Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2000, publiée 89ème session CIT (2001)

1.  Article 3.  Right of workers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules without interference by the public authorities.  The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned section 174 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1992 (TULRA), as amended in 1993, which severely restricted the situations in which trade unions may exclude or expel individuals from membership. The Committee notes the information in the Government’s latest report that there was no evidence that these provisions significantly impeded unions in carrying out their functions or have led to any increase in disputes between them. In addition, the Government states that the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has drawn up new rules to replace the Bridlington arrangements to resolve inter-union disputes among its affiliates and to take account of the new statutory recognition procedure, which places an onus on unions to collaborate where they are jointly seeking recognition. The Government therefore does not believe that there is a good argument for weakening the freedoms the provision secures for individuals on the ground that it inhibits the ability of unions to manage inter-union disputes. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in respect of this section, as well as to provide information in its next report on any complaints brought before the industrial tribunal under section 174(5).

2.  With reference to its observation, the Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the third-party right to request injunctive relief against unlawful strike action under section 235A of the 1992 TULRA. The Committee notes from the Government’s latest report that no one has applied to courts for such an injunction since the relevant provision was introduced in 1993, and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

3.  The Committee notes the comments raised under Convention No. 105 in respect of section 59 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, which provides that a seafarer who combines with other seafarers employed on the same ship at a time while the ship is at sea, including when it is securely moored in a safe berth, to disobey lawful commands, neglect any duty which is required to be discharged, or impede the progress of a voyage or the navigation of the ship, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the right to strike should only be restricted or prohibited in respect of essential services in the strict sense of the term and in acute national crises. While of the opinion that the services of seafarers when a ship is at sea may be considered to be an essential service, the Committee does not consider this to be the case when a ship is securely moored in a safe berth. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and measures of imprisonment should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed. Noting from the Government’s report under Convention No. 105 that negotiations are under way with a view to commencing the repeal process as soon as possible so that this section would apply only to mutinies and not to strike action, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect under the present Convention.