Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2005, publiée 95ème session CIT (2006)

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government’s report, including its response to the comments previously made by the Fiji Trades Union Congress (FTUC). It also notes the text of the Employment Relations Bill 2005. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Bill has been tabled in Parliament for adoption and should be passed without delay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of progress made in the adoption of the Bill.

1. Protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had noted, based on comments made by the FTUC, that the current mechanism for dealing with acts of anti-union discrimination (sections 2, 3(1), 4 and 5 of the Trade Disputes Act), did not allow trade unions and their members to bring their cases to the courts so as to have grievances examined, and requested the Government to amend the legislation, possibly in the framework of the draft Industrial Relations Bill, so as to enable trade unions and their members to have access to the Labour Court on their own initiative for the examination of allegations of anti-union discrimination and to ensure that the Labour Court has the competence to order appropriate remedies. The Committee had also noted the need to introduce a specific prohibition of anti-union dismissals accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive remedies (according to the FTUC, section 24 of the Employment Act enabled employers to terminate the services of employees by giving them short notice or pay in lieu of notice).

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that: (1) section 77(1) and (2) of the Employment Relations Bill prohibits all acts of anti-union discrimination against workers for trade union activities including participation in strikes; (2) Part 13 provides for a redress system to address any form of unfair dismissal through employment grievances; (3) Part 20 allows trade unions and individual members to raise their grievances through the mediation services or through the Employment Relations Tribunal; (4) no employer may dismiss an employee without notice except on grounds stipulated under section 33 of the Bill (summary dismissal) and, in that case, the employer must provide the worker with reasons in writing for the summary dismissal. The Committee takes note of this information with interest and requests the Government to indicate in its next report progress made in the adoption of these provisions.

2. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments the Committee had noted, pursuant to comments by the FTUC, that the draft Industrial Relations Bill did not seem to contain any provision prohibiting acts of interference and requested the Government to ensure adequate protection, including sufficiently rapid machinery and dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference by employers or their organizations into workers’ organizations, in particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers’ organizations.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that section 126 of the Employment Relations Bill allows the Registrar of Trade Unions to refuse the registration of a union if it is under the domination of the employer, in a way which restricts its independence. The Committee notes that, while this provision introduces a certain safeguard against acts of interference, it contains no sanctions; moreover, there is no explicit prohibition of all acts of interference in the Bill, as provided for in Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report measures taken to complement the draft Employment Relations Bill by introducing adequate protection, including sufficiently rapid machinery and dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference by employers or their organizations into workers’ organizations and vice versa.

Articles 1 and 4. With regard to its previous comments on the dispute in the Vatukoula Joint Mining Company (refusal to recognize a union and dismissal of striking workers), the Committee had regretted the long delay in the resolution of this dispute; it had moreover noted certain claims put forward by the Fiji Mine Workers’ Union in particular for: (1) the filing of an appeal by the Solicitor-General; (2) the payment of compensation; and (3) the provision of assistance to help the workers re-establish themselves, as recommended by a Senate Select Committee on 6 July 2004, and had requested the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated in this respect.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report that: (1) the Solicitor-General is of the view that any further appeal on the case would not serve any purpose because of the time factor; (2) compensation is not justified as the strike was illegal; (3) some members had left Vatukoula and a few had passed away whilst the bulk of the members had been re-employed, and for those who were nearing retirement age, their children were employed by EGM; finally, the Government had not considered the recommendation by the Senate Select Committee for assistance to help the workers re-establish themselves.

The Committee notes with regret that, despite the long delay in the resolution of this dispute which has lasted for 15 years and has caused great hardship to the dismissed workers, the Government did not give consideration to the recommendation by the Senate Select Committee for assistance to help the remaining workers re-establish themselves. The Committee requests the Government to give due consideration to this request and hopes that a satisfactory solution will be found without further delay.

The Committee addresses a request on another point directly to the Government.