Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Japan (Ratification: 1965)

A Government representative stated that the basic observations of the Government on the question of the right to organize of fire-fighting personnel had been given in its previous annual reports sent to the Office and that since 1990 periodic consultations between the responsible ministries and the All-Prefectural Municipal Workers'Union (JICHIRO) had been taking place and they had agreed to consult each other so as to find a solution to the problem of the right to organize of fire-fighting personnel within a period of two years. Frequent discussions recently took place involving concrete solutions and procedural matters. Important efforts had also been made to gain a wider understanding of the problems involved and to be able to transmit to Parliament and to the trade unions the necessary information. Despite all efforts and consultations, solutions, approved by all parties concerned, to resolve the problem with a long history behind it and affecting a large number of people had not been found. The Government nevertheless continued to make all possible efforts not to interrupt the ongoing negotiations. It expected the adoption of various measures and a more frequent exchange of information between the parties concerned in the ILO. To the extent possible it would be providing the ILO with all the available information.

The Workers' member of Japan described the historical context of the problem involved. The Convention had been ratified by Japan in 1965 with the help of the good offices of the ILO but not without problems. However, the problem of fire-fighting personnel was not one of those problems. In the 1960s, when fire-fighters began to organize, this question arose and the Government took a low profile with regard to the first comments made by the Committee of Experts. The Government even expressed the wish to resolve the problem so as to avoid discussion in the ILO. Then, in the early 1980s, the Government adopted a more aggressive attitude and challenged the comments of the Experts. In the past few years, however, it began to recognize the importance of finding a solution and today further new events and elements in this respect could be noted. He noted nevertheless that the period of two years from June 1991, during which the trade union leaders and responsible authorities had agreed to find a solution, had expired. It was important to note that, after 21 years, meetings of some significance were now taking place. It was nevertheless clear now that this problem could not be resolved by mere consultations and that a draft law needed to be submitted to Parliament. He recalled that the trade unions of his country have given up the right to strike of fire-fighting personnel because they provided an essential service of public safety. He stressed, however, their readiness to reach any compromise of a transitional nature for trial periods regarding the freedom of association of these personnel in consultation with the Government.

The Workers' members welcomed and commended the constructive and positive remarks made by the Government representative which sharply contrasted with those of previous years. They noted the progress made in the 11 meetings that had taken place in the past two years referred to by the Government representative. They drew the Committee's attention to article 28 of the Constitution of Japan which, in their view, presented no problem for the enactment of laws with respect to ratified Conventions. They invited the Government representative to provide this Committee with more details on the 11 meetings including the problems encountered and solutions provided. They requested the Government representative to confirm whether any possible ILO collaboration and assistance on the question of the right to organize of fire-fighting personnel had been consented to by the Government.

The Government representative stated that, while closely and fully cooperating with the ILO, his Government wished to invite the concerned ILO officials to come to Japan for them to have contact with the responsible people in Japan and to obtain information directly with a view to finding real solutions to the problem. He also stated his Government's formal acceptance of the cooperation of the ILO as one of the possible ways of resolving the problem.

The Workers' members noted the Government's readiness to seek the ILO's collaboration and assistance on this question and considered that what they had heard would go a long way towards improving understanding in ensuring the desired results in Japan.

The Employers' members considered that the Government representative had provided information of great importance. With regard to the substance of the problem, they noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association had already clearly stated that fire-fighting personnel did not form part of the police, while the Committee of Experts and this Committee had not decided on this question. Neither had the Government done so, because this Committee had at its disposal now much information regarding the formal aspects of the problem as well as the procedural progress made, but not on all the results of these procedures. In view of the level of intensity attained in the discussions and in view of the Government's commitment to finding a solution, the Employers' members considered that it was now necessary to seek solutions to the problem. In this respect, they recalled the other cases that could not find solutions for long periods of time but which had been rapidly and positively resolved following consultations. They hoped that solutions would soon be found in the current case and that the Government would keep the ILO informed of developments. With regard to the second point raised by the Committee of Experts concerning the prohibition of the right to strike of public servants, the Employers' members expressed the wish that it should not be included in the conclusions of this Committee given that the Government representative and the Workers' member of Japan had not referred to it.

The Worker's member of Pakistan supported the statements made by the Worker's member of Japan and the Workers' members. He referred to Article 9 of the Convention and hoped that consultations with the ILO would obtain positive results with regard to the right to organize of fire-fighting personnel and further referred to the question of the right to strike mentioned by the Employers' members. He stressed this Committee's and the Committee of Experts' position that public servants should have recourse to a jurisdiction where they could present their grievances or settle their disputes. He hoped the consultations and positive results referred to by the Government representative would bring the legislation of the most industrialized country in Asia into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

A Government member of Germany also recalled that in earlier cases this Committee had repeatedly called upon the parties concerned to find solutions through negotiations and such appeals had produced results. He welcomed the fact that in the present case all the parties recognized the great progress made and the substantive negotiations taking place after 21 years of silence. He considered that this Committee should take due note of this fact and welcome this development which constituted a hopeful and encouraging sign for the continuation of the consultations with a view to finding solutions. He stressed that his remarks only concerned the first point raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands welcomed the discussions regarding the first points mentioned by the Committee of Experts on the right to organize of fire-fighting personnel. This Committee could afford to be optimistic even if it had to wait to see if the Government would honour its undertakings. With regard to the prohibition of the right to strike of public servants, he regretted the failure on the part of the Government to provide any information despite the fact that the Experts had specifically requested such information. He further felt that discussions should also take place concerning this question. He requested the Government representative to indicate if such discussions were taking place on this question in the country and if any progress could be expected soon. The speaker further considered that it was necessary to clarify the question of essential services in general.

The Workers' member of Italy referred to the Italian experience in this respect. The contradictions between the public interest and the interests of workers regarding the right to strike of public servants had been reconciled after long discussions between the trade unions and the public authorities, and the results had been included in the text of a law.

The Government representative stated that, to the extent possible, his Government would provide the requested information with regard to the right to strike of public servants to the Committee of Experts.

The Committee took due note of the oral information provided by the Government representative as well as the discussion that had taken place in this Committee. It recalled that the Committee of Experts, as well as this Committee, had been drawing the Government's attention for some years to the discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention, particularly concerning the denial of the right to organize of fire-fighting personnel. The Committee noted that since 1990, 11 consultations between the Government and the All-Japan Prefectural Municipal Workers' Union (JICHIRO) had taken place. The Committee noted, however, that for some years the Government had stated to the Conference Committee that consultations were going on in this respect but no concrete measures had yet been taken to ensure the full application of the Convention ratified in 1965. The Committee once again expressed the firm hope that the consultations taking place at the national level with the representative organizations would make it possible in a very short time to bring the whole legislation into line with the Convention. The Committee noted with great interest the statement of the Government representative that the Government wished to cooperate and have consultations with the ILO and in particular its wish to invite those in the ILO handling this matter regarding the right to organize of fire-fighting personnel to visit Japan and to assess the situation de visu and in situ. The Committee hoped that the Office would be able to provide technical assistance in the form requested and that the Government would in its next report be able to communicate the concrete progress made concerning the application of this fundamental Convention