Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Cambodia (Ratification: 1999)

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 27 September 2023, alleging union busting practices in the garment and footwear industries, and denouncing a widespread anti-union climate, the persistence of long-standing legal and practical obstacles to the exercise of freedom of association, and the Government’s failure to take action on the issues raised by the unions and the ILO supervisory bodies over the years. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC, received on 21 September 2020, alleging that the December 2019 amendments to the Trade Unions Law failed to bring it in conformity with the Convention and arguing in particular that anti-union discrimination sanctions remain far too low to be dissuasive. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 1 September 2019 referring to matters examined in this comment.

The Committee takes note of the comments of the Government in reply to the 2016 and 2017 ITUC observations. Concerning the allegations of extended use of short-term contracts to terminate employment of trade union leaders and members and weaken active trade unions, the Government states that the Law on Trade Unions (LTU) provides remedies for both dismissal or non-renewal of fixed-term contracts due to anti-union discrimination and, if verified, the labour inspectors instruct the employer to reinstate the workers or impose a substantial fine. The Government adds that, to avoid misinterpretation of legal provisions concerning fixed-term contracts, the Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training (MLVT) conducted consultations with the social partners and other actors, such as the Arbitration Council, and that a common understanding was reached that the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts would be four years and, if exceeding this maximum period, the contract would be considered as having unfixed duration. This was reflected in an Instruction on determination of the type of employment contract, issued by the MLVT on 17 May 2019. While taking due note of the information provided, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that all measures are taken to monitor, in consultation with the social partners, that fixed-term contracts are not used for anti-union purposes, including through their non-renewal, and to continue to provide information in this respect.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. For many years, several workers’ organizations, in particular the ITUC – including in its most recent observations, have been denouncing serious and numerous acts of anti-union discrimination in the country. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in this regard that the MLVT: (i) issued an administrative letter on 31 May 2019 to all employers and their associations to ensure strict and effective implementation of the provisions relating to anti union discrimination; (ii) invited employers’ representatives from 50 companies to disseminate information on the special protections against anti-union discrimination; and (iii) met with the representative of the Cambodia Labour Confederation (CLC) on two different occasions (13 June and 18 July 2019) to follow-up on its 44 cases before the courts (the Government informs that 11 of these were resolved with acquittal of charges and that the MVLT is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to review the remaining cases). While welcoming the steps undertaken for the effective implementation of the protections against anti-union discrimination, the Committee observes that, other than the reference to two meetings with the CLC, it has not received more detailed information on the numerous and grave allegations of anti-union discrimination laid out in previous observations of workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the handling of the allegations of anti-union discrimination laid out in the observations of the ITUC in 2014, 2016 and 2019, and recalls the need to take all necessary measures to ensure that anti-union discrimination allegations are investigated by independent organs that enjoy the confidence of the parties and that, whenever such allegations are verified, adequate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are applied.

Furthermore, in its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that national legislation provided adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, such as dismissals and other prejudicial acts against trade union leaders and members, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee had taken note, in this respect, of the ITUC’s observations that penalties provided for under the LTU for anti-union practices by employers were too low (a maximum of 5 million Cambodian riels (KHR), equivalent to US$1,250) and may not be sufficiently dissuasive. The Committee was of the view that fines for unfair labour practices provided for in the LTU may be a deterrent for small and medium-sized enterprises, but would not appear to be so for high-productivity and large enterprise cases. The Committee had thus invited the Government to assess, in consultation with the social partners, the dissuasive nature of sanctions in the LTU or any other relevant laws. The Committee notes that the Government replies by affirming that the existing legal mechanisms set out adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Government indicates that: (i) in addition to the application of the provisions and remedies in the LTU concerning anti-union discrimination (Chapter 15), the LTU itself acknowledges (section 95) that other criminal laws may be applied to punish these actions (violence and discrimination against worker unions being criminal offences under sections 217 and 267 of the Penal Code) and that the employer could thus even face imprisonment, for example if the actions entailed violence; (ii) in addition to the fines imposed by the LTU, those affected can also claim compensation; (iii) the MLVT has never received complaints or grievances from trade unionists regarding existing sanctions; and (iv) the Government is committed to further strengthening the capacity of labour inspectors and raising the awareness of workers on their rights. The Committee observes, on the other hand, that, while several consultation meetings were held on the review and amendment of the LTU, the Government does not indicate that, as recommended by the Committee, these tripartite fora were used to assess the effective and dissuasive nature of the protections against anti-union discrimination. Moreover, the Committee notes that the ITUC observations, in addition to the concrete cases noted above, denounce in general a lack of action and adequate protection against rampant anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed statistical information on the application of the different mechanisms to protect against anti-union discrimination, including as to sanctions and other remedies effectively imposed, for example reinstatement or compensation. The Committee further requests the Government to assess, in light of such data, and in consultation with the social partners, the appropriateness of existing remedies, in particular the dissuasive nature of sanctions; and to provide information on any development in this regard.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. In its previous observation, noting that the Government’s statement that by lowering the most representative organisation threshold to 30 per cent, the law encouraged the increase of collective agreements, the Committee had invited the Government to assess the impact of the implementation of the LTU by providing statistics on: (a) the number of representative organizations identified based on their having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without an election, and the number of collective agreements concluded by these representative organizations; and (b) the number of separate elections organized based on no union having secured 30 per cent support, and the number of collective agreements concluded by the organizations so elected. The Committee notes that the Government provides the following information: (i) the number of representative organizations having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without election were four unions in 2018 (all in the garment sector, covering 3,226 workers) and 15 unions in 2019 (11 in the garment sector, covering 11,070 workers and four in the hotel sector, covering 890 workers); and (ii) the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded in 2018 and 2019 was seven (in 2018, four collective bargaining agreements were concluded between the employer and the shop steward; and, in 2019, three collective bargaining agreements between the employer and a most representative status union). The Government indicates that the information concerning point (b) above will be provided in its next report. The Committee further observes that the March 2017 direct contacts mission (DCM) recommended the Government to take the necessary measures, including issuing instructions to the competent authorities, to ensure that most representative status are recognized without delay and without the exercise of arbitrary discretion to workers’ organizations or coalitions of organizations meeting the minimum threshold. In this respect, while noting that the Government indicates that it issued an Instruction on the Facilitation for the Most Representative Status Certification and that one of the objectives of the amendments to the LTU is to facilitate the requirements to obtain most representative status, the Committee observes that the number of organizations having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without election, as well as the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded, for 2018 and 2019, were very low. The Committee requests the Government to keep on providing information on the number of organizations recognized as having the most representative status, and the number of collective agreements in force, indicating the parties that concluded the agreement (in particular, if a most representative union, a bargaining council or a shop steward), the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements; as well as information on any additional measures undertaken to address the issues noted by the DCM concerning the recognition of most representative status organizations, and to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

Articles 4, 5 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments the Committee had urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers, who are governed by the Law on the Common Statute of Civil Servants and the Law on Education with regard to their right to organize, enjoy collective bargaining rights under the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its reply, the Government indicates that civil servants, including teachers, can form associations in accordance with the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (LANGO), but does not provide any information on measures to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State can exercise the right to collective bargaining. Regretting the lack of progress in this respect, the Committee urges once again the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers, enjoy collective bargaining rights under the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report on any measures taken or envisaged in this regard and recalls that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC, received on 21 September 2020, alleging that the December 2019 amendments to the Trade Unions Law failed to bring it in conformity with the Convention and arguing in particular that anti-union discrimination sanctions remain far too low to be dissuasive. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Not having received other supplementary information, the Committee reiterates its comments adopted in 2019 and reproduced below.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 1 September 2019 referring to matters examined in this comment.

The Committee takes note of the comments of the Government in reply to the 2016 and 2017 ITUC observations. Concerning the allegations of extended use of short-term contracts to terminate employment of trade union leaders and members and weaken active trade unions, the Government states that the Law on Trade Unions (LTU) provides remedies for both dismissal or non-renewal of fixed-term contracts due to anti-union discrimination and, if verified, the labour inspectors instruct the employer to reinstate the workers or impose a substantial fine. The Government adds that, to avoid misinterpretation of legal provisions concerning fixed-term contracts, the Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training (MLVT) conducted consultations with the social partners and other actors, such as the Arbitration Council, and that a common understanding was reached that the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts would be four years and, if exceeding this maximum period, the contract would be considered as having unfixed duration. This was reflected in an Instruction on determination of the type of employment contract, issued by the MLVT on 17 May 2019. While taking due note of the information provided, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that all measures are taken to monitor, in consultation with the social partners, that fixed-term contracts are not used for anti-union purposes, including through their non-renewal, and to continue to provide information in this respect.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. For many years, several workers’ organizations, in particular the ITUC – including in its most recent observations, have been denouncing serious and numerous acts of anti-union discrimination in the country. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in this regard that the MLVT: (i) issued an administrative letter on 31 May 2019 to all employers and their associations to ensure strict and effective implementation of the provisions relating to anti union discrimination; (ii) invited employers’ representatives from 50 companies to disseminate information on the special protections against anti-union discrimination; and (iii) met with the representative of the Cambodia Labour Confederation (CLC) on two different occasions (13 June and 18 July 2019) to follow-up on its 44 cases before the courts (the Government informs that 11 of these were resolved with acquittal of charges and that the MVLT is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to review the remaining cases). While welcoming the steps undertaken for the effective implementation of the protections against anti-union discrimination, the Committee observes that, other than the reference to two meetings with the CLC, it has not received more detailed information on the numerous and grave allegations of anti-union discrimination laid out in previous observations of workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the handling of the allegations of anti-union discrimination laid out in the observations of the ITUC in 2014, 2016 and 2019, and recalls the need to take all necessary measures to ensure that anti-union discrimination allegations are investigated by independent organs that enjoy the confidence of the parties and that, whenever such allegations are verified, adequate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are applied.

Furthermore, in its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that national legislation provided adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, such as dismissals and other prejudicial acts against trade union leaders and members, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee had taken note, in this respect, of the ITUC’s observations that penalties provided for under the LTU for anti-union practices by employers were too low (a maximum of 5 million Cambodian riels (KHR), equivalent to US$1,250) and may not be sufficiently dissuasive. The Committee was of the view that fines for unfair labour practices provided for in the LTU may be a deterrent for small and medium-sized enterprises, but would not appear to be so for high-productivity and large enterprise cases. The Committee had thus invited the Government to assess, in consultation with the social partners, the dissuasive nature of sanctions in the LTU or any other relevant laws. The Committee notes that the Government replies by affirming that the existing legal mechanisms set out adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Government indicates that: (i) in addition to the application of the provisions and remedies in the LTU concerning anti-union discrimination (Chapter 15), the LTU itself acknowledges (section 95) that other criminal laws may be applied to punish these actions (violence and discrimination against worker unions being criminal offences under sections 217 and 267 of the Penal Code) and that the employer could thus even face imprisonment, for example if the actions entailed violence; (ii) in addition to the fines imposed by the LTU, those affected can also claim compensation; (iii) the MLVT has never received complaints or grievances from trade unionists regarding existing sanctions; and (iv) the Government is committed to further strengthening the capacity of labour inspectors and raising the awareness of workers on their rights. The Committee observes, on the other hand, that, while several consultation meetings were held on the review and amendment of the LTU, the Government does not indicate that, as recommended by the Committee, these tripartite fora were used to assess the effective and dissuasive nature of the protections against anti-union discrimination. Moreover, the Committee notes that the ITUC observations, in addition to the concrete cases noted above, denounce in general a lack of action and adequate protection against rampant anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed statistical information on the application of the different mechanisms to protect against anti-union discrimination, including as to sanctions and other remedies effectively imposed, for example reinstatement or compensation. The Committee further requests the Government to assess, in light of such data, and in consultation with the social partners, the appropriateness of existing remedies, in particular the dissuasive nature of sanctions; and to provide information on any development in this regard.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. In its previous observation, noting that the Government’s statement that by lowering the most representative organisation threshold to 30 per cent, the law encouraged the increase of collective agreements, the Committee had invited the Government to assess the impact of the implementation of the LTU by providing statistics on: (a) the number of representative organizations identified based on their having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without an election, and the number of collective agreements concluded by these representative organizations; and (b) the number of separate elections organized based on no union having secured 30 per cent support, and the number of collective agreements concluded by the organizations so elected. The Committee notes that the Government provides the following information: (i) the number of representative organizations having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without election were four unions in 2018 (all in the garment sector, covering 3,226 workers) and 15 unions in 2019 (11 in the garment sector, covering 11,070 workers and four in the hotel sector, covering 890 workers); and (ii) the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded in 2018 and 2019 was seven (in 2018, four collective bargaining agreements were concluded between the employer and the shop steward; and, in 2019, three collective bargaining agreements between the employer and a most representative status union). The Government indicates that the information concerning point (b) above will be provided in its next report. The Committee further observes that the March 2017 direct contacts mission (DCM) recommended the Government to take the necessary measures, including issuing instructions to the competent authorities, to ensure that most representative status are recognized without delay and without the exercise of arbitrary discretion to workers’ organizations or coalitions of organizations meeting the minimum threshold. In this respect, while noting that the Government indicates that it issued an Instruction on the Facilitation for the Most Representative Status Certification and that one of the objectives of the amendments to the LTU is to facilitate the requirements to obtain most representative status, the Committee observes that the number of organizations having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without election, as well as the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded, for 2018 and 2019, were very low. The Committee requests the Government to keep on providing information on the number of organizations recognized as having the most representative status, and the number of collective agreements in force, indicating the parties that concluded the agreement (in particular, if a most representative union, a bargaining council or a shop steward), the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements; as well as information on any additional measures undertaken to address the issues noted by the DCM concerning the recognition of most representative status organizations, and to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

Articles 4, 5 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments the Committee had urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers, who are governed by the Law on the Common Statute of Civil Servants and the Law on Education with regard to their right to organize, enjoy collective bargaining rights under the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its reply, the Government indicates that civil servants, including teachers, can form associations in accordance with the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (LANGO), but does not provide any information on measures to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State can exercise the right to collective bargaining. Regretting the lack of progress in this respect, the Committee urges once again the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers, enjoy collective bargaining rights under the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report on any measures taken or envisaged in this regard and recalls that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 1 September 2019 referring to matters examined in this comment.

The Committee takes note of the comments of the Government in reply to the 2016 and 2017 ITUC observations. Concerning the allegations of extended use of short-term contracts to terminate employment of trade union leaders and members and weaken active trade unions, the Government states that the Law on Trade Unions (LTU) provides remedies for both dismissal or non-renewal of fixed-term contracts due to anti-union discrimination and, if verified, the labour inspectors instruct the employer to reinstate the workers or impose a substantial fine. The Government adds that, to avoid misinterpretation of legal provisions concerning fixed-term contracts, the Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training (MLVT) conducted consultations with the social partners and other actors, such as the Arbitration Council, and that a common understanding was reached that the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts would be four years and, if exceeding this maximum period, the contract would be considered as having unfixed duration. This was reflected in an Instruction on determination of the type of employment contract, issued by the MLVT on 17 May 2019. While taking due note of the information provided, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that all measures are taken to monitor, in consultation with the social partners, that fixed-term contracts are not used for anti-union purposes, including through their non-renewal, and to continue to provide information in this respect.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. For many years several workers’ organizations, in particular the ITUC – including in its most recent observations, have been denouncing serious and numerous acts of anti-union discrimination in the country. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in this regard that the MLVT: (i) issued an administrative letter on 31 May 2019 to all employers and their associations to ensure strict and effective implementation of the provisions relating to anti union discrimination; (ii) invited employers’ representatives from 50 companies to disseminate information on the special protections against anti-union discrimination; and (iii) met with the representative of the Cambodia Labour Confederation (CLC) on two different occasions (13 June and 18 July 2019) to follow-up on its 44 cases before the courts (the Government informs that 11 of these were resolved with acquittal of charges and that the MVLT is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to review the remaining cases). While welcoming the steps undertaken for the effective implementation of the protections against anti-union discrimination, the Committee observes that, other than the reference to two meetings with the CLC, it has not received more detailed information on the numerous and grave allegations of anti-union discrimination laid out in previous observations of workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the handling of the allegations of anti-union discrimination laid out in the observations of the ITUC in 2014, 2016 and 2019, and recalls the need to take all necessary measures to ensure that anti-union discrimination allegations are investigated by independent organs that enjoy the confidence of the parties and that, whenever such allegations are verified, adequate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are applied.

Furthermore, in its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that national legislation provided adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, such as dismissals and other prejudicial acts against trade union leaders and members, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee had taken note, in this respect, of the ITUC’s observations that penalties provided for under the LTU for anti-union practices by employers were too low (a maximum of 5 million Cambodian riels (KHR), equivalent to US$1,250) and may not be sufficiently dissuasive. The Committee was of the view that fines for unfair labour practices provided for in the LTU may be a deterrent for small and medium-sized enterprises, but would not appear to be so for high-productivity and large enterprise cases. The Committee had thus invited the Government to assess, in consultation with the social partners, the dissuasive nature of sanctions in the LTU or any other relevant laws. The Committee notes that the Government replies by affirming that the existing legal mechanisms set out adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Government indicates that: (i) in addition to the application of the provisions and remedies in the LTU concerning anti-union discrimination (chapter 15), the LTU itself acknowledges (section 95) that other criminal laws may be applied to punish these actions (violence and discrimination against worker unions being criminal offences under sections 217 and 267 of the Penal Code) and that the employer could thus even face imprisonment, for example if the actions entailed violence; (ii) in addition to the fines imposed by the LTU, those affected can also claim compensation; (iii) the MLVT has never received complaints or grievances from trade unionists regarding existing sanctions; and (iv) the Government is committed to further strengthening the capacity of labour inspectors and raising the awareness of workers on their rights. The Committee observes, on the other hand, that, while several consultation meetings were held on the review and amendment of the LTU, the Government does not indicate that, as recommended by the Committee, these tripartite fora were used to assess the effective and dissuasive nature of the protections against anti-union discrimination. Moreover, the Committee notes that the ITUC observations, in addition to the concrete cases noted above, denounce in general a lack of action and adequate protection against rampant anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed statistical information on the application of the different mechanisms to protect against anti-union discrimination, including as to sanctions and other remedies effectively imposed, for example reinstatement or compensation. The Committee further requests the Government to assess, in light of such data, and in consultation with the social partners, the appropriateness of existing remedies, in particular the dissuasive nature of sanctions; and to provide information on any development in this regard.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. In its previous observation, noting that the Government’s statement that by lowering the most representative organisation threshold to 30 per cent, the law encouraged the increase of collective agreements, the Committee had invited the Government to assess the impact of the implementation of the LTU by providing statistics on: (a) the number of representative organizations identified based on their having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without an election, and the number of collective agreements concluded by these representative organizations; and (b) the number of separate elections organized based on no union having secured 30 per cent support, and the number of collective agreements concluded by the organizations so elected. The Committee notes that the Government provides the following information: (i) the number of representative organizations having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without election were four unions in 2018 (all in the garment sector, covering 3,226 workers) and 15 unions in 2019 (11 in the garment sector, covering 11,070 workers and four in the hotel sector, covering 890 workers); and (ii) the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded in 2018 and 2019 was seven (in 2018, four collective bargaining agreements were concluded between the employer and the shop steward; and, in 2019, three collective bargaining agreements between the employer and a most representative status union). The Government indicates that the information concerning point (b) above will be provided in its next report. The Committee further observes that the March 2017 direct contacts mission (DCM) recommended the Government to take the necessary measures, including issuing instructions to the competent authorities, to ensure that most representative status are recognized without delay and without the exercise of arbitrary discretion to workers’ organizations or coalitions of organizations meeting the minimum threshold. In this respect, while noting that the Government indicates that it issued an Instruction on the Facilitation for the Most Representative Status Certification and that one of the objectives of the amendments to the LTU is to facilitate the requirements to obtain most representative status, the Committee observes that the number of organizations having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without election, as well as the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded, for 2018 and 2019, were very low. The Committee requests the Government to keep on providing information on the number of organizations recognized as having the most representative status, and the number of collective agreements in force, indicating the parties that concluded the agreement (in particular, if a most representative union, a bargaining council or a shop steward), the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements; as well as information on any additional measures undertaken to address the issues noted by the DCM concerning the recognition of most representative status organizations, and to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

Articles 4, 5 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments the Committee had urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers, who are governed by the Law on the Common Statute of Civil Servants and the Law on Education with regard to their right to organize, enjoy collective bargaining rights under the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its reply, the Government indicates that civil servants, including teachers, can form associations in accordance with the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (LANGO), but does not provide any information on measures to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State can exercise the right to collective bargaining. Regretting the lack of progress in this respect, the Committee urges once again the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers, enjoy collective bargaining rights under the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report on any measures taken or envisaged in this regard and recalls that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that sections 62 and 63 of the Law on Trade Unions define a wide range of labour practices which may constitute anti-union discrimination. Bearing in mind previous allegations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the increased use of fixed-duration contracts and its connection with anti-union discrimination practices, the Committee duly notes that section 63 of the Law explicitly refers to the non-renewal of employment on union grounds as an unfair labour practice by the employer. The Committee invites the Government to provide any relevant information on the practical application of this provision, including the number of judicial or administrative actions engaged in cases of non-renewal of fixed-duration contracts and their outcome.

Articles 2 and 4. Shop stewards. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that, where both trade union representatives and elected representatives exist in the same undertaking, appropriate measures are taken to ensure that the existence of elected representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions or their representatives, and to encourage cooperation between the elected representatives and the trade unions concerned and their representatives. In its reply, the Government indicates that under the Law on Trade Unions, shop stewards and worker union delegates may perform their work in complement to each other. The Committee invites the Government to report on any difficulty that may arise to ensure full respect of the abovementioned principle within the framework of the Law on Trade Unions, as well as any measure taken to address it.

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

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2016, which denounce an overall situation where employers ignore reinstatement awards by the Arbitration Council with impunity and the absence of legal sanctions against employers’ acts of anti-union discrimination and dismissals. According to the ITUC, at least 867 union leaders and workers have been dismissed from 38 companies since 2014 for joining a trade union or for taking part in labour protests. Specific cases concerning the garment industry, the airport sector and a bus company are mentioned in this regard. The ITUC further denounces the persistent use of violence by the police against workers during the protest actions in these cases. The Committee notes with concern the seriousness of these allegations and requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations submitted by the ITUC, and in particular detailed information on the specific cases mentioned.

The Committee takes due note of the promulgation of the Law on Trade Unions in May 2016. The Committee notes the concerns raised by the ITUC in relation to the implementation of the Law and requests the Government to provide its comments thereon. The Committee also draws the Government’s attention to its comments on a number of provisions of the Law in relation to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

The Committee notes the comments from the Government in reply to allegations made in September 2014 by the ITUC, Education International (EI) and the National Educators’ Association for Development (NEAD) on serious acts of anti-union discrimination, particularly in the context of increased use of fixed-duration contracts, against public sector and other workers on account of their trade union membership or activities, as well as the denial of the right to collective bargaining for teachers and civil servants. The Government refers to the recent promulgation of the Law on Trade Unions in May 2016 as a key text for ensuring better protection for trade unions and their officers. Furthermore, the Government states that the Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training had directly contacted the Cambodian Labour Confederation seeking more information on the alleged dismissals of trade union leaders and that it intends to work closely with the social partners with a view to reviewing the cases and to provide information in this regard. Noting the Government’s commitment to address the cases of anti-union discrimination in a collaborative manner in the framework of the new Law on Trade Unions, the Committee requests the Government to report fully on developments towards their resolution, including on the outcome of judicial or administrative proceedings.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee had urged the Government to ensure adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, dismissals and other prejudicial acts against trade union leaders and members, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. In its reply, the Government indicates that during the process of adoption of the Law on Trade Unions, relevant stakeholders were consulted and solutions were integrated into the Law with regard to the specific protection of trade union leaders against acts of anti-union discrimination, and that the Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training will endeavour to ensure that this protection is ensured. The Committee notes, however, the ITUC’s observations according to which the penalties provided for under the Law on Trade Unions for anti-union practices by employers (Chapter 15 of the Law) are too low (a maximum of 5 million riels, equivalent to US$1,250) and may not be sufficiently dissuasive. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the effectiveness of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination depends not only on the effectiveness of the remedies envisaged, but also the sanctions provided which should be effective and sufficiently dissuasive (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 193). In the present case, the Committee is of the view that fines for unfair labour practices provided for in the Law on Trade Unions may be a deterrent for small and medium-sized enterprises, but would not appear to be so for high-productivity and large enterprise cases. The Committee, therefore, invites the Government to assess, in consultation with the social partners, the dissuasive nature of sanctions to be introduced into the Law on Trade Unions or any other relevant law in order to protect against anti-union discrimination practices. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in this regard.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee had addressed the means of determining representativeness for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Committee duly notes that, according to sections 54 and 55 of the Law on Trade Unions the most representative organization status within the enterprise or the establishment confers an exclusive right to collective bargaining to the organization concerned. In order to acquire this status, the trade union shall meet certain criteria, including having as members at least 30 per cent of the total of workers in the enterprise or establishment where there is one trade union. Where there are several unions, the most representative organization should have received the highest support rate of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers. In the event that none of the unions in the enterprise received 30 per cent of support, a specific election is organized towards this goal. The Committee further observes that in the event of multiple local workers’ unions in an enterprise or establishment failing to meet all the criteria stipulated or to secure the most representative status, the negotiation of a collective agreement should be carried out within a bargaining council defined under section 72 of the Law. Noting the Government’s statement that by lowering the threshold to the present level of 30 per cent, the Law encourages the increase of collective agreements, the Committee invites the Government to assess the impact of the implementation of the Law on Trade Unions by providing in its next report statistics on: (i) the number of representative organizations identified based on their having secured at least 30 per cent of workers’ support without an election, and the number of collective agreements concluded by these representative organizations; and (ii) the number of separate elections organized based on no union having secured 30 per cent support, and the number of collective agreements concluded by the organizations so elected. The Committee further requests the Government to specify in the requested statistics, the sectors, and the number of workers covered by collective agreements concluded and disaggregate the information on a calendar year basis.

Articles 4, 5 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous observation, the Committee encouraged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the right to collective bargaining is guaranteed in law and practice to public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers. In its reply, the Government indicates that civil servants are governed by the Law on the Common Statute of Civil Servants and, therefore, the Law on Trade Unions is not applicable to them. However, personnel employed by government institutions under contractual basis – who are governed by the Labour Law – fall under the scope of the Law on Trade Union. The Committee is bound to recall that, in addition to the armed forces and the police, only public servants “engaged in the administration of the State” (for example, in some countries, public servants in government ministries and other comparable bodies, and ancillary staff) may be excluded from the scope of the Convention. All other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention and, therefore, enjoy collective bargaining rights by virtue of Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee, therefore, urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, including teachers, who are governed by the Law on the Common Statute of Civil Servants and the Law on Education with regard to their right to organize, enjoy collective bargaining rights under the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report on any measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee trusts that the Government will make every effort to address its comments, in full consultation with the social partners, and will report on measures taken or envisaged to bring the law and practice into line with the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the legislation regulating shop stewards, including provisions foreseen in the forthcoming Trade Union Law, following past observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the tasks of shop stewards which correspond to those of trade union representatives. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that it is in the process of drafting and finalizing the Trade Union Law, which will replace the relevant articles on shop stewards in the Labour Code when it is adopted. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary steps so that the forthcoming Trade Union Law adequately ensures that where both trade union representatives and elected representatives exist in the same undertaking, appropriate measures are taken to ensure that the existence of elected representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions or their representatives, and to encourage cooperation between the elected representatives and the trade unions concerned and their representatives. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2014, which refer in particular to serious acts of anti-union discrimination, and the observations made by Education International (EI) and its affiliate, the National Educators’ Association for Development (NEAD) received on 10 September 2014, referring to anti-union discrimination and denial of the right to collective bargaining for teachers and civil servants.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee had urged the Government to ensure adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government refers to provisions in the Labour Law 1997 regulating dismissal for violation of laws and regulations, and requiring the labour inspector’s authorization for dismissal of “shop stewards”. The Committee notes that pursuant to Prakas No. 305 of 22 November 2001 and article 373 of the Labour Law, sanctions for anti-union discrimination include a fine equivalent to 61–90 days of the base daily wage and/or imprisonment for six days to one month. Emphasizing that anti-union discrimination may jeopardize the very existence of trade unions, the Committee once again requests the Government to ensure adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, dismissal and other prejudicial acts against trade union leaders and members, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, and requests the Government to provide information on developments in this regard whether through the forthcoming Trade Union Law or other relevant legislation. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments of the NEAD and the ITUC alleging dismissals, threats and discrimination, particularly in the context of increased use of fixed-duration contracts, against public sector and other workers on account of their trade union membership or activities. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the number of complaints, the outcome of judicial and administrative proceedings and copies of court judgments.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee had addressed the means of determining representativeness for the purposes of collective bargaining. Noting the Government’s indication that the draft Trade Union Law is expected to be adopted by early 2015, the Committee trusts that the new legislation will respect the principle that representative organizations should be determined on the basis of objective, pre-established and precise criteria, and that third parties are no longer able to object to the granting of most representative status to a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the law on its adoption.

Articles 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants. In its previous observation, the Committee had requested that the Government ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy the right to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that a distinction must therefore be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, in some countries, civil servants in government ministries and other comparable bodies, and ancillary staff), who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (General Survey on fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 172). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new Trade Union Law will not cover public servants. The Committee encourages the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the right to collective bargaining is guaranteed in law and practice to all public servants, including teachers, with the sole exception of those engaged in the administration of the State.

Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous observation, the Committee had requested the Government to provide statistics on collective agreements. The Committee notes that the Government has indicated that collective bargaining has not been highly valued by the parties because of a lack of trust, willingness and sincerity and a lack of workplace cooperation, and provides numbers of collective agreements from 1999 to 2013. The Committee notes however that the Government does not detail the number of workers covered, the time periods to which they relate, or their genuineness in the context of the Committee’s previous concerns. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide the aforementioned information and to take the necessary steps to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and trade unions.

Consultations on the draft Trade Union Law. In its previous observation, the Committee had requested the Government to ensure full consultation with the social partners on the draft Trade Union Law, which it hoped would take into account its comments. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that one of the three workshops on the draft law held in 2014 was tripartite. The Committee emphasizes that the Government should take steps to ensure that meaningful consultation takes place with the social partners with respect to all labour law reform and to ensure their full and equal participation in all relevant social dialogue forums.

The Committee invites the Government to ensure full conformity with the provisions of the Convention, in particular with regard to the questions raised above, and requests it to provide information on steps taken to this end, whether through the forthcoming Trade Union Law or other relevant legislative measures. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of technical assistance from the Office in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

Repetition

The Committee had noted the information provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in its comments submitted on 24 August 2010, according to which shop stewards perform functions that should, in practice, be in the hand of elected trade union leaders and although representative unions have the right to nominate shop stewards, they are often elected before a union is organized at a workplace. The Committee again requests the Government to provide its observations thereon in its next report, as well as information on the legislation regulating shop stewards.

The Committee further noted the comments submitted by the ITUC dated 31 August 2011, in which the ITUC expresses concern about a number of provisions of the draft trade union law, in particular in relation to shop stewards. The Committee recalls that where there exists in the same undertaking both trade union representatives and elected representatives, appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure that the existence of elected representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives and to encourage co-operation on all relevant matters between the elected representatives and the trade unions concerned and their representatives. The Committee again requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC comments, as well as information on the provisions of the draft trade union law which regulate shop stewards or any other relevant legislation in this respect.

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

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

Repetition

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 and 31 August 2011, which refer, in particular, to serious and numerous acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee further notes the comments made by the Cambodian Labour Confederation (CLC) on 31 August 2011, indicating, in particular, that independent trade unions face many risks such as discrimination, and mostly dismissals, and that employers create “yellow unions” to interfere with the independent unions activities. Lastly, the Committee notes the comments made by Education International (EI) on 31 August 2011, indicating that teachers and civil servants were denied both the right to freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. The Committee urges the Government to send its observations on all the issues raised by the ITUC, the CLC and EI, as well as the issues raised in the new EI communication dated 31 August 2012.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee had underlined the need to take steps without delay to adopt an appropriate legislative framework in full consultation with the social partners to ensure adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, dismissals and other prejudicial acts, including by means of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Government indicates in its report that the Labour Law ensures the rights of unions and that when the Law on Trade Union will be enforced these rights will be further promoted. The Committee also notes that, in their comments, both the ITUC and the CLC report severe cases of anti-union discrimination and anti-union dismissals. Against this backdrop, the Committee urges the Government to ensure, in full consultation with the social partners, that adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, dismissals and other prejudicial acts, including by means of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, will be provided for in the Trade Union Law which will be adopted. It requests the Government to provide information on developments in this regard.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 1 of Prakas No. 13 of 2004, which provides that the Ministry of Social Affairs, Labour, Vocational Training and Youth Rehabilitation may refuse to grant most representative status to a trade union when an objection is put forward from a member of the Labour Advisory Committee, or from enterprises, institutions or a concerned third party. The Committee considered in this respect that permitting the objections of third parties as grounds for refusing a union most representative status ran counter to the principle of promoting collective bargaining expressed in Article 4 of the Convention. The Government indicated in its report that when the Trade Union Law is promulgated, its provisions will apply in this respect. The Committee also noted that the ITUC, the CLC and the EI, in their 2011 comments, express concerns about a number of provisions of the draft Trade Union Law, in particular in relation to the modalities for designation of the most representative union. The Committee recalls that the determination of the most representative organizations must be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 97). The Committee requests the Government to ensure, in the framework of the adoption of the Trade Union Law, that this principle will be upheld, and that the new legislation suppresses the possibility for third parties to put forward objections to the granting of the most representative status to a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Articles 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants. The Committee had previously noted that according to section 1 of the Labour Law, certain categories of workers, which include persons appointed to a temporary or a permanent post in the public service, are not covered by this legislation. On numerous occasions, both the Committee on Freedom of Association (see Case No. 2222, 334th and 356th Reports) and the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the laws pertaining to all public sector workers, so as to ensure the right to collective bargaining for all public servants, with the sole exception of those engaged in the administration of the State. More particularly, the Committee urged the Government to immediately take the necessary measures to amend the Common Statute of Civil Servants so as to guarantee fully the right to collective bargaining. The Committee stated that no progress have been made in this respect. Concerning the application of the Convention in practice, the Committee noted with concern the comments made by the ITUC, the CLC and EI, recalling that civil servants’ associations are not recognized as trade unions and do not enjoy collective bargaining rights. It further notes that the ITUC, the CLC and EI, express concerns about the scope of application of the draft Trade Union Law. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the right to collective bargaining of public servants is an issue addressed within the framework of the drafting of the Trade Union Law. If that is the case, it requests the Government to ensure that the final draft legislation on trade unions guarantees the right to collective bargaining for all public servants, including teachers, with the sole exception of those engaged in the administration of the State. If that is not the case, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the laws pertaining to all public sector workers, and more particularly the Common Statute of Civil Servants, so as to bring them in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding any developments in this respect.

Consultations on the draft Trade Union Law. The Committee noted that the CLC indicated in its comments that in the course of the drafting process of the Trade Union Law the Government only took into consideration comments from the employers’ organizations. EI further indicates that the Cambodian Independent Teachers’ Association had not been consulted. The Committee has also been informed that a draft of the Trade Union Law has been sent to the Office and that the Government has benefited from the Office’s assistance on the draft law. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that full consultation with the social partners on the draft Trade Union Law take place. In general, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure meaningful consultation with the social partners with respect to any labour law reform and to ensure their full and equal participation in all relevant social dialogue forums. Furthermore, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the final draft legislation on trade unions will take into account all its comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on these matters and in particular on the adoption of the Trade Union Law.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee noted that the Government indicated that 55 collective agreements have been registered and that these agreements are attached to its report. However, the Committee noted that the documents received as attachments to the Government’s report are not collective bargaining agreements. Noting the comments made by the ITUC according to which collective bargaining is rare and difficult, the Committee expresses its concern about this information and reiterates its request to the Government to communicate in its next report statistics on the collective agreements (workers and sectors covered in the different regions, and number of genuine collective agreements).

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

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain information on the matter raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Repetition

The Committee notes the information provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in its comments submitted on 24 August 2010, according to which shop stewards perform functions that should, in practice, be in the hand of elected trade union leaders and although representative unions have the right to nominate shop stewards, they are often elected before a union is organized at a workplace. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon in its next report, as well as information on the legislation regulating shop stewards.

The Committee further notes the comments submitted by the ITUC dated 31 August 2011, in which the ITUC expresses concern about a number of provisions of the draft trade union law, in particular in relation to shop stewards. The Committee recalls that where there exists in the same undertaking both trade union representatives and elected representatives, appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure that the existence of elected representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives and to encourage co-operation on all relevant matters between the elected representatives and the trade unions concerned and their representatives. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC comments, as well as information on the provisions of the draft trade union law which regulate shop stewards or any other relevant legislation in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 and 31 August 2011, which refer, in particular, to serious and numerous acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee further notes the comments made by the Cambodian Labour Confederation (CLC) on 31 August 2011, indicating, in particular, that independent trade unions face many risks such as discrimination, and mostly dismissals, and that employers create “yellow unions” to interfere with the independent unions activities. Lastly, the Committee notes the comments made by Education International (EI) on 31 August 2011, indicating that teachers and civil servants were denied both the right to freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. The Committee urges the Government to send its observations on all the issues raised by the ITUC, the CLC and IE.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee had underlined the need to take steps without delay to adopt an appropriate legislative framework in full consultation with the social partners to ensure adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, dismissals and other prejudicial acts, including by means of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Labour Law ensures the rights of unions and that when the Law on Trade Union will be enforced these rights will be further promoted. The Committee also notes that, in their comments, both the ITUC and the CLC report severe cases of anti-union discrimination and anti-union dismissals. Against this backdrop, the Committee urges the Government to ensure, in full consultation with the social partners, that adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, dismissals and other prejudicial acts, including by means of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, will be provided for in the Trade Union Law which will be adopted. It requests the Government to provide information on developments in this regard.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 1 of Prakas No. 13 of 2004, which provides that the Ministry of Social Affairs, Labour, Vocational Training and Youth Rehabilitation may refuse to grant most representative status to a trade union when an objection is put forward from a member of the Labour Advisory Committee, or from enterprises, institutions or a concerned third party. The Committee considered in this respect that permitting the objections of third parties as grounds for refusing a union most representative status ran counter to the principle of promoting collective bargaining expressed in Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that when the Trade Union Law is promulgated, its provisions will apply in this respect. The Committee also notes that the ITUC, the CLC and the EI, in their 2011 comments, express concerns about a number of provisions of the draft Trade Union Law, in particular in relation to the modalities for designation of the most representative union. The Committee recalls that the determination of the most representative organizations must be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 97). The Committee requests the Government to ensure, in the framework of the adoption of the Trade Union Law, that this principle will be upheld, and that the new legislation suppresses the possibility for third parties to put forward objections to the granting of the most representative status to a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Articles 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants. The Committee had previously noted that according to section 1 of the Labour Law, certain categories of workers, which include persons appointed to a temporary or a permanent post in the public service, are not covered by this legislation. On numerous occasions, both the Committee on Freedom of Association (see Case No. 2222, 334th and 356th Reports) and the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the laws pertaining to all public sector workers, so as to ensure the right to collective bargaining for all public servants, with the sole exception of those engaged in the administration of the State. More particularly, the Committee urged the Government to immediately take the necessary measures to amend the Common Statute of Civil Servants so as to guarantee fully the right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government in its report that no progress have been made in this respect. Concerning the application of the Convention in practice, it notes with concern the comments made by the ITUC, the CLC and EI, recalling that civil servants’ associations are not recognized as trade unions and do not enjoy collective bargaining rights. It further notes that the ITUC, the CLC and EI, express concerns about the scope of application of the draft Trade Union Law. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the right to collective bargaining of public servants is an issue addressed within the framework of the drafting of the Trade Union Law. If that is the case, it requests the Government to ensure that the final draft legislation on trade unions guarantees the right to collective bargaining for all public servants, including teachers, with the sole exception of those engaged in the administration of the State. If that is not the case, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the laws pertaining to all public sector workers, and more particularly the Common Statute of Civil Servants, so as to bring them in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding any developments in this respect.

Consultations on the draft Trade Union Law. The Committee notes that the CLC indicates in its comments that in the course of the drafting process of the Trade Union Law the Government only took into consideration comments from the employers’ organizations. EI further indicates that the Cambodian Independent Teachers’ Association had not been consulted. The Committee has also been informed that a draft of the Trade Union Law has been sent to the Office and that the Government has benefited from the Office’s assistance on the draft law. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that full consultation with the social partners on the draft Trade Union Law take place. In general, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure meaningful consultation with the social partners with respect to any labour law reform and to ensure their full and equal participation in all relevant social dialogue forums. Furthermore, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the final draft legislation on trade unions will take into account all its comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on these matters and in particular on the adoption of the Trade Union Law.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that 55 collective agreements have been registered and that these agreements are attached to its report. However, the Committee notes that the documents received as attachments to the Government’s report are not collective bargaining agreements. Noting the comments made by the ITUC according to which collective bargaining is rare and difficult, the Committee expresses its concern about this information and reiterates its request to the Government to communicate in its next report statistics on the collective agreements (workers and sectors covered in the different regions, and number of genuine collective agreements).

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in its comments submitted on 24 August 2010, according to which shop stewards perform functions that should, in practice, be in the hand of elected trade union leaders and although representative unions have the right to nominate shop stewards, they are often elected before a union is organized at a workplace. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon in its next report, as well as information on the legislation regulating shop stewards.

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

The Committee notes the comments submitted on 24 August 2010 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) which refer to matters already under examination, as well as to serious and numerous acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, obstacles to collective bargaining and social dialogue. The Committee also notes the comments submitted on 31 August 2010 by the Free Trade Union of Workers of the Kingdom of Cambodia (FTUWKC). The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon in its next report.

The Committee notes that in the framework of the discussions on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2010 (99th Session) emphasizes the need to ensure that the current reform process brings the legislation into greater conformity with the Convention. It also notes the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association regarding the deficient legislative framework for cases of anti-union discrimination and the non-recognition of collective bargaining rights for civil servants (see Cases Nos 2443, 2655 and 2222).

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee referred to the need for appropriate legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, and had requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted in order to modify the legislation so as to provide for such sanctions. The Committee notes that in its comments of 24 August 2010, the ITUC reports severe cases of anti-union discrimination and anti-union dismissals, including of pregnant women. The Committee also notes that the discussion during the Conference Committee in June 2010 pointed out the persistent climate of violence and intimidation towards union members, including the failure of the system to protect trade union leaders and members from acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the efficiency of the implementation of the Labour Law improved thanks to the ILO’s technical assistance and that at the end of March 2010, a high-level tripartite consultation on industrial relations finalized a consensus between trade union and employers’ associations on nine points that will assist the harmonization of industrial relations pending the drafting of the new law on trade union. The Committee underlines the need to take steps without delay to adopt an appropriate legislative framework in full consultation with the social partners to ensure adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination, dismissals and other prejudicial acts, including by means of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee took note of Prakas No. 13 of 2004, which lays down the procedure for granting most representative status to professional organizations at the enterprise or institutional level. The Committee noted in particular that section 1 of Prakas No. 13 provides that the Ministry of Social Affairs, Labour, Vocational Training and Youth Rehabilitation (MOSALVY) may refuse to grant most representative status to a trade union when an objection is put forward from a member of the Labour Advisory Committee, or from enterprises, institutions or a concerned third party. The Committee considered in this respect that permitting the objections of third parties as grounds for refusing a union most representative status ran counter to the principle of promoting collective bargaining expressed in Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the determination of the most representative organizations must be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse (see the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 97). The Committee notes with regret that the Government indicates in its report that no progress has been made in this respect. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to amend section 1 of Prakas No. 13 accordingly, and to provide information on the progress made in this respect in its next report.

Articles 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants. The Committee had previously noted that according to section 1 of the Labour Law, certain categories of workers, which include persons appointed to a temporary or a permanent post in the public service, are not covered by this legislation. It had further noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association (see Case No. 2222, 334th and 356th Reports) had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Common Statute of Civil Servants so as to guarantee the right to collective bargaining of civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State, and requested the Government to indicate whether the categories of workers in question benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention under other legal provisions and, if not, to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the application of the Convention to these categories of workers. The Committee noted in this regard the Government’s statement that since the rights of judges, teachers, and temporary and permanently appointed officials in the public service were provided for by separate laws pertaining to public ministries or institutions, it was unable to amend the labour law in accordance with the Committee’s requests.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, that under the Common Statute of Civil Servants, salaries of civil servants should be automatically increased on their third year of employment and if their salary is not increased within two years, in the third year, civil servants can complain to the public function secretariat or to the court. The Committee recalls however that wages, benefits and other labour conditions constitute matters of collective bargaining. The Committee also notes that the Government indicated during the discussions in the Conference Committee in June 2010, that it was considering guaranteeing the right of collective bargaining to civil servants.

Concerning the application of the Convention in practice, the Committee notes with concern the comments made by the ITUC recalling that the Cambodian Independent Teachers Association and the Cambodian Independent Civil Service Association (civil servants’ association) are not recognized as trade unions by the Ministry of Labour and therefore do not enjoy collective bargaining rights. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the laws pertaining to all public sector workers, so as to ensure the right to collective bargaining for all public servants, including teachers, with the only possible exception of those engaged in the administration of the State. More particularly, the Committee urges the Government to immediately take the necessary measures to amend the Common Statute of Civil Servants so as to guarantee fully the right to collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report information regarding any developments in this respect.

Revision of the legislation. The Committee notes that the Government indicated during the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2010, that it was working in cooperation with the ILO on a draft Trade Union Law to be adopted by Parliament in 2011 and that it expected the Law to guarantee the right of workers and employers to bargain collectively through the streamlining of rules for the certification of the union with the most representative status, the creation of a legal framework for collective bargaining agreements and the definition of unfair labour practices by employers and workers. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure full consultation with the social partners concerned with respect to labour law reform and to ensure their full and equal participation in all relevant social dialogue forums. The Committee requests the Government to provide, with its next report, information on these matters, as well as a copy of the legislation once adopted.

Application of the Convention in practice. Noting the comments made by the ITUC in August 2010 according to which collective bargaining is rare and difficult and only a few unions have managed to conclude collective agreements, the Committee expresses its concern about this information and reiterates its request to the Government to communicate in its next report statistics on the collective agreements (workers and sectors covered in the different regions, and number of collective agreements).

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

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

The Committee notes the comments submitted in August 2009 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which refer to matters already under examination, as well as to extremely serious and numerous acts of anti-union discrimination and interference – including instances where employers had violated trade union rights with impunity – and obstacles to collective bargaining. The Committee also notes the comments submitted by the Free Trade Union of Workers of the Kingdom of Cambodia (FTUWKC). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its observations including on the question of favouritism to the shop stewards in detriment to union leaders and the question of non‑prosecution in practice of anti-union practices of employers.

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

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee had noted that in Case No. 2443 the Committee on Freedom of Association had referred to the need for appropriate legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, and had requested the Government to inform it of the measures adopted in order to modify the legislation so as to provide for such sanctions. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the steps necessary to provide adequate protection in its legislation against all acts of anti-union discrimination, including by means of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. The Committee takes note of Prakas No. 13 of 2004, which lays down the procedure for granting most representative status to professional organizations at the enterprise or institutional level. The Committee notes in particular that section 1 of Prakas No. 13 provides that the Ministry of Social Affairs, Labour, Vocational Training and Youth Rehabilitation (MOSALVY) may refuse to grant most representative status to a trade union when an objection is put forward from a member of the Labour Advisory Committee, or from enterprises, institutions, or a concerned third party. The Committee considers, in this respect, that permitting the objections of third parties as grounds for refusing a union most representative status runs counter to the principle of promoting collective bargaining expressed in Article 4 of the Convention. It requests the Government to amend section 1 of Prakas No. 13 accordingly, and to provide information on the progress made in this respect.

Articles 4 and 6. Public servants. The Committee had previously noted that, according to section 1 of the Labour Law, certain categories of workers, which include persons appointed to a temporary or a permanent post in the public service, are not covered by this legislation. It had further noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association (see 334th Report, paragraphs 202–226) had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Common Statutes of Civil Servants so as to guarantee the right to collective bargaining of civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State, and requested the Government to indicate whether the categories of workers in question benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention under other legal provisions and, if not, to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the application of the Convention to these categories of workers. In this regard the Committee notes with regret the Government’s statement that the rights of judges, teachers, and temporary and permanently appointed officials in the public service are provided for by separate laws pertaining to public ministries or institutions, and that it was unable therefore to amend the labour law in accordance with the Committee’s previous comments. In these circumstances, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the laws pertaining to all public sector workers, so as to ensure the right to collective bargaining for all public servants, with the exception of those engaged in the administration of the State.

Finally, the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that it is preparing amendments to the labour law with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee expresses the hope that these amendments will bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention, in accordance with its comments above, and requests the Government to provide information on developments in this regard.

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

The Committee requests the Government to communicate statistics on the collective agreements (workers and sectors covered in the different regions, and number of collective agreements).

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the 2008 ITUC and FTUWKC comments and hopes that the task force which examines the reform of the trade union legislation will take into account the above comments.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 99th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2010.]

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It further notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which refer to matters already under examination, as well as to extremely serious and numerous acts of anti-union discrimination and interference – including instances where employers had violated trade union rights with impunity – and obstacles to collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee had noted that in Case No. 2443 the Committee on Freedom of Association had referred to the need for appropriate legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, and had requested the Government to inform it of the measures adopted in order to modify the legislation so as to provide for such sanctions. In this connection, the Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no information concerning this matter. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the steps necessary to provide adequate protection in its legislation against all acts of anti-union discrimination, including by means of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Recognition of trade unions for purposes of collective bargaining. The Committee takes note of Prakas No. 13 of 2004, which lays down the procedure for granting most representative status to professional organizations at the enterprise or institutional level. The Committee notes in particular that section 1 of Prakas No. 13 provides that the Ministry of Social Affairs, Labour, Vocational Training and Youth Rehabilitation (MOSALVY) may refuse to grant most representative status to a trade union when an objection is put forward from a member of the Labour Advisory Committee, or from enterprises, institutions, or a concerned third party. The Committee considers, in this respect, that permitting the objections of third parties as grounds for refusing a union most representative status runs counter to the principle of promoting collective bargaining expressed in Article 4 of the Convention. It requests the Government to amend section 1 of Prakas No. 13 accordingly, and to keep it informed of the progress made in this respect.

Articles 4 and 6. Public servants. The Committee had previously noted that, according to section 1 of the Labour Law, certain categories of workers, which include persons appointed to a temporary or a permanent post in the public service, are not covered by this legislation. It had further noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association (see 334th Report, paragraphs 202–226) had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Common Statutes of Civil Servants so as to guarantee the right to collective bargaining of civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State, and requested the Government to indicate whether the categories of workers in question benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention under other legal provisions and, if not, to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the application of the Convention to these categories of workers. In this regard the Committee notes with regret the Government’s statement that the rights of judges, teachers, and temporary and permanently appointed officials in the public service are provided for by separate laws pertaining to public ministries or institutions, and that it was unable therefore to amend the labour law in accordance with the Committee’s previous comments. In these circumstances, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the laws pertaining to all public sector workers, so as to ensure the right to collective bargaining for all public servants, with the exception of those engaged in the administration of the State.

Finally, the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that it is preparing amendments to the labour law with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee expresses the hope that these amendments will bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention, in accordance with its comments above, and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) of 10 August 2006, which largely refer to pending issues relating to legislation and the application of the Convention in practice that are already under examination. The ICFTU also reports: (1) the denial of trade union rights to public officials, including teachers, civilian personnel in the armed forces and domestic workers; (2) a ministerial regulation of 2004 (“Prakas” No. 13), which allows third parties, including the employer, to interfere in matters of trade union representativeness in the process of collective bargaining; (3) acts of anti-union discrimination in various sectors, which serve to confirm the inadequacy of the legal protection; and (4) the limited number of collective agreements. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the ICFTU.

The Committee also requests the Government, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, to provide its observations for the Committee’s next session in November-December 2007 on all the issues relating to legislation and the application of the Convention in practice raised in its previous observation in 2005 (see 2005 observation, 76th Session).

Finally, the Committee notes that in Case No. 2443 the Committee on Freedom of Association referred to the need for appropriate legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to inform it on any measures adopted in order to modify the legislation and to increase the sanctions.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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.

The Committee further 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, concerning more particularly anti-union dismissals of trade union officers and the failure of the legal system to protect them, the exclusion of teachers and household servants from the scope of the Labour Law and the fact that only five collective agreements have been registered in the Ministry of Labour. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee had observed previously that, according to section 1 of the Labour Law, certain categories of workers, which include persons appointed to a temporary or a permanent post in the public service, are not covered by this legislation. According to the ICFTU, the Labour Law does not apply to civil servants; moreover the Committee on Freedom of Association (see 334th Report, paragraphs 202-226) had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Common Statutes of Civil Servants so as to guarantee fully the right to collective bargaining of civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State and to diffuse widely these amendments, once adopted, among the local public authorities including the local educational administration. In this respect, the Committee recalls that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State and who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the State, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions and who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests once again the Government to indicate in its next report whether the categories of workers in question benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention under other legal provisions and, if not, to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the application of the Convention to these categories of workers and to keep it informed on measures taken or envisaged in respect of the abovementioned points.

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

The Committee notes with regret 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:

The Committee notes that according to section 1 of the Labour Law, certain categories of workers, which include persons appointed to a temporary or a permanent post in the public service, are not covered by this legislation. In this respect, the Committee recalls that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State and who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions and who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether the categories of workers in question benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention under other legal provisions and, if not, to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the application of the Convention to these categories of workers and to keep it informed on measures taken or envisaged in respect of the abovementioned points.

The Committee also takes note of the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2222 (see 334th Report, paragraphs 202-226) according to which the Government should take the necessary measures to amend the Common Statute of Civil Servants so as to guarantee fully the right to collective bargaining of civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State and to diffuse widely these amendments, once adopted, among the local public authorities including the local educational administration. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken or contemplated in this respect.

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

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:

The Committee notes that according to section 1 of the Labour Law, certain categories of workers, which include persons appointed to a temporary or a permanent post in the public service, are not covered by this legislation. In this respect, the Committee recalls that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State and who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions and who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether the categories of workers in question benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention under other legal provisions and, if not, to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the application of the Convention to these categories of workers and to keep it informed on measures taken or envisaged in respect of the abovementioned points.

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

The Committee notes with interest the information contained in the Government’s first report.

The Committee notes that according to section 1 of the Labour Law, certain categories of workers, which include persons appointed to a temporary or a permanent post in the public service, are not covered by this legislation. In this respect, the Committee recalls that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State and who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions and who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether the categories of workers in question benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention under other legal provisions and, if not, to take the necessary measures in order to ensure the application of the Convention to these categories of workers and to keep it informed on measures taken or envisaged in respect of the abovementioned points.