Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 368, Juin 2013

1. 595. The complaint is contained in communications from the General Confederation of Lebanese Workers (CGTL) and the Association of Lebanese Industrialists (ALI), dated 20 and 22 February 2012, respectively.
2. 596. In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee was obliged to adjourn its examination of this case. At its meeting in March 2013 [see 367th Report, para. 5], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the requested information or observations had not been received in time. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
3. 597. Lebanon has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 598. In communications dated 20 and 22 February 2012, respectively, the CGTL and the ALI allege that the Government, and in particular the Ministry of Labour, has violated the principles and standards related to tripartite consultation, social dialogue and collective bargaining, namely by failing to engage in tripartite consultations concerning matters related to labour, employment, unemployment and social security. In particular, the complainants indicate that, without having engaged in prior consultations with the social partners, the Minister of Labour submitted a bill to the Council of Ministers to amend the Act on social security, and that he made various declarations in the media to announce the drafting of a bill on the “regulation of the remuneration of the cost of labour”. In addition, according to the complainant organizations, the Government refuses to recognize tripartite institutions such as the Economic and Social Council, the establishment of which has been pending for a number of years, and the National Employment Agency, a tripartite body under the Minister of Labour which is still without an executive board. They further allege that the Government has brought the industrial courts (tripartite labour courts) to a standstill by blocking the enactment of the decree required for their Constitution because the Minister of Labour wishes to appoint four persons of his choosing as workers’ delegates, although they are not included on the list provided by their general confederation. As a result, thousands of actions brought before the labour courts have not been examined. They add that the Government is seriously failing to meet its obligations by refusing to pay the sums owed by the State to the National Social Security Fund (in total, more than 1,300 billion Lebanese pounds (LBP)) and that the latter’s executive board was not received by the minister responsible (Minister of Labour), who shows no interest in the Fund. The complainants also refer to a report by the Ministry of Labour on the activities of the Price Index Committee, which was submitted to the Council of Ministers and which indicates that “the mechanism of bargaining is not provided for by law”. According to the complainants, the abovementioned Committee is itself considered to be a tripartite body and its activities are one of the State’s collective bargaining mechanisms.
2. 599. More specifically, the complainants refer to the process for the review of wages and other benefits which was carried out from the end of 2011. They indicate that, under Lebanese legislation (Act No. 36/67), the Government may set the official minimum wage via decree issued by the Council of Ministers, based on the recommendations of the Price Index Committee (tripartite body created under Decree No. 4206 of 1981). Furthermore, a tripartite agreement in 1995 specified that employers should grant transport and education allowances to workers as an exceptional and provisional measure until public transport and education improved. The amount of these allowances is established by a decree issued by the Council of Ministers and renewed every year on the grounds of the exceptional and provisional nature of these measures.
3. 600. According to the complainant organizations, following the non-renewal of the decree establishing these allowances, on 21 December 2011 representatives of the economic bodies and the General Confederation of Workers signed a landmark agreement on both wage adjustments and setting a minimum wage, and on education and transport allowance rates. They add that subsequently, and despite the outspoken opposition of the Minister of Labour, the Council of Ministers adopted this agreement at its meeting of 18 January 2012, requesting the Minister of Labour to draw up the draft decrees required to that end. The Minister of Labour drew up the draft decree establishing the official minimum wage for employees and workers subject to the Labour Code and the cost of living index, along with the modalities for their implementation, which was promulgated on 26 January 2012 (Decree No. 7426). However, the Minister of Labour refused to draw up a draft decree providing for transport and education allowances. The complainants allege that the Minister considered that those allowances were illegal and had mentioned that a bill was being prepared to regulate the “remuneration of the cost of labour”.
4. 601. Lastly, the CGTL indicates that, due to the deliberately delayed adoption of Decree No. 7426, which came into force on 1 February 2012 non-retroactively, workers were deprived of a wage increase over the four months that followed the decision by the Council of Ministers to grant that increase on 12 October 2011.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 602. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, the Government has not replied to the complainants’ allegations, even though it has been requested several times, including through an urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on this case. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 603. Hence, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (1971)], the Committee is obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 604. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect for employers’ and workers’ rights to freedom of association in law and in practice. The Committee is confident that, while this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, they must recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations brought against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
4. 605. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations of non-compliance by the Government with its obligations on tripartite consultation and collective bargaining, as well as the obstruction of national tripartite institutions.
5. 606. The Committee notes that, in communications dated 20 and 22 February 2012, respectively, the CGTL and the ALI allege that the Government, and in particular the Ministry of Labour, violated the principles and standards related to tripartite consultation, social dialogue and collective bargaining by failing to engage in tripartite consultation on issues related to labour, employment, unemployment and social security, and by refusing to recognize tripartite institutions such as the Economic and Social Council, the constitution of which has been pending for a number of years, or the National Employment Agency, a tripartite body under the Minister of Labour, which is still without an executive board. In this regard, the Committee recalls that tripartite consultation should take place before the Government submits a draft to the Legislative Assembly or establishes labour, social or economic policy [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 1070]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure respect for this principle. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective functioning of national tripartite institutions, especially the Economic and Social Council and the National Employment Agency, and to keep it informed in this respect.
6. 607. The Committee also notes that the complainants allege that the Government has brought the industrial courts (tripartite labour courts) to a standstill by blocking the promulgation of the decree required for their creation because the Minister of Labour wishes to appoint four persons of his choosing as workers’ delegates, although they are not included in the list provided by their general confederation. Noting with concern that, according to the allegations, thousands of actions brought before the labour courts have not been examined, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to enable the industrial courts to operate, if that is not yet the case, and the examination of any actions filed. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard.
7. 608. The Committee notes that the complainants allege that the Government is seriously failing to meet its obligations by refusing to pay the sums owed by the State to the National Social Security Fund (in total, more than LBP1,300 billion) and that the latter’s executive board was not received by the minister responsible (Minister of Labour), who shows no interest in the Fund. In so far as the functioning of the Fund is governed by a tripartite agreement, the Committee expects the Government to honour the obligations therein and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
8. 609. As regards the complainants’ allegations concerning the process for the review of wages and other benefits, which was carried out from the end of 2011, the Committee notes that: (1) under Lebanese legislation (Act No. 36/67), the Government can establish the official minimum wage by a decree issued by the Council of Ministers, on the basis of the recommendations of the Price Index Committee (tripartite body created under Decree No. 4206 of 1981); (2) a tripartite agreement in 1995 specified that employers should grant transport and education allowances to workers as an exceptional and provisional measure until public transport and education improved; and (3) the rates of these allowances is set by a decree issued by the Council of Ministers and they are renewed every year by reason of the exceptional and provisional nature of these measures. The Committee also notes that, according to the complainants, following the non-renewal of the decree providing for these allowances, the representatives of the economic bodies and the General Confederation of Workers signed a bilateral agreement on 21 December 2011 on both the adjustment of wages and setting a minimum wage, and on education and transport allowance rates. The Committee takes note of the subsequent promulgation of two decrees ratifying these agreements: (1) Decree No. 7426, of 26 January 2012, establishing the official minimum wage of employees and workers subject to the Labour Code and the cost of living index, as well as the modalities for their implementation; in this respect, the CGTL indicates that, due to the deliberately delayed adoption of this decree, which came into force on 1 February 2012 non-retroactively, workers were deprived of a wage increase over the four months following the decision of the Council of Ministers to grant that increase on 12 October 2011; and (2) Decree No. 7573, of 23 February 2012, temporarily establishing the education and transport allowance rates [see Case No. 2952, 367th Report of the Committee, para. 878]. The Committee therefore understands that the decrees required for the implementation of the agreement of 21 December 2011 have finally been adopted. It requests the Government to examine with the social partners the possibility of the retroactive payment of the salary increase for the period October 2011 to February 2012.