ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 1989, Publication : 76ème session CIT (1989)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Philippines (Ratification: 1953)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Government representative informed the present Committee that Senate Bill No. 530 and House Bill No. 11524 mentioned by the Committee of Experts had already been consolidated and enacted into law as Republic Act 6715. This law became effective on 21 March 1989, just prior to the termination of the Committee of Experts' session. A copy of this law would be submitted to the Committee of Experts for its information and examination. The rules and regulations implementing Act 6715 were signed by the Secretary of Labour and Employment on 24 May 1989 after about two months of tripartite consultations and deliberations; they would also be sent to the Committee of Experts. He trusted that the Committee of Experts would find that most, if not all, its concerns are answered by these documents. He pointed out that, since the new Government came into power and Congress became operational, the Labour Code had undergone two amendments: Executive Order No. 111 of 1986 and Act 6715 of 1989. The speaker said this was not a bad record considering the relatively short period in power of the current administration and the time required for public hearings and tripartite deliberation in this connection. He added that the National Tripartite Review Committee, which was now a permanent mechanism, convened regularly for the purpose of reviewing legislation so that necessary amendments could be formulated and introduced to give full meaning and effect to the present Convention.

The Workers' members noted that problems under the Convention had been addressed by the Committee on Freedom of Association and, for several years, by the Committee of Experts to the effect that the legislation was not in conformity with the Convention. It was now time to act. They understood that the country had known a dictatorship which had probably hindered action, but the new regime had been in place for three years and should be in a position gradually to improve its legislation and practice. They were aware that the country still suffered economic difficulties and high unemployment, as well as the internal problem of the guerrillas. This was not the subject under discussion here, but it cost much in terms of money and human lives. The tripartite activities referred to could be a means of realising progress, and they were pleased to note that a new law had been promulgated, coming into force March 1989. They hoped that this legislation had been, or would be, transmitted to the Committee of Experts for examination so that it would be able to see whether progress had been made. They also hoped that most, or all, of the comments outstanding for so long would be met by this legislation and that the present Committee would be in a position to note its conformity with the Convention.

The Employers' members noted that this case concerned a series of provisions relating to and interfering with freedom of association, and that some were useless and therefore should be eliminated. They referred the Committee of Experts' comments on the restrictions imposed on the right to strike, recalling that these were the sort of cases where the employers had a differing view as to the requirements of the Convention. In any case, the current legislation contained enough problems concerning conformity with the Convention; for example, interference in the internal affairs of the unions. A certain number of points might be resolved by the new law which had been drawn up following tripartite consultations; however, a series of other legislative measures were still necessary. They hoped that in the reasonable and foreseeable future there would be amendments since, for 25 years, there had been divergence between law and practice and the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and of the debate which took place. The Committee noted with interest that certain draft laws had been adopted and called on the Government to send the texts in question to the ILO so that the Committee of Experts could examine them. Taking into account the importance of the points raised by the Committee of Experts, the Committee requested the Government to take all necessary measures to bring about rapidly full conformity between the legislation and practice and the Convention. The Committee hoped that the Government would. in its next report, be in a position to indicate significant progress in the application of the Convention on all the points raised by the Committee of Experts.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer