Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 1991, Publication : 78ème session CIT (1991)

A Government representative indicated that serious note had been taken of the Committee of Experts' observation and request that the Government revise certain provisions of the Labour Code, specifically some of those amendments introduced in 1989 by Act No. 6715. He observed that in May 1990 a national tripartite conference was convened to examine existing labour laws and regulations. As a result of that conference the Tripartite Industrial Peace Council was created through Executive Order No. 403 and charged, among other things, to advise the President and the Secretary of Labour and Employment on labour policy. In April 1991 this Council included in its agenda the review of existing labour legislation; the result of this review will be sent to the legislative body for consideration. The Government representative assured the present Committee that the issues raised by the Committee of Experts would be raised in the Council's deliberations. He emphasised that as the amendments being questioned were products of tripartite consultation any subsequent revision of the same should be the result of tripartite discussion; this was also consistent with the Government's recent ratification of Convention No. 144 on Tripartite Consultation. The speaker informed the Committee that continuing efforts, with the assistance of the ILO, were being undertaken to conform the existing national laws with international labour standards. To this end several discussions between ILO experts and Philippine legislators and employers' and workers' representatives have been held. In fact the Philippine delegation to the Conference this year was composed of several legislators; this was a positive development which the speaker hoped would lead to resolution of issues raised in the report.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for the information provided and expression of good intentions and continuing efforts. They observed that the Committee of Experts had raised five points which needed to be addressed: the requirement that at least 20 per cent of the workers in a bargaining unit be members of a union for the union to be registered; the requirement of too high a number of unions to establish a federation or central organisation; the prohibition of aliens - other than those with valid permits if the same rights are granted to Filippino workers in the country of origin of alien workers - from engaging any trade union activity under penalty of deportation; compulsory arbitration when, in the opinion of the Secretary of Labour and Employment, a planned or current strike affects an industry indispensable to the national interest, resulting in restrictions on the right to strike in non-essential services; and harsh penalties for participation in illegal strikes. The Workers' members noted the acknowledgment of the Government in its report that the law in question needed some improvement and that nothing to the contrary had been said by the Government representative in the Committee.

The Employers' members believed that this case showed the viability and usefulness of the supervisory machinery and the work of this Committee in promoting improvements in labour law and working conditions. This was the sixth time in the past decade that the case of the Philippines had been brought to the attention of this Committee; it had twice been noted by the Committee of Experts as a case of progress. Although the Employers' members generally thought the Workers' members' comments were well made, they wished to express some reservations. They reiterated their view that the permissible limits of the right to strike were drawn too narrowly by the Committee of Experts and that it was difficult to prejudge those circumstances where strike action would threaten national interest. Furthermore, in setting forth the line between legal and illegal strikes the Employers' members believed that the yardstick used by the Committee of Experts was not limited to the terms of Convention No. 87 and that the view of the Experts was too broad as it might prevent governments from legislating in a way which would adequately deter illegal activites. In conclusion, they noted that the Labour Code needed to be amended and looked forward to appropriate changes being made.