Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Egypt (Ratification: 1954)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009 on the application of the Convention. The Committee observes that the ITUC refers again to the provisions of the 2002 Special Economic Zones Law, which exempts investment companies newly established in the zones from the legal provisions concerning the organization of labour, and to anti-union acts, including pressure on members to leave unions. The union also previously stated that most workers in the Tenth of Ramadan City zone were forced to sign letters of resignation before beginning employment so that they could be fired at the employers’ convenience. The ITUC also alleges that trade unionists were harassed by the authorities, including in connection with the promotion of union membership, and that administrative penalties were imposed on a number of trade unionists. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the ITUC comments, stating in particular that: (1) workers in special economic zones are covered by the provisions of the Labour Code (Labour Law No. 12 of 2003); (2) the Labour Code lays down procedures for ensuring their application and frequent inspections are carried out in such zones by duly trained inspectors with the authority to impose penalties, pursuant to an order of the Ministry of Justice, and; (3) no evidence of the allegations made by the ITUC has been submitted. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to carry out an investigation into the alleged anti-union acts and the imposition of administrative penalties for activities undertaken by a number of trade unionists referred to by the ITUC.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it has been making comments for a number of years on various provisions of the Labour Code, as follows:

–      as regards section 154 of the new Labour Code, under which any clause of a collective agreement contrary to the law on public order or general ethics shall be null and void, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the scope of this section and the impact the broad wording of this section might have on the application of the principle of voluntary negotiation. Further noting that section 154 referred to a law that was still in its preparatory phase, the Committee asked the Government to provide a copy of the relevant provisions of the law, once adopted, in order to assess their compatibility with the principle of voluntary negotiation contained in Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the section in question does not refer to a law which is in the preparatory phase and that it merely provides that collective agreements must respect the law, public order and general ethics. The Government also indicates that public order derives from economic, ethical, political and social foundations on which the society of a country is based. The Committee welcomes the Government’s explanations and requests it to indicate the specific cases in which use has been made in practice of section 154 of the Labour Code;

–      as regards section 158 of the new Labour Code, the Committee asks the Government to amend that section so as to ensure that the approval of a collective agreement may only be refused if: (1) it contains a procedural flaw; or (2) it does not conform to the minimum standards laid down by the labour legislation (the Committee had observed that the legislation does not state the specific reasons why the registration of a collective agreement may be refused). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the only reasons for refusing the registration of a collective agreement are those mentioned by the Committee and that, since the promulgation of the Labour Code in 2003, the administrative authority has not refused the registration of any collective agreement;

–      as regards sections 148 and 153 of the Labour Code, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to repeal these sections, as they enable higher level organizations to interfere in the negotiation process conducted by lower level organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the purpose of the participation of higher level organizations in the negotiation process of a union is to support and strengthen the position of smaller unions. According to the Government, the application of the Convention is ensured by concluding agreements which apply to all workers belonging to a higher level organization. The Committee recalls that such interference by higher level organizations in the bargaining process undertaken by lower level organizations is incompatible with the autonomy which must be enjoyed by bargaining parties which, as such, must have the right to free and voluntary negotiation of collective agreements. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to take the necessary steps to repeal the sections in question. Observing that, in the context of the examination of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), by Egypt, the Government stated that a tripartite symposium would be held to analyse the Committee’s comments in this respect, the Committee expresses the hope that these comments will be examined by that body. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures taken in this respect.

Finally, the Committee previously asked the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the Labour Code (sections 179 and 187, in conjunction with sections 156 and 163 of the Labour Code) so that the parties could have recourse to arbitration only by mutual agreement. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent its observations in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the abovementioned provisions of the Labour Code so that compulsory arbitration is possible only for public servants engaged in the administration of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on all progress made in this respect.