Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2009, publiée 99ème session CIT (2010)

The Committee recalls that for several years it had been commenting on the following issues.

Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee had asked the Government to reduce the number of members (ten) required for the registration of an employers’ organization. The Committee had recalled that the minimum requirement of ten employers to form an employers’ organization was excessive and capable of hindering the creation of employers’ organizations, particularly given the relatively small size of the country.

Article 3. The Committee had required the Government to amend section 24(2) of the Labour Relations Act, which permits the registrar to require the delivery of detailed accounts of the revenue, expenditure, assets, liabilities and funds of the organization at any time; failure to comply with this order would result in a fine of $10,000 or one year’s imprisonment (section 24(6)). The Committee had noted the Government’s proposed amendment to section 24(2) of the Labour Relations Act which limits the possibility for the registrar to request periodic financial reports only when there are serious grounds for believing that the activities of an organization are contrary to the rule of law.

The Committee had noted that section 45(3) of the Labour Relations (Amendments) Act of July 2003, grants the minister the power to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in essential services and had requested the Government to indicate which services lie within the scope of section 45(3) of the Act. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication that the Labour Relation (Amendments) Act of July 2003 did not modify the second schedule, which establishes the essential services. The Committee had noted that this second schedule included sanitation, seaport and dock services among the essential services. It had recalled that it did not consider sanitation, seaport and dock services to be essential in the strict sense of the term – that is to say, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. This notwithstanding, the Committee had considered that a minimum service could be appropriate as a possible alternative in these situations, where a substantial restriction or total prohibition of strike would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption. In any circumstance, workers’ organizations should be able to participate in defining such a service in the same way as employers and the public authorities.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that all these issues will be brought before the newly appointed Labour Advisory Board which was reconstituted on 12 October 2009. In these circumstances, the Committee expects that the necessary amendments will be adopted without delay in accordance with the principles set out above. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in this respect.