Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2020, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention (n° 151) sur les relations de travail dans la fonction publique, 1978 - Philippines (Ratification: 2017)

Autre commentaire sur C151

Observation

2022

Demande directe

2020
2019

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in the Government’s first report in 2019.

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all Government employees (all branches, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including Government-owned or controlled corporations) can form, join or assist employees’ organizations of their own choosing (sections 1 and 2 of the Executive Order No. 180 of 1987 (EO 180)) and that temporary employees of the Government benefit from such protection as may be provided by law (article IX(B), section 2(6) of the Philippine Constitution). While noting that the Supreme Court has held that temporary employees in Government service have a right to self-organization and are covered by the protection against arbitrary dismissals, the Committee observes that there is no domestic law, rule, or policy pertaining to the right to organize of temporary employees. While further noting the Government’s assertion, in its supplementary report, that the Convention expressly recognizes that the country may determine the extent of applicability of the guarantees of the Convention to employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature, employees in the armed forces and the police, the Committee observes that under EO 180 and the Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize, 2004 (Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of EO 180), several other categories of workers, whose functions do not justify their exclusion from the application of the Convention, are also subject to limitations: firefighters and jail guards are not eligible to form, join or assist any employees’ organization for purposes of collective negotiations, and other personnel who, by the nature of their functions, are authorized to carry firearms, are also excluded from this right, except when there is express written approval from the management. Recalling in this regard that the 2019 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards requested the Government to ensure that all workers without distinction are able to form and join organizations of their choosing in accordance with Article 2 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee refers to its detailed comments made on this issue under Convention No. 87.

Registration requirements for trade unions in the public sector. Legislative issues. In its previous comment under Convention No. 87, the Committee requested the Government to inform of the progress made in amending the IRR of EO 180 with regard to the registration requirement for trade unions in the public sector and to provide a copy once issued. The Committee notes the Government’s indication provided to the 2019 Conference Committee that since the 2017 ratification of this Convention, there has been renewed vibrancy in organizing in the public sector and public sector unions, especially in the local government units, have been increasing. The Committee notes that, in its supplementary report, the Government adds that a 14 per cent increase was observed in union registration between 2017 and 2018 with a total of 1,789 registered unions and 493,101 union members in the public sector in July 2020 (46 per cent of employees’ organizations registered in the public sector are from the local government units, 32 per cent from the national government agencies, 13 per cent form State universities and colleges and 9 per cent from Government-owned and controlled corporations). The Committee further notes that House Bills Nos 2621 and 2846, which seek to address gaps in public sector labour relations, in particular on the right to organize, and aim at codifying all laws and relevant issuances governing the civil service into a single, comprehensive statute, were filed in the 18th Congress in July 2019 and are currently with the House Committee on Civil Service and Professional Regulation. The Government also informs that the review of the Amended IRR was presented to the Public Service Labor-Management Council (PSLMC) in January 2020, that several members requested additional time to review the amendments and that despite the current COVID-19 pandemic, work on the amendments continues. The Government adds that, in the meantime, the PSLMC adopted several resolutions which have had positive impact on the public sector unions since 2017. While welcoming this information, the Committee observes that the Government does not provide details about the current or foreseen impact of these proposals on the registration threshold for public servants’ organizations and that the titles of the PSLMC resolutions do not suggest that they address this issue. The Committee recalls in this regard that the Center for United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) previously expressed concerns that the requirements for union registration in the public sector are overly stringent (a 10 per cent signature support requirement). In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide further updates on the progress made in the legislative reform concerning the right to organize of public sector employees and to indicate any impact of these reforms on the threshold for registration of public employees’ organizations.

Article 6. Facilities to be afforded to public employees’ organizations. The Committee notes that the IRR of EO 180 allow public servants’ organizations to collect reasonable dues to finance conduct of seminars on public sector unionism and other relevant activities, as well as to negotiate over communication systems and other social and cultural facilities. The Committee also notes that House Bill No. 2621 (filed in July 2019) aims at addressing the gaps in public sector labour relations, particularly on the protection of the right to organize, facilities to be afforded to public sector employees’ organizations, procedures for determining the terms and conditions of employment, civil and political rights, and settlement of disputes arising or in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment. The Committee observes, however, that the Government does not clearly indicate the facilities currently afforded to the representatives of recognized public workers’ organizations to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently, in line with Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in more detail what facilities are afforded to the representatives of recognized public workers’ organizations to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently and trusts that the pending legislative reform will address this issue. The Committee also trusts that, in the context of the adoption of the above legislation, public workers’ organizations are meaningfully consulted, and requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation once amended.

Article 7. Participation of organizations of public employees in the determination of terms and conditions of employment of their members. The Committee notes that a duly registered employees’ organization which enjoys the support of the majority of the rank-and-file employees in the organizational unit can obtain the status of the sole and exclusive collective negotiating agent, conferred by the Civil Service Commission (sections 9–12 of EO 180, Rule I, section 1(a) of IRR on EO 180). The Committee recalls in this regard that the requirement to obtain support of an absolute majority of all workers in a bargaining unit to be recognized as a bargaining agent may give rise to problems every time that no union secures the absolute majority support, thus preventing collective bargaining. The Committee notes the detailed information provided in the Government’s supplementary report on the number of organizations of public workers that have obtained the status of exclusive negotiating agent and notes with interest that this number has increased (74 unions in 2017, 94 in 2018 and 148 in 2019 – the total number increased from 1,167 in 2017 to 1,407 in 2019) and that half of all unions registered in the public sector concluded and registered a collective bargaining agreement. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide details as to the number of public workers’ organizations with the status of exclusive bargaining agent and on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the public sector. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether, in case no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of absolute majority to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, the existing unions are able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee further notes that under chapter 1, Book V, section 3 of Executive Order No. 292 (1987) the terms and conditions of employment of all Government employees, including those in Government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, shall be fixed by law and those conditions not fixed by law may be the subject of negotiation between duly recognized employees’ organizations and appropriate Government authorities. Similarly, EO 180 and its IRR provide that the terms and conditions of employment may be the subject of negotiations between duly recognized employees’ organizations and appropriate Government authorities, except those fixed by law, which include increases in salary, allowances and travel expenses (section 13 of EO 180, Rule I, section 1(i) and Rule XII, sections 1–3 of IRR on EO 180). The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government that EO 180 establishes the PSLMC and that the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) was reconstituted in 2013 as the main consultative and advisory mechanism lodged with the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE), in which workers, employers and Government can discuss labour and employment relevant policy and which is mandated to formulate, for submission to the President or Congress, tripartite views, recommendations and proposals on labour, economic and social concerns. Finally, the Committee notes the detailed information provided in the Government’s supplementary report on the expansion of membership of tripartite bodies, in particular that the PSLMC allows the participation of elected sectoral representatives during the deliberation of policies on public sector unionism at the level of the PSLMC-Technical Working Group and that all tripartite mechanisms under the supervision of the DOLE, including the NTIPC, the Regional Tripartite Industrial Peace Councils (RTIPCs) and the Industry Tripartite Councils (ITCs), include representatives from public sector labour unions. This ensures that the interests of workers in Government services are fully represented in the decision and policy-making processes at the national, regional and local levels, thus ensuring tripartism and social dialogue. The Government also informs about the commitments of the DOLE to continue to engage in meaningful consultations for the development of a public sector labour relations roadmap consistent with the principles of the Convention. Taking due note of the above initiatives, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any formal mechanisms for public servant organizations to negotiate or participate in the determination of terms and conditions of their employment, in line with Article 7 of the Convention, without limitation of subjects, and to provide further details on the development of a public sector relations roadmap.

Article 8. Settlement of disputes. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that the PSLMC is mandated to implement and administer the provisions of EO 180, which includes the settlement of disputes and has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes which arise in collective negotiations or when there is a dead-lock resulting therefrom. Accordingly, if a dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all the available remedies under existing laws and procedures, the parties may jointly refer the dispute to the PSLMC (section 16 of EO 180). The Committee observes, however, that members of the PSLMC are exclusively Government representatives (the Chairperson of the Civil Service Commission (the Chair); the Secretary of the DOLE (Vice-Chair); the Secretary of the Department of Finance; the Secretary of the Department of Justice; and the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management), while representatives of public servants’ organizations do not have a right to vote in its discussions and deliberations and can only participate during PSLMC deliberations. For this reason, the PSLMC does not seem to constitute an independent and impartial means of solving disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment, as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee further notes, from the Government’s supplementary report, that the IRR of EO 180 also provide guidelines for resolution of grievances (Rule XIV), unfair labour management practices (Rule XVI) and intra-employees’ organizations disputes (Rule XVII), as well as for the submission of a complaint or petition to the Council (Rules XIX and XX). The IRR of EO 180 further make reference to conciliation and mediation of disputes by the Personnel Relations Officer of the Civil Service Commission (now Human Resource Relations Officer) before a dispute is sent to the Council for resolution (Rule XVIII). The Committee observes, however, that no new information was provided with regard to the possibility for representatives of public servants’ organizations to vote in the discussions and deliberations of the PSLMC or on the existence of any other independent and impartial means of solving disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment, as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate once again whether disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service can also be referred to other independent mechanisms which benefit from the confidence of the parties involved.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding the establishment and the roles of the Civil Service Commission, the PSLMC and the Departments of Labour and Employment, Finance, Justice and Budget and Management in administering and implementing the rules governing public sector workers and observes that, in its supplementary report, the Government clarifies the role of the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Budget and Management with respect to giving effect, in practice, to the guarantees of the Convention for public sector workers. The Committee also notes with interest that the Government informs about the granting of yearly Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Incentives, as a form of reward to motivate employee efforts towards higher productivity, which may be granted to both management and rank-and-file employees of agencies with approved and successfully implemented CNAs in recognition of their efforts in accomplishing performance targets at lesser cost and in attaining more efficient and viable operations through cost-cutting measures and systems improvement.

Tribunal decisions. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding one court decision issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines relating to the application of the Convention, and its statement that there are other similar rulings. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on court decisions relating to questions of principle regarding the application of the Convention.