Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2019, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Ethiopie (Ratification: 1963)

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programme. In previous comments, the Committee had considered that the Labour Proclamation No. 377/2003 allowed one of the parties to a labour dispute to impose arbitration and to unduly preclude the exercise of the right to strike (section 143(2) allowed the aggrieved party to the labour dispute to take the case to the Labour Relations Board for arbitration or to the appropriate court and section 160(1) provided that in the latter case the strike was unlawful). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that after having discussed with the social partners, the consensus reached was that sections 143(2) and 160(1) did not breach the Convention and that, consequently, the Labour Proclamation No. 1156/2019 includes them again. The Committee further notes that in previous reports the Government had indicated that the Committee had not grasped the rationale behind such provisions, and affirmed that the decision out of the conciliation or arbitration processes had a binding effect if and only if the parties agreed upon it and that the prohibition of resorting to strike action was only for a period of 30 days to seek settlement of the case. The Committee observes that the 2019 Labour Proclamation No. 1156/2019: (i) provides conciliation at the request of either party on a list of labour disputes, including the conclusion of collective agreements; and affords 30 days to the conciliator to try to settle the dispute, failing which a report will be issued and any of the parties may submit the matter to a labour relations board (sections 142 and 143); (ii) allows parties to a dispute to submit their case to conciliators or arbitrators of their own choice for settlement and, if they fail to reach an agreement, or if so decided by a party aggrieved by the arbitration decision, the matter may be taken to the board or appropriate court (section 144); (iii) provides that the decisions of a permanent or ad hoc board shall have immediate effect, with all findings of fact being deemed final and conclusive, and in any labour dispute an appeal may be taken to the high court by an aggrieved party on questions of law (sections 153–155); and (iv) deems a strike to be unlawful if initiated after a dispute has been referred to a board or a court and 30 days have not elapsed before an order or decision is given (or the prescribed period has elapsed before the court has given a decision) (section 161(1)). The Committee requests the Government to clarify: (i) whether, and on what legal basis, the decisions resulting from conciliation or arbitration procedures set out in the Labour Proclamation No. 1156/2019 for labour disputes (such as on the conclusion of a collective agreement) are only binding if so agreed by the parties, and how such agreement is expressed; (ii) the length of time that these procedures can preclude the exercise of the right to strike without the agreement of both parties (for example, if a dispute is first referred to a conciliator or arbitrator, subsequently to a labour relations board (or to a court), and finally the board’s decision is appealed to the high court); and (iii) what legal provisions ensure that such procedures cannot be used to unduly restrict the exercise of the right to strike (for example, allowing one party to either preclude it or delay for more than 30 days) and what legal mechanisms are available to a party wanting to exercise its right to strike after having sought but not reached settlement for a period of 30 days under said procedures.

The Committee recalls in this regard that: (i) the imposition of procedures to facilitate settlement before resorting to a strike should have the sole purpose of facilitating bargaining and should not be so complex or slow that a lawful strike becomes impossible in practice or loses its effectiveness (with regard to the duration of prior conciliation and arbitration procedures, the Committee has considered, for example, that the imposition of a duration of over 60 working days as a prior condition for the exercise of a lawful strike may make the exercise of the right to strike difficult, or even impossible); and (ii) except in situations concerning essential services in the strict sense of the term, acute national crisis and public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, recourse to arbitration (that is to a binding adjudication of the dispute) should be allowed only upon the request of both parties; as the systematic recourse to such procedure would be tantamount in practice to a general prohibition of strikes, which is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee trusts that, in light of the clarifications requested, the Government will take any necessary measures to ensure that the Labour Proclamation No. 1156/2019 fully complies with the above, so as to ensure respect of the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programme, including through strike action.