimination against other workers. The Committee also observes that section 48(2) of the Freedom of Association Act (Law No. 08/91) provides for fines of between 100,000.00 PG and 1,000,000.00 PG (the approximate equivalent of US$2.64 to US$26.37) in cases of anti-union discrimination, the very low amount of which cannot be considered a sufficiently dissuasive penalty. Recalling the importance of effective and rapid procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to prevent and redress all acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to specify which protection mechanisms and penalties are applicable, by virtue of the new Labour Code or any other legal provision, in case of anti-union discrimination against any worker arising from his or her union affiliation or participation in union activities. In the event of section 48(2) of Act No. 8/91 remaining the applicable provision, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this section so as to increase the amounts of the fines imposed to a level adequate to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive penalty against acts of anti-union discrimination.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. Sufficiently dissuasive penalties. The Committee welcomes the fact that section 445 of the new Labour Code explicitly prohibits all the acts of anti-union interference covered in Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes however that the Code does not provide precise definitions of the applicable penalties. It also observes that section 48(1) of the Freedom of Association Act (Law No. 8/91) provides for a fine of between 250,000.00 PG and 2,500,000.00 PG (the approximate equivalent of US$6.59 to US$65.91 for violations of section 5(1) and (2) of this law, which prohibit acts of anti-union interference. In this regard, the Committee considers that the amount of this fine does not represent a sufficiently dissuasive penalty. The Committee requests the Government to specify the penalties, under the new Labour Code or any other legal provision, which are applicable in case of anti-union interference. In the event of section 48(1) of Act No. 8/91 remaining the applicable provision, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this section so as to increase the amounts of the fines imposed to a level adequate to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive penalty against acts of anti-union interference.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Compulsory arbitration. The Committee observes that section 496 of the new Labour Code foresees various situations where, within the framework of collective bargaining, compulsory arbitration may be requested by one of the parties or imposed by the authorities. The Committee recalls in this regard that compulsory arbitration in the framework of collective bargaining is only acceptable for public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), in essential services in the strict sense of the term (services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) and in situations of acute national crisis. On this basis, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the definition of essential services mentioned in section 496(c); and the implementation in practice of the different paragraphs of the same section.