Allegations: The complainant organization denounces the refusal to register a
trade union at the Bowker Garment Factory (Cambodia) Co. Ltd.; acts of anti-union
discrimination following a strike, including dismissals, forced transfers, suppression of
benefits and false criminal charges; the use of military force on striking workers; and
alleges that section 269 of the Labour Act imposes excessive requirements for the
determination and election of union leadership
- 118. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Cambodian
Alliance of Trade Unions (CATU) dated 27 February 2015.
- 119. The Government sent its partial observations in a communication
dated 25 October 2016.
- 120. Cambodia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of
the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and
Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
A. The complainant’s allegations
A. The complainant’s allegations- 121. In its communication dated 27 February 2015, the CATU denounces the
refusal to register a trade union at the Bowker Garment Factory (Cambodia), Co. Ltd.;
acts of anti-union discrimination following a strike, including dismissals, forced
transfers, suppression of benefits and false criminal charges; the use of military force
on striking workers; and alleges that section 269 of the Labour Act imposes excessive
requirements for the determination and election of union leadership.
- 122. In particular, the complainant indicates that in late 2013, in
accordance with the Labour Act, 1997 and the Prakas No. 305, 2001, it began forming a
trade union at the factory which employed around 2,000 workers and was a disclosed
supplier of a brand. On 10 December 2013, a union election was held and on 12 and 16
December 2013, a notification for registration was communicated to the management of the
factory (copies of notifications were provided by the complainant), informing them about
the elected union leaders, but the notification was rejected on both occasions. An
application for registration was then submitted on 23 January 2014 to the Ministry of
Labour and Vocational Training (MLVT) but the complainant was informed by administrative
officials from the Dispute Resolution Department that the process for registration of
trade unions had been suspended, as the Ministry needed to prepare for new requirements
and procedures.
- 123. The complainant further states that on 26 December 2013, a
nationwide strike broke out in the garment industry with more than 200,000 workers,
including all workers from the factory, calling for an increase in the minimum wage to
US$160 per month. According to the complainant, on 2 and 3 January 2014, the Government
deployed the army on the striking workers in the capital’s major garment districts,
shooting and killing five workers, wounding more than 40 and arresting 23 union leaders
and striking workers, thus breaking the strike throughout the country. The complainant
adds that violence against striking workers is a widespread occurrence in Cambodia and
provides statistical information from the Community Legal Education Center (CLEC),
according to which at least 102 trade union leaders and members were subjected to
violence or serious injury in the last two years.
- 124. The complainant further specifies that on 13 and 15 January 2014,
four elected union leaders from the factory were informed by the administrative manager
that they were terminated due to their role in the strike, although the right to strike
is guaranteed under section 319 of the Labour Act, and were told to challenge the
decision in court if they did not accept the termination of their employment. The
dismissal concerned the following leaders:
- – Mr Leok Sopheak, the elected
President of the factory trade union, employed in the ironing department, was
terminated on 15 January 2014; he had been employed under a three-month employment
contract which expired on 30 December 2013 but the employer had not informed or
required him to sign a new contract.
- – Mr Dem Sokleang, the elected
Vice-President of the factory trade union was terminated on 13 January 2014; he had
been employed under a three-month employment contract which was due to expire on 28
February 2014.
- – Mr Sam Kimsong, the elected Secretary of the factory trade
union, employed in the ironing department, was terminated on 13 January 2014; he had
been employed under a three-month employment contract which expired on 30 December
2013 but the employer had not informed or required him to sign a new
contract.
- – Mr Chhorn Chan, a prominent union activist of the factory trade
union, employed in the packing department, was terminated on 15 January 2014; he had
been employed under a three-month employment contract which was due to expire on 28
February 2014.
- 125. On this subject, the complainant further indicates that: (i)
following their termination, all four workers received a summons from the police, based
on a complaint lodged by the factory, to attend questioning at the Ang Snoul police
station on 17 January 2014; (ii) the complaint by the factory was erroneous and the four
workers were never charged but, as is common practice in the judicial system, the
complaint had not been dropped despite the lack of evidence; (iii) through legal
assistance from the CLEC, the complainant requested the brand to intervene and ask for
the reinstatement of the union leadership on the basis of sections 3 and 4 of the Prakas
No. 305 and sections 12 and 279 of the Labour Act; (iv) the brand conducted an
investigation into the allegations, after which the complainant received a message from
the factory stating that the human resources manager was trying to reach out to the four
workers to reinstate them; however, the workers were not reinstated; (v) an unsuccessful
conciliation took place between the union and the factory on 11 February 2014, following
which the factory attempted to pay off the workers; (vi) after more than a month of
negotiations, the four trade union leaders and activists were reinstated on 24 February
2014 in an extrajudicial process with no binding agreement made between the parties;
(vii) although reinstated, the workers were given very little work and no possibility to
work overtime, leaving them with severely insufficient wages, while such overtime was
widely available to other workers; (viii) the workers were given new positions in a
secluded warehouse where they no longer had access to their members and since they were
offered new contracts, they were concerned about losing seniority, not receiving back
pay for the period during which they had been terminated and about being laid off since
they did not have much work; and (ix) although this continued for several months it was
recently remedied. Furthermore, the complainant indicates that the practice of
dismissing trade union leaders and members following strikes and the practice of lodging
erroneous criminal charges against them are widespread in Cambodia, as demonstrated by
the statistical information from the CLEC: at least 1,554 trade union leaders and
members were terminated illegally and at least 54 trade union leaders and members were
arrested, summoned or criminally charged in the last two years.
- 126. As to the registration question, the complainant indicates that
despite the reinstatement of the trade union representatives, the employer refused to
recognize the factory union claiming that no notification of registration had been
issued to the management and that even if that had been the case, the union leaders had
criminal records based on their summons for questioning, making them ineligible for
union membership as per section 269 of the Labour Act, which provides that: “the members
responsible for the administration and management of a professional organization shall
meet the following requirements: … (3) not have been convicted of any crime”. The
complainant specifies that even though the workers had not been convicted, the employer
considered that the pending criminal case made the candidates ineligible for union
election. After having contacted the MLVT on several occasions seeking further
clarification on the union’s registration, the complainant was informed by Ministry
officials in March 2014 that it needed to submit a comprehensive video clip of the
election as well as individual photos of each and every member submitting their election
ballot. In the complainant’s view there is no legal provision requiring to submit such
documentation but it became widespread practice indicative of the Government’s intention
to thwart independent union activity. The complainant indicates that the MLVT has not
yet issued a certificate of registration.
- 127. With regard to registration, the complainant further alleges that
section 3 of the Prakas No. 305, which requires that the employer be duly informed of
the candidacy to a leadership position by any reliable means, is manipulated by the
employer and condoned by the Government to the extent that notification amounts to
authorization. It also indicates that section 269 of the Labour Act imposes excessive
external controls over the unions’ ability to determine and elect its own leadership as
it requires that anyone with a leadership or management position in a union cannot have
been convicted of any criminal offence, regardless of the type or severity of the
offence. According to the complainant, such a requirement is disconcerting particularly
in light of the recent politically motivated conviction of 25 workers and human rights
activists, demonstrating the Government’s control over the judicial system.
- 128. The complainant claims that the case illustrates the violation of
Article 2 of Convention No. 87 and Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of Convention No. 98. and,
therefore, urges the Committee to direct the Government to inquire into the matter of
non-registration of the factory trade union and the wider consequences of the
misapplication of the aforementioned policies, specifically to: put an end to onerous
requirements of photo and video evidence of union elections being used as a barrier to
union registration; ease trade union registration of all independent trade unions; put
an end to the manipulation of the judiciary and anti-union practices, including false
criminal charges; and respect the right to strike and put an end to violence against
trade union leaders, members and striking workers.
B. The Government’s reply
B. The Government’s reply- 129. The Government’s states that Cambodia fully recognizes the right to
freedom of association which is highly guaranteed, protected and promoted. In
particular, the Government indicates that: (i) under section 266 of the Labour Act
workers and employers have, without distinction whatsoever and prior authorization, the
right to form professional organizations of their own choice; (ii) in order for a
professional organization to enjoy the rights and benefits recognized by the Act, its
founders must file their statutes and a list of persons responsible for the management
and administration to the MLVT for registration, in line with section 268 of the Labour
Act; (iii) in line with section 268(2) of the Labour Act, a trade union is automatically
registered two months after the completion of the application, whereas section 12 of the
new Act on Trade Unions provides that if an application is complete it will be
automatically registered within 30 days of the date of application; and (iv) while
according to section 269 of the Labour Act and Prakas No. 021 KKBV/BrK on the
Registration of professional organizations, members in charge of administration and
management must not have been convicted of any crime, section 10 of the new Act on Trade
Unions no longer requires the criminal record of union leaders for registration.
- 130. The Government strongly objects to the allegation that it refused to
register the factory trade union in question, stating that its registration was not
rejected but simply delayed due to an incomplete application, which does not mean that
the Ministry restricted registration or created any obstacles for the exercise of the
freedom of association. The Government further states that it has never had any policy
to stop or postpone registration of new trade unions and registered 224 trade unions at
the enterprise level, 11 federations, two confederations and one employers’ association
in 2015. As of September 2016, the Ministry had registered 3,497 trade unions at the
enterprise level, 103 confederations, 18 federations and 8 employers’ associations.
According to the Government, the number of registered trade unions will further increase
under the newly adopted Act on Trade Unions, as the law provides better conditions for
establishment and registration.
The Committee’s conclusions
The Committee’s conclusions- 131. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant
denounces the refusal to register a trade union at the Bowker Garment Factory (Cambodia)
Co. Ltd.; acts of anti-union discrimination following a strike, including dismissals,
forced transfers, suppression of benefits and false criminal charges; the use of
military force on striking workers; and excessive requirements for the determination and
election of union leadership in section 269 of the Labour Act.
- 132. With regard to the alleged refusal to register a trade union at the
factory level, the Committee notes the complainant’s indication that even though it
formed a union and held a union election at the factory on 10 December 2013, two
notifications for registration communicated to the management and informing them about
the elected union leaders in line with section 3 of the Prakas No. 305 were rejected.
The Committee also notes the complainant’s assertion that even after the trade union
leaders had been reinstated following their dismissal for leading a strike, the factory
management refused to recognize the union claiming that no notification of registration
had been issued to the factory and that even if that had been the case, the union
leaders had criminal records based on their summons for questioning by the police and a
pending criminal case and that, therefore, they were ineligible for union membership as
per section 269 of the Labour Act. According to the complainant, section 3 of the Prakas
No. 305, which requires that the employer be duly informed of the candidacy to a
leadership position by any reliable means, is thus manipulated by the employer and
condoned by the Government to the extent that notification amounts to authorization.
Furthermore, the Committee notes the complainant’s indication that an application for
registration was submitted to the Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training but that
administrative officials from the Dispute Resolution Department informed the complainant
that the process for registration of trade unions had been suspended as the Ministry
needed to prepare for new requirements and procedures. The Committee notes the
complainant’s statement that after having sought further clarification at the Ministry
concerning the delay in registration, in March 2014, Ministry officials explained that
the complainant needed to submit a comprehensive video clip of the election as well as
individual photos of each member submitting the election ballot. The complainant
considers that the Ministry’s request is indicative of the Government’s intention to
thwart independent union activity as there is no legal provision requiring submission of
such documentation and the MLVT has not yet issued a certificate of registration.
- 133. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s strong
objection to the allegation that it had refused to register the factory trade union in
question and its indication that the registration was not rejected but delayed due to an
incomplete application, which does not mean that the Government created obstacles to
registration and freedom of association. The Committee also notes the Government’s
indication that it has never had a policy to obstruct or postpone trade union
registration and had in fact registered a large number of trade unions at different
levels in 2015, a number which should further increase with the adoption of the new Act
on Trade Unions which provides better conditions for establishment and registration. The
Committee also notes that the Government states that section 10 of the new Act on Trade
Unions no longer requires the criminal record of union leaders for registration.
- 134. In light of the information provided by the complainant and the
Government, the Committee notes with concern that although more than two years have
passed since the creation of the trade union and the election of its leaders, the trade
union has not yet been registered and has encountered significant hurdles from both the
employer and the MLVT in this regard. The Committee observes on the basis of the
information provided by the complainant that in order to enable registration of the
trade union, two notifications about the election of trade union leaders had been sent
to the employer in line with section 3 of the Prakas No. 305 but both were rejected by
the management. Recalling that section 3 of the Prakas No. 305 provides that: “Any
workers belonging to a union who run for a leadership position in that union shall enjoy
the same protection from dismissal as a shop steward. This protection begins 45 days
prior to the election and ending, if she/he is not elected, 45 days after the election.
To this end, the employer must be duly informed of the candidacy by any reliable means.
However, the employer shall only be required to comply with this provision once per each
election of union leaders”, the Committee observes that the notification required by
section 3 of the Prakas No. 305 is aimed at ensuring effective protection of candidates
for trade union office rather than an authorization by the employer and regrets that the
Government did not take the necessary protective action in this regard. The Committee
urges the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure in the future that the
notification requirement does not amount to a requirement for authorization by the
employer to create a trade union or is not otherwise misused to halt trade union
formation or restrict workers’ rights to elect their officers freely.
- 135. The Committee also notes, as indicated by the complainant, that the
factory management subsequently claimed that the trade union leaders had criminal
records based on a pending criminal case as well as their summons for questioning by the
police – occurring after their notification of the trade union election – which would
prevent them from being eligible as union representatives under section 269 of the
Labour Act. On this point, the Committee understands that despite the summons for
questioning the concerned workers were never charged and there is, therefore, no pending
criminal case against them; and moreover, the workers have not been criminally
convicted. Furthermore, the Committee wishes to emphasize that conviction on account of
offences the nature of which is not such as to call into question the integrity of the
person concerned and is not such as to be prejudicial to the exercise of trade union
functions should not constitute grounds for disqualification from holding trade union
office, and any legislation providing for disqualification on the basis of any offence
is incompatible with the principles of freedom of association [see Digest of decisions
and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006,
para. 422]. In this regard, and further bearing in mind the complainant’s concern that
section 269 of the Labour Act imposes excessive external controls over the unions’
ability to determine and elect their own leadership as it prohibits anyone convicted of
any criminal offence, regardless of the type or severity of the offence, from holding a
leadership or management position in a union (a requirement that the complainant notes
is particularly disconcerting in view of the recent allegedly politically motivated
conviction of 25 workers and human rights activists), the Committee observes that the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has
repeatedly requested the Government to amend this provision so as to narrow its scope to
convictions which would be prejudicial to the aptitude and integrity required for trade
union office. While noting the Government’s indication that the criminal record is no
longer a required document for trade union registration in the new Act on Trade Unions
adopted on 4 April 2016, the Committee observes with concern that section 20 of the new
Act provides that “leaders, managers and those responsible for the administration of
unions at the enterprise or establishment shall meet the following requirements: […
m]ake their own declaration that they have never been convicted of any criminal
offence”. The Committee urges the Government, in consultation with all social partners
concerned, to review these provisions and take all necessary steps to ensure that the
law does not infringe the above principle, and to report back on any measures taken in
this regard.
- 136. Observing on the basis of the information provided by the Government
that the new Act on Trade Unions and the Labour Act have different approaches to certain
issues regarding freedom of association, the Committee requests the Government to
provide information in this respect, including on the relationship between these laws,
to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, to
which it refers the legislative aspects of this case.
- 137. The Committee further notes that while it can be observed from the
documentation provided by the complainant that the MLVT had suspended the issuance of
registration certificates at the time pending the adoption of the new Act on Trade
Unions stating that it had to prepare for new requirements and procedures, which
resulted in considerable delays in registration, the Government indicates that there was
no policy to obstruct trade union registration as demonstrated by the high numbers of
registered unions in 2015 and adds that the registration of the factory trade union in
question was delayed due to its incomplete application, without, however, indicating
what registration requirements were not satisfied. The Committee also observes that in
March 2014, the Ministry requested the union to provide additional documentation in
order to be registered, including video footage of the election and photos of each
worker submitting the election ballot, which are not prescribed by the applicable legal
provisions and regrets that the Government does not address this allegation. In these
circumstances, the Committee wishes to recall that the right to official recognition
through legal registration is an essential facet of the right to organize since that is
the first step that workers’ or employers’ organizations must take in order to be able
to function efficiently, and represent their members adequately. The formalities
prescribed by law for the establishment of a trade union should not be applied in such a
manner as to delay or prevent the establishment of trade union organizations. Any delay
caused by authorities in registering a trade union constitute an infringement of
Article 2 of Convention No. 87 [see Digest, op. cit., paras 279 and 295]. In light of
these principles, the Committee is of the view that the requirement to provide video
footage and photos of each worker participating in the election is an infringement on
trade union rights and that this requirement together with the delay in registration
hindered the free establishment of the factory union. Therefore, the Committee requests
the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the swift registration of the
factory trade union in line with the mentioned principles and to keep it informed of any
developments in this regard. The Committee trusts that the Government will avoid
creating additional administrative obstacles to registration and will ensure that
legislative reform or the issuance of implementing regulations does not have the effect
of suspending or considerably delaying registration of trade unions in the future.
- 138. With regard to the alleged use of military force on striking
workers, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that on 26 December 2013, a
nationwide strike broke out in the garment industry with more than 200,000 workers,
including all workers from the factory, calling for an increase in the minimum wage and
that on 2 and 3 January 2014, the Government deployed the army on the striking workers
in the capital’s major garment districts, as a result of which five workers were shot
and killed, more than 40 wounded and 23 arrested, and the strike was disrupted
throughout the country. The Committee also notes the complainant’s indication that
violence against striking workers is a widespread occurrence and that, according to the
statistical information provided by the CLEC, at least 102 trade union leaders or
members were subjected to violence or serious injury in the past two years. The
Committee further observes that the allegations of violence against the striking workers
in January 2014 have been examined by both the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations and the Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards. In particular, in its latest observation, the Committee of Experts noted the
Government’s indication that the strike action had turned violent and that the security
forces had had to intervene in order to protect private and public properties, and to
restore peace. It also took note of the fact that the Government had established three
committees following the incidents: the damages evaluation committee, the Veng Sreng
road violence fact-finding committee and the minimum wages for workers in apparel and
footwear sector study committee. Recalling the conclusions from the 2016 Committee on
the Application of Standards calling upon the Government to ensure that freedom of
association can be exercised in a climate free of intimidation and without violence
against workers, trade unions or employers, the Committee expresses its concern at the
acts of violence on both sides and regrets that the Government did not take preventive
measures to promote a resolution to the dispute through dialogue and collective
bargaining before it could become violent. In this regard, the Committee recalls that
the intervention of the army in relation to labour disputes is not conducive to the
climate free from violence, pressure or threats that is essential to the exercise of
freedom of association [see Digest, op. cit., para. 641]. The Committee further wishes
to emphasize that while the principles of freedom of association do not protect abuses
consisting of criminal acts while exercising the right to strike [see Digest, op. cit.,
para. 667], the authorities should resort to calling in the police in a strike situation
only if there is a genuine threat to public order. The intervention of the police should
be in proportion to the threat to public order and governments should take measures to
ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to avoid the
danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations that might undermine
public order [see Digest, op. cit., para. 647]. The Committee urges the Government to
inform it without delay of any outcome of the investigations into the allegations of
killings, physical injury and arrest of striking workers and of any measures taken as a
result, particularly with regard to the three mentioned committees. The Committee
requests the Government to promote in the future social dialogue and collective
bargaining as preventive measures aimed at restoring confidence and peaceful industrial
relations and trusts that the Government will ensure that the use of police and military
force during strikes is strictly limited to situations where law and order are seriously
threatened, in line with the mentioned principles.
- 139. Regarding the allegations of anti-union practices, the Committee
notes the complainants’ indication that on 13 and 15 January 2014, the administrative
manager at the factory informed four elected union leaders from the factory that they
were terminated due to their role in the strike of 26 December 2013, although the right
to strike is guaranteed under section 319 of the Labour Act, and told the concerned
workers to challenge the decision in court if they did not accept the termination of
their employment. These dismissals concerned the following four trade union leaders who
were all apparently employed on renewable three-month contracts: Mr Leok Sopheak, Mr Dem
Sokleang, Mr Sam Kimsong and Mr Chhorn Chan. The Committee further notes the allegations
that these four leaders suffered a series of measures of harassment and intimidation
including a summons from the police based on an erroneous complaint lodged by the
factory and, despite their reinstatement following an intervention from a brand which
was sourcing from the factory, the workers were given very little work and no
possibility to work overtime, leaving them with severely insufficient wages and were
given new positions in a secluded warehouse where they no longer had access to their
members. The complainants specify that, in these circumstances, they were concerned
about losing seniority, not receiving back pay for the period during which they had been
terminated and about being laid off since they did not have much work. The Committee
further notes that while these precarious circumstances continued for several months,
they are apparently now resolved. The complainant further alleges that the practice of
dismissing trade union leaders and members following strikes and the practice of lodging
erroneous criminal charges against them are widespread in Cambodia as demonstrated by
the statistical information from the CLEC: in the last two years, at least 1,554 trade
union leaders and members were terminated illegally and at least 54 trade union leaders
and members were arrested, summoned or criminally charged.
- 140. While welcoming the reinstatement of the union leaders and
activists, as well as the rectification of their unfavourable circumstances for several
months following their reinstatement, the Committee nevertheless considers that the
situation described by the complainant raises serious concerns as to the climate for
forming trade unions and freely exercising trade union activity. In this regard, the
Committee recalls that when trade unionists or union leaders are dismissed for having
exercised in a legitimate manner the right to strike, the Committee can only conclude
that they have been punished for their trade union activities and have been
discriminated against. In a case in which a trade union leader was dismissed and then
reinstated a few days later, the Committee pointed out that the dismissal of trade union
leaders by reason of union membership or activities is contrary to Article 1 of
Convention No. 98, and could amount to intimidation aimed at preventing the free
exercise of their trade union functions [see Digest, op. cit., para. 810]. Concerning
the summons for questioning, the Committee wishes to emphasize that measures depriving
trade unionists of their freedom on grounds related to their trade union activity, even
where they are merely summoned or questioned for a short period, constitute an obstacle
to the exercise of trade union rights [see Digest, op. cit., para. 63]. With regard to
allegations of anti-union practices following reinstatement, the Committee points out
that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should cover not only hiring
and dismissals, but also any discriminatory measures during employment, in particular
transfers, downgrading and other acts that are prejudicial to the worker [see Digest,
op. cit., para. 781]. 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 and impartial. In light of the circumstances of the case, as well as the alarming
statistical information provided by the complainant, the Committee requests the
Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that trade union members and leaders
are not subjected to anti-union discrimination, including dismissal, transfers and other
acts prejudicial to the workers, or to false criminal charges based on their trade union
membership or activities, and that any complaints of anti-union discrimination are
examined by prompt and impartial procedures.
- 141. The Committee regrets that it had to examine this case without being
able to take account of the observations of the enterprise concerned and requests the
Government to obtain information from the enterprise on the questions under examination
through the relevant employers’ organization. Finally, the Committee draws the Governing
Body’s attention to the serious and urgent nature of this case.
The Committee’s recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations- 142. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee
invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The
Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the swift
registration of the factory trade union in line with the mentioned principles and to
keep it informed of any developments in this regard. The Committee trusts that the
Government will avoid creating additional administrative obstacles to registration
and will ensure that legislative reform or the issuance of implementing regulations
does not have the effect of suspending or considerably delaying registration of
trade unions in the future.
- (b) The Committee urges the Government, in
consultation with all social partners concerned, to review section 269 of the Labour
Act and section 20 of the new Act on Trade Unions and take all necessary steps to
ensure that the law does not infringe workers’ right to elect their officers freely,
and to report back on any measures taken in this regard. The Committee urges the
Government to take all necessary measures to ensure in the future that the
notification requirement in section 3 of the Prakas No. 305 does not amount to a
requirement for authorization by the employer to create a trade union or is not
otherwise misused to halt trade union formation.
- (c) Observing on the basis
of the information provided by the Government that the new Act on Trade Unions and
the Labour Act have different approaches to certain issues regarding freedom of
association, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this
respect, including on the relationship between these laws, to the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, to which it refers
the legislative aspects of this case.
- (d) The Committee urges the Government
to inform it without delay of any outcome of the investigations into the allegations
of killings, physical injury and arrest of striking workers and of any measures
taken as a result, particularly with regard to the three mentioned committees. The
Committee requests the Government to promote in the future social dialogue and
collective bargaining as preventive measures aimed at restoring confidence and
peaceful industrial relations and trusts that the Government will ensure that the
use of police and military force during strikes is strictly limited to situations
where law and order are seriously threatened.
- (e) In light of the
circumstances of the case, as well as the alarming statistical information provided
by the complainant, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary
measures to ensure that trade union members and leaders are not subjected to
anti-union discrimination, including dismissal, transfers and other acts prejudicial
to the workers, or to false criminal charges based on their trade union membership
or activities, and that any complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined by
prompt and impartial procedures.
- (f) The Committee regrets that it had to
examine this case without being able to take account of the observations of the
enterprise concerned and requests the Government to obtain information from the
enterprise on the questions under examination through the relevant employers’
organization.
- (g) The Committee draws the Governing Body’s attention to the
serious and urgent nature of this case.