Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 283, Junio 1992

1. 212. The Confederation for Unity, Recognition, and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE) presented a complaint alleging the violation of trade union rights against the Government of the Philippines in a communication dated 6 December 1991.
2. 213. The Government sent its observations on the allegations in a communication of 28 February 1992.
3. 214. The Philippines has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 215. In its communication of 6 December 1991 the complainant organisation alleges that government workers in the Philippines suffer from anti-union discrimination, do not have the right to strike, and have seen their trade union rights restricted.
2. 216. The complainant explains that it was established in 1986 by a group of government workers' organisations for the purpose of confronting the planned reorganisation of the government bureaucracy that would probably have resulted in massive layoffs in the absence of any protest by the workers concerned. The Confederation's efforts led to the adoption of Act No. 6656, whose provisions protect the security of tenure for civil service officers and employees in the implementation of government reorganisation. According to the complainant, this outcome convinced government workers of the value of forming into occupational organisations as a shield against repression and of the powerful effect of the strike as a weapon for obtaining better conditions of employment.
3. 217. The complainant states that the Government's response to the rising militancy among government workers and the growing number of claims for the right to strike was Executive Order No. 180. This Order was issued by the President before the new Philippine Congress was convened and therefore has force of law. It recognises the right of government workers to organise, but limits the form in which they can bargain collectively by prohibiting their right to strike. This Order was supplemented by Memorandum Circular No. 6, issued by the Civil Service Commission; it also prohibits government workers from resorting to strikes and further limits their means of action.
4. 218. The complainant states that the adoption of these texts did not deter its members from engaging in organised actions to address the concerns of workers in the public sector. On the contrary, these workers have focused their struggles on protecting the basic human and constitutional right to self-organise and to engage in collective bargaining and other peaceful concerted forms of activity.
5. 219. The complainant alleges that in the course of asserting their economic and democratic rights, 122 government workers have been subjected to administrative proceedings, which resulted in sanctions ranging from suspension to dismissal. In particular, on 4 and 14 September 1990, 113 employees of the National Parks Development Committee were dismissed for having participated in a protest demonstration on 30 July 1990 in support of the implementation of the Wage Standardisation Act. On 8 September 1990 the Civil Service Commission ruled that 46 workers dismissed on 4 September 1990 should be reinstated, without any loss of rights.
6. 220. The complainant also reports that nine union leaders, employees of the National Housing Authority (NHA), were placed on temporary suspension for staging a "trade union week" celebration and exerting pressure on NHA management to grant benefits due to the employees. It states that the NHA management simultaneously filed a civil suit against the union officers and that all union demands were granted by management after the civil and administrative actions were initiated. According to the complainant, as of the date of the complaint (6 December 1991), 76 of those concerned (the 67 employees of the National Parks Development Committee dismissed on 14 September 1990 and the nine employees of the NHA) were still dismissed or suspended.
7. 221. Another allegation concerns the refusal of the Metro Manila Authority to recognise SAKAMAY (Association of Employees in Greater Manila, an association of street sweepers and garbage collectors), as the sole collective bargaining agent, in violation of a resolution adopted on 14 March 1991 by the Public Sector Labor-Managment Council, a body mandated to resolve all labour-management disputes in the government service. According to this resolution, SAKAMAY "is the sole and exclusive bargaining unit within the Metro Manila Authority and (should) be accorded all rights and privileges of accredited unions". The complainant also states that SAKAMAY has consistently protested against graft and corruption, ineptness and abuse of authority, union-busting and unfair labour practices in the Metro Manila Authority.
8. 222. More generally, the complainant states that the national Constitution guarantees the right of all workers to organise and to have recourse to strikes. Even if Memorandum Circular No. 6 is aimed at providing temporary guidelines in the absence of any enabling legislation to execute the constitutional provision, as pointed out by the Civil Service Commission, the complainant organisation considers that this measure is nothing but an attempt to deceive government workers into believing that the necessary laws will soon be passed. Almost five years have passed since the Constitution was ratified and no enabling legislation has yet been adopted to protect the constitutional rights of workers. It consequently requests that the necessary legislation be rapidly promulgated to give effect to the constitutional provisions.

B. The Government's reply

1. 223. In its communication of 28 February 1992 the Government replies to the allegations by quoting verbatim the observations of the Acting Chairman of the Civil Service Commission - which has competence over government workers - concerning this matter:
   • First of all, the Commission takes exception to the (above-mentioned) complaint and strongly maintains that under the present dispensation, there is no repression of the rights of government workers. On the contrary, the Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, through Resolution No. 89-204, strongly espouses the right of government workers to self-organisation and aims to ensure existence, growth and development not of any kind of public sector unionism in the country, but more importantly, a responsible public sector unionism. Thus, it is presently undertaking an intensive labour education programme which seeks to make government employees aware of their right to form and organise unions, on the one hand, and at the same time, open the eyes of management for them to regard unions not as obstacles to management programmes but as partners to social and economic progress. The Commission likewise encourages both union and management to avail themselves of its services, particularly in the areas of grievance handling and collective negotiations. Towards this end, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 45, series of 1989, was issued mandating the installation/reinstallation of grievance machinery in all government agencies to help make certain that the complaints of government workers are properly handled. Memorandum Circular Nos. 47 and 55, series of 1990, were also adopted providing guidelines for conciliation assistance and procedure on how to judiciously exercise the right to collective negotiations in the public sector. The Commission is not aware of any harassment by the Government of "striking employees" as claimed by COURAGE. The records of the Commission show that of more than 100 cases involving employee-management relation disputes, only a few remain irreconcilable and are now under arbitration by the Public Sector Labor-Management Council. Most cases are resolved through the conciliation process and ended up in compromise agreements satisfying both parties, thus restoring and maintaining harmonious relationship between them.
   • Secondly, the Commission fully agrees with the need to operationalise the provisions of the 1987 Constitution on the exercise of the right to strike in the public sector and hence, for Congress to pass the enabling law on said right to give it meaning and efficacy. The Commission has been doing its share for the last two years as evidenced by the various representations it has made before Congress for the passage of the New Civil Service Code incorporating provisions granting government workers the right to strike, under certain conditions.
   • Finally, the present Congress will soon adjourn. It is very remote that the New Civil Service Code will be promulgated. However, it is believed that with the combined support of the International Labour Organisation, the Civil Service Commission, and the Department of Labor and Employment, the New Civil Code which was not acted upon by the present Philippine Legislature will be finally passed by the succeeding Congress.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 224. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case essentially concern the denial to government workers of the right to strike and acts of anti-union discrimination for participating in strikes and other forms of trade union protest.
2. 225. As regards the prohibition of strikes by government workers, the Committee notes that the Government admits that legislative measures have not yet been adopted to implement the constitutional provisions which guarantee all workers the right to strike. In particular, the Committee notes that the Civil Service Commission has sought to make available grievance machinery and procedures to enable the authorities and government workers to resolve their disputes, and that it admits the need to implement the constitutional provisions which recognise the right to strike in the public sector, as well as the duty of the National Assembly to adopt enabling legislation. The Committee also notes that over the past two years the Commission has made various representations before Congress for the passage of a new Civil Service Code which would grant government workers the right to strike in certain circumstances.
3. 226. While welcoming these initiatives, the Committee must recall that, at its May 1991 meeting, it already examined a complaint concerning the prohibition of strikes and protest action in the public sector. It regrets that the Government has not given effect to the corresponding recommendations (see 278th Report, para. 173), and that it must again point out that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for promoting and defending their economic and social interests. (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 363.) As regards the denial of the right to strike for government employees, the Committee recalls that it has recognised that the right to strike may be restricted or even prohibited in the civil service - civil servants being those who act on behalf of the public authorities - or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (Digest, para. 394). Consequently, the Committee again urges the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to implement article XIII(3) of the Constitution, which grants all workers the right to strike, and to define the modalities for the exercise of this right in accordance with the principles of freedom of association.
4. 227. As regards the allegations according to which administrative proceedings were brought against 122 government workers who demanded the respect of their economic and democratic rights and resulted in sanctions including dismissals and suspensions, the Committee regrets that the Government has merely reported that the Civil Service Commission has stated that it is not aware of any harassment of striking government workers by the authorities.
5. 228. As regards the dismissals on 4 and 14 September 1990 of 113 employees of the National Parks Development Committee for having participated in a demonstration on 30 July 1990 for the purpose of demanding the implemention of the Wage Standardisation Act, and the 90-day suspension of nine employees of the National Housing Authority for having organised a "trade union week" celebration, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, 76 of these persons are still dismissed or suspended. The Committee also notes that a decision of the Civil Service Commission dated 8 September 1990 ordered the reinstatement, without loss of rights, of 46 of the workers dismissed on 4 September 1990.
6. 229. The Committee considers that the use of extremely serious measures, such as dismissal of workers for having participated in a strike and refusal to re-employ them, implies a serious risk of abuse and constitutes a violation of freedom of association (Digest, para. 444). Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to have the competent authorities review the decisions to dismiss and suspend workers, and to reinstate those who were punished for engaging in trade union activities. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to implement the decision taken by the Civil Service Commission on 8 September 1990, which ordered the reinstatement of 46 employees of the National Parks Development Committee who had been dismissed on 4 September 1990. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this connection.
7. 230. As regards the allegation according to which the Metro Manila Authority refused to recognise SAKAMAY (Association of Employees in Greater Manila, composed of street sweepers and garbage collectors) as the sole collective bargaining agents in this agency, in violation of the resolution adopted on 14 March 1991 by the Public Sector Labor-Management Council, the Committee regrets that the Government has furnished no comments on this allegation. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to guarantee that SAKAMAY is recognised, in accordance with the resolution of the Public Sector Labor-Management Council, as the collective bargaining agent, and to keep it informed of developments in this connection.