Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Côte d'Ivoire (Ratification: 1961)

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

Previous comment

Article 4 of the Convention. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to collective bargaining. Criteria for representativeness. In its previous comments, the Committee insisted on the need to ensure conformity of the provisions of section 54-2 of the Labour Code, on the following of workers’ and employers’ organizations further to the result of occupational elections, with the Convention. With regard to the following of workers’ organizations, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to address in the legislation the issue of the exercise of the right to collective bargaining in the event that no trade union organization reaches the required threshold (at the enterprise or establishment level, at least 30 per cent of valid ballots cast representing at least 15 per cent of registered electors; in a broader occupational and geographical context, at least 15 per cent of the employees working in one or more enterprises in the occupational and geographical sector concerned, in accordance with section 54.2(1) and (2) respectively). With regard to the following of an employers’ organization, (at least 30 per cent of the enterprises in the geographical area and sector concerned or enterprises employing at least 25 per cent of the employees in this sector, in accordance with section 54.2(3)), the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to reduce the representativeness threshold required of employers’ organizations with regard to collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a discussion was held in August 2019 during the occupational elections, which should be continued in order to better understand the issue of minimum thresholds of representativeness but that to date no text has been adopted. In order to ensure that the thresholds of representativeness required are not an obstacle to the promotion of collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to: (i) address in the legislation the issue of the exercise of the right to collective bargaining in the event that no trade union organization reaches the required threshold; and (ii) reduce the fixed minimum requirements, in order that an employers’ organization may be considered as representative. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this matter.

Articles 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 73.7 of the Labour Code, the possibility of concluding collective agreements in the public service applies only to the staff of public services, enterprises and establishments not governed by specific conditions of service set out in law or regulation, and requested the Government to specify, on the one hand, a list of the public services and establishments not governed by a law and, on the other hand, whether, in law or in practice, public servants subject to a specific law or regulation may participate in formal collective bargaining mechanisms with regard to their conditions of work and employment. The Committee notes that the Government, while providing a list of public establishments: (i) highlights that public establishments are governed by Act No. 2020-627 of 14 August 2020, determining the general regulations on national public establishments and setting out the categories of public establishments; (ii) specifies that staff of public services, enterprises and establishments are governed either by the Labour Code (contracted officials) or by the general conditions of public service; and (iii) reiterates that public servants have access to authorities through which they may refer their demands to their superiors for examination. The Committee understands that while, on the one hand, section 73.7 of the Labour Code may allow for collective bargaining where an employee is not subject to specific conditions of service set out in a law or regulation, on the other hand, section 29 of the above-mentioned Act of 14 August 2020 in practice denies this possibility, by subjecting staff of these establishments to the remuneration scheme applicable to public servants of the State. Recalling that, under Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, a category that includes employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and employees in decentralized institutions, teachers in the public sector or even public transport staff, must also be granted the right to negotiate the conditions of their work and employment collectively, the Committee requests the Government to specify the conditions in which public servants governed by conditions of service set out in law or regulation may participate in formal collective bargaining mechanisms with regard to their conditions of work and employment that go beyond the mere presentation of their demands or consultations.

Right of collective bargaining in practice.The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded in the country, including the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the initiatives taken by the Government to promote free and voluntary collective bargaining.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Enterprises of the Côte d’Ivoire (CGECI), received on 3 July 2019 concerning issues examined in this direct request.

Article 4 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to collective bargaining. Criteria for representativeness. The Committee noted in its previous comments the representativeness thresholds established under section 54.2(1) and (2) of Act No. 2015-532 of 20 July 2015 on the Labour Code (at the enterprise or establishment level, at least 30 per cent of valid ballots cast representing at least 15 per cent of registered electors; in a broader occupational and geographical context, in order to be representative the organization must be representative in one or more enterprises together employing at least 15 per cent of the employees working in the occupational and geographical sector concerned) and requested the Government to provide information on the right of trade unions to collective bargaining in the event that none of them reaches the required threshold. While noting the Government’s general reply that no workers’ and employers’ organizations have been excluded from collective bargaining for not meeting the representativeness thresholds established under section 54.2(1) and (2) of the Labour Code, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to address in the legislation the issue of the exercise of the right to collective bargaining in the event that no trade union organization reaches the required threshold.

Right of employers’ organizations to collective bargaining. Criteria for representativeness. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that pursuant to section 54.2(3) of the Labour Code, in order for the following of a trade union or an organization of employers to be considered sufficient it must group together at least 30 per cent of the enterprises in its geographical area and sector of activity or group together enterprises which jointly employ at least 25 per cent of the employees working in its geographical area and sector of activity. In this respect, the Committee recalled that the establishment of an excessively high threshold of representativeness can be an obstacle to the promotion and development of free and voluntary collective bargaining and therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures to reduce the fixed minimum requirements, so as to facilitate employers’ participation in the negotiation and conclusion of collective agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s reply that at present, no workers’ and employers’ organizations have been excluded from collective bargaining for not meeting the thresholds and the statements of the CGECI confirming the participation of employers’ organizations in negotiations irrespective of their representativeness threshold. Nevertheless recalling the importance of ensuring the conformity of the legislative provisions with the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to reduce the representativeness threshold required of employers’ organizations with regard to collective bargaining.

Article 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 73.7 of the Labour Code, the possibility of concluding collective agreements in the public service applies only to the staff of public services, enterprises and establishments not governed by specific conditions of service set out in law or regulation, and requested the Government to specify how, and on the basis of which text, public servants not engaged in the administration of the State who may be subject to specific conditions of service set out in a law or regulation enjoy their right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes, on the one hand, the Government’s assertion that public servants who are subject to a particular law or regulation have access to authorities through which they may refer their demands to their superiors for examination. On the other hand, it notes the observations of the CGECI calling on the Government to clarify the nature of these authorities. The Committee wishes to recall that under Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention, public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, a category that includes employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and employees in decentralized institutions, teachers in the public sector or even public transport staff, must be able not only to express their demands to their superiors but must also be granted the right to negotiate the conditions of their work and employment collectively. On this basis, the Committee requests the Government to provide, on the one hand, a list of the public services and establishments not governed by a law and, on the other hand, to specify whether, in law or in practice, public servants subject to a specific law or regulation may participate in formal collective bargaining mechanisms with regard to their conditions of work and employment that go beyond the mere presentation of their demands or consultations.

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

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 31 August 2016 concerning issues addressed in the present comment and concerning cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on the latter.

The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 2015-532 of 20 July 2015 on the Labour Code.

Article 4 of the Convention. Right of trade union organizations to collective bargaining. Criteria for representativeness. The Committee notes that, pursuant to the Labour Code, a trade union organization, in order to be representative, must have a sufficient following in the sector of activity and the geographical region that it covers (section 54.1). The following of a workers’ trade union shall be considered sufficient in the context of the establishment or enterprise where the trade union has obtained, on the occasion of the latest elections of staff delegates, in the first or second round, at least 30 per cent of the valid ballots cast representing at least 15 per cent of the registered electors (section 54.2(1)). The following shall in all cases be considered sufficient, in a broader occupational and geographical context, where the organization is representative in one or more enterprises jointly employing at least 15 per cent of the employees working in the occupational sector and geographical area concerned (section 54.2(2)). Recalling that the establishment of an excessively high threshold of representativeness can be an obstacle to the promotion and development of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the right of trade unions to collective bargaining, where none of them reaches the required threshold.

Right to collective bargaining of employers’ organizations. Criteria of representativeness. Pursuant to section 54.2(3) of the Labour Code, the following of a trade union or an organization of employers shall in all cases be considered sufficient either where it groups together at least 30 per cent of the enterprises in its geographical area and sector of activity, or where it groups together enterprises which jointly employ at least 25 per cent of the employees working in its geographical area and sector of activity. Recalling that the establishment of an excessively high threshold of representativeness can be an obstacle to the promotion and development of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to reduce the fixed minimum requirements, in order that an employers’ organization may be considered as representative, so as to facilitate employers’ participation in the negotiation and conclusion of collective agreements.

Article 6. The right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes that, under section 73.7 of the Labour Code, the possibility of concluding collective agreements in the public service applies only to personnel of public services, enterprises and establishments that are not governed by specific conditions of service set out in law or regulation. Recalling that the Convention applies to all public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requests the Government to specify how, and on the basis of which text, public servants not engaged in the administration of the State who may be subject to specific conditions of service set out in law or regulation, enjoy their right to collective bargaining.

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

Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to supply information on court decisions handed down in relation to the dispute within the National Union of Secondary School Teachers (SYNESCI) in which, according to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), there was interference from the Government. The Committee notes the communication of 25 July 2013 from SYNESCI to the Directorate for Labour Regulation in which the newly elected general secretary of the union indicates that the dispute came to an end with the holding of the ordinary congress of the organization in April 2013 under the auspices of Education International, resulting in the election of new officers and the restitution of the premises of the organization. The Committee welcomes this information.

Article 4 of the Convention. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to ensure that the determination of the most representative trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining is based on objective criteria or is carried out by an independent body if necessary. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has pledged to hold national occupational elections in order to determine representativeness. The project is being managed by the National Labour Council with the support of the labour administration. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on all progress made with regard to the organization of elections for determining representativeness and, if applicable, on their results.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous comments, further to the comments received from trade union organizations, including the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the court decisions handed down in relation to the dismissals of the leaders of the National Union of Employees of SODEFOR (SYNACOS) and the conflict in the National Union of Secondary School Teachers (SYNESCI), in which the Government is alleged to have interfered in their affairs by challenging the legitimacy of their leader and occupying their premises, and it requested the Government to provide its observations in reply to the allegations of acts of intimidation by the authorities against the National Union of High-level Health Managers of Côte d’Ivoire (SYNACASS-CI), and particularly the fact that the Secretary-General of the union was removed from office without reasons being given in December 2008. The Committee notes the Government’s replies to the issues raised. With regard to the case of SYNACOS (SODEFOR), the Government indicates that the Secretary-General of SYNACOS was reinstated, as well as all the trade unionists who had been dismissed, and that this reinstatement came into force following an agreement bringing an end to the dispute on a definitive basis. The Committee welcomes this information. With regard to the case of the SYNACASS-CI, the Government indicates that there is no anti-union practice involved, as the Secretary-General of the union left of his own accord and the Government was not in any way involved in his departure. With reference to the case of the SYNESCI, the Government has not provided any additional information. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the court decisions handed down concerning the dispute in the SYNESCI.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee notes the comments of the ITUC, dated 4 August 2011, reporting that the political crisis has prevented the proper exercise of trade union freedoms. The Committee also notes that, according to the ITUC, in view of the lack of objective criteria set out in the Labour Code, recognition of the representative status of trade unions is not ensured and that this uncertainty has allowed public and private employers to reject any negotiation and to discredit trade unions or repress their activities. In this respect, the Committee notes that, although sections 56.1 to 56.3 of the Labour Code establish criteria that are applicable to establishing the representative status of trade unions, no independent body appears to be responsible for determining whether or not an organization fulfils the required conditions and whether or not an organization can engage in negotiation. The Committee recalls that, in order to encourage the harmonious development of collective bargaining and avoid disputes, it would be desirable to draw up and apply objective procedures which make it possible to determine the most representative trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining when it is not clear which trade unions the workers would like to represent them (see the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 242). The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in reply to the comments of the ITUC and requests it to ensure that the determination of the most representative trade unions is based on objective criteria and is carried out by an independent body.

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

Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous comments, further to the observations received from trade union organizations, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any court decisions handed down relating to the anti-union dismissal of three activists of the National Union of Employees of SODEFOR (SYNACOS) and its Secretary-General. The Government denied the anti-union nature of the dismissals and emphasized that they were due to defamation and slander against the moral integrity of the managers of the enterprise and that the dismissals had been authorized by the labour inspectorate.

The Committee also noted the 2007 comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), according to which the Government interfered in the affairs of the National Union of Secondary School Teachers (SYNESCI) by challenging the legitimacy of its leader and occupying its premises. The Committee notes that, in its reply, the Government denies any interference and asserts that the trade union organization concerned has been the subject of a dispute since 2004 between two opposing factions and that the occupation of its premises by the militants of one of these factions in May 2006 followed the failure of a general assembly for unification held in April 2006. The Government adds that the case has been referred to the courts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the court decisions handed down in relation to the dismissals of the leaders of the SYNACOS and the dispute in the SYNESCI.

The Committee notes the recent comments made by the ITUC on 26 August 2009 reporting acts of intimidation by the authorities against the National Union of High-level Health Managers of Côte d’Ivoire (SYNACASS-CI), and particularly the fact that the Secretary-General of the Union was removed from office without reasons being given in December 2008. The Committee, recalling the obligation to ensure that all workers enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination under Article 1 of the Convention, requests the Government to provide its comments on this subject.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report, in which it replies to the comments from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – the International Trade Union Confederation) dated 10 August 2006 alleging the arbitrary application of collective agreements and the anti-union dismissals of three activists and the General Secretary of the National Union of Employees of SODEFOR (SYNACOS).

The Committee notes that the Government denies these allegations and sends numerous documents to support its point of view. The Government explains that conciliation was attempted through the labour inspector but failed, that the dismissal of the General Secretary of the union was authorized by the labour inspector and that the origin of the dismissal of the four persons was not the exercise of their trade union rights but the defamation of the enterprise management for two years preceding their dismissal. The Committee notes that the dismissed workers took the matter to court and that no decision has yet been issued. The Committee requests the Government to notify it of any court decision issued and send any information in this respect.

Finally, the Committee notes the latest comments dated 28 August 2007 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) claiming that the Government interfered in the affairs of the National Union of Secondary School Teachers (SYNESCI) by challenging the legitimacy of its leader and occupying its premises. The Committee requests the Government to send it its reply to the comments made by the ITUC.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. The Committee also notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) of 10 August 2006 on the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the ICFTU refers to the ongoing civil war, the state of chaos and violence in the country and the difficulties in exercising rights of association, organization and collective bargaining, and that it indicates that even though collective agreements have been concluded, their application is arbitrary due to the current instability. The ICFTU also cites anti-union dismissals of the Secretary-General and another three members of the National Union of Employees of SODEFOR (SYNACOS).

2. The Committee expresses its concern in respect of the alleged acts and, in particular, the political situation in the country, which undoubtedly has a negative impact on trade union rights and compliance with collective agreements. The Committee also recalls that Article 1 of the Convention guarantees workers adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, including the dismissal of trade union leaders and members.

3. The Committee asks the Government to take measures to guarantee compliance with the collective agreements that were freely concluded, and to investigate, without delay, the alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and provide the Committee with information in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that Decree No. 64-543 provides that breaches of trade union rights shall be punished as "category three offences" and it requested the Government to provide information on the exact amount of the fines or other penalties applicable in the case of acts of anti-union discrimination against workers who are not trade union leaders. In this respect, the Committee notes the information in the Government’s report that section 3 of Decree No. 69-356 of 31 July 1969 imposes a fine of from 10,000 to 360,000 CFA francs and imprisonment for at least ten days and a maximum of two months for category three offences. The Committee also notes that in the case of repeated offences section 15 of Act No. 81-640 of 31 July 1981 provides for a fine of between 50,000 and 1,800,000 CFA francs and/or imprisonment of from two to six months.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not answer its previous comments in full.

Protection from acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that section 100.5 of the Labour Code provides for sanctions which are an adequate deterrent to acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union officials. The Committee observes, however, that for workers other than trade union officials, no sanctions are established for breach of trade union rights in the legislation cited by the Government (neither in section 100.4 of the Labour Code, nor in Decree No. 64-543 of 20 November 1964). The Committee notes that section 3(i) of Decree No. 64-543 merely stipulates that breaches of trade union rights are punished as "category three offences". It therefore asks the Government to provide information in its next report on the exact amount of fines or on any other penalties that may be applicable for such offences and to supply the text of the legal provisions establishing them. The Committee further notes that, according to the Government’s report, the new Labour Code will take account of its comments. It therefore hopes that the Government will be in a position to provide the information requested in its next report in order to confirm its statement that there are sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions in the case of workers who are not trade union officials.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes that the Government’s report refers to Decree No. 64-453 of 20 November 1964 which establishes sanctions for violations of standards relating to trade union rights.

The Committee had noted that, in respect of protection afforded to workers in general against acts of anti-union discrimination, section 4 of the Labour Code prohibited employers from taking into consideration "membership or non-membership of a trade union or trade union activities of workers for making decisions regarding, in particular, recruitment, conduct and distribution of work, vocational training, advancement, promotion, remuneration, granting of social benefits, discipline or termination of the employment contract". The Committee understands that violations of the provisions of this section of the Labour Code are punishable by the sanctions applicable under the conditions determined by decree (section 100.4 of the Labour Code). The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to specify the applicable sanctions under Decree No. 64-453 (since it does not specify the amount of the contravention). The Committee recalls that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination against workers requires sanctions which are sufficiently effective and dissuasive.

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

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and observes that it refers to Decree No. 64-453 of 20 November 1964 which establishes sanctions for violations of standards relating to trade union rights.

The Committee had noted that, in respect of protection afforded to workers in general against acts of anti-union discrimination, section 4 of the Labour Code prohibited employers from taking into consideration "membership or non-membership of a trade union or trade union activities of workers for making decisions regarding, in particular, recruitment, conduct and distribution of work, vocational training, advancement, promotion, remuneration, granting of social benefits, discipline or termination of the employment contract". The Committee understands that violations of the provisions of this section of the Labour Code are punishable by the sanctions applicable under the conditions determined by decree (section 100.4 of the Labour Code). The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to specify the applicable sanctions under Decree No. 64-453 (since it does not specify the amount of the contravention). The Committee recalls that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination against workers requires sanctions which are sufficiently effective and dissuasive.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the Government's report does not contain information in respect of its previous comments. The Committee noted that Act No. 95-15 of 12 January 1995 issuing the Labour Code affords sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union delegates and workers' representatives (section 100.5). In respect of protection afforded to workers in general against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that section 4 of the Labour Code prohibits employers from taking into consideration "membership or non-membership of a trade union or trade union activities of workers for making decisions regarding, in particular, recruitment, conduct and distribution of work, vocational training, advancement, promotion, remuneration, granting of social benefits, discipline or termination of the employment contract". The Committee understands that violations of the provisions of this section of the Labour Code are punishable by the sanctions applicable under the conditions determined by decree (section 100.4 of the Labour Code). The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to specify whether such a decree exists and to provide the Committee with a copy; should this decree not exist, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the prohibition on acts of anti-union discrimination against workers is accompanied by sanctions which are sufficiently effective and dissuasive. The Committee requests the Government in its next report to indicate the measures taken in this respect.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 95/15 of 12 January 1995 issuing the Labour Code (Journal officiel, 23 February 1995, No. 8, pp. 153-177). Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to ensure adequate protection for workers against acts of anti-trade union discrimination and of workers' organizations against acts of interference on the part of employers, enforceable by sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions, the Committee notes with interest that the Labour Code provides that no employer may take into consideration membership or non-membership of a trade union or trade union activities of workers for making decisions regarding, in particular, recruitment, conduct and distribution of work, vocational training, advancement, promotion, remuneration, granting of social benefits, discipline or termination of the employment contract (section 4) and that no employer may exert pressure against or in favour of any workers' trade union organization (section 51.3) and that violations of the Labour Code are liable to fines (section 100.4). Nevertheless, the Committee considers on this last point that whereas section 100.5 punishes with sufficiently dissuasive sanctions the offences comprising measures of anti-union discrimination against trade union delegates and staff delegates (fines of 10,000 to 100,000 francs and imprisonment from two months to one year or one only of these two sanctions), the sanctions for anti-union discrimination against workers or for acts of interference by employers in workers' organizations should be strengthened. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the provisions for protecting workers and workers' organizations in this respect.

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

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the adoption of Act No. 95/15 of 12 January 1995 issuing the Labour Code (Journal officiel, 23 February 1995, No. 8, pp. 153-177).

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to ensure adequate protection for workers against acts of anti-trade union discrimination and of workers' organizations against acts of interference on the part of employers, enforceable by sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions, the Committee notes with interest that the Labour Code provides that no employer may take into consideration membership or non-membership of a trade union or trade union activities of workers for making decisions regarding, in particular, recruitment, conduct and distribution of work, vocational training, advancement, promotion, remuneration, granting of social benefits, discipline or termination of the employment contract (section 4) and that no employer may exert pressure against or in favour of any workers' trade union organization (section 51.3) and that violations of the Labour Code are liable to fines (section 100.4).

Nevertheless, the Committee considers on this last point that whereas section 100.5 punishes with sufficiently dissuasive sanctions the offences comprising measures of anti-union discrimination against trade union delegates and staff delegates (fines of 10,000 to 100,000 francs and imprisonment from two months to one year or one only of these two sanctions), the sanctions for anti-union discrimination against workers or for acts of interference by employers in workers' organizations should be strengthened.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the provisions for protecting workers and workers' organizations in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government's report.

With reference to its previous comments concerning the need to ensure adequate protection against acts of interference (Article 2 of the Convention), the Committee trusts that the new Labour Code will contain provisions to ensure adequate protection for workers' organizations against acts of interference on the part of employers, enforceable by sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions, in accordance with the Government's statement in its report that the Committee's observations will be taken into account in the current revision of the Labour Code, which is now at an advanced stage. It asks the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect and to provide a copy of the new Code as soon as it has been adopted.

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

With reference to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that the provisions of section 4 of the new version of the Labour Code were examined by the standing committee of the Labour Commission in May 1990 and are shortly to be submitted to the Labour Commission for its opinion.

The Committee recalls that section 4 of the Labour Code, in its new wording, reintroduces the old provision that was deleted in 1974 whereby the head of an enterprise or his representatives shall not employ any kind of pressure for or against any trade union organisation, to ensure more effective implementation of Article 2 of the Convention.

The Committee recalls the importance of adequate protection for workers' organisations against acts of interference on the part of employers accompanied by sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions, and trusts that section 4, in its new wording, will be adopted in the near future and asks the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect in its next report.

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

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

In its previous request, the Committee noted with interest that, in relation to the current revision of the Labour Code, subsection 4 of former section 4 of the 1964 Labour Code, under which "the head of an enterprise or his representatives shall not employ any kind of pressure for or against any trade union organisation", which was eliminated in 1974, has been reintroduced in the draft Labour Code.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that section 4, in its new wording, has been submitted to the social partners for examination.

The Committee trusts that it will be possible to adopt the new provision in the near future and requests the Government to continue supplying information on the progress achieved in this respect.