Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 1998, publiée 87ème session CIT (1999)

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its latest report.

The Committee takes due note of the adoption by the Parliament on 28 October 1997 of Bill No. 33 on Trade Union Recognition.

The Committee has examined the legislation in question and notes that sections 20(2), 21(2) and (3) provide that in case of both trade union unity or diversity, in a given bargaining unit, the most representative union for collective bargaining must, at least, include 40 per cent of the workers of the bargaining unit who took part in the ballot. The Committee notes that the criteria which allow the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit are contained in section 19.

The Committee notes that the law provides that an application for certification of recognition can be made by another union two years after the recognized majority union obtained certification as such (section 29(1)b)). The legislation also provides that an application may be made although two years have not expired if the board is satisfied that good reasons exist for such an application (section 29(1) (b) and (2)). However, no application for certification of recognition may be made by a trade union earlier than 12 months from the date when the application made by that union for certification with respect to the same bargaining unit was last determined or from the date when its certificate of recognition was cancelled (section 29(4)).

The Committee notes with interest that application for certification of recognition and determination of the appropriate bargaining unit are dealt with by an independent tripartite body provided by the legislation. The Committee has stated in paragraph 99 of its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, that industrial relations systems where only one bargaining agent may be certified to represent the workers of any given bargaining unit, which gives it the exclusive right to negotiate the collective agreement, does not raise difficulties under the Convention, provided that legislation or practice impose on the exclusive bargaining agent an obligation to represent fairly and equally all workers in the bargaining unit, whether or not they are members of the trade union.

In its previous comments, the Committee had also recalled the necessity to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01, sections 3, 12 and 19), so that compulsory arbitration in respect of a strike, liable to a fine or two months' imprisonment, may only be used for essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee notes that the Government has stated in its report that the industrial disputes subcommittee which is chaired by a representative of the unions is still to submit its report on the amendment of the legislation in question. Once again, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure that compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike can only be imposed in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.