Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 291, Novembre 1993

Cas no 1557 (Etats-Unis d'Amérique) - Date de la plainte: 26-OCT. -90 - Clos

1. 247. The Committee has examined this case once (see 284th Report, paragraphs 758-813, approved by the Governing Body at its 254th Session, November 1992) and reached interim conclusions. The AFL-CIO submitted additional information on 3 March 1993, and the Government provided supplemental observations on 7 May and 21 September 1993.
2. 248. The United States has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), or the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 249. At its November 1992 meeting, the Committee noted that the allegations raised the following issues:
2. (1) Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 which, although it contains provisions which regulate labour relations, including a procedure for the establishment of bargaining units and exclusive bargaining representatives by unit, restricts at the federal level the scope of collective bargaining by excluding wages and other monetary issues and by providing for the excessive protection of management rights;
3. (2) at the state level, statutes (Texas, Georgia) or absence of statutes (Louisiana, New Mexico and South Carolina) and administrative and judicial decisions, which reduce the number of matters that had come under collective bargaining for many years by invoking the clause on "management rights" to avoid ruling themselves on certain questions which public employeds would like to be able to negotiate, or by suppressing traditional rights concerning these questions on which they previously negotiated their conditions of employment; and
4. (3) the judicial or legislative cancellation of current collective agreements (Virginia) and discrimination against trade union organizations such as the refusal to grant check-off facilities to some unions because of their national affiliation (Tennessee).
5. 250. The Committee made the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee considers that all public service workers other than those engaged in the administration of the state should enjoy collective bargaining rights and asks the Government to supply information on the legislative situation in the states mentioned in this case so that the Committee will be able to assess whether the right to bargain collectively is being respected in such states.
   • (b) The Committee draws the Government's attention to the importance which it attaches to the principle that priority should be given to collective bargaining in the fullest sense possible as the means for the settlement of disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service.
   • (c) The Committee notes with concern that in the Kentucky plant cited as an example of the malfunctioning of the disputes settlement procedures at the federal level, the present collective agreement took four years to conclude; it considers that the length of time taken to conclude agreements in that particular agency cannot be conducive to sound industrial relations there and accordingly trusts that future bargaining at the US Naval Ordnance Station in Louisville, Kentucky will take place in a better atmosphere.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to transmit its specific comments as soon as possible on the alleged suspension of current collective agreements in Virginia and the refusal to grant check-off facilities to independent unions in Tennessee.

B. The complainants' further information

1. 251. In its communication of 3 March 1993, supported by several exhibits, tables and statistics, the AFL-CIO states that, contrary to the Government's assertion that a majority of public sector employees are engaged in the administration of the State, where public employees have protective legislation, the laws implicitly or explicitly distinguish three categories of employees for special treatment: supervisors, managerial employees and confidential employees. In the public sector, managerial and confidential employees are generally excluded from coverage; supervisors may or may not be covered and, if covered, may or may not be permitted in bargaining units containing non-supervisory employees. The laws and practices vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Even where supervisors are excluded from bargaining rights, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) typically estimates that at most 25 per cent of a public sector workforce will not be included under collective bargaining laws by virtue of these exclusions.
2. 252. Rather than the broad approach implied by the Government's assertion that more than one-half of public employees are engaged in administration and therefore are exempted, the various Public Employment Relations Boards (PERBs) generally apply a presumption of coverage in ambiguous cases and use detailed questions to ensure that employees are correctly categorized. For example, it is not enough to determine that one employee works in a confidential capacity for another; that confidential work must involve labour relations and carry a reasonable risk of potential compromise of the employer's strategy in that area. It is not enough to give an employee a title which sounds like a supervisor or assign them one duty generally associated with supervision; they must meet several tests designed to determine bona fide supervisory status.
3. 253. Over 4.7 million state and local government employees are not covered by collective bargaining laws. Based upon the latest available employment figures for 1991:
   • - only 23 states and the District of Columbia have adopted comprehensive collective bargaining legislation (comprehensive means that the law covers most employees, excluding management and confidential employees, and that it provides for negotiations over wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment);
   • - ten states have no statutes that extend bargaining or "meet and confer" rights to any group of employees (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia);
   • - the remaining 17 states can be divided in two groups:
     • (a) in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming either the group of employees covered, or the meet and confer rights granted are so limited as to make the inclusion of these states meaningless (for example, Georgia has a firefighters meet and confer law for only those cities that opt to be covered under the Act);
     • (b) in Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, South Dakota and Washington the situation is somewhat better; these states either extend a good portion, but less than full rights, to all employees or virtually full rights to a considerable portion of state and/or local government employees.
       • In several states, however, the modest rights provided by statute have been eroded by court or administrative decisions.
     • 254. Contrary to the Government's assertion that union organization occurs and collective bargaining is common in states that have not enacted collective bargaining laws, bargaining occurs on a de facto basis where the employer is willing. The employer controls the process and can end it at any time; no obligation to negotiate exists. These relationships almost never provide comprehensive bargaining rights, or provide them to only a small number of employees. Court decisions on de facto bargaining are mixed: for every court that authorizes bargaining in the absence of a law, there is another one that says it is not permitted.
   • 255. The first bargaining law covering state and local employees was passed in Wisconsin in 1959; 34 years later, fewer than one-half of the states have adopted comprehensive bargaining laws. While the Committee's report refers to recent progress in New Mexico, Washington and West Virginia (paragraph 809), the fact is that the task force formed in West Virginia was divided and unable to endorse collective bargaining rights for public employees. The New Mexico law was passed only after a decade-long struggle in that state. Although Washington did extend some rights to court employees, the scope of bargaining for state employees is still limited to non-economic issues. And there are still states, like North Carolina, where collective bargaining by public employees is prohibited by law.
4. 256. The Government has asserted that collective bargaining is common at the state and local levels. Using statistics from the 1987 Census of Governments (the latest data available concerning collective bargaining and public employees, published June 1991), it maintained that 43 state governments and 14,381 local governments had policies for engaging in collective negotiations and/or meet and confer discussions with employee organizations. The AFL-CIO stresses, however, that a large number of these "policies" exist at the pleasure of governments, and that this number represents only 17.4 per cent of the total number of local governments in the country.
5. 257. Using the same statistics, of 14.1 million state and local employees, only approximately 5 million were covered by contractual agreements, or 35 per cent. Assuming that 20 per cent of state and local employees are management or confidential employees excluded from bargaining, the number of employees covered by contractual agreements rises to only 44 per cent. The situation varies widely from state to state: in some states, like North Carolina and South Carolina, no state and local employees are covered by agreements; in 24 states, less than 25 per cent of state and local employees are covered by agreements; in 38 states, less than 50 per cent of state and local employees are covered by agreements.
6. 258. It is simply not accurate to state that the United States Supreme Court has effectively put a halt to the potential of national legislation granting state, county and municipal employees collective bargaining rights. In 1976, the Supreme Court held that the national Government's regulation of the wages of state employees impermissibly intruded upon the states' power under the federal form of government. In 1985, the Court reversed its prior decision, holding that the regulation of state and local government employees' wages fell within the powers granted the national Government over interstate commerce (Garcia v. San Antonio Transit Authority, 469 US 528): this second Supreme Court decision is the law today. If the constitutional framework of the United States grants the national Government the power to define the rights of state and local government employees regarding their wages and hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a similar power would appear to exist to define these same employees' rights to bargain collectively.
7. 259. The AFL-CIO concludes that the principles of collective bargaining are not fully respected for state and local government employees. The patchwork of laws and the paucity of contractual coverage demonstrate that the basic rights of state and local government employees are being violated in the United States.

C. The Government's reply

1. 260. In its communication of 7 May 1993, the Government recalls in general that no legislation is enacted in the US system of government unless there exists popular support for a given measure (which, at the moment, does not appear to be the case for broader collective bargaining in the public service), and stresses the relative youth of the initiative to promote collective bargaining in the public service.
2. 261. As regards federal employees, based on latest employment statistics the Government has concluded that a substantial majority of federal employees do act as agents of the public authority and thus could, under Article 6 of Convention No. 98, be precluded from collective bargaining altogether. It maintains that the US federal employee labour relations programme meets ILO standards even though it does not at present allow collective bargaining over monetary issues. This view is justified particularly in light of the flexibility offered by Article 7 of Convention No. 151 in the choice of procedures for determining conditions of employment. US federal employee unions have a significant impact on major policy and programme changes that affect conditions of employment, which often goes beyond their statutory right to be consulted on government-wide rules and policies.
3. 262. Federal employees work in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Government. The total number of executive branch employees is 2,971,630 (97.8 per cent) of federal civilian employment. It is mainly these workers who are covered by Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act. Of these, 2,004,282 (or 67.4 per cent) are employed by the executive departments (equivalent to cabinet ministries) and the Executive Office of the President. These entities are charged with developing and administering the policy and authority of the US Government. Of these, 84.4 per cent are "white-collar" civil servants who would clearly meet the ILO's test as agents of the public authority and 15.6 per cent are "blue-collar" workers, who despite the nature of their employer would not themselves be engaged in state administration. It is perhaps worth noting that 78 per cent of all federal blue-collar employees work for one agency, the Department of Defense.
4. 263. The remaining executive branch employees (967,349 or 32.6 per cent) are employed by independent agencies and government corporations. Some of these operate like executive departments (for example, the Environmental Protection Agency); others are more akin to entities which the Committee on Freedom of Association has viewed as not engaged in the administration of the State. The vast majority (782,927 or 81 per cent) of employees in this category, however, are employed by the US Postal Service, and have full collective bargaining rights. In fact, the Postal Service accounts for 26.3 per cent of all executive branch employees.
5. 264. With respect to state and local government employees, the Government stresses that the US Supreme Court has never decided conclusively whether the federal Government has jurisdiction to regulate collective bargaining for public employees at the state and local levels. Indeed, the Court reversed itself several times on a similar constitutional issue, which has affected the support that would be needed to enact federal collective bargaining legislation on the subject.
6. 265. Replying to the Committee's requests for information concerning the legislative situation in the states mentioned in the complaint, the Government regroups them in three categories: states which authorize collective bargaining for certain limited groups of public employees; those which have no collective bargaining legislation; and those which prohibit public sector collective bargaining.
7. 266. Among the states which authorize collective bargaining for certain limited groups of public employees:
   • - Kentucky has two public sector collective bargaining statutes: one covers fire-fighters in cities with populations over 300,000 or any city petitioning for inclusion; and the other covers policemen in any county with a population of over 300,000 that has adopted the merit system for its police force. Both statutes require a public employer to bargain with the employees' representative over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. However, a public employer is not required to bargain with the policemen's representative over matters of inherent managerial policy.
   • - Tennessee has one public employee bargaining statute which requires public employers to bargain with teachers over salaries, working conditions, payroll deductions and fringe benefits (excluding pensions or retirement). Although only teachers have a statutory right to bargain collectively with their employer, all public employees have the right to join a union. In addition, state employees may authorize deductions for the payment of union dues provided the labour organization has a membership of at least 20 per cent of the state employees.
   • - Texas: the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act expressly provides that fire-fighters and policemen have the right to organize for purposes of collective bargaining; however, the statute is only applicable in jurisdictions where the voters petition their municipal governments for a referendum and adopt the law by a majority vote. Except for the limited exception concerning fire-fighters and policemen, public employers are prohibited by law from entering into collective bargaining agreements with public employees concerning their wages, hours, or conditions of employment. Moreover, agreements entered into in contravention of the statute are null and void. However, public employees retain the right to present grievances individually or through a representative that does not claim the right to strike.
   • - Wyoming's only public employee bargaining statute covers fire-fighters. Specifically, the law authorizes public employers to meet and confer with the employees' representative over wages, rates of pay, working conditions and all other terms and conditions of employment.
8. 267. Many states with no public sector collective bargaining legislation nevertheless have a policy of permitting, if not requiring, public employers to enter into binding collective bargaining agreements with the employees' representatives:
   • - Arkansas: in City of Fort Smith v. Arkansas State Council No. 38, AFSCME, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a municipality cannot be compelled to bargain collectively with its employees, reasoning that the fixing of wages, hours, and other conditions of employment is a legislative responsibility which cannot be delegated or bargained away. However, the Court, in dicta, appeared to differentiate that situation from those cases where the municipality voluntarily engages in collective bargaining with its employees' representative. Accordingly, the Office of the State Attorney General has interpreted City of Fort Smith, supra, as permitting, but not requiring, a public employer to bargain collectively with its employees. The scope of permissible collective bargaining, however, is restricted by the legislature's authority to fix wages, hours and other matters relating to working conditions.
   • - Colorado: in Littleton Education Association v. Arapahoe County School District, the Colorado Supreme Court held that school boards may voluntarily enter into collective bargaining agreements without specific statutory authorization to do so, provided the agreement does not conflict with state law. In so holding, the Court expressly rejected the argument that the school board, if allowed to collectively bargain with its employees, would be abdicating its authority. The Court, however, declined to hold that a school board may be compelled to enter into a collective bargaining agreement, in the absence of a statute to that effect.
   • - Louisiana: a public employer may enter into a collective bargaining agreement with its employees in the absence of express statutory authorization, provided the agreement does not violate any specific statutory or constitutional provision. However, a public employer cannot be compelled to bargain with its employees.
   • - West Virginia: in Local 598, Council 58, AFSCME v. City of Huntington, the West Virginia Supreme Court held that a municipality may enter into a binding collective bargaining agreement in the absence of statutory authorization.
9. 268. Although collective bargaining at the state and local levels is the rule rather than the exception, a minority of jurisdictions continue to prohibit public sector collective bargaining:
   • - North Carolina: sections 95-98 of the North Carolina Public Employment Relations Law expressly prohibits public sector collective bargaining as a violation of public policy. These provisions were held to be constitutional by the courts in 1969.
   • - South Carolina: public employers have no authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements, based on the reasoning that the employer is the whole people who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress; accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures or rules in personnel matters. Another reason usually given by the courts for holding that public employees have no right to bargain collectively is that public employers cannot abdicate or bargain away their legislative discretion. However, South Carolina has several statutes which establish grievance procedures for state and local employees.
   • - Virginia maintains a public policy of prohibiting state and local governments from collectively bargaining with their employees. This policy is reflected in Senate joint resolution No. 12 which was adopted on 8 February 1946, and states in relevant part: "It is contrary to the public policy of Virginia for any state, county, or municipal officer or agent to be vested with or possess any authority to recognize any labor union as a representative of any public officers or employees, or to negotiate with any such union or its agents with respect to any matter relating to them or their employment or service". Applying this policy, the Virginia Supreme Court held that local governing bodies do not have the authority to bargain collectively with labour organizations in the absence of an express statutory authorization. Bargaining agreements made in contravention of Virginia's public policy will be declared void and unenforceable. However, Virginia has several statutes which provide grievance procedures for state and local employees.
   • - Arizona: a public employer does not have the power to enter into a binding collective bargaining agreement absent statutory authorization; however, a public employer may enter into an agreement to consult and confer with the public employees' union.
   • - Utah: public employers do not have the authority to bargain collectively with their respective employees.
   • - Mississippi: a public employer has no authority to bargain collectively with its employees.
10. 269. In its communication of 21 September 1993, the Government clarifies its position as regards the notion of employees "engaged in the administration of the State" as applied in the United States. It emphasizes that its earlier statement that a majority of public sector employees are workers the ILO would view as being engaged in the administration of the State, was made with the clear caveat that there were no precise data available; it was not intended to justify any restrictions on public sector collective bargaining. While the Government believes that the United States federal public sector bargaining programme exceeds the requirements of ILO standards and principles, in particular Convention No. 98, this is not to say that the programme cannot or should not be improved and expanded upon. As stated before, compared with the private sector, federal public sector bargaining is a young and evolving programme.
11. 270. In this spirit of evolution, the new Administration is reviewing a whole range of issues aimed at making the federal Government more efficient, more responsive and less costly. One of these issues is federal sector labour-management relations. In September 1993, the Administration announced its plan to create a National Partnership Council, composed of federal cabinet secretaries, deputy secretaries and agency directors, the presidents of the three largest federal unions, and a representative of the Public Employees Department of the the AFL-CIO. The Council will be asked to develop and promote a new framework for labour-management relations in the federal Government. In particular, the Council will propose legislation to transform the adversarial relationship that presently dominates federal union-management interaction into a genuine partnership between the federal Government and its employees and their unions.
12. 271. As regards the AFL-CIO's documentation concerning public sector treatment of supervisory, managerial and confidential employees, the Government considers that this issue does not directly bear on whether employees are engaged in the administration of the State. In light of the Freedom of Association Committee's explanation of the term, public servants engaged in the administration of the State may include a significant number who are neither supervisor, manager nor confidential. Conversely, supervisors, managers and confidential employees in the public sector are not all necessarily engaged in the administration of the State.
13. 272. As regards the complainants' view that federal legislation is needed fully to guarantee collective bargaining rights for state and local public employees, the Government recalls that the previous Administration took no action, either for or against, with respect to national protection of state and local public sector bargaining. As of September 1993, the new Administration has not taken a position on the issue. United States federal labour law explicitly excludes state and local government employees.
14. 273. The Supreme Court has not addressed directly the issue of federal protection of state and local public employee collective bargaining. The Court's most recent decision on a similar issue (Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority), supports the notion that the federal Government may intervene in matters concerning state and local government employees. This decision was the last of three cases in a 16-year period during which the Court twice reversed its opinion. Concurrent with the Court's unstable history on the broad issue of federal intervention in matters relating to state and local government employees, there has been a dearth of legislative proposals over the past two decades federally to mandate public sector collective bargaining in the states. No such legislation has been proposed since the mid-1970s, not even by the AFL-CIO.
15. 274. In the absence of federal legislation, it is left to the individual states - their citizens and their legislatures - to determine whether and to what extent collective bargaining rights of public employees shall be statutorily guaranteed. In its initial observations in this case, the Government has not defended any particular state policy or the lack thereof (on the contrary, as noted in initial observations, while the federal Government cannot compel states to bargain with their employees, it encourages and actively promotes labour-management cooperation at the state and local levels). The Government did not suggest satisfaction with the status quo; it only sought to demonstrate that public sector bargaining is, overall, evolving and growing, and that, overall, when programmes are instituted they are done so generally in line with international standards. In fact, the current Administration is keenly aware of the critical role that labour-management partnerships can and must play in the revitalization of the US economy - in both the public and private sectors.
16. 275. Responding to the AFL-CIO's criticism of the government reference to certain statistics from the 1987 Census, the Government underlines that it used these numbers, as well as statistics from other sources about other aspects of public sector bargaining, to demonstrate its evolution and continual, albeit gradual, expansion. To this end, it constructed a table of statistics (Annex I to the present document) taken from the US Census of Governments for the years 1972, 1977, 1982 and 1987 (the five-yearly Census of Governments, begun in 1957, did not contain figures relating to labour-management relations prior to 1972). This table shows a solid, and in some instances a dramatic, increase in the number of state and local governments which engage in collective negotiations and/or meet and confer discussions, in the number of written agreements in effect and in the number of bargaining units.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 276. The Committee has taken note of the complementary information provided by the AFL-CIO, and of the supplemental observations submitted by the Government.
2. 277. Concerning the arguments as to whether, and to what extent, the federal Government has jurisdiction to regulate public service collective bargaining at the state and local levels, the Committee points out that this is a matter to be decided according to national law and practice. Whilst fully aware of the complex issues involved in that respect, and of the significant impact this may have for all the parties concerned, the Committee recalls that the central issue here is whether the principles of freedom of association are complied with, in law and in fact, and not whether these rights are guaranteed through national or local legislation.
3. 278. As regards federal employees, the Government states in its supplementary observations that a substantial part of the executive branch employees, i.e. all "white-collar" workers, fall under the exclusion of Article 6 of Convention No. 98 in as much as the executive departments and the Executive Office of the President are charged with developing and administering the policy of the Government. Arguments have also been advanced on both sides concerning the relationship between the concept of "managerial and confidential employee" in the United States context and that of "public servant engaged in the administration of the State". The Committee agrees that these notions are not, and cannot be, identical. However, there may exist a certain overlapping since the higher the public servants are in the hierarchy of policy-making and administration of policies, the likelier they are to be engaged in the administration of the State. In other words, the mere fact that public servants are white-collar employees is not in itself conclusive of their qualification as employees "engaged in the administration of the State". If this were the case, Convention No. 98 could be deprived of much of its scope.
4. 279. The Committee notes the Government's statement that, by asserting in its initial reply that a majority of public sector employees are workers the ILO would consider as engaged in the administration of the State, it did not intend to justify any restrictions on public sector collective bargaining. The Committee further notes with interest that the new Administration recently announced its plan to establish a National Partnership Council, where the public servants' interests will be represented by the presidents of the three largest federal unions and a representative of the public employees' department of the AFL-CIO, and which will be asked to develop and promote a new framework for labour-management relations in the federal Government. The Committee calls on the Council to take into consideration the provisions of the ILO instruments on freedom of association and collective bargaining, in particular Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151, with a view to bringing the legislation into conformity with the principles thereof. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in that respect.
5. 280. As regards state and local public employees, the Committee notes from both complementary sets of observations that the situation varies widely between jurisdictions. At one end of the spectrum are the 23 states and the District of Columbia, where the legal framework for collective bargaining appears to be reasonably appropriate, from the complainant's own admission. At the other end are those states that have no public sector collective bargaining legislation (Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana and West Virginia) or that ban it completely, often based on public policy arguments (Arizona, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia).
6. 281. The Committee stresses in particular as regards this second group that only "public servants engaged in the administration of the state" may be excluded from the guarantees of Convention No. 98, and recalls the importance which attaches to the principle that priority should be given to collective bargaining in the fullest sense possible as the means for the settlement of disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service. The Committee considers that, although the National Partnership Council mentioned above only concerns the federal public sector, the underlying principles discussed in that joint body could serve as useful guidelines for the establishment of a collective bargaining framework appropriate to state and local conditions.
7. 282. In between these extremes, the situation appears to be a mixed one. In six states (Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, South Dakota and Washington) the AFL-CIO acknowledges that, whilst not totally satisfactory, the situation is somewhat better since these jurisdictions either extend substantial bargaining rights to all government employees or virtually full rights to the majority of such employees. The Government has not provided any further comments on these states. In the 11 remaining states (Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming) either the groups covered or the rights granted are so limited as to be non-existent in certain cases. The information provided by the Government in respect of some of these states (Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming) does confirm this general assertion, which must be qualified however since, again in this sub-group, situations do vary (for example, in Tennessee, public employers are required by statute to bargain with teachers over salaries and working conditions, while in other states the legislation is of a permissive nature).
8. 283. Taking into account the additional restrictions resulting from court or administrative decisions mentioned by the complainant, which were not denied by the Government, the Committee emphasizes that a thorough examination of each industrial relations framework - including legislation, administrative policy and case-law - would be necessary to make any significant and conclusive evaluation, which goes beyond the terms of the present complaint. Noting the Government's statement that no position was taken concerning the issue of federal legislative or judicial protection for state and local collective bargaining, the Committee calls upon the participants in the National Partnership Council to propose and promote legislation which protects public sector collective bargaining rights at all levels.
9. 284. The Committee reiterates its request for specific information on alleged restrictions on check-off facilities in Tennessee, which, according to Public Services International, prevents state employees from achieving meaningful representation.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 285. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to draw the attention of the authorities concerned, and in particular in those jurisdictions where public servants are totally or substantially deprived of collective bargaining rights, to the principle that all public service workers other than those engaged in the administration of the State should enjoy such rights, and that priority should be given to collective bargaining as the means to settle disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service.
   • (b) Noting with interest that the Government announced plans to establish a National Partnership Council, to develop and promote a new framework for labour-management relations in the federal Government, the Committee calls upon the Council to take into consideration the ILO instruments on freedom of association and collective bargaining, in particular Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151, with a view to bringing the legislation into conformity with the principles thereof and to propose and promote legislation which protects public sector collective bargaining rights at all levels. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in that respect.
   • (c) The Committee suggests that state and local authorities, as well as the trade unions concerned, might benefit from the discussions on the underlying principles discussed at the federal level in the National Partnership Council, which could serve as useful guidelines for the establishment of a public service collective bargaining framework appropriate to state and local conditions.
   • (d) The Committee reiterates its request for specific information on alleged restrictions on check-off facilities in Tennessee, which allegedly prevent certain state employees from achieving meaningful representation.

ANNEX I

1. Selected statistics on labour-management relations
2. in state and local governments
3. based on the five-yearly US Census of Governments1
4. 1972 1977 1982 1987
5. No. of state and local 78 268 79 928 82 973 82 984
6. governments (increase from) (+2.1%) (+3.8%) (0.1%)
7. previous census)(+.01%)
8. No. of governments which engage
9. in collective negotiations and
10. /or meet and confer discussions 10 737 13 094 13 384 14 424
11. (increase from previous census) (+22.0%) (+2.2%) (+7.7%)
12. No. of written agreements 19 547 30 442 36 883 38 667
13. in effect (increase from (+55.7%) (+21.2%) (+4.8%)
14. previous census)
15. No. of bargaining units 20 8602 30 131 33 846 36 411
16. (increase from previous census) (+44.4%) (+12.3%) (+7.6%)
17. Analysis of overall growth 1972 to 1987
18. Number of state and local governments +6%
19. Number of governments which engage in collective
20. negotiations and/or meet and confer discussions +34.3%
21. Number of agreements in effect +97.8%
22. Number of bargaining units (1974 to 1987) +74.5%
23. 1 Census of Governments, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Vol.
24. 3, No. 3, Labor-Management Relations in State and Local Governments.
25. 2 The 1972 Census of Governments did not report the number of bargaining
26. units. This is a 1974 figure, taken from a special report on
27. labour-management relations in state and local governments conducted by the US
28. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census and the US Department of Labor,
29. Labor-Management Services Administration.