Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 338, Noviembre 2005

1114. The complaint is contained in communications from the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF) dated 25 June and 29 August 2004.

1. 1115. The Government replied in communications dated 6 January and 30 August 2005.
2. 1116. Uganda recently ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). It has also ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 1117. In a communication dated 25 June 2004, the complainant alleged that Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. refused to recognize the Uganda Textiles, Garments, Leather and Allied Workers’ Union (UTGLAWU), a registered union. Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. was a Sri Lankan company which had started operating in Uganda in 2003. The Government of Uganda had given more than US$4 million in investment subsidies for exports under the United States “African Growth and Opportunity Act” and the President had taken a close personal interest in Tri-Star.
2. 1118. The complainant alleged that in July 2003, the UTGLAWU, mobilized 90 per cent of the workforce in order to address the inhuman working conditions at the plant. The UTGLAWU met with management to discuss a proposed recognition and disciplinary code agreement. However, the company refused to sign the draft agreement until the union proved it represented at least 51 per cent of the workforce and provided its membership list. The UTGLAWU refused, fearing that management would harass union members. During the following months, tension escalated at the company, resorting to intimidation tactics, including the dismissal of a number of workers.
3. 1119. The complainant added that in October 2003, the beating of a woman worker for an alleged lack of discipline sparked off a strike, during which workers locked themselves inside the factory dormitory. Workers demanded that the UTGLAWU be recognized in order to be able to negotiate improvements in the appalling working conditions. While the workers were locked in the factory, the company announced it would dismiss the entire workforce and close the factory. The union immediately applied for an injunction to prevent the company from terminating its employees until all their entitlements, including benefits and repatriation costs, had been paid (document attached; in a communication dated 29 August 2004, the complainant attached a copy of the interim injunction order dated 23 October issued by the High Court of Kampala; the order restrained the employer from terminating the services of the employees without paying all their dues, benefits and repatriation costs, until the hearing of the main application for a temporary injunction pending the hearing of the main suit).
4. 1120. The complainant further alleged that the sit in ended when police broke down the dormitory door. In retaliation, the company terminated the services of 293 workers, asking them to pack up their belongings and leave without pay (in a communication dated 29 August 2004, the complainant explained that the company terminated in fact the entire workforce of 1,900 workers and rehired them the next day on the basis of short-term contracts, except for the 293 workers who were not rehired; the workers were coerced into signing the contracts, as they were told that if they left the factory without doing so they would be considered to have ceased their employment – a sample contract was attached indicating an employment duration of three months). According to the complainant, the President was later reported in the press as saying that “he sacked the AGOA girls for their indiscipline and to prevent their action from scaring away investors”.
5. 1121. The complainant further alleged that following pressure from the dismissed workers, the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations, in a letter dated 27 October, called upon the company to settle the matter of the dismissed workers in a peaceful manner and in accordance with the law and to “show cause in writing within 28 days, why the trade union, namely, the Uganda Textiles, Garments, Leather and Allied Workers’ Union, is not being recognised by the Apparel Tri-Star Ltd.” (document attached).
6. 1122. According to the complainant, the Managing Director of Tri-Star Ltd. refused to attend meetings with various ministers, claiming to be an “untouchable figure” and saying he would “talk only to the President”. He even failed to attend a two-day conference convened by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s conference referred the matter to the Cabinet, with a recommendation for two options, either reinstating the workers or paying their severance benefits as per the Employment Act, i.e. a minimum package of UGX490,000 per person. However, the Cabinet confirmed the termination of the workers, with the payment of benefits in some cases as low as UGX15,000 which was not even enough to cover their repatriation costs.
7. 1123. The complainant added that in the meantime, the UTGLAWU requested once again a meeting with management to settle the issues of the recognition of the trade union and the negotiation of the Disciplinary Code. The company responded through its lawyers, saying that the union had not yet proven that it represented 51 per cent of the workforce and that the union had not been granted certification as a bargaining agent. The union submitted its members’ list to the Registrar of Trade Unions and, on 18 December 2003, the Commissioner for Labour, Employment and Industrial Relations wrote to the company asking it to submit by 24 December 2003 the list of the company’s workers eligible to join a union (document attached). By the time of the complaint, the company had failed to supply that list. As a result of the intervention of the Assistant Presidential Advisor on AGOA, a meeting was scheduled to take place on 22 March 2004. However, the company, acting through its lawyers, postponed the meeting again demanding proof that 51 per cent of its workforce were union members. Needless to say, the union had not been able to secure certification precisely because of the company’s refusal to submit its list of employees to the Registrar.
8. 1124. In a communication dated 29 August 2004, the complainant attached a further communication dated 13 May 2004 by the Commissioner of Labour, Employment and Industrial Relations addressed to Apparel Tri-Star Ltd., noting the following:
9. I had hoped that the issue of recognising the Textile union would be resolved without any industrial dispute, but it appears that you are dragging your feet in an apparent attempt to frustrate the freedom of association of your employees.
10. This Ministry has tried all means aimed at harmonizing the relationship between you and the employees who are represented by the above-mentioned union but to no avail. The workers’ right to freedom of association and their right to join trade unions has been brought to your attention through several correspondences, but you appear not to take these correspondences with the seriousness they deserve.
11. The purpose of this letter is once again to urge you to cooperate and expedite the process of freedom of association of your employees that is enshrined in the Uganda Constitution, which is the supreme law in this country.
12. The complainant added that the company’s lawyers replied once again that as long as UTGLAWU was not certified as representative, Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. had no obligation to recognize it.
13. 1125. In its communication of 25 June 2004, the complainant made further reference to the complaint of violations of freedom of association which it had submitted in 1998 against the Government of Uganda for failure to compel employers in the textile sector to recognize the UTGLAWU for the purposes of collective bargaining (Case No. 1996). The complainant recalled that the Trade Unions Decree No. 20 of 1976 contained provisions which impeded freedom of association: according to section 8(3) “no trade union shall be registered unless it is composed of not less than one thousand registered members” and according to section 19(1)(e) “every employer shall be bound to recognize a registered trade union to which at least 51 per cent of his employees have freely subscribed their membership and in respect of which the Registrar has issued a certificate under his hand certifying the same to be a negotiating body with which the employer is to deal in all matters affecting the relationship between the employer and those of his employees who fall within the scope of membership of the registered trade union”. The complainant added that, at the time, it had referred to a legal interpretation made by the Attorney General on 9 September 1997 in which he had gone as far as to say that the abovementioned provisions were void since they curtailed the rights of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution of 1995.
14. 1126. The complainant recalled from the conclusions and recommendations reached in Case No. 1996 that the Committee had requested the Government:
15. … to take the necessary measures to ensure that sections 8(3) and 19(1)(e) of the Trade Unions Decree of 1976 are amended in line with freedom of association principles enunciated in the preceding paragraphs. Noting the Government’s recognition that these provisions are not compatible with the new Ugandan Constitution of 1995 and that steps to address this problem are being taken within the framework of the labour law reform process currently taking place in the country, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.
16. 1127. With regard to the provisions on recognition for collective bargaining purposes (i.e. the abovementioned section 19(1)(e) of the Trade Unions Decree No. 20 of 1976), the complainant added that, in 1998, the Committee on Freedom of Association found that the requirement contained in the Trade Unions Decree that a union represent 51 per cent of the workforce in order to secure bargaining rights “does not promote collective bargaining in the sense of Article 4 of Convention No. 98 since there is a risk that collective bargaining may not take place in the eventuality that no trade union represents the absolute majority of the workers concerned”. The complainant emphasized that efforts by the trade union movement and the Federation of Ugandan Employers to review these obsolete laws over the past five years had not yielded any tangible results despite the recommendations reached in Case No. 1996.
17. 1128. The complainant criticized the persisting ambiguity regarding the legality of the provisions on union recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining, since the Government had already admitted that the provisions of the Trade Unions Decree were not in conformity either with the 1995 Constitution or with international labour standards and had indicated that it would endeavour to resolve this problem. This ambiguity had created an intolerable situation, where not even the authorities appeared to be clear about what legal requirements were currently in force. The provisions of the 1976 Decree had ceased to be counted as labour law. This ambiguity with regard to the legal requirements was reflected in the difference in the positions adopted by the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations and the Registrar of Trade Unions in the present case. Indeed, the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations, in his letter dated 27 October 2003, had asked the company to show cause why it had not recognized the union, and had stated that “the current Constitution of Uganda provides for no minimum percentage of willing workers to organise. That means that so long as any number of workers in an industry want to unionize, their will shall not be frustrated by whomsoever”. Meanwhile, however, the Registrar of Trade Unions, in his letter dated 18 December 2003, said that “the union claims that over and above 51 per cent of your eligible workers have voluntarily expressed willingness to join a trade union. It is our duty to verify the stated claim”. Moreover, in a communication dated 29 August 2004, the complainant attached a further letter by the Commissioner of Labour, Employment and Industrial Relations, dated 13 May 2004, urging the company to expedite the process of freedom of association enshrined in the Uganda Constitution, which he invoked as the “supreme law” in the country and a reply by the company’s lawyers once again invoking section 19(1) of the 1976 Trade Unions Decree in order to refuse the union’s request for recognition and collective bargaining.
18. 1129. The complainant further claimed a failure by the Government to enforce its own laws. The existence of legal provisions that undermined freedom of association, as well as the lack of clarity regarding the labour legislation, were aggravated according to the complainant, by the obvious lack of authority or will on the part of the Government to enforce its own laws. In the case under consideration, the union had met the requirements of the controversial section 19(1)(e) of the Trade Unions Decree. But it had been six months since the Trade Union Registrar had requested a list of employees in order to determine whether the union met the requirements. The company had failed to produce the list that was necessary for granting certification and then had repeatedly refused to meet with the union on the grounds that it did not have the necessary certification. The Government had not taken any action, such as fining the employer, in order to compel it to comply with its legal obligations.
19. 1130. The complainant furthermore alleged the abuse of the admissible privileges for most representative unions, contrary to the principles of freedom of association by refusing to even meet with the union, dealing instead through its lawyers.
20. 1131. Moreover, the complainant alleged a failure on the part of the Government to ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination were examined promptly, impartially, inexpensively and effectively. The existence of appalling working conditions and physical punishment, coupled with the company’s refusal to recognize the union in order to fix working conditions through collective bargaining or, indeed, to even meet with the union, had inevitably led to the strike that took place in October 2004. The subsequent firing of the 293 striking workers was a case of anti-union discrimination.
21. 1132. In conclusion, the complainant alleged that it was of great concern that, five years after the complaint submitted against the Government of Uganda on the same grounds, the situation had not changed. The deficiencies cited created an insecure environment for workers and discouraged them from trying to organize.
22. 1133. In a communication dated 29 August 2004, the complainant added that their affiliate had indicated that it did not have ready access to the labour legislation of Uganda, given that the Labour Code could only be purchased as a complete set of all Ugandan legislation, available from a single distributor at a cost of approximately US$1,000.
23. 1134. The complainant requested the Committee to look into the above matters and ensure that the Government took immediate and effective action to uphold the right of freedom of association of workers at Tri-Star and in the rest of the industry.
24. B. The Government’s reply
25. 1135. In a communication dated 6 January 2005 the Government indicated that the Ministry of Labour was taking steps to have the matter resolved, including requesting the management to show cause why it had not recognized the union. A letter had been sent but the reply to it was unsatisfactory. So the matter was now being handled at another level, and technical consultations were still going on with the office of the Export Led Growth Strategy Unit under which Apparel Tri-Star (Uganda) Ltd. operated. The Government added that it would keep the Committee informed on the progress regarding this matter.
26. 1136. In a communication dated 30 August 2005, the Government emphasized its commitment to the respect and promotion of fundamental principles and rights of workers as demonstrated by the ratification of Convention No. 87 on 2 June 2005. The Government added that it had taken the following steps to ensure that workers’ trade union rights were respected. First, on the directive of the Prime Minister, the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations held meetings with the employers in textiles and garments sector in March this year. This was followed up by a tour of some of the key industries in the textile and garments sector including Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. The Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations discussed with the employers the issue of unionization of workers in the country and sought the employers’ perspective on their failure to recognize trade unions. Second, the management of Apparels Tri-Star Ltd. was requested in writing by the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations to show cause why they were not recognizing the trade union and were given 28 days within which to respond. Third, after having received an unsatisfactory reply to the letter the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations ordered Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. to recognize the UTGLAWU in accordance with section 17(2) and (3) respectively, of the Trade Unions Act, 2000, Cap. 228 of the laws of Uganda, on 15 July 2005. Further to these steps, the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations met wit the President of Uganda on 22 August 2005 regarding the issue of union recognition and progress on the revision of the labour laws. The President directed that the labour law Bills including the labour unions Bill be tabled in Parliament in the month of September 2005. The Bills were at the time of the communication under active consideration in Parliament. Meanwhile, the relevant trade union had been informed of all these developments and advised to take appropriate necessary action to ensure recognition of the union.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1137. The Committee observes that this case concerns allegations that Apparel Tri-Star Ltd., a private company in the garment industry, refused to recognize the Uganda Textiles, Garments, Leather and Allied Workers’ Union (UTGLAWU) and resorted to intimidation tactics, including the dismissal of 293 workers, while the Government failed to enforce its own laws in respect of trade union recognition. The complainant also alleged an intolerable situation of persisting ambiguity with regard to the legal requirements for trade union recognition, and a lack of adequate machinery against anti-union discrimination.
2. 1138. The Committee notes that the complainant alleged that Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. repeatedly refused to meet and negotiate with the UTGLAWU, dealing with it instead through its lawyers on the pretext that the UTGLAWU had not proven its representativeness; at the same time, Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. allegedly prevented the UTGLAWU from proving its representativeness, either by failing to supply the list of workers eligible to join a union, or by resorting to intimidation tactics including dismissals. The complainant alleges that the company abused the admissible privileges for most representative unions (by refusing to meet with the union as long as the latter did not have the necessary certification of representativeness, while preventing it from obtaining such certification). The complainant claims moreover that the Government violated freedom of association principles by failing to enforce its own laws, for instance, through fines against the employer to compel it to comply with its legal obligations. Thus, it appears from the allegations that, although the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations, the Registrar and the Commissioner for Labour had sent several communications to Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. asking it to show cause in writing why it had not recognized the UTGLAWU (letter of 27 October 2003), produce the list of workers eligible to join a trade union (18 December 2003) and expedite the process of freedom of association (letter of 13 May 2004), the company responded by refusing to recognize the union as long as it was not certified, while refraining from the steps which were necessary to allow for the certification to take place; no enforcement measures were allegedly taken in response to this.
3. 1139. The Committee notes with interest from the Government’s reply that the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations took the following steps to have the matter resolved: (a) held meetings with the employers in the textiles and garments sector in March 2005 and sought their perspective on their failure to recognize trade unions; (b) requested in writing Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. to show case in writing why they were not recognizing the trade union and gave it 28 days to respond; (c) after an unsatisfactory response, ordered Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. on 15 July 2005 to recognize the UTGLAWU in accordance with section 17(2) and (3) of the Trade Unions Act, 2000.
4. 1140. The Committee notes in this respect that section 17(2) and (3) of the Trade Unions Act, 2000, provides for compulsory recognition of a union by an employer. In particular, section 17(2) provides that “[…] whenever an employer refuses to deal with a registered trade union as therein provided, the trade union shall report the facts to the Minister who shall call upon the employer to show cause in writing within twenty-eight days why the trade union is not being so recognized”. Section 17(3) provides that “[…] where the Minister is not satisfied with the cause shown by the employer under subsection (2) or the Minister considers that the public interest so requires, the Minister may, by statutory order and after informing the parties concerned, declare that the registered trade union shall deal in respect of all matters relating to the relations of the employer with those of his or her employees who fall within the scope of membership of that trade union”.
5. 1141. With regard to the Government’s statement that the union had been informed of these developments and had been advised to take appropriate necessary action to ensure its recognition, the Committee considers that it would appear that the UTGLAWU has already taken the necessary steps in this respect and that the matter is now in the hands of the Government. The Committee emphasizes that recognition by an employer of the main unions represented in the undertaking, or the most representative of these unions, is the very basis for any procedure for collective bargaining on conditions of employment in the undertaking. The competent authorities should, in all cases, have the power to proceed to an objective verification of any claim by a union that it represents the majority of the workers in an undertaking, provided that such a claim appears to be plausible. If the union concerned is found to be the majority union, the authorities should take appropriate conciliatory measures to obtain the employer’s recognition of that union for collective bargaining purposes [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 822, 824 and 846].
6. 1142. Noting with interest the steps taken so far by the Government to obtain the recognition of UTGLAWU by Apparel Tri-Star Ltd., in accordance with section 17(2) and (3) of the Trade Unions Act, 2000, the Committee expects that the Government will spare no effort until the recognition has been effectively obtained in line with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 ratified by Uganda. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.
7. 1143. The Committee further notes from the complainant’s allegations that a strike staged in October 2003 by the workers in Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. on claims that the company recognize the union and negotiate improvements in working conditions, ended up with the dismissal of 293 workers without pay (in fact, the company terminated the entire workforce of 1,900 workers and rehired them the next day except for 293 workers). Despite initiatives, including by the Minister of Labour in a letter dated 27 October 2003, to settle the matter in a peaceful manner, the Managing Director of Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. refused to attend meetings with various ministers and even a two-day conference convened by the Prime Minister on this issue, and claimed himself to be an “untouchable figure” invoking political connections. Although the Conference referred the matter to the Cabinet with a recommendation for either reinstatement or payment of severance benefits as per the Employment Act, i.e., a minimum of UGX490,000 per person, the Cabinet granted benefits sometimes as low as UGX15,000 which is not even enough to cover repatriation costs. The complainant thus claims that the Government failed to ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination were examined promptly, impartially, inexpensively and effectively.
8. 1144. The Committee notes that, in its reply, the Government does not refute that acts of anti-union discrimination might have taken place in the context of the strike claiming recognition of the UTGLAWU. The Committee also notes that the measures taken by the Government in this respect were confined essentially to mediation/conciliation, including a conference convened by the Prime Minister. The Committee therefore notes that, apparently, no impartial and prompt legal procedure was put in motion in order to verify the allegations of anti-union discrimination and apply any legal remedies.
9. 1145. The Committee recalls that the dismissal of workers on grounds of membership of an organization or trade union activities violates the principles of freedom of association and no person should be prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of membership of a trade union, even if that trade union is not recognized by the employer as representing the majority of workers concerned [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 693 and 702]. The Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and it must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned. In particular, respect for the principles of freedom of association clearly requires that workers who consider that they have been prejudiced because of their trade union activities should have access to means of redress which are expeditious, inexpensive and fully impartial [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 738 and 741].
10. 1146. The Committee regrets that no prompt and impartial legal procedure appears to have been put in motion as a result of allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination, in particular, as regards the dismissals of 293 workers at Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. in the context of a dispute with the UTGLAWU over trade union recognition. Taking into account the recommendations made by a conference convened by the Prime Minister on this issue, the Committee requests the Government to institute without delay an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the dismissals and if it is found that they were due to anti-union motives, to take all necessary measures for the reinstatement of the 293 dismissed workers in their posts without loss of pay, or if the investigation finds that reinstatement is not possible, to pay them their severance benefits as per the Employment Act. The Committee requests to be kept informed of developments in this respect.
11. 1147. As regards the other 1,607 workers who were dismissed by Apparel Tri-Star Ltd. pursuant to the staging of industrial action only to be rehired the following day on the basis of three-month contracts, the Committee requests the Government to institute without delay an independent investigation into the circumstances of this incident and, if it is found that the new contract these workers were forced to sign placed them in a comparatively prejudicial situation in relation to their previous terms and conditions of employment, and that such action was based on anti-union motives, to take all necessary measures of redress, including adequate compensation. The Committee requests to be kept informed of developments in this respect.
12. 1148. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures so as to prevent acts of anti-union discrimination in the future, in particular, to take appropriate legislative measures to ensure that a prompt, inexpensive and impartial mechanism of redress is at the disposal of workers who consider that they have been prejudiced because of their trade union activities.
13. 1149. With regard to the legislative aspects of this case, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, efforts over the past five years by both the trade union movement and the Federation of Ugandan Employers to revise sections 8(3) and 19(1)(e) of the Trade Unions Decree (on minimum membership and exclusive bargaining rights) have not yielded any tangible results despite the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations reached in Case No. 1996. The Committee recalls that, in that case, it had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sections 8(3) and 19(1)(e) of the Trade Unions Decree were amended in line with freedom of association principles and had noted the Government’s recognition that these provisions were not compatible with the new Ugandan Constitution of 1995 and that steps to address this problem were being taken within the framework of the labour law reform process currently under way. The Committee recalls that section 8(3) of the Trade Unions Decree, which sets out a minimum membership requirement of 1,000 registered members for trade union registration, was considered liable to jeopardize the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization; this was all the more likely to occur when section 8(3) was read in conjunction with section 19(1)(e) of the Trade Unions Decree which grants exclusive bargaining rights to a union representing 51 per cent of the employees concerned [see 316th Report, paras. 662, 664 and 669(a)]. The Committee had recalled in that case that a minimum membership requirement of 1,000 set out in the law for the granting of exclusive bargaining rights might be liable to deprive workers in small bargaining units or who are dispersed over wide geographical areas of the right to form organizations capable of fully exercising trade union activities contrary to the principle of freedom of association [see Digest, op. cit., para. 832]. It had also recalled that where under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union covering more than 50 per cent of the workers in a unit, collective bargaining rights should nevertheless be granted to all the unions in this unit, at least on behalf of their own members, or they should be allowed to jointly negotiate a collective agreement applicable to the bargaining unit [see 316th Report, para. 663].
14. 1150. The Committee further notes from the complainant’s allegations that the lack of progress in the legislative reform has created an intolerable situation of persisting ambiguity, where not even the authorities appear to be clear about what legal requirements are currently in force in the country. For example, in the case at hand, the Minister of Labour and the Registrar of Trade Unions were led to adopt conflicting positions as to the minimum membership/representativeness requirements for collective bargaining purposes. Whereas the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations, in a letter dated 27 October 2003 to the company, requesting it to show cause for not recognizing the union, emphasized that the current Constitution of Uganda provides for no minimum percentage of willing workers to organize and that “so long as any number of workers in an industry want to unionise, their will shall not be frustrated by whomsoever”, the Registrar of Trade Unions insisted, in his letter dated 18 December 2003, on the need to verify the 51 per cent representativeness requirement. By insisting moreover on the representativeness requirement of section 19(1)(e) of the Trade Unions Decree, the company refuted an invitation by the Commissioner for Labour, Industrial Relations and Employment dated 14 May 2005 to expedite the process of freedom of association enshrined in the supreme law of the country.
15. 1151. The Committee notes with interest from the Government’s reply the recent ratification of Convention No. 87 and that Bills to undertake the necessary labour reform were under active consideration in Parliament. In particular, the Committee notes that pursuant to a meeting between the Minister of State for Labour and Industrial Relations and the President of Uganda of 22 August 2005, the President directed that the labour law Bills be tabled in Parliament in the month of September 2005.
16. 1152. Taking note with interest of the steps taken by the Government with a view to amending the legal requirements concerning minimum membership and representativeness (sections 8(3) and 19(1)(e) of the Trade Unions Decree) so as to bring them into conformity with freedom of association principles, the Committee trusts that the legislative reform process will be concluded without further delay and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this respect.
17. 1153. The Committee finally notes with concern that the Government does not reply to the allegations that the text of the labour law is not accessible to workers because it can only be purchased at a prohibitive cost. The Committee recalls that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can only develop where fundamental human rights are respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 35]. In particular, respect for the rule of law, which is an essential prerequisite for freedom of association, requires that the text of the law be readily accessible to all those who wish to be informed of their rights and obligations. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all necessary measures without delay to ensure that the text of the labour law is accessible to all workers and to keep it informed in this respect.