Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2015, publiée 105ème session CIT (2016)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Ouganda (Ratification: 1963)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 2013, concerning collective bargaining difficulties in the education sector. The Committee notes that, according to information provided in the Government’s report, the issues raised by the ITUC were resolved through dialogue and discussions between the Inter Ministerial Task Force and the Uganda National Teachers’ Union (UNATU).

The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC received on 31 August 2014. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard, as well as on the 2012 observations of the National Organization of Trade Unions of Uganda (NOTU) (concerning anti-union discrimination practices and the need for a document of recognition delivered by the employers to engage in collective bargaining).

Article 4 of the Convention. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, after having requested the Government to take measures to recognize the right to collective bargaining to all public servants and public employees engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee noted with interest the 2008 Public Service Act (Negotiating, Consultative and Disputes Settlement Machinery) as well as the Government’s indication that: (i) the Act had been enacted to enable public servants to negotiate on their terms and conditions of work; (ii) following the signing by the Government of recognition agreements with all ten registered public service unions, the Public Service Negotiating and Consultative Council, which bargains with the Government on behalf of public employees, had become operational; and (iii) guidelines were being formulated to assist ministries and local governments to form structures for collective bargaining at their level. The Committee notes that in its report the Government only indicates that the abovementioned guidelines have been formulated. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure the effective application in practice of the collective bargaining rights accorded by law in the public service at least with respect to all public servants and public employees not engaged in the administration of the State. It also requests the Government to supply a copy of the guidelines issued in this respect and to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded in the public service, and the number of workers covered.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls its previous comments on the following provisions of the 2006 Labour Unions Act (LUA) and the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act (LDASA):

• -Section 7 of the LUA (lawful purposes for which trade union federations may be established, do not include collective bargaining). In the absence of any information provided by the Government, the Committee recalls that the right to collective bargaining should also be granted to federations and confederations of trade unions. The Committee once again requests the Government to confirm whether trade union federations have the right to engage in collective bargaining, under the LUA or other legislation.
• -Sections 5(1) and (3) and 27 of the LDASA (referral of non-resolved disputes to compulsory arbitration by or at the request of any party). The Committee notes that the Government indicates that it does not find any justification in the Committee’s comments on why these provisions should strictly relate to public employees engaged in the administration of the State and workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee therefore reiterates that compulsory arbitration (that is, arbitration that is not requested by both parties concerned) may only be imposed in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), or in essential services in the strict sense of the term (namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or in the case of acute national crisis. The Committee recalls in this regard that, with the exception of the abovementioned cases, arbitration imposed by legislation, or at the request of only one of the parties involved in the dispute is contrary to the obligation to promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation as enshrined in Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take steps to amend these provisions so as to ensure that arbitration in situations other than those mentioned above can take place only at the request of both parties involved in the dispute.