Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2010, Publication : 99ème session CIT (2010)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Egypte (Ratification: 1957)

A Government representative was of the view that the Committee of Experts’ observation, which included comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 2008 referring to alleged events of 6 April 2008, merely repeated events which had already been discussed by the Conference Committee in 2008 and to which allegations the Government had objected as they lacked precision. After the Government had provided clarifications, the discussion had been concluded and a recommendation, including an invitation to accept an ILO technical assistance mission that took place in April 2009, had been issued. Following the mission, a tripartite workshop in which the social partners, relevant national bodies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and ILO officers participated, had been conducted in April 2010. The workshop had focused on promoting social dialogue and ensuring the conformity of national laws with the requirements of the Convention and allowed for the exchange of views on the principles and practices of various trade unions, the institutional capacities needed to exercise the right to bargain collectively, the role of the Government and the social partners in promoting a culture of social dialogue, as well as the practical steps necessary in the future.

As a follow-up to the April 2010 workshop and after consultations with the ILO, a tripartite committee had been set up. This committee was charged with collecting and evaluating the proposed texts with a view to amending the national legislation, a process which should be finalized shortly, in collaboration with the ILO. She also informed the Conference Committee of the ILO project “Promoting fundamental principles and rights at work and social dialogue” that was carried out in Egypt, which her Government considered of great importance as it contributed to raising the institutional capacities of the social partners in the long run and to improving labour relations, thus being an essential element in implementing the 2008 recommendations of the Conference Committee.

Reiterating Egypt’s commitment to full compliance with international labour standards, she expressed the hope that the discussions in the Committee would result in a positive recommendation that took into account the steps taken by the Government.

She stated that the protection and welfare of all workers was a priority and a national aim pursued by the State, which had been reflected in the Government’s work programme. This was in line with the President’s call to review and develop labour relations and mechanisms to achieve a balance between the duties and rights of all social partners, which were part of the democratic exchange at all levels of society. Workers’ protection and welfare had to continue to be a national duty to strive for and honour.

The Employer members noted that before the discussion in 2008, the case had not been dealt with for two decades. Following the 2008 discussion in this Committee, the Government had been asked to reply to the allegations made by the ITUC in 2007. While the Government provided a significant amount of information submitted to the Committee of Experts, they requested that this information also be provided in writing. The Government provided information on the seminar held in 2010 and reported that as a result, a tripartite expert committee had been set up with ILO assistance. The Employer members hoped that the Government would be in a position to define goals and address the issues raised by the Committee of Experts with regard to discrepancies between the Trade Union Act No. 35 (Act No. 35) of 1976 and Convention No. 87. The main discrepancy related to the institutionalization of a single trade union system, since several sections of Act No. 35 were contrary to the possibility of trade union pluralism called for in Article 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, Act No. 35 granted control to higher level trade unions over the nomination and election procedures of first-level unions, which constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, whichprovided for an absolute right of unions to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. In addition, the Committee of Experts had pointed out that Act No. 35 enabled the Government to interfere with the financial independence of unions. With respect to the right to strike, the Employer members recalled that Convention No. 87 did not expressly provide for a right to strike. At most it contained a general right to strike but that could not be regulated in detail under the Convention; the Government could regulate this right in accordance with its needs and conditions. However, this discretion was subject to the caveat that the personal human rights and civil liberties of individuals participating in the labour action were to be respected. They recalled that the Government had to provide a report on the allegations made by the ITUC to the Office. The report should also establish a legislative timeline for the rectification of all issues raised.

The Worker members observed that the Committee had again been called upon to examine the present case, which had already been discussed in 2008. Although it had ratified Convention No. 87 more than half a century earlier, Egypt persistently refused to amend its legislation to bring it into line with the Convention.

The Committee of Experts had drawn attention to numerous violations of freedom of association in the country and had identified, based on irrefutable facts, situations that demonstrated the Government’s obstinate refusal to implement the Convention. It had referred in particular to the police’s violent suppression of a demonstration by workers in 2008, even if the facts were apparently contested by the Government. The Committee of Experts had stressed the importance of holding an independent judicial enquiry to identify those responsible and impose penalties, and the need to take preventive measures to avoid such situations from reoccurring in the future. According to the Committee of Experts, based on reliable sources, workers’ rights were still being flouted in special economic zones, where working conditions were unbearable (long hours, low wages and poor safety standards) and union activists found it difficult to carry out their activities because of restrictions on collective bargaining and a ban on strikes. The majority of workers in the Tenth Ramadan City were required to sign letters of resignation prior to being hired, allowing employers to dismiss them at will.

For many years, the Committee of Experts had been referring to significant discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention: the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing was severely restricted; legislation established a single trade union system; and authorization to carry out activities was granted only to unions belonging to one of the 23 industrial federations affiliated to the sole legally recognized trade union confederation. Above all, legislation allowed enterprises to dismiss without justification workers who acted outside the established trade union structure. Although trade union unity was important, it should not be imposed through legislation that created a trade union monopoly. By institutionalizing a single trade union system under Act No. 35 of 1976, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1995 (sections 7, 13, 14, 17 and 52; 41, 42 and 43), the Government had placed numerous trade unions representing professional groups (doctors, engineers, lawyers, pharmacists) under judicial control, which was exercised over trade union organizations at the highest level by controlling procedures for nominating and electing executive committees, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had mentioned serious cases and acts of interference, such as the Government’s attempt to control which candidates stood in trade union elections and to prevent certain candidates from standing. Furthermore, the law allowed the Confederation of Trade Unions to exercise control over the management of workers’ organizations, thereby preventing trade unions from having any financial independence. First-level organizations also had to pay a certain percentage of their income to higher-level national organizations. Such a decision to cede trade union dues was normally taken by an organization’s executive committee and should not be imposed by law.

The Worker members emphasized that the law also allowed the removal from office of the national executive committee of a trade union which had caused work stoppages or absenteeism in a public service or community services. With regard to the right to strike, the Committee of Experts had recalled the need to amend section 192 of the Labour Code, which required prior approval by the Confederation of Trade Unions before calling a strike and required the duration of a strike to be specified in the strike notification. It had also indicated that section 69(9) of the Labour Code, which provided that workers who participated in a strike and were in breach of section 192 could be dismissed, was in violation of Convention No. 87. The Worker members also emphasized that restrictions on the right to strike and recourse to compulsory arbitration in services that were not essential in the strict sense of the term, as well as the penalties provided for in section 194 of the Labour Code, were in violation of the Convention.

The Worker members recalled that the technical assistance mission that had visited the country in April 2009 had led to the signature of a memorandum of understanding between the social partners in which they agreed to participate in a tripartite seminar to examine the questions raised in relation to the application of the Convention, study comparable experiences in other countries and draft proposals. While the Government representative had indicated that that seminar had taken place in April 2010, the Worker members emphasized that they did not have any information confirming the Minister’s statements.

The Worker members urged the Government to amend the labour legislation to bring an end to the institutionalization of a system of trade union monopoly which excluded the possibility of establishing different federations independent of the Confederation of Trade Unions. The Government was also requested to take the necessary measures to amend the Labour Code so that: (1) no restrictions on the right of workers to organize freely were allowed or promoted; (2) any interference in the determination of electoral procedures was prohibited; (3) there was no legal obligation to specify in advance the duration of a strike; (4) workers participating in a strike the duration of which had not been specified in advance were not subject to penalties; and (5) sections 179, 187, 193 and 194 were repealed. Finally, measures needed to be taken immediately to guarantee workers’ rights and to address the concerns of the world of work.

The Worker member of Egypt felt that a long-standing disagreement should not entail the abandonment of dialogue, and that this was valid for all trade unions. Regarding the information contained in the report of the Committee of Experts concerning discrepancies between the provisions of this Convention and national practice, in particular the information relating to the murder and imprisonment of workers, he regretted having to note that most of that information had either not been confirmed or did not correspond to reality and probably stemmed from questionable sources. As confirmed by the Committee of Experts, the constitution of Egypt and national legislation provided for the independence of trade unions, prohibiting outside interference. He agreed with the ILO mission that trade unions in Egypt had been able to initiate necessary changes to ensure the application of international labour standards. As regards the legislation concerning trade union affiliation and the right to strike, the relevant draft law had been submitted to the ILO for review in 1994 and no objections had been raised. Trade union unity was a strength that should be preserved. While the existence of various trade unions in a sector in a given country could be justified, trade union division was normally not beneficial to workers. The Egyptian Confederation of Trade Unions, founded in 1898, comprised 23 national trade unions and over 2,000 committees and had recently signed important agreements with employers wishing to lay off workers, which had been presented to the ILO mission. He hoped that the Egyptian Confederation of Trade Unions would be allowed to continue its relentless efforts.

The Employer member of Egypt expressed surprise that Egypt had been included on the list of cases under examination by the Committee, given the important measures that had been taken by the Government. These measures included the ILO technical assistance mission in 2009, which had resulted in a memorandum of understanding to hold a tripartite workshop on freedom of association, which had been held in April 2010. This tripartite workshop had yielded positive discussions and outcomes, and had resulted in a call for the establishment of a tripartite committee. Turning to the comments of the Worker member of Egypt, the speaker emphasized that workers in Egypt were benefiting from protection and enjoyed rights. The allegations of the Worker members that the majority of workers in the Tenth Ramadan City area were made to sign letters of resignation prior to being hired were not true. He invited any mission to come and verify these facts. Workers in Egypt enjoyed the right to strike, when notification was given. Some workers had been striking without advanced notice, which was not acceptable. There was no reason to review this case, as the available data and information indicated that the Government was respecting its obligations under the Convention. The situation in Egypt was positive, and the discussion of this case caused unnecessary tension between the social partners. The case should have been removed from the list.

The Government member of Lebanon underlined that it was appropriate to consider the specific situation and the culture of each country. The Government representative had shown that her Government had put everything in place to correct the identified gaps. One should not keep silent about the efforts that had already been undertaken with a view to bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Worker member of Spain stated that article 56 of the Egyptian Constitution guaranteed the right to establish trade unions. However, only one trade union confederation was legally recognized in Egypt, and all other unions were subjugated to it, which made both unionization and union representation difficult. The right to form and join unions was severely restricted. Act No. 35 of 1976, amended by Act No. 12 of 1995, institutionalized a single trade union system, and the contents of the Act were of concern to workers, as it was they who suffered the consequences. The Act granted the Confederation of Trade Unions almost complete authority; indirectly, through a single trade union, the Government controlled the process of creating and legalizing trade unions and procedures for nominating and electing their executive. At the same time, some organizations existed with the aim of defending workers’ rights, improving working conditions and promoting social dialogue and independent trade unionism, but their members were persecuted and harassed in various ways. There had also been attempts to obstruct the activities of an independent trade union, which had been formally established in April 2009, becoming the first independent trade union in Egypt in more than 50 years and operating outside the Confederation of Trade Unions. In this regard, the union’s president, Mr Kamal Abu Eita, had declared at an international seminar held in Cairo, that his union continued to be the subject of a campaign of aggression and harassment against its members. It was not democratic to impose a single trade union by law and worker unity would not be achieved by such means. Unity came from objectives discussed and accepted by all workers, even if they were organized into different unions. She concluded by calling on the Government to adopt and implement adequate instruments to provide workers with the real and effective enjoyment of the right to organize freely in whatever unions they chose to establish.

The Government member of India noted the proactive measures that had been taken by the Government of Egypt in follow-up to the conclusions of this Committee in 2008. In 2009, there had been a technical assistance mission to the country, followed by the tripartite workshop in 2010. This participative approach needed to be encouraged. He looked forward to further measures taken by the Government with ILO technical assistance.

The Worker member of the Republic of Korea expressed concern at the restrictions on the right to organize and the right to strike of workers. Sharp discrepancies existed between the principles set out in the Convention and the national legislation. The single trade union system and the requirement of the prior approval of the General Confederation of Trade Unions for the organization of strike action were worrying. Highlighting several restrictions to the right to strike imposed by the Labour Code of 2003, she indicated that these were just a few examples of how the Government was inhibiting workers to use strike action as a means of collective bargaining. In the private sector workers were left without any organizational support structure and had to rely on self-organization without legal protection. A legal basis should be provided so that all workers could benefit from the rights derived from ratified ILO Conventions. In the context of a severe social and economic crisis in which workers were fighting for better working conditions and against low and unpaid wages, it would be important to amend the Labour Code and Trade Union Act. A good start had been made with the visit of the ILO technical assistance mission but laws should now be brought into conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of Belarus emphasized that the positive measures taken by the Government of Egypt could not be overlooked. The tripartite workshop held in April 2010 addressed many important questions. This was a clear manifestation of the Government’s willingness to proceed forward, with assistance from the ILO. Positive steps continued to be taken and the desired result would eventually be achieved. The cooperative spirit demonstrated by the Government should be recognized.

The Worker member of Malaysia pointed to a range of issues hampering collective bargaining in Egypt. The single trade union system prevented workers from designating representatives of their own choosing. With growing privatisation, workers were left without any organizations to defend their interests, as the only legally recognized union was not well established in the private sector. Furthermore, collective bargaining was not allowed in the public sector where the Government unilaterally set wages and other terms and conditions of employment. Under the Labour Code of 2003 a collective agreement was valid only if it complied with the law on public order or “general ethics”, a concept that had never been defined by the Government, as requested by the Committee of Experts. In addition to legal limitations to the right to strike, fundamental workers’ rights were being compromised through the use of security forces in industrial disputes. State security investigations officers had repeatedly intervened in labour disputes even without legitimate security purposes. Lastly, he mentioned the strike organized by the trade union committee in a textile company in the Mahalla Al-Kubra Special Economic Zone, and the subsequent disbanding of this committee, as another example of severe limitations of trade unions rights. Clearly, workers were facing serious limitations to their rights guaranteed by the Convention, and the Government had to bring its legislation into conformity with ratified ILO Conventions.

The Government member of Sudan welcomed the cooperation between the Government of Egypt and the ILO. During a technical assistance mission ILO representatives had met with many parliamentarians. The speaker commended the Government on its efforts, in particular with regard to the legislative amendments which had been agreed upon and submitted to the ILO and to Parliament.

The representative of the Secretary-General replying to requests for clarifications from the Worker members during the discussion indicated that an ILO mission had indeed visited Egypt on 25 and 26 April 2010 during which a one-day workshop was held on freedom of association and development. All actors were present on that day and had a lively debate on trade union pluralism. The second day, follow-up meetings were held on the necessary action to be taken. On the question whether the Government had replied to the comments from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 29 August 2009, under article 23 of the ILO Constitution referring to the alleged violent repression of a demonstration of workers on 6 and 7 April 2008, she stated that the Committee in its conclusions in 2008 had requested the Government to provide full particulars in reply to the allegations of violent attacks against trade unionists in its report to the Committee of Experts; the Committee of Experts had also requested the Government to provide information in this regard.

The Government representative thanked the representative of the Secretary-General for the precise information she had provided. She indicated that the statement made by the Worker members was based on inaccurate information. She wondered why the Worker members doubted the information that she had provided concerning the convening of the tripartite workshop. Egypt had been one of the first member States to ratify the Convention, and had always indicated its confidence in the ILO and vice versa. A Worker member had also asserted that the Labour Code had not been amended since the 1950s, while it had been amended for the last time in 2003, after ten years of discussions. Moreover, half the members of Parliament who had adopted the Code were workers. The speaker underlined her respect towards the ITUC but was astonished that it had obtained information from illegal non-governmental organizations, which received funds from abroad, which had no links with the worker movement, and whose aim was to destabilize the country. She indicated that, since November 2008, she had met with the officials of the International Labour Standards Department on five occasions, and had transmitted to them the information pertaining to the issues which needed to be resolved in Egypt. A Worker member had also asserted that the majority of workers were victims of oppression. Yet, 140 collective agreements had been concluded, 138 of which were at enterprise level. A number of countries had a single trade union system, but in Egypt, this was not the case as it had a specific system. Since assuming her functions as the Minister of Labour in 2005, the Government representative had worked, with the rest of the Government, towards promoting freedom of association. Considerable progress had been made: the trade union movement had acquired a high level of autonomy; the most recent union elections were held in all freedom, as had been communicated to the ILO. In conclusion, the Government representative requested that all the information supplied by the Government should be made available to the competent bodies of the ILO. She expressed her hope that the Committee would take into account the historical status of Egypt, and the measures taken by the Government in promoting international labour standards, in collaboration with the ILO.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the information provided, but regretted that this information had not been submitted before the sitting of this Committee. In response to an issue raised by the Government representative, they stated that the report of the Committee of Experts was their main source of information. Other information came from the ITUC, of which they were members and which carried out studies on the situation in various countries. Following the declaration of the Employer member of Egypt, they recalled that the list of cases to be reviewed by the Committee had been the subject of an agreement between the representatives of employers and workers. The Worker members also took note of the information provided by the representative of the Secretary-General, indicating that in their preliminary declaration, they had admitted that the workshop on freedom of association and development in April 2010 had in fact taken place. The Worker members constituted a unified group that sought respect for labour rights in Egypt. The single trade union system was a violation of the Convention. Each worker must have the right to join an organization of their choice. The situation of the single trade union system was also the reason for the refusal to grant workers the right to organize union elections as they wished. The situation of a union monopoly was not the result of free choice of workers, but the result of the law, and it was important that the Government accept the conclusions of the workshop that had been held under the aegis of the ILO and make the necessary changes in legislation in accordance with the comments of the Committee of Experts.

Promotion of collective bargaining and healthy professional relations were as important as the social dialogue to which the Government referred and required an appropriate legal framework. Conflicts, in the form of industrial action and strikes, were normal within the context of healthy industrial relations, and the legal restrictions on the right to strike must be repealed. This was the same case for mandatory arbitration in services that were non-essential services in the strict sense of the term. In this regard, the Government representative had not mentioned concrete measures that the Government had the intention of taking in order to change its legislation.

The Worker members requested that the Government adopt immediately an action plan in order to harmonize its legislation and practices with Convention No. 87. They strongly requested that the single trade union system, which was in flagrant contradiction with freedom of association, be changed in order to allow the existence and active role of other workers’ organizations in the social dialogue at all levels. As in the other countries, it was up to labour organizations to decide whether they wanted or not to join up. The Worker members also requested that the law on trade unions and the Labour Code be amended concerning the various issues raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts and that the Government submit a report on application of the Convention for the next session of the Committee of Experts. The Government had not yet expressed a real willingness to resolve the problems raised and the Worker members would follow the evolution of the situation very closely, as the ILO must likewise do. The workers found themselves in a difficult situation and must have the right to organize. In conclusion, the Worker members stressed that only respect for Convention No. 87 should guide the discussion.

The Employer members congratulated the Government for getting organized to address the legislative issues identified by the Committee of Experts, but regretted that this had taken two years. The Government had not contested that legislative issues needed to be addressed, and this was demonstrated by the establishment of the tripartite committee to begin this work. The Government understood that freedom of association was a cornerstone of the ILO. The Convention was a fundamental one, and only partial compliance with the Convention was not acceptable. Tripartite discussion and consultation was also essential, but it did not replace freedom of association. Therefore, the tripartite committee needed to address two fundamental aspects of the Convention to achieve compliance: firstly, trade union pluralism required by the Convention and, secondly, that trade unions be free to set up their rules and organizational structure, without governmental interference. These obligations had been accepted upon ratification. Therefore, the tripartite committee needed to make quick progress and produce legislative proposals by the end of the year. These legislative proposals should be forwarded to the ILO, to ensure their compliance with the Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and of the discussion that followed.

The Committee observed that the comments of the Committee of Experts concerned a number of long-standing discrepancies between the labour legislation and the provisions of the Convention, in particular as regards a legislative framework for a single trade union system.

The Committee noted the Government’s indication of the steps that it has taken since 2008 when the Committee last discussed this case. The Government representative referred, in particular, to the tripartite understanding that had been signed by the Government and the principal social partners in April 2009 and an all-inclusive workshop on freedom of association which was held this past April. She added that the Government planned to engage in a review of the legislation with the assistance of the ILO in order to ensure full conformity with the Convention and that, to this end, a tripartite expert committee had been established to examine the laws. The Government would report back to the Committee of Experts on the progress made in this regard.

The Committee, while observing the recent steps taken by the Government, nevertheless regretted that no concrete progress had yet been made to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention on these fundamental points. Encouraged by the recognition now shown by the Government with respect to these unresolved issues in relation to the application of the Convention, the Committee once again urged it to continue with the important democratic reforms it had referred to and which necessarily included ensuring full respect for freedom of association.

The Committee expressed the firm expectation that the Government would elaborate a fast-track programme for ensuring that tangible steps would be taken in the very near future to amend the legislation in order to ensure that all workers may freely form and join the organization of their own choosing and that all forms of Government interference in the activities of workers’ organizations, including through legislative reference to the authority of a single trade union in this regard, are eliminated. The Committee requested the Government to provide the necessary proposals for amendments, especially to the Trade Union Act, by the end of this year to the ILO for advice on their conformity with the Convention. The Committee further requested the Government to provide detailed written information on all steps taken in this regard, as well as in reply to the allegations of violence made by the International Trade Union Confederation, to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year.