Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Syrian Arab Republic (Ratification: 1957)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

A Government representative, observing that the Committee of Experts considered section 98 of the Labour Code to be in contradiction with Article 4 of the Convention, stated that his Government did not think it was the case, for the following reasons:

- firstly, the economic interests of any country are part of the public order which is the whole group of laws and regulations related to the basic interests, whether economic, social or political, of any society and the agreements cannot go against this order. The Minister has to be able to have recourse to section 98 when he considers that a collective agreement would harm the economic interests of the country, that is, against the public order, and to annul any clause of the collective agreement in such a case;

- secondly, section 98 of the Labour Code does not prevent the promotion and encouragement of arrangements aiming at reaching collective agreements between workers' and employers' organisations; it merely ensures that no clause or collective agreement would do any harm to the economic interests of the country and hence to its public order;

- thirdly, the Director-General of the ILO indicates in his report to the Conference entitled "Democratisation and the ILO" that "only major economic and social considerations or considerations of general interest could justify action by the authorities to alter the content of freely concluded collective agreements", which means that in such a case the public authorities may intervene;

- fourthly, the Committee of Experts requested the Government to persuade the parties to collective bargaining to have regard in their negotiations to major economic and social policy considerations and the general interest invoked by the Government. One may wonder what to do when the parties to the negotiations do not abide by such economic and social policy;

- should legal rules which are really ethical rules dependent upon the agreement and support of the negotiating parties depend upon public authorities for their enforcement?

Noting the divergence or views between his Government and the Committee of Experts, the speaker wished that this case be submitted to the tribunal, whose establishment had been proposed.

The Employers' members, recalling that the Convention referred to freedom of collective bargaining between employers and workers, observed that this Convention might be applied in different manners, that many systems exist in the world, that in countries where there are various restrictions, collective agreement and collective bargaining are hardly ever as free as they should be. In the case under examination, the question is the general targets of the economic policy of the country. It is certain that the economic situation should be taken into account by the parties to the collective bargaining, but the question concerns the criteria upon which the public authorities may intervene in the collective bargaining. The concepts of public order and the general interest are well known to lawyers, but as long as the collective bargaining is concerned, the prerequisites should be clearly determined so as to avoid arbitrary interventions; the participation of workers and employers in such determination would be desirable. Some measures could be adopted to provide for less interference in the bargaining process and the Government should seek the ways and means to protect its proper interest and objectives without intervening excessively in the collective bargaining and look for solutions compatible with the concept of freedom of collective bargaining.

The Workers' members stated that the Government had not changed and did not have the intention to change its legislation despite the precise and repeated observations of the Committee of Experts. The Government indicated that there was no contradiction between its legislation and the Convention, and instead of cooperating with the supervisory organs, it rather looked for confrontation. Section 98 of the Labour Code permits the intervention in collective bargaining in such a way that it is almost impossible to conclude collective agreements. Such arguments as those which the Government made referring to the economic interests are known, have been discussed many times, and were examined by the Committee of Experts in its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining of 1983 in which the Committee of Experts indicated that it would be better to try to persuade the parties to collective bargaining to have regard in their negotiations to certain considerations of general interest rather than to restrict and interfere in the collective bargaining. The attitude of the Government is worrying, and goes against the spirit of cooperation. The Workers' members urged that the Government should study again the comments of the Commitee of Experts and the content of the General Survey and that it should reconsider its attitude and re-examine the situation.

A Workers' member of the Netherlands recalled that the Committee of Experts had developed a kind of jurisprudence, giving criteria which the Government should respect if it wanted to interfere in freely negotiated contracts, with an appeal to the economic interest: such criteria included that measures should be temporary, that they should be taken only under exceptional circumstances and that there should be compensation for the living standards of the workers. He noted that it might take quite some time to change laws, as demonstrated in some other cases concerning legislation on interference in free collective bargaining, but he declared such interference intolerable.

The Government representative noted that the Employers' members had said that the interventions in the collective bargaining should not be exaggerated and that the Workers' members had said that they would not accept any interference, and that another Workers' member said that the intervention should take place only in exceptional circumstances. The Government does not look for confrontation but looks for collaboration with the ILO. It is a purely judicial question and the Government considers that section 98 of the Labour Code is not against the Convention. Recalling that the interventions were based on national economic interests, the speaker wondered if the parties to the bargaining could, for example, adopt a collective agreement against a governmental decision to freeze the wages to contain inflation. The State enjoys discretionary power in appreciating the risks that run the public or economic order of the country.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government. It understood the Government holds the labour legislation mentioned in the Committee of Experts' report not to be in contravention with the Convention. It also noted the Government's mentioning to seek close cooperation with the ILO. It therefore expressed the hope that the Government, after consultation with the ILO, would reconsider its position.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

Scope of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to specify and provide details concerning the legislative provisions affording to the following categories of workers the rights enshrined in the Convention: independent workers, civil servants, domestic servants and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers whose hours of work do not exceed two hours per day. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that : (i) pursuant to section 5(b) of the Labour Act No. 17 of 2010, domestic workers and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers shall be subjected to the provisions of their employment contracts, which may not, under any circumstances, prescribe fewer entitlements than those prescribed by the Labour Act, including the provisions of the Law on Trade Union Organizations; and (ii) civil servants are governed by the Basic Law on State Employees No. 50 of 2004. Noting that section 5(b) of the Labour Act excludes several categories of workers from its scope of application and exclusively refers to the content of their individual contracts of employment, the Committee requests the Government to specify the legislative provision recognizing the right to collective bargaining. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate legislative provisions regulating the right of collective bargaining for civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State. It further requests the Government to indicate whether independent workers enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention and to specify the relevant legislative provisions.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, noting that the Labour Act of 2010 does not expressly prohibit acts of interference on the part of the employers’ or workers’ organizations in each other’s affairs, the Committee had requested the Government to take measures with a view to adopting clear and precise provisions prohibiting acts of interference, accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. While observing that the Government does not provide specific information in this regard, the Committee recalls that under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, workers’ and employers’ organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration. Acts of interference are deemed to include acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of an employer or an employers’ organization, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers and employers’ organizations (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 194). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation explicitly prohibits all of the acts covered by Article 2 of the Convention and that it provides for sufficiently dissuasive penalties in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee had previously noted that section 187(c) of the Labour Act grants an excessive power to the Ministry to object and refuse to register a collective agreement on any grounds that it deems appropriate during a 30-day period after filing the collective agreement and therefore requested the Government to amend the provision in order to fully guarantee the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in the Convention. Additionally, it pointed out that pursuant to section 214 of the Labour Act, if mediation fails, either party may file a request to initiate dispute settlement through arbitration and accordingly recalled that compulsory arbitration is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration in the State, essential services in the strict sense of the term, and acute national crises. The Committee observes that the Government merely states that all laws and subsequent amendments on the Labour Act were adopted in full consultation with social partners, and reiterates that section 187(c) of the Labour Act aims to ensure that collective agreements are in conformity with the abovementioned Act. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sections 187(c) and 214 of the Labour Act are brought into conformity with the Convention.

Arbitration bodies. The Committee previously requested the Government to take measures to amend section 215 of the Labour Act so as to ensure that the composition of the tribunal is balanced and has the confidence of the parties in the arbitration mechanism. Noting with regret the absence of any new development in this regard, the Committee expects that the Government will undertake, as soon as possible, the amendment of the abovementioned provision.

Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations. While taking note that the Labour Act refers in its section 178 to collective bargaining and social dialogue, the Committee requests the Government to indicate, in practice, the measures taken or envisaged to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations to regulate the terms and conditions working through collective bargaining. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of existing collective agreements, the sectors concerned and the numbers of workers covered by those.

While acknowledging the complexity of the situation prevailing on the ground due to the presence of armed groups and armed conflict in the country, the Committee trusts that the Government will make all efforts to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee expects that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

Scope of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to specify and provide details concerning the legislative provisions affording to the following categories of workers the rights enshrined in the Convention: independent workers, civil servants, domestic servants and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers whose hours of work do not exceed two hours per day. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that : (i) pursuant to section 5(b) of the Labour Act No. 17 of 2010, domestic workers and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers shall be subjected to the provisions of their employment contracts, which may not, under any circumstances, prescribe fewer entitlements than those prescribed by the Labour Act, including the provisions of the Law on Trade Union Organizations; and (ii) civil servants are governed by the Basic Law on State Employees No. 50 of 2004.Noting that section 5(b) of the Labour Act excludes several categories of workers from its scope of application and exclusively refers to the content of their individual contracts of employment, the Committee requests the Government to specify the legislative provision recognizing the right to collective bargaining. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate legislative provisions regulating the right of collective bargaining for civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State. It further requests the Government to indicate whether independent workers enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention and to specify the relevant legislative provisions.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, noting that the Labour Act of 2010 does not expressly prohibit acts of interference on the part of the employers’ or workers’ organizations in each other’s affairs, the Committee had requested the Government to take measures with a view to adopting clear and precise provisions prohibiting acts of interference, accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. While observing that the Government does not provide specific information in this regard, the Committee recalls that under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, workers’ and employers’ organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration. Acts of interference are deemed to include acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of an employer or an employers’ organization, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers and employers’ organizations (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 194).The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation explicitly prohibits all of the acts covered by Article 2 of the Convention and that it provides for sufficiently dissuasive penalties in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee had previously noted that section 187(c) of the Labour Act grants an excessive power to the Ministry to object and refuse to register a collective agreement on any grounds that it deems appropriate during a 30-day period after filing the collective agreement and therefore requested the Government to amend the provision in order to fully guarantee the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in the Convention. Additionally, it pointed out that pursuant to section 214 of the Labour Act, if mediation fails, either party may file a request to initiate dispute settlement through arbitration and accordingly recalled that compulsory arbitration is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration in the State, essential services in the strict sense of the term, and acute national crises. The Committee observes that the Government merely states that all laws and subsequent amendments on the Labour Act were adopted in full consultation with social partners, and reiterates that section 187(c) of the Labour Act aims to ensure that collective agreements are in conformity with the abovementioned Act.The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sections 187(c) and 214 of the Labour Act are brought into conformity with the Convention.

Arbitration bodies. The Committee previously requested the Government to take measures to amend section 215 of the Labour Act so as to ensure that the composition of the tribunal is balanced and has the confidence of the parties in the arbitration mechanism.Noting with regret the absence of any new development in this regard, the Committee expects that the Government will undertake, as soon as possible, the amendment of the abovementioned provision.

Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations.While taking note that the Labour Act refers in its section 178 to collective bargaining and social dialogue, the Committee requests the Government to indicate, in practice, the measures taken or envisaged to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations to regulate the terms and conditions working through collective bargaining. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of existing collective agreements, the sectors concerned and the numbers of workers covered by those.

While acknowledging the complexity of the situation prevailing on the ground due to the presence of armed groups and armed conflict in the country, the Committee trusts that the Government will make all efforts to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Scope of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to specify and provide details concerning the legislative provisions affording to the following categories of workers the rights enshrined in the Convention: independent workers, civil servants, domestic servants and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers whose hours of work do not exceed two hours per day. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that : (i) pursuant to section 5(b) of the Labour Act No. 17 of 2010, domestic workers and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers shall be subjected to the provisions of their employment contracts, which may not, under any circumstances, prescribe fewer entitlements than those prescribed by the Labour Act, including the provisions of the Law on Trade Union Organizations; and (ii) civil servants are governed by the Basic Law on State Employees No. 50 of 2004. Noting that section 5(b) of the Labour Act excludes several categories of workers from its scope of application and exclusively refers to the content of their individual contracts of employment, the Committee requests the Government to specify the legislative provision recognizing the right to collective bargaining. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate legislative provisions regulating the right of collective bargaining for civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State. It further requests the Government to indicate whether independent workers enjoy the rights afforded by the Convention and to specify the relevant legislative provisions.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, noting that the Labour Act of 2010 does not expressly prohibit acts of interference on the part of the employers’ or workers’ organizations in each other’s affairs, the Committee had requested the Government to take measures with a view to adopting clear and precise provisions prohibiting acts of interference, accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. While observing that the Government does not provide specific information in this regard, the Committee recalls that under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, workers’ and employers’ organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration. Acts of interference are deemed to include acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of an employer or an employers’ organization, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers and employers’ organizations (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 194). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation explicitly prohibits all of the acts covered by Article 2 of the Convention and that it provides for sufficiently dissuasive penalties in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee had previously noted that section 187(c) of the Labour Act grants an excessive power to the Ministry to object and refuse to register a collective agreement on any grounds that it deems appropriate during a 30-day period after filing the collective agreement and therefore requested the Government to amend the provision in order to fully guarantee the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in the Convention. Additionally, it pointed out that pursuant to section 214 of the Labour Act, if mediation fails, either party may file a request to initiate dispute settlement through arbitration and accordingly recalled that compulsory arbitration is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration in the State, essential services in the strict sense of the term, and acute national crises. The Committee observes that the Government merely states that all laws and subsequent amendments on the Labour Act were adopted in full consultation with social partners, and reiterates that section 187(c) of the Labour Act aims to ensure that collective agreements are in conformity with the abovementioned Act. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sections 187(c) and 214 of the Labour Act are brought into conformity with the Convention.

Arbitration bodies. The Committee previously requested the Government to take measures to amend section 215 of the Labour Act so as to ensure that the composition of the tribunal is balanced and has the confidence of the parties in the arbitration mechanism. Noting with regret the absence of any new development in this regard, the Committee expects that the Government will undertake, as soon as possible, the amendment of the abovementioned provision.

Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations. While taking note that the Labour Act refers in its section 178 to collective bargaining and social dialogue, the Committee requests the Government to indicate, in practice, the measures taken or envisaged to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations to regulate the terms and conditions working through collective bargaining. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of existing collective agreements, the sectors concerned and the numbers of workers covered by those.

While acknowledging the complexity of the situation prevailing on the ground due to the presence of armed groups and armed conflict in the country, the Committee trusts that the Government will make all efforts to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the Government’s comments in reply to the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2013, stating in particular that the absence of collective bargaining agreements signed in recent years is due to the fact that there was no request by the social partners to this end. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations to regulate the terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining agreements.

Scope of the Convention. The Committee had previously noted that sections 1 and 5(1), (2) and (4)–(7) of Labour Act No. 17 of 2010 exclude certain workers from the scope of the law (independent workers, civil servants, agricultural workers, domestic servants and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers whose hours of work do not exceed two hours per day). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) workers who are excluded from the scope of the Labour Act are covered by other laws which regulate their work; (ii) there is no legal impediment for them, via unions, to engage in collective bargaining; (iii) section 17 of the Trade Union Organization Act which governs all employees in the Syrian Arab Republic specifies that a trade union enjoys the right to carry out collective bargaining and conclude collective agreements with employers on behalf of workers; (iv) the abovementioned laws regulating the work of workers excluded from the Labour Act have reiterated that right for trade unions and workers; and (v) for example, section 25 of Act No. 56 of 2004 concerning agricultural relations defines collective bargaining as a set of negotiations which is carried out between one or several employers or one or several employers’ organizations on the one hand, and one or several workers’ federations on the other, with a view to finalizing a collective labour contract. While duly noting that agricultural workers enjoy the right to bargain collectively, the Committee requests the Government to specify and provide details concerning the legislative provisions affording to all categories of workers excluded from the Labour Act the rights enshrined in the Convention, in particular the right to collective bargaining and the right to adequate protection against anti-union discrimination.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee had previously underlined the need to provide for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against anti-union dismissal. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Act provides for dissuasive sanctions in the case of dismissal on the grounds of practising trade union activity or being involved in an electoral activity, in particular: (i) section 67(b) provides for reinstatement of the worker and reimbursement of wages in full for the interruption period; and (ii) in the case that reinstatement is not possible, section 67(c) imposes as sanction the payment of compensation equalling two months’ wages for each year of service, provided that the sum of the overall compensation does not exceed 200 times the minimum wage (normally, in case of dismissal on unjustified or illegitimate grounds, the compensation shall not exceed 150 times the minimum wage). The Committee takes note of this information.

Furthermore, the Committee had previously noted that the Labour Act does not prohibit acts of interference on the part of employers or organizations of workers in each other’s affairs, in accordance with the Convention. Noting that the Government does not provide information in response to this point, the Committee once again requests the Government to take measures with a view to adopting clear and precise provisions prohibiting acts of interference, accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee had previously noted that section 187(c) of the Labour Act states that, during the 30-day period between filing the collective agreement and approval by the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry may object to and refuse to register the agreement and inform contracting parties, by registered letter, of such objection or refusal and the reasons thereof. The Committee had underlined that such objection or refusal to register a collective agreement may only be made on the basis of a procedural flaw or non compliance with the minimum standards laid down in the labour legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry does not refuse the registration of any collective agreement unless its provisions are not in conformity with international labour standards or the national labour legislation. While observing that, according to the Government, the Ministry does not use its powers in practice except for the reason mentioned above, the Committee considers that, as it stands, section 187(c) grants during the 30-day period after filing the collective agreement an excessive power to the Ministry to object or refuse to register a collective agreement on any grounds that it deems appropriate. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to align the wording of this provision with the described practice in order to fully guarantee the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in the Convention.

The Committee had previously noted that under section 214 of the Labour Act, if mediation fails, either party may file a request to initiate dispute settlement through arbitration, and had emphasized that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is only acceptable in limited circumstances. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Arbitration Act defines an arbitration agreement as an agreement of two parties to a dispute who resort to arbitration so as to settle some or all of the disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them, with respect to a specific legal relationship, be it contractual or not. The Committee observes, however, that the 2008 Arbitration Act containing the above definition governs commercial disputes, whereas collective labour disputes are governed by the Labour Act, which contains distinct provisions, in particular concerning the recourse to arbitration, the arbitration procedure and the arbitration tribunal. The Committee reiterates that compulsory arbitration is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), essential services in the strict sense of the term, and acute national crises. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the compulsory recourse to arbitration can only take place in the circumstances mentioned above.

Arbitration bodies. The Committee had previously noted that, according to section 215 of the Labour Act, arbitration tribunals are composed of a chairperson and one member appointed by the Ministry of Justice, one member appointed by the Ministry of Labour, one member appointed by the General Federation of Trade Unions and one member appointed by the Federation of Chambers of Industry, Commerce and Tourism, or the Contractors Association at the governorate level. The Committee had underlined that the composition of the arbitration tribunal could raise questions concerning its independence and impartiality. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that according to section 215, the composition of the arbitration body (a chairperson who is a judge at a councillor’s grade and members who are representatives of the three social partners) reflects a harmonious balance in line with ILO principles and tripartism. The Committee considers that the appointment by the Minister of three (two members and the chairperson) out of five members of the arbitration tribunal, taking into account that arbitration awards are rendered by majority vote of the panel (section 219(a)), calls into question the independence and impartiality of such a tribunal, as well as the confidence of the concerned parties in such a system. The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to amend section 215 of the Labour Act so as to ensure that the composition of the arbitration tribunal is balanced and has the confidence of the parties in the arbitration mechanism.

While acknowledging the complexity of the situation prevailing on the ground due to the presence of armed groups and armed conflict in the country, the Committee trusts that the Government will make all efforts to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes the general human rights situation in the country as referred to in its comments under the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105). It also notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Repetition

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2013 concerning issues that have been raised in the past, including the fact that collective bargaining hardly exists, as well as allegations that, while the right to collective bargaining is recognized in Labour Law No. 17 of 2010, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour has vast powers to object to and refuse the registration of concluded collective agreements. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the 2012 ITUC comments.

The Committee noted, in previous comments, the adoption of Labour Law No. 17 of 2010, which contains a chapter on collective bargaining (sections 178–202). In this respect, it draws the attention of the Government to the following issues.

Scope of the Convention. Sections 1 and 5(1), (2) and (4)–(7) exclude certain workers from the scope of the law (independent workers, civil servants, agricultural workers, domestic servants and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers whose hours of work do not exceed two hours per day). Recalling that these workers are covered by the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the rights enshrined in the Convention are provided to these workers by other legislation, and, if this is not the case, to take measures to recognize to these workers, in the legislation, the rights enshrined in the Convention.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes that section 67(a) states that, according to section 67, employers may not dismiss a unionized worker performing, organizing or taking part in trade union activities; in case reinstatement is not possible, section 67(c) provides that compensation equals two months’ wages for each year in service. In this respect, the Committee underlines the need to reinforce the sanction against anti-union dismissal by providing sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend this provision. The Committee further notes that the Labour Law does not prohibit acts of interference on the part of employers or organizations of workers in each other’s affairs, in accordance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take measures in order to adopt clear and precise provisions prohibiting acts of interference accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. Section 187(c) states that, during the 30-day period between filing the agreement and having it approved by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, the Ministry may object to and refuse to register the agreement, and inform contracting parties, by registered letter, of such objection/refusal and the reasons thereof. The Committee underlines that this provision grants excessive power to the Ministry to object or refuse to register a collective agreement. The Committee recalls that such an objection/refusal to register a collective agreement may only be made on the basis of a procedural flaw or because it does not conform to the minimum standards laid down by the labour legislation. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend this provision in order to fully guarantee the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in the Convention.

The Committee notes that section 214 states that, in case mediation does not result in an agreement, either party may file a request to initiate dispute settlement through arbitration. The Committee recalls that, in general, arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is acceptable if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or with regard to disputes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, or in respect of civil servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that arbitration initiated by only one party to the dispute can only take place in the cases mentioned above.

Arbitration bodies. According to section 215, arbitration tribunals are composed of a chairperson and a member, appointed by the Ministry of Justice, a member appointed by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, one member appointed by the General Federation of Trade Unions and one member appointed by the Federation of Chambers of Industry, Commerce and Tourism, or the Contractors Association at the governorate level. The Committee underlines that the composition of the arbitration tribunal could raise questions concerning its independence and impartiality and could call into question the confidence of the concerned parties in such a system. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend this provision so as to ensure that the composition of the arbitration tribunals is balanced and can engender the confidence of the parties in the arbitration mechanism.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes the observations of the Government on the 4 August 2011 International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) comments. The Committee notes the comments made by the ITUC on 31 July 2012 concerning issues that have been raised in the past, including the fact that collective bargaining hardly exists, as well as allegations that, while the right to collective bargaining is recognized in Labour Law No. 17 of 2010, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour has vast powers to object to and refuse the registration of concluded collective agreements. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the 2012 ITUC comments. The Committee also notes the claim of the ITUC that, while the state of emergency that has been in place since 1963, with heavy restrictions on civil and political rights and trade unions under the full control of the regime, was finally lifted in April 2011 in response to protestor’s demands, at the end of 2011 the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic was seen as increasingly one of civil war.

The Committee noted, in its previous observation, the adoption of Labour Law No. 17 of 2010, which contains a chapter on collective bargaining (sections 178–202). In this respect, it draws the attention of the Government to the following issues.

Scope of the Convention. Sections 1 and 5(1), (2) and (4)–(7) exclude certain workers from the scope of the law (independent workers, civil servants, agricultural workers, domestic servants and similar categories, workers in charity associations and organizations, casual workers and part-time workers whose hours of work do not exceed two hours per day). Recalling that these workers are covered by the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the rights enshrined in the Convention are provided to these workers by other legislation, and, if this is not the case, to take measures to recognize to these workers, in the legislation, the rights enshrined in the Convention.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes that section 67(a) states that, according to section 67, employers may not dismiss a unionized worker performing, organizing or taking part in trade union activities; in case reinstatement is not possible, section 67(c) provides that compensation equals two months’ wages for each year in service. In this respect, the Committee underlines the need to reinforce the sanction against anti-union dismissal by providing sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend this provision. The Committee further notes that the Labour Law does not prohibit acts of interference on the part of employers or organizations of workers in each other’s affairs, in accordance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take measures in order to adopt clear and precise provisions prohibiting acts of interference accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. Section 187(c) states that, during the 30-day period between filing the agreement and having it approved by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, the Ministry may object to and refuse to register the agreement, and inform contracting parties, by registered letter, of such objection/refusal and the reasons thereof. The Committee underlines that this provision grants excessive power to the Ministry to object or refuse to register a collective agreement. The Committee recalls that such an objection/refusal to register a collective agreement may only be made on the basis of a procedural flaw or because it does not conform to the minimum standards laid down by the labour legislation. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend this provision in order to fully guarantee the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in the Convention.

The Committee notes that section 214 states that, in case mediation does not result in an agreement, either party may file a request to initiate dispute settlement through arbitration. The Committee recalls that, in general, arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is acceptable if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute, or with regard to disputes in essential services in the strict sense of the term, or in respect of civil servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that arbitration initiated by only one party to the dispute can only take place in the cases mentioned above.

Arbitration bodies. According to section 215, arbitration tribunals are composed of a chairperson and a member, appointed by the Ministry of Justice, a member appointed by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, one member appointed by the General Federation of Trade Unions and one member appointed by the Federation of Chambers of Industry, Commerce and Tourism, or the Contractors Association at the governorate level. The Committee underlines that the composition of the arbitration tribunal could raise questions concerning its independence and impartiality and could call into question the confidence of the concerned parties in such a system. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend this provision so as to ensure that the composition of the arbitration tribunals is balanced and can engender the confidence of the parties in the arbitration mechanism.

The Committee hopes that legislation and practice will be brought into line with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010 concerning the failure to implement collective bargaining rights, for union representatives can only participate with employers’ representatives and the supervising ministry in the establishment of minimum wages, or hours and conditions of employment.

Article 4 of the Convention. Collective bargaining in practice. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that for the second consecutive year, the Government indicated in its report that no collective agreement had been concluded in the last three years since none of the social partners had expressed the need for it. The Committee wished to draw the Government’s attention to the terms of Article 4 of the Convention, which states that measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. The Committee therefore urged the Government to indicate in its next report the measures to promote collective bargaining adopted by the national authorities in both the public and private sectors and reminded it of the possibility of requesting technical assistance from the Office in this respect.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Labour Code No. 17 of 2010 contains an entire chapter on collective bargaining (sections 178–202) and adds that collaboration is ongoing with the Chamber of Industry and the General Federation of Trade Unions to issue an order by the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs to clarify the mechanism for collective bargaining, and will transmit it to the Office as soon as it is issued. The Committee welcomes the request by the Government for ILO’s technical assistance in order to clarify the mechanism for the promotion of collective bargaining so as to encourage its use by representatives of workers and employers. The Committee, while expressing its concern about the deficient application of the Convention in practice, trusts that the requested technical assistance will take place in the very near future and  requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated by national authorities to promote collective bargaining, in both the public and private sectors.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that, for the second consecutive year, the Government indicates in its report that no collective agreement has been concluded in the last three years since none of the social partners has expressed the need for it. The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the terms of Article 4 of the Convention, which states that measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. The Committee urges the Government to indicate in its next report the measures to promote collective bargaining adopted by the national authorities in both the public and private sectors. The Committee reminds the Government of the possibility of requesting technical assistance from the Office in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 10 August 2006, which refer to issues previously raised by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the ICFTU’s comments with its next report.

The Committee notes with concern that, according to the report of the Government, no collective agreements have been concluded in the last three years. The Committee requests the Government to promote collective bargaining in the country and, in view of the gravity of the situation, invites the Government to solicit the technical assistance of the ILO.

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

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication of 31 August 2005. It requests the Government to communicate its observations thereon in its next report.

The Committee further recalls its previous comments and requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements signed during the last three years, as well as the sectors and the number of workers covered by such agreements.

The Committee will examine the questions raised in its 2004 direct request (see direct request 2004, 75th Session) under the regular reporting cycle in 2006.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Government’s report. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements signed during the last two years, as well as the sectors and the number of workers covered by such agreements. The Committee expresses the hope that the next report of the Government will contain all the necessary information in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) according to which collective bargaining rights are not being practiced in the Syrian Arab Republic. The Committee notes the Government’s response which provides information on section 89 and subsequent sections of Labour Code No. 91 of 1959 and section 18, paragraph (a)(ii) of Legislative Decree No. 84 of 1968 as amended, which allow for collective bargaining between employers or their organizations and workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of these provisions, in particular the number of collective agreements signed during the last two years, as well as the sectors and number of workers covered by such agreements.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

In the comments it has been making for several years, the Committee noted that section 98 of the Syrian Labour Code, 1959, allowed the authorities to refuse approval of a collective agreement or to quash any clause liable to harm the country’s economic interests, and asked the Government to amend this section.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption of Act No. 24 of 10 December 2000, section 1 of which repeals the provision in question.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report. The Committee had already pointed out that section 98 of the Syrian Labour Code of 1959 permitted the authorities to refuse to approve a collective agreement or cancellation of any clause likely to harm the economic interests of the country. The Government indicates that the repeal of the provision in question is planned and has communicated the text of a draft amendment to certain provisions of the Labour Code that is in the process of being examined by the authorities. Section 1 of this draft contemplates the repeal of section 98 mentioned above. The Committee requests the Government to supply the final text once it is adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the Government's report. The Committee had already pointed out that section 98 of the Syrian Labour Code of 1959 permitted refusal to approve a collective agreement or cancellation of any clause likely to harm the economic interests of the country. The Government indicates that the repeal of the provision in question is planned and has communicated the text of a draft amendment to certain provisions of the Labour Code. Section 1 of this draft contemplates the repeal of section 98 mentioned above.

The Committee requests the Government to supply the final text once it is adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee observes that the Government's report has not been received.

It none the less notes the request for clarification sent to the ILO by the Government concerning its comments on section 98 of the Syrian Labour Code under which the Minister may refuse to approve a collective agreement or to cancel any clause likely to harm the economic interests of the country.

As the Committee has already pointed out, only questions of form or of inconsistency with the minimum standards of labour law could justify such a system of prior approval. In this connection, the Committee suggests that the Government refer to its 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining which contains various proposals in this respect, including holding prior consultations on what the scope of the notion "public interest" should be, establishing joint bodies and drawing the attention of the parties to the economic policy objectives recognized as being in the public interest (see in particular paragraphs 251 to 253).

The Committee asks the Government to take the above proposals into consideration in amending section 98 of the Labour Code and to keep it informed of any measures taken in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

To the request for clarification sent to the ILO by the Government concerning its comments on section 98 of the Syrian Labour Code of 1959 under the terms of which the Minister may refuse to approve a collective agreement or cancel any clause likely to harm the economic interests of the country, the Committee replied that only questions of form or of inconsistency with the minimum standards of labour law could justify such a system of approval. It suggested that the Government refer to its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining which contains various proposals in that respect, including holding prior consultations on what the scope of the concept of public interest should be, establishing joint bodies and drawing the attention of the parties to the economic policy objectives recognized as being in the public interest (see in particular General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 251-253).

The Committee notes with interest that the Government states in its last report that it is examining the question and conducting the necessary consultations with the various structures concerned for the amendment of section 98, and will keep the Committee informed of the results.

The Committee asks the Government to communicate in its next report information on any measure taken in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received.

However, the Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government to the Conference Committee in June 1992 and of the discussion which took place thereon.

For several years, the Committee has invited the Government to amend article 98 of the Labour Code, which enables the Minister to refuse to approve a collective agreement and to annul any clause likely to harm the economic interests of the country. The Government refers to its previous replies and states that there is no opposition between article 98 and the Convention.

As the Committee has always pointed out, only questions of form or of non-conformity with the minimum standards of labour law could justify such a system of prior approval. The Committee therefore asks the Government to take suitable measures to amend article 98 of the Labour Code and instead to persuade the parties to collective bargaining to have regard in their negotiations to major economic and social policy considerations and the general interest invoked by the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report.

For several years, the Committee has invited the Government to amend article 98 of the Labour Code, which enables the Minister to refuse to approve a collective agreement and to annul any clause likely to harm the economic interests of the country. The Government refers to its previous replies and states that there is no opposition between article 98 and the Convention.

As the Committee pointed out in its General Survey of 1983 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, only questions of form or of non-conformity with the minimum standards of labour law could justify such a system of prior approval. The Committee therefore asks the Government to take suitable measures to amend article 98 of the Labour Code and instead to persuade the parties to collective bargaining to have regard in their negotiations to major economic and social policy considerations and the general interest invoked by the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government concerning the application of Article 1 of the Convention.

2. In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to examine the possibility of amending section 98 of the Labour Code which enables the Minister to refuse to give approval to a collective agreement and to annul any clause likely to harm the economic interests of the country.

In its report, the Government again indicates that, in the event of refusal, the parties concerned, after being informed of the reasons, are asked to reconsider the clause or clauses declared null and void but that, in practice, no refusals have been notified, since the workers, through their organisations, are aware of the country's interests as they participate in drawing up the economic policy in a number of tripartite bodies.

The Committee takes note of the Government's indications concerning the practical application of this provision. It nevertheless considers that section 98 of the Code in its current wording, is contrary to Article 4 and would appear to have lost all purport in the context in which collective bargaining now takes place. The Committee therefore requests the Government in its next report to provide information on measures which would be taken to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention and national practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

1. The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government concerning the application of Article 1 of the Convention.

2. In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to examine the possibility of amending section 98 of the Labour Code which enables the Minister to refuse to give approval to a collective agreement and to annul any clause likely to harm the economic interests of the country.

In its report, the Government again indicates that, in the event of refusal, the parties concerned, after being informed of the reasons, are asked to reconsider the clause or clauses declared null and void but that, in practice, no refusals have been notified, since the workers, through their organisations, are aware of the country's interests as they participate in drawing up the economic policy in a number of tripartite bodies.

The Committee takes note of the Government's indications concerning the practical application of this provision. It nevertheless considers that section 98 of the Code in its current wording, is contrary to Article 4 and would appear to have lost all purport in the context in which collective bargaining now takes place. The Committee therefore requests the Government in its next report to provide information on measures which would be taken to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention and national practice.