Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2016, publiée 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Belgique (Ratification: 1951)

The Committee notes the joint observations of the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2016, which relate to the issues dealt with by the Committee in this comment and also to the observations of a general nature of the IOE, received on the same day.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of trade union organizations to formulate their programmes. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the observations made by trade union organizations denouncing systematic recourse by employers to the judicial authorities to ban industrial action by trade unions, and particularly to prevent trade unions from setting up strike pickets. The Committee had requested the Government to ensure full compliance by all of the actors and institutions concerned with the “gentlemen’s agreement” concluded in 2002 by the social partners on the peaceful settlement of labour disputes and the 2012 resolution of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe considering that certain aspects relating to the right to strike needed to be improved. In this regard, the Committee notes the various elements provided by the FEB and the IOE, on the one hand, and by the Government, on the other. The Committee observes that the Council of Europe’s resolution has been circulated and that, according to both the Government and the employers’ organizations, it is taken into account in judicial decisions. The Committee also notes the Government’s indications concerning the discussions held between the social partners to revise the “gentlemen’s agreement”, although they have not yet produced an agreement. Lastly, the Committee notes the positions expressed by the IOE and the FEB, on the one hand, and the Government, on the other, in relation to a ruling by the Court of Cassation of 8 December 2014 recalling that the submission of a unilateral application to a court in the context of a collective dispute is only receivable in exceptional circumstances.

In its previous comments, the Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the findings of the investigations carried out into the arrests at the Euro-demonstration on 29 September 2010 organized in Brussels by European trade unions. The Committee notes the Government’s response on this issue and, in particular, the evaluation by the Standing Police Monitoring Committee.

In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide comments in reply to the observations of trade unions alleging the abusive application by municipal authorities of administrative penalties for “disturbances”, which would have the effect of jeopardizing the various types of action carried out by trade unions in public spaces. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the Act of 24 June 2013 on communal administrative sanctions allows communal authorities to issue administrative penalties or sanctions for infringements of their regulations or ordinances; (ii) although the communal authorities are autonomous in this respect, they are of course bound to respect the hierarchy of legal norms; (iii) the Constitutional Court, having received an application for unconstitutionality from various trade union organizations, set aside the appeal in a ruling of 23 April 2015; and (iv) the Court recalled in this ruling that freedom of movement may give rise to restrictions where they are provided for by law and necessary for life in a democratic society. The Committee notes this information and trusts that the Act of 24 June 2013 will be applied in full conformity with the Convention.