ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - SpanishAlle anzeigen

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with regret that the Industrial Relations (Consolidation) Act (No. 18) of 1986 which repeals the Industrial Relations Act (No. 35) of 1975 does not take account of its previous request.

The Committee noted that Act No. 35 of 1975 enables strikes in the banana and citrus industries to be halted, as these are listed as essential services in the schedule annexed to the Act. The Committee recalled its opinion that the prohibition or restriction of the exercise of the right to strike should be confined to essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e., those services whose interruption is liable to endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes that Act No. 18 of 1986 retains the provisions of the former Act in this regard and extends the concept of essential services to the coconut industry, whereas it had indicated previously that economic activities were to be removed from the schedule of essential services. It recalls that the inclusion of banana, citrus and coconut industries in essential services is not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

The Committee also notes that Act No. 18 of 1986 enables the Minister to have recourse to compulsory arbitration not, as was the case under Act No. 35 of 1975, if he considers that a dispute occurs in a major trade or industry (as defined in Act No. 35 of 1975), but when he is satisfied, after notification from one of the parties, that the issues involved are serious and that the dispute is suitable for submission to arbitration.

In the Committee's view, enabling the Minister to use his discretion in referring a dispute to compulsory arbitration is liable to restrict the exercise of the right to strike and impair observance of Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention which provide that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of workers' and employers' organisations to promote and to defend their interests. The Committee considers that there should only be recourse to compulsory arbitration at the request of both parties to a dispute.

The Committee recalls that, although strikes may be prohibited in essential services, the meaning of the term "essential services" is the one given above. However, this does not rule out the possibility of adopting measures when a prolonged stoppage of work in another sector of the economy is liable to cause an acute national crisis. Referring to its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining of 1983 (paragraph 215), the Committee again draws the Government's attention to the fact that, in such circumstances, the maintenance of a minimum service, restricted to operations that are strictly necessary and in whose definition the workers' and employers' organisations should be able to participate, could help overcome difficult situations.

The Committee asks the Government to re-examine its legislation with a view to confining the prohibition of strikes to cases in which a prolonged stoppage of work resulting from the strike would endanger the life, health or personal safety of the whole or part of the population, or to cases of acute national crisis.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer