Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151) - Belgium (Ratification: 1991)

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

The Committee notes the observations of General Labour Federation of Belgium (FGTB), the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC) and the General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (CGSLB), dated 30 August 2019, and of the Government’s reply thereto, received on 29 October 2019.

Article 7 of the Convention. Social dialogue and procedures for determining terms and conditions of employment. The Committee notes the allegations made by the trade unions relating to the lack of effective social dialogue in the public service, and the Government’s response thereto. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the functioning of the procedures in place for negotiations between the public authorities and public employees’ organizations on the terms and conditions of employment, and the application in practice of those procedures.

Article 8. Settlement of disputes. The Committee notes the allegations of the above-mentioned trade union organizations that the Act of 23 March 2019 on the organization of prison services and the status of prison personnel affects the application of the Convention, particularly in relation to special consultation and negotiation procedures in the event of industrial action. They indicate that, even though prison personnel are covered by the public service trade union rules, the Act gives the King the power to establish special arrangements, derogating from the “standard” trade union rules in the event of a social conflict in the sector. In particular, the trade union organizations indicate that this power has resulted in provisions which grant consultation committees additional powers in social conflicts, reduce the time allowed for consultation or negotiation procedures, and establish an “internal conciliation” function, which does not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality established in Article 8 of the Convention. In this regard, the trade union organizations indicate that such a role already exists in the “standard” trade union rules (section 12-8 of the Act of 19 December 1974), but that the involvement of this independent and competent social conciliator is subsidiary to the involvement of the internal conciliator. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the role of conciliator was previously envisaged in an initial version of the Royal Decree issued under sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 23 March 2019, the Royal Decree being a transposition of protocol No. 351 which provides for a specific contact in each Regional Directorate to conduct social dialogue in prisons; (ii) this role was then referred to as “internal conciliator”; (iii) following trade union negotiations in Committee A (the common committee for all public services), the role is performed by a representative of the Regional Directorate, with the aim of ensuring good practice, without preventing recourse to the social conciliator in the public service; and (iv) the use of the “internal conciliator” often meets with satisfaction by both partners: the local directorate and the trade unions.

The Committee wishes to recall that whether a system or dispute settlement body can guarantee the impartial and independent settlement of disputes, in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention, depends on its capacity to ensure the confidence of the parties in practice. The Committee therefore underlines the fact that a system that provides for conciliation, mediation or arbitration bodies that are administrative in nature and composition for the settlement of disputes in connection with collective bargaining in the public service, does not meet the requirements of the Convention with regard to the independence and impartiality of procedures and their ability to ensure the confidence of the parties (see the 2013 General Survey on collective bargaining in the public service, paragraph 438). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide additional information on the current mechanism for conciliation in the prison administration in order to ensure that it inspires the confidence of the parties in practice, and to provide a copy of the legislative provisions and applicable regulations.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government's first report.

Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee stresses that under this Article only high-level employees or employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature may be excluded from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. It asks the Government to indicate under which texts the public servants who are excluded from the scope of the Act of 1974 and its implementing Orders (section 1(2) of the Act of 1974 and section 4 of Royal Order of 1984) but who may not be excluded from the scope of the Convention (particularly university teaching staff and registrars), and their organizations, enjoy the guarantees laid down in the Convention, and to provide information on the operation of machinery for determining conditions of employment and settling disputes involving them, if such machinery exists.

Article 7. The Committee notes that section 6 of the Act of 19 December 1974 provides that only representative organizations may sit on negotiating committees. It asks the Government to indicate whether any measures have been taken to ensure that minority organizations which do not sit on joint committees may take part in determining conditions of employment, or at least make representations on behalf of their members and represent them in the event of individual grievances.

With regard to section 7(1) of the Act of 19 December 1974 which provides that only public sector unions affiliated to an organization represented in the National Labour Council may participate in the work of general negotiating committees, the Committee refers to its comments on the application of Convention No. 87, and trusts that the Bill now being drafted will contain precise and pre-established objective criteria so as to preclude any possibility of partiality or abuse in choosing the public sector organizations to be represented in the above bodies.