Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2016, Publication: 105th ILC session (2016)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Kazakhstan (Ratification: 2000)



A Government representative stated that tripartite commissions were functioning at the national, sectoral and regional levels. Parliament had adopted the Act on the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs and the Trade Union Act, which aimed at the further development of social partnership and took into consideration the comments of the Committee of Experts. Regarding the limitation on the right of judges to join or establish associations, he explained that judges, who were the bearers of judicial power and who exercised constitutional authority, should be independent and subject only to the Constitution. Any interference in their activities would be a violation of the law. Considering the special status of judges, the Constitution prohibited them from being members of political parties or trade unions, but did not restrict their right to be members of other associations. For example, the public association, the Union of Judges of Kazakhstan, which represented and protected the common interests of the judicial community, was operating successfully in the country. Law enforcement bodies, such as the police, fire brigade and other public order bodies, because of the specificity of their functions, were subject to certain restrictions. However, civilian personnel in such offices enjoyed the rights set forth in the Convention. For example, there were trade unions of soldiers, with 12,000 members, and of 4,000 employees of the Ministry of the Interior. He was of the opinion that the Convention permitted certain restriction in national legislation. Section 10 of the Act on Public Associations, which required a minimum of ten persons to establish a public association, was in the process of being reviewed in order to reduce the number of members that were required to establish an association. The Trade Union Act introduced a system of association of trade unions in order to develop an active trade union movement in the country. The main goal was to protect the rights of workers by providing them with access to discussion and the resolution of issues involving serious political matters through organizations considered to be at the right level. However, the trade unions were free to join trade union associations or to establish their own. The principle was based on plurality, either at the national or regional level, and there was no monopoly with regard to the trade unions concerned. Under the new law, three national associations of trade unions had been registered, including the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Kazakhstan, which brought together 3 million workers. He requested the ILO to support the efforts of the Government to maintain an active trade union movement in the whole of the country. The Constitution prohibited external financial assistance for trade unions, and this prohibition protected the constitutional order, independence and territorial integrity. The right to join international organizations had resulted in the Federation of Trade Unions of Kazakhstan joining the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which was a clear indication that the national legislation fully complied with the Convention.

The Act on the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs aimed to protect the interests and rights of businesses and ensure wide coverage and involvement of entrepreneurs in the formulation of legislative and other standards for the conduct of business. The consolidation of entrepreneurial activities led to strong businesses. Under section 32 of the Act, a five-year transitional period had been introduced for the participation of the State in the activities of the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs. At the end of the transitional period, the Government would no longer be a member of the National Chamber of Employers, and the rules providing for its participation in the Chamber would then fall into abeyance. According to section 176 of the new Labour Code concerning civil aviation, railways, health care and other essential services providing vital services to the population, strikes were allowed on condition that a minimum level of service was provided for the population. Parliament had launched an independent report on the situation concerning strikes in essential services and had decided to further improve the sections of the Labour Code in this regard. He gave assurances that all the necessary measures would be taken to improve the legislation to meet the requirements of the Convention.

The Employer members recalled that Convention No. 87 was a fundamental Convention, which provided that “Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.” The Convention had been ratified by Kazakhstan in 2000 and the Committee of Experts had made observations on its application in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Moreover, the application of the Convention in Kazakhstan had been examined by the Conference Committee in 2015. This was therefore a long-standing case. In 2015, the Conference Committee had deplored the absence of a representative of the Government during the discussion, despite his accreditation to the Conference. They thanked the Government for its presence this year and for the information provided. The Employer members noted that the reference to the conclusions of the Conference Committee, made by the Committee of Experts in the introduction to its observation on this case showed the strong and positive relationship between the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts. In 2015, the Conference Committee had observed the pending matters raised by the Committee of Experts with regard to restrictions on the freedom of association workers and interference with employers’ organizations. The conclusions of the case had been included in a special paragraph of the report of the Conference Committee, which constituted a serious measure. The Government had not provided a full report that was responsive to the requests of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. This continuing failure was a matter of great concern.

In 2015, with regard to the restrictions on the freedom of association workers, the Conference Committee had requested the Government to amend the provisions of the Trade Union Act of 2014 consistent with the Convention. While noting the Government’s indication that work to address this issue was ongoing, the Employer members considered that more information was needed on this point. The Conference Committee had also requested the Government to amend the Constitution and the relevant legislation to permit judges, firefighters and prison staff to establish and join a trade union. While the Government had provided additional information on such exclusions and the impact of the Constitution, the Employer members considered that more information was required to fully assess this issue. Expressing concern at the significant barriers to freedom of association in law and practice, they once again urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation to ensure that judges, firefighters and prison staff had the right to establish organizations, in compliance with the Convention. The Conference Committee had also requested the Government to amend the Constitution and the relevant legislation to lift the ban on financial assistance to national trade unions by an international organization. The Employer members observed that, although the Government had indicated that it was possible to receive external financial assistance, this did not appear to be reflected in the legislation in force. With regard to issues related to interference with employers’ organizations, the Conference Committee had requested the Government to amend the Act on the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs of 2013 to ensure the full autonomy and independence of employers’ organizations. While noting the Government’s information regarding the five-year transitional period during which the functions of the State would be transferred to the Chamber and the revision of section 176 of the Labour Code, the Employer members expressed concern that the Act resulted in interference in the freedom and independence of employers’ organizations and noted with concern that the Government had not made any commitment to amend it. In light of the seriousness of the issues, they urged the Government to take measures without delay to amend the Act so as to eliminate all possible interference by the Government and to ensure the full autonomy and independence of employers’ organizations in Kazakhstan. They encouraged the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this respect. They also expressed concern that the Government had not implemented, to their knowledge, any measures to address barriers to the establishment of employers’ organizations and urged it to take such measures without further delay.

The Worker members expressed their deep concern at the repeated neglect by the Government of Kazakhstan of its international obligations towards the Committee. This attitude should be firmly condemned. The amendments made in 2014 and 2015 to the Trade Union Act and to the Labour Code had done nothing to improve the exercise of freedom of association. The Kazakh legislation remained contrary to the Convention in various aspects. Firstly, Article 2 of the Convention established the right of workers and employers, without any distinction whatsoever, to establish and join trade unions. However, it appeared that the Kazakh legislation obstructed the free establishment of trade unions for judges, firefighters and prison staff. The only exceptions to freedom of association provided for by the Convention concerned members of the police and armed forces. Secondly, the Trade Union Act obliged unions to be affiliated to a national trade union association. This prevented the establishment of trade unions that were structured freely and in full autonomy, which was contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. Moreover, sectoral trade unions had to represent at least half of the total workers in the sector, half the trade unions in the sector or had to be present in over half the regions to be validly constituted. However, it was recalled in the General Survey published by the Committee of Experts in 2012 that, to be in conformity with the Convention, the threshold should be fixed at a reasonable level so that the establishment of organizations was not hindered. Thirdly, under the Trade Union Act, a two-step procedure had to be followed for the establishment of a trade union: it was necessary to register it with the Ministry of Justice and then to become affiliated to a national trade union association in the six months following registration, or registration was cancelled. This was in violation of the free exercise of the right to establish organizations without prior authorization and to decide in full freedom whether or not to establish or join a higher-level structure. These various violations to the right to freedom of association, affecting both workers’ and employers’ organizations, were a threat to one of the fundamental values of the ILO, namely social dialogue. The full and complete independence of the social partners was necessary for the latter to be able to represent their members’ interests freely and effectively.

Article 3 of the Convention guaranteed the right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. There was no escaping the fact that the legislation restricted such freedom of action for a number of organizations carrying out “hazardous industrial activities”. The Committee had already highlighted the problem posed by the vagueness of this term and the uncertainty that prevailed regarding which organizations were specifically concerned by that provision. The Committee of Experts recalled that a minimum service should not form an obstacle to freedom of action. It was also essential for the social partners to be able to participate in its definition. Section 303 of the Labour Code appeared to conflict with these principles. The Kazakh legislation still banned trade union organizations from accepting financial assistance from international organizations and this, as recalled by the Committee of Experts, violated the principles relating to the right of affiliation to international workers’ organizations. That assistance was often essential for trade union organizations whose freedom was obstructed by both legal and practical obstacles imposed by the Government. The latter must stop all interference in the affairs of representative workers’ organizations and, to that end, amend its legislation without further delay in line with the recommendations made by the Committee. Information provided by Human Rights Watch, published in May 2016, also referred to the introduction in 2014 of new provisions relating to administrative violations and criminal offences. New administrative penalties were imposed on the leaders and members of public associations, who could more easily be held liable for any act that was not defined by their union rules. That had the effect of unduly increasing their liability. Participation in actions that had been declared illegal and acceptance of funding from international organizations were also considered to be criminal acts which could incur penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment. The notion of leader of a public association was extremely vague, but such leaders could be held liable for a whole range of specific criminal offences, in particular breaches of the Act on Incitement to Social Discord, which in itself was a particularly vague concept. All of the above showed that the situation remained a source of concern with regard to trade union freedoms. The tragic events that occurred in Zanaozen in 2011 had not been forgotten. The recommendations made in the past to the Government should therefore be reiterated and strengthened so that it could formally give them effect in practice.

The Worker member of Kazakhstan said that much work had been done in the country over the last four years to strengthen the protective function and responsibility of trade unions, including the adoption in June 2014 of the new Trade Union Act, under which the antagonism between and within trade unions was ended. A multi-level system of social partnership existed in Kazakhstan, with the labour unit, primary trade union and an employer as the primary level. The second level was the territorial level. At every level, there was a tripartite body which dealt with labour disputes. These bodies held monthly meetings, attended by trade unions, employers and the territorial authorities, to resolve labour disputes. For example, in 2015, with the participation of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, wage arrears of 4.1 billion tenge had been paid to 83,000 employees. In addressing this issue, fines had been imposed on employers in violation of labour laws in 1,075 cases, and 178 cases had been referred to the courts and five criminal prosecutions indicted. In the territorial bodies of the trade unions, during the first quarter of 2016, a total of 1,200 applications and queries had been received regarding labour law, which demonstrated the trust that existed in trade unions. The new law concerning public councils had been adopted. All of these initiatives helped workers. Taking into account the global crisis, the territorial bodies were able to conclude memorandums with employers and local authorities which helped to protect the jobs of over 2.5 million workers. The ministerial level, together with branch trade unions and employers’ associations, was the important third level where a great deal of work was being done to address social questions in a particular sector or branch. The fourth level, consisting of the Government, workers and employers, met every quarter to examine the most topical issues of social partnership. A tripartite agreement was signed every three years. The signatories were all three national trade union associations, which had not previously been the case. He noted that, in a country with 2.5 million trade union members, there were 836 independent trade unions listed, some of which were only present in enterprises for limited activities, collecting trade union dues and conducting simple activities. Therefore, for a transitional period, the Act provided for measures to consolidate and strengthen trade unions, which was not contrary to the Convention in principle. He indicated that the Trade Union Act did not infringe the right of workers to establish a trade union and that several trade union organizations could work together within the same enterprise. Under section 13 of the Trade Union Act, branch or sectoral trade unions were fully authoritative and representative of the workers in social partnerships at the branch level. From the moment a branch trade union was founded, there was a six-month period to confirm its status and it had to cover over half of the districts of the concerned region. The Act was not contrary to democratic principles and was necessary during the transitional period. Under the new legislation, trade unions retained the right to determine their organizational structures, elect their representatives and establish branch and territorial unions and associations. The Act also provided for protection of trade union leaders against acts of interference. He was of the view that this approach was in accordance with the Convention and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Trade union membership should not lead to any discrimination or restrictions on the right of citizens with regard to employment and to career progression. The right of workers to leave, join or establish a trade union should not be restricted and there were criminal sanctions for infringements of workers’ rights in this regard. Section 16 of the new law concerned the social and labour interests of workers and provided details which had not been present in the previous law. The new Labour Code, which had come into effect on 1 January 2016, had been reviewed and redrafted following the comments of the trade unions and gave new powers to trade unions and inspectors. The Federation of Trade Unions had made 219 amendments to various articles, with 117 of the proposed amendments being adopted during the examination of the different versions of the Labour Code.

The Government member of Turkmenistan supported the comprehensive measures adopted to apply the Convention and noted the efforts made to improve the legislation and introduce new provisions on active social partnership. He welcomed the constructive cooperation with the ILO and the Committee of Experts in this regard.

The Worker member of the United States referred to the tragic events of December 2011, during which the police had violently ended a seven-month strike by oil workers, killing at least 17 trade unionists and injuring dozens more. To date, nothing had been done by the competent authorities to carry out investigations and prosecute the perpetrators. The Government had given no indication that it was taking the tragedy seriously and, inexplicably, charges against oil workers were still pending. The new laws adopted in 2014 and 2015 did not provide appropriate solutions and workers’ rights continued to be undermined and restricted. Kazakhstan’s trade union legislation imposed serious restrictions on workers’ right to freedom of association and their right to organize. Trade unions were required to fulfil a burdensome multi-step registration process: they needed to successfully register with the Ministry of Justice and then confirm their status by demonstrating, within six months, that they were affiliated to a higher-tier union. Trade unions at all levels had faced difficulties and delays trying to reregister in accordance with this law. Even if a union managed to prove its affiliation, there was still the possibility for the Government to deny registration on alleged technical grounds. As a result, all independent unions were only registered on a temporary six-month basis and risked dissolution if they did not pass the second step imposed by the Government. By requiring trade unions to confirm their membership of higher-level unions, the law mandated trade union affiliation and limited freedom of choice with regard to trade union membership, in violation of the Convention. Although the Conference Committee had called on the Government to amend the provisions of the Trade Union Act of 2014 consistent with the Convention, the Government had failed to take any steps in this regard. The existing trade union laws might be less restrictive, but their effect was the same and the situation was still critical as of 2015. Workers in a range of industries regularly faced interference in organizing, were intimidated for joining independent trade unions, sometimes under threat of dismissal, or were subject to surveillance by the authorities. Some workers were threatened with criminal sanctions in response to their labour activism and union activities. In light of the continued restrictions on freedom of association, the Government should make meaningful changes to its law and practice in order to ensure freedom of association for independent trade union activists, as required by the Convention.

An observer representing the International Union of Food, Agriculture, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) said that the situation concerning the right of workers to freedom of association needed to be examined not only from the point of view of the manner in which legislative standards changed but, above all, from the point of view of the events of 16 December 2011, when a seven-month strike by oil workers had been brought to an end. If the country had given effect to its obligations under the Convention, the strike would have ended peacefully through the negotiation of an agreement or protocol, instead of being ended by the use of armed force resulting in the death, wounding or arrest of numerous workers. Workers’ leaders had been accused of inflaming social division and organizing disorder. This had sent a clear message to all workers that they should not stand up for their rights or the right to collective bargaining and association, and these events had become a turning point in the development of industrial relations systems in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Most importantly, until the Government had carried out a full evaluation of these events, the future of freedom of association in the country would be uncertain. The Government should take into account the comments of the Committee of Experts and the results of the discussion of the Conference Committee. Freedom of association was one of the principal ways in which working conditions were guaranteed and peace was secured, and was therefore a necessary prerequisite for continued social progress. He recalled that people had attempted to protect and defend their rights in 2011 and he called for their sentences to be repealed and justice to be reinstated for those workers.

The Government member of Belarus welcomed the comprehensive measures taken to implement the Convention, such as the adoption of the Trade Union Act and the extension of the rights of workers and their participation at all levels of dialogue. With the creation of the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs and the strengthening of the legislation the rights of employers had also been reinforced. The National Chamber of Entrepreneurs, which would lead to an effective economy and create strong business, would serve as an example for other countries in Europe. He welcomed the Government’s readiness to cooperate at all tripartite levels to comply with the Convention and considered it useful for the ILO to help the country implement its obligations in accordance with international standards.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation referred to the developments in Kazakhstan with regard to the issues under examination and the manner in which the new Trade Union Act was applied. The Act provided for a two-step procedure for the registration of trade unions, which was complicated, not transparent and made compliance difficult. In this regard, he referred to some of the problems that Kazakh trade unions had experienced with regard to registration, such as cases of refusal. There were also issues of discrimination between trade unions. He expressed concern with regard to a section in the Criminal Code on “sowing of social discord”, which had been quoted in connection with the 2011 tragedy of the oil workers. He hoped that both criminal and labour legislation would be brought into line with the Convention.

An observer representing the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) expressed concern at the number of cases pertaining to Convention No. 87 that were being examined by the Committee. He emphasized that the present case involved murders, acts of intimidation, imprisonment and the arbitrary transfer of trade unionists. The Government needed to adopt legislation to bring an end to violations of fundamental rights. He hoped that the right of workers to freely choose their trade union would be respected. Trade unions must be independent of the Government and of employers, and must be established and chosen freely. Expressing solidarity with Kazakh workers and their right to freely choose their trade unions, he called on the Government to respect the rights of workers and international labour Conventions and requested the Committee to give the Government the opportunity to improve the situation.

The Government member of the Russian Federation appreciated the detailed information provided by the Government and noted its readiness to engage in practical and constructive cooperation with the ILO in order to, in association with its social partners, ensure the right to freedom of association and the other rights laid down in the Convention. He believed that the delay in providing information was due to organizational problems and that the misunderstanding which had arisen with the Committee of Experts would be quickly resolved. He called on the ILO to continue providing expert and technical assistance to the Government for the implementation of the Convention, taking into account its willingness to cooperate.

The Worker member of Turkmenistan noted that the Government had taken measures to improve the legislation and the working methods of trade unions. The new Trade Union Act had been adopted with the aim of protecting workers’ interests and to create, develop and protect an effective and well-functioning trade union system in the country, at the sectoral and government levels. Trade unions were not obliged to be members of higher organizations. The Act did not interfere with the rights of the trade unions and there was no monopoly in the trade union system. The Trade Union Act provided for a flexible environment for the establishment of trade unions. The new Labour Code expanded the role of trade unions and the right to strike. These legislative reforms would have a considerable impact on the functioning of trade unions and it was important to support the Government in this regard.

The Government member of Uzbekistan appreciated the information provided by the Government on the implementation of the Convention and the manner in which it was developing constructive cooperation with the ILO in this regard. Measures were being taken in the country in order to provide freedom of association, protect workers’ rights to join and establish trade unions and improve the national legislation. As a result of the improvement of the legislation, including the new Trade Union Act, more than three trade union confederations were registered covering a significant number of workers. Over 3.6 million workers were therefore covered by trade unions, which represented 58 per cent of wage earners in the country. He welcomed the efforts made by the Government to provide for strong social partnerships and to give effect to the Convention.

The Government member of China noted the improvements made by Kazakhstan, its political will to cooperate with the ILO to actively address the relevant issues and to formulate laws that were in line with international labour standards. It was the obligation of ratifying countries to implement international labour Conventions. In the meantime, the ILO needed to provide the necessary technical support to its member States for the application of standards. He concluded by supporting the Government’s efforts and hoped that the ILO would be able to provide technical assistance.

The Government representative assured the Committee that all the comments made would be taken into account. With reference to the registration of trade unions, he indicated that the new Trade Unions Act established a new procedure. Given that a branch trade union defended the interests of the workers in the relevant branch, the branch union needed to be sufficiently representative. The legislation set out three equally important membership requirements that the branch union had to meet for registration: (i) no fewer than half of the persons working in a branch; (ii) no fewer than half of the enterprises in a branch; and (iii) member organizations in no fewer than half of the territory covered by the sector. He believed that the law was reasonable, notably as trade unions could join any upper level organization of their choosing and the law did not limit the number of trade unions at the branch or company levels. Branch unions first registered with the authorized state body without providing supporting documents. Following registration, they had six months to provide copies of the documents confirming compliance with the conditions for the establishment of branch unions. The Government was prepared to improve the law with regard to the registration procedure. He also referred to the questions raised relating to the interference by the Government in the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs. In accordance with section 32(11) of the Act, at the end of the transitional period, the Government would cease participation in the activities of the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs. That would occur in July 2018. He concluded by indicating that in December 2015 Kazakhstan had become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and that the next step would be to become a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Institutional reforms in Kazakhstan, as announced by the President in 2015, were focused primarily on improving laws and practices and their harmonization with international social and labour standards. He reaffirmed the commitment of Kazakhstan to ILO principles and to cooperation with the Organization.

The Worker members emphasized that no significant progress had been made by Kazakhstan on the shortcomings that had been pointed out the previous year. Certain occupations, other than the police or the armed forces, were still deprived of the right to establish or join a trade union, which was contrary to the Convention. Trade unions were still denied the choice of the structure they could adopt. This structure was imposed by law and was a hindrance to freedom of association enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention. This freedom was further curbed by extremely restrictive registration procedures and by the fact that receiving financial assistance from international organizations was banned by law and subject to criminal sanctions. Interference had also been noted in the affairs of the social partners, which was in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The legislation should therefore be amended to: (i) allow judges, firefighters and prison staff to establish and join a trade union; (ii) remove restrictive criteria and registration procedures which limited freedom of association; (iii) end the mandatory affiliation of sectorial, territorial and local trade unions to a national trade union association within six months following their registration; (iv) reduce the membership threshold for the establishment of a trade union; (v) lift the prohibition on financial assistance from international workers’ or employers’ organizations; (vi) amend the administrative and criminal Codes to clarify vague notions such as “public association leader” and “social discord”; (vii) ensure that a minimum service was genuinely and exclusively a minimum service and that the workers’ organizations could participate in the definition of that service; and (viii) specify the organizations that carried out “hazardous industrial activities”, for which actions were illegal. The Worker members urged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to implement these recommendations.

The Employer members agreed with the Worker members that no concrete steps nor significant progress had been made in Kazakhstan in relation to the issues raised repeatedly by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. They joined in the call for the Government to cease its interference with freedom of association in respect of both employers’ and workers’ organizations. They were surprised by the Government’s reference to the Act on the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs, and particularly section 23(2) as an indication that there was no government interference with the Chamber. The law contained serious infringements of freedom of association, and particularly interference with employers’ organizations, such as rules regarding: (i) compulsory membership in the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs; (ii) the maximum membership fee to be approved by the Government and the payment procedure to be established by the Government; (iii) exclusive competence of the Chamber to represent Kazakh employers and to further and defend their interests in the various state bodies; (iv) government participation in the work of the congress of the Chamber and the right to veto decisions; and (v) the inclusion in the presidium of the Chamber of, among others, government representatives and parliamentarians, and only a small number of representatives of employers at the sectoral and regional levels. They concluded that the Act institutionalized government influence on the decisions and activities of the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs. The Chamber could not be considered an independent employers’ organization, as required by the Convention, but was rather an institution close to the public authorities. They urged the Government to amend the Act on the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs without delay so as to ensure that employers’ organizations in Kazakhstan could operate with full autonomy and independence.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed on issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee expressed serious concern regarding the Government’s lack of progress in relation to the implementation of the conclusions of the Committee in 2015.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee urged the Government to:

• - Amend the provisions of the Law on the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs in a manner that would ensure the full autonomy and independence of the free and independent employers’ organizations in Kazakhstan, without any further delay.
• - Amend the provisions of the Trade Union Law of 2014 in line with the Convention, including issues concerning excessive limitations on the structure of trade unions found in Articles 10–­15 which limit the right of workers to form and join trade unions of their own choosing; and Amend section 303(2) of the Labour Code so as to ensure that any minimum service is a genuinely and exclusively minimum one.
• - Indicate which organizations fall into the category of organizations carrying out “dangerous industrial activities” and indicate all other categories of workers whose rights may be restricted, as stipulated in section 303(5) of the Labour Code.
• - Amend the Constitution and appropriate legislation to permit judges, firefighters and prison staff to form and join a trade union.
• - Amend the Constitution and appropriate legislation to lift the ban on financial assistance to national trade unions by an international organization.
• - Accept ILO technical assistance to implement the above noted conclusions.

The Government should accept a direct contacts mission this year in order to follow up on these conclusions.

The Government representative thanked the Committee for its consideration of the measures taken by his Government to fully apply the Convention, and assured them that further measures would be taken in the near future and be reported to the ILO supervisory bodies.