Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2013, Publicación: 103ª reunión CIT (2014)

Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (núm. 87) - Antigua y Barbuda (Ratificación : 1983)

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to exclude the Government printing office and the port authority from the list of essential services and to amend the following sections of the Industrial Court Act, 1976: sections 19 and 20, which permit the referral of a dispute to the court by the minister or at the request of one party with the consequent effect of prohibiting strike action under penalty of imprisonment; section 21, which provides for injunctions against a legal strike when the “national interest” is threatened or affected; and section 22, which prohibits direct and indirect financial assistance to a trade union or any employee involved in a strike declared contrary to any provisions of the Act under penalty of fine or imprisonment.

With regard to amending the Essential Services Act, 2008, so as to remove the government printing office and the port authority from the list of essential services, the Government indicates that it has to consider the impact this would have on the economy. While the economic impact of industrial action may be regrettable, the Committee recalls that it does not consider that economic damage in itself renders a service essential so as to justify restrictions on strikes. It further recalls that in services which are of public utility, in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service rather than impose an outright ban on strikes.

With regard to the Industrial Court Act, the Committee recalls that recourse to compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike is only acceptable under certain circumstances, namely when the two parties to the dispute so agree, or when the strike in question may be restricted, or even prohibited, that is: (i) in the case of disputes concerning public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (ii) in conflicts in essential services in the strict sense of the term; or (iii) in situations of acute national or local crisis, but only for a limited period of time and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation. The Committee also considers that the term “national interest” used in section 21 is much broader than the strict notion of a situation of acute national crisis. It further recalls that no penal sanctions should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and thus for merely exercising an essential right, and therefore that measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed on any account. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law, have been committed, and can be imposed exclusively pursuant to legislation punishing such acts, such as the Penal Code. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to review, in consultation with the social partners and, if the Government so desires, technical assistance of the Office, the Essential Services Act and sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Industrial Court Act and to provide information on the concrete measures taken or envisaged in this respect.