Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2015, publiée 105ème session CIT (2016)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Sri Lanka (Ratification: 1995)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee had previously noted that section 32(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act No. 39 of 2011 provides that strikes in connection with industrial disputes in any essential industry are possible when written notice of intention to commence the strike is given at least 21 days before the date of the commencement of the strike; and that section 43(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that every person who commits any offence under this Act shall be liable, on conviction after summary trial before a magistrate, to a fine not exceeding 5,000 Sri Lankan rupees (LKR), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both such a fine and imprisonment. The Committee had requested the Government to take measures to amend section 43(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to bring it into line with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the matter will be discussed at the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC) and with the relevant ministries. Recalling that no penal sanctions should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike, and that measures of imprisonment or fines could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed, and may be imposed exclusively pursuant to legislation punishing such acts, such as the Penal Code, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to amend section 43(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to ensure that these principles are respected.

The Committee had previously noted that section 48 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that “essential industry” means any industry which is declared by order made by the Minister and published in the Gazette, to be an industry essential to the life of the community, and had requested the Government to provide information on any such order made by the Minister. The Committee notes that the Government states that no order has been made recently in regard to essential services. It also notes the Government’s reference to the 2008 conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) in Case No. 2519, where the CFA noted with satisfaction that the schedule of essential services provided for in Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation No. 01 had been repealed. The Committee also notes the indication of the ITUC in its 2012 observations that the repealed long list of services had been replaced by a broad unrestricted definition, allowing the President to ban any organization impeding, obstructing or delaying the production or delivery in any service “which is of public utility or is essential for national security or for the preservation of public order or the life of the community and includes any department of the Government or branch thereof”. The Committee requests the Government to specify the legislative provisions defining or enumerating the services considered to be essential services, and any procedures in place for reviewing or challenging such definitions or enumerations.