Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 392, Octobre 2020

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body

1. 149. The Committee last examined this case, submitted in May 2009, at its June 2019 meeting [see 389th Report, paras 70–78]. The present case concerns a Supreme Court decision finding that workers who had shaved or cropped their hair while at work had engaged in an unprotected illegal strike, and thus upholding the dismissal of 29 trade union officers and allowing the dismissal of 61 trade union members, in violation of the principles of freedom of association and expression. In its last examination of the case, the Committee noted that its recommendations had been brought before the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council-Monitoring Body (NTIPC-MB) and requested the Government to provide updated information on the current situation of the dismissed workers, including any compensatory settlement agreements reached, and on any findings made by the NTIPC-MB in this regard, as well as on the allegation that a management-supported union was again established at the hotel.  The Committee also expressed its expectation that the legislative amendments to article 278(g) of the Labor Code, which concerns the automatic issuance of the assumption of jurisdiction power of the Secretary of Labour, would be adopted in the very near future.
2. 150. The Government provides its observations in a communication dated 1 October 2019. It indicates that the amount of the separation pay to the dismissed workers is determined by law or the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, which thus serve as a measure of adequacy for the payment of the separation pay. The Government reiterates that in May 2013, a joint resolution of the Tripartite Industrial Peace Council and the Tripartite Executive Committee Labour Sector called on the Office of the Solicitor-General to make the necessary intervention for the Supreme Court to take into consideration the Committee’s recommendations and review en banc its decision on the case. The Government indicates that the Supreme Court ordered the Office of the Solicitor-General to provide it with copies of all documents related to the ILO proceedings. The Office of the Solicitor-General complied with the order in February 2016 and the Court has yet to issue a resolution en banc on its review of the case.
3. 151. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. With regard to the 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding the dismissal of 29 trade union officers and allowing the dismissal of 61 trade union members, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Office of the Solicitor-General provided the Supreme Court with copies of documents related to the case and that the Court has yet to issue a resolution en banc on its review. The Committee understands from the above that despite the Government’s previous indication that the decision of the Supreme Court was final and executory, it appears that the Supreme Court might review en banc its 2008 decision. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the Supreme Court review of the case, as well as to provide updated information on the current situation of the dismissed workers, including any compensatory settlement agreements reached and any findings made by the NTIPC-MB in this regard. The Committee firmly expects this long-standing issue to be resolved without further delay.
4. 152. Further observing that the Government does not provide any information on the allegation that a management-supported union was again established at the hotel, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide its observations on this matter. The Committee trusts that all necessary steps are taken to ensure that trade unions at the hotel are established in total independence from the employer and can, in practice, function without any employer interference.
5. 153. Concerning the amendment of article 278(g) of the Labor Code, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information in this regard. It observes, however, from the information submitted to the 2019 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards that House Bills Nos 175, 711, 1908 and 4447 and Senate Bill No. 1221 (aimed at rationalizing government intervention in labour disputes by adopting the essential services criteria in the exercise of the assumption of jurisdiction power of the Secretary of Labour and Employment) were expected to be refiled in the 18th Congress. Recalling that the legislative reform aiming at amending article 278(g) of the Labor Code has been ongoing for many years and observing that no significant progress appears to have been achieved in this regard, the Committee firmly expects the legislative amendments to be adopted in the very near future and refers this legislative aspect to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.