Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Myanmar (Ratification: 1955)

The Government has communicated the following information:

In its previous reports, the Government has tried to clarify its position as regards the existence of a single trade union structure.

The single trade union structure came into existence not because of the imposition by law but solely because of the will of workers who consider, in the light of bitter experiences of the past, multiple trade unions or fragmented trade unions as the manifestation of disunity and disorder among workers. Such a multiple structure of trade unions is far from being able to safeguard and promote the rights of workers, but rather renders the disunited workers victims of manipulation and exploitation.

The legislative provisions referred to in the observation do not prevent the workers from establishing other associations. There are other associations, such as those of literary workers, artistes and musicians, and doctors and nurses.

The Government would like to express its willingness to cooperate with the Committee of Experts and other relevant bodies to eliminate the discrepancy of views with respect to the application of the Convention. The Government welcomes the dialogue and would like to continue to maintain it, as it believes it provides a means to clarify mutual positions and an opportunity to have a better understanding of each other's views.

In addition, a Government representative said that, as had been communicated in previous reports, the Burmese trade union structure had come into being because of the will of the workers themselves; it was therefore imperative that it should be amended only in consultation with them. The observation of the Committee of Experts had been transmitted to the workers' organisations, and so far no suggestions for amendments had been expressed, either implicitly or explicitly. The legislative provisions referred to in the observation did not prevent workers from establishing their own organisations, and organisations like nurses' associations and literary workers' associations existed. Mindful of its obligations, her Government would spare no effort to co-operate with the Committee of Experts with a view to reaching agreement through a continued constructive dialogue for the clarification of mutual positions and the promotion of better mutual understanding.

The Employers' members said that the situation was quite clear. It was a case of a legalised trade union monopoly that was not in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. That had been noted again and again and still remained unchanged. The Government representative had stated that the structure had been established at the request of the workers and that a change could be made only if the workers themselves requested it. In that connection, it should again be pointed out that the workers were, of course, entitled to set up a single trade union structure, since the Convention did not prescribe that trade union structures should be either single or pluralistic. However, the Government was responsible for allowing for both possibilities. If it prescribed a single structure, it was not complying with the Convention. The remarks made by the Government representative were therefore not satisfactory. Burmese legislation was not in conformity with the Convention and should be brought into line with it. The Committee should once again express quite clearly that a monostructure prescribed by law was a violation of the Convention which provided that workers should have a free choice. From what the Government representative had said, it was the Employers' members' understanding that the Government was not prepared to meet the wishes of the Committee of Experts and of the present Committee.

The Worker member of the United States said that the Employers' members had put the point very well. It was the same problem which the Committee had discussed in the case of Mauritania-namely, that domestic legislation was not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention, which required that more than one trade union structure should be permissible. The workers were entitled to decide whether there should be one union or more than one union, but domestic legislation must make it possible for them to make that choice.

The Workers' members fully agreed with the previous speaker. The Committee's proceedings in respect of Burma with regard to Convention No. 52 had been discontinued because the Government had transmitted a written reply in which it stated that it was placing proposals for the amendment of the pertinent provisions of its labour legislation before a law commission. Consequently, the Committee might expect to see some results in 1988. With regard to Convention No. 87, however, very clear legislative discrepancies remained. Changes were required. In its report, the Committee of Experts had noted that the Government intended to pursue consultations on the matter and it was greatly to be hoped that those consultations would produce results.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government representative. It regretted that, in spite of a number of comments over previous years, the Government had not yet taken any steps to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention on the question of the trade union monopoly system. The Committee noted that consultations with the workers' organisations and with the Law Commission would be pursued in that regard. It hoped that those consultations would lead to a rapid solution and that the legislation would be amended to ensure full conformity with the Convention.