Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2016, publiée 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Tadjikistan (Ratification: 1993)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.

The Committee notes the entry into force of the new Law on Trade Unions (2011) and the new Labour Code (2016). The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Law on Public Associations does not apply to trade unions.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 323(2) of the Labour Code, a decision to declare a strike should be taken by a meeting of workers or of an appropriate workers’ representative body. Such a decision should be adopted by not less than two-thirds of those present at the meeting (representative body) or two-thirds of the delegates to the conference of workers’ representatives. The Committee considers that requiring a decision by two-thirds of those present at the meeting is excessive and could unduly hinder the possibility of calling a strike. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend this provision so as to lower the majority required for the calling of a strike. It requests the Government to indicate all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee notes that, pursuant to section 323(5) of the Labour Code, the right to strike can be restricted by legislation in cases where it might endanger the life and health of individuals or the security and defence capacity of the State. The Committee requests the Government to indicate services where the right to strike is so restricted or prohibited, with reference to the relevant legislative provisions.

The Committee recalls that when the right to strike is restricted or prohibited in certain enterprises or services considered essential, or for certain public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, the workers should be afforded adequate protection so as to compensate for the restrictions imposed on their freedom of action. Such protection should include, for example, impartial conciliation and eventually arbitration procedures which have the confidence of the parties, in which workers and their organizations could be associated. Such arbitration awards should be binding on both parties and once issued should be implemented rapidly and completely. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether alternative compensatory guarantees of this nature are afforded to workers deprived of their right to strike pursuant to section 323(5) of the Labour Code and to indicate the applicable legislative provisions.

Criminal Code. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that under section 160 of the Criminal Code, a violation of procedure for organizing and carrying out meetings, demonstrations and pickets is sanctioned by a fine of up to 2,000 times the minimum wage or of up to two years’ imprisonment. It requested the Government to indicate whether trade unionists had been sanctioned under this provision for exercising legitimate trade union activities. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 160 of the Criminal Code has never been used to prosecute trade unionists for exercising legitimate trade union activities. The Government stresses that participants in peaceful strike action assume no criminal liability and that this provision has not been applied in practice. The Committee takes due note of this information and trusts that this provision will not be used to sanction trade unionists for exercising legitimate trade union activities.