Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Cabo Verde (Ratification: 1999)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee further notes the comments made by the National Union of Workers of Cape Verde - Trade Union Confederation (UNTC-CS) and the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Cape Verde (CCSL) and the Government’s reply thereto. These comments concern issues already raised by the Committee.

In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that a draft Labour Code had been prepared. On that occasion, the Committee made the following comments on the draft text.

Article 2 of the Convention. 1. The Committee noted that section 1 of the draft Labour Code excludes from its scope of application agricultural workers, workers in labour-intensive sectors and dockworkers. The Committee reminded the Government that the Convention applies to all workers, without distinction whatsoever.

2. The Committee noted that section 59 of the draft Labour Code, respecting the recognition of the legal personality of workers’ organizations, does not provide for a right of appeal to the courts against any administrative decision relating to the registration of trade unions. The Committee reminded the Government the necessity to incorporate the right of legal redress in the draft Labour Code.

3. The Committee also noted that subsection 4 of section 59 provides that workers’ organizations may not commence their activities until their statutes have been published in the Official Bulletin. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the period required for such publication and, if no such time limit is established, to determine a reasonable period for publication so that no obstacles are created for the establishment of trade unions.

Articles 3 and 10. Right to strike. 1. Replacement of striking workers. The Committee noted that section 110(2) of the draft Labour Code prohibits the recruitment of workers to replace striking workers and permits the employer to conclude a contract with another enterprise for the provision of goods and services, which are immobilized as a result of the strike. The Committee considers that the application of subsection (2) should be confined to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

2. Minimum service. The Committee noted that, in the context of Case No. 2044, the Committee on Freedom of Association drew its attention to section 12 of Legislative Decree No. 76/90 (section 112(4) of the draft Labour Code), under which it is the responsibility of the employer, after hearing the views of the workers’ representatives, to determine the minimum service in enterprises or establishments with a view to meeting essential social needs. In this respect, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that, in the event of disagreement between the parties concerning the minimum service to be provided during the strike (the activities to be undertaken and the persons responsible for doing so), this divergence is resolved by an independent body.

The Committee welcomes the fact that the Government has indicated in its report that it will take account of its comments in the draft Labour Code concerning the application of Articles 2, 3, and 10 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that according to the Government, the most representative organizations will be consulted in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments relating to the draft Labour Code and to provide a copy as soon as it is adopted.