Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Bahamas (Ratification: 1976)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

The Government has communicated the following information:

The Legal Officers will be consulted as to how the necessary amendments can be made. Meanwhile the provisions in question are not applied.

The Industrial Relations Act is now up for review in the Legal Department, which is also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lock-outs. Section 73 will be reconsidered in this context. Section 72 is impossible to apply in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to amend certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act under which: (i) breaches of labour discipline, such as disobedience to lawful command (section 129(b) and (c)), desertion and absence without leave (section 131(a) and (b)) are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) ; and (ii) deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship (section 135).

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that a new Merchant Shipping Bill has been drafted and passed in the Parliament in December 2021. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the provisions under section 129(b) and (c), section 131(a) and (b) and section 135 have not been retained under the Merchant Shipping Act of 2021.

Article 1(d). Punishment for participation in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to amend certain sections of the Industrial Relations Act, with a view to ensuring compliance with the Convention. It referred to sections 73 and 76(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, under which the prohibition on the recourse to strike action when a dispute in non-essential services is referred to the tribunal for settlement (section 73) and the failure to discontinue the participation in a strike which, in the opinion of the Minister, affects or threatens the public interest, are punishable under sections 74(3), 77(2)(a) and 76(2)(b) respectively, with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules).

The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statement that the Industrial Relations Act is currently being reviewed by the National Tripartite Council. The Committee, referring also to its comments made in 2022 under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend sections 73, 74(3), 77(2)(a), 76(1) and 76(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, so as to ensure that persons organizing or peacefully participating in a strike are not liable to sanctions of imprisonment involving an obligation to work.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act (sections 129(b) and (c); 131(a) and (b) and 135), under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the amendment of the abovementioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has undertaken to advice stakeholders, inclusive of shipowners’ and seafarers’ representatives of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, requiring amendment in order to ensure full application of the Convention. The Committee also notes that under sections 129 (b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 penalties of imprisonment are still applied for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, desertion and absence without leave. It further notes the adoption of the Merchant Shipping Regulations of 2012, amending the First Schedule to the Merchant Shipping (Chapter 268). The Committee observes, however, that the 2012 Regulations do not contain any provision with regard to disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether or not sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 have been amended. If these provisions have been amended, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the new provisions applicable to breaches of discipline by seafarers.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; the recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited. Under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act, violation of the prohibition is being punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above). The Committee has further noted the non-conformity with the Convention of section 76(1), according to which, a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that certain sections of the Industrial Relations Act have been amended in 2012. The Committee observes, however, that sections 73, 74(3), 77(2)(a), 76(1), and 76(2)(b) under consideration, have not been amended yet. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the Supreme Court decision of 3rd October 2014, in which inter alia the interpretation and application of sections 72, 76, 77 and 83 of the Industrial Relations Act were considered. It also notes the Government’s indication that the decision reflects the approach typically taken by employers in such matters, that is, to seek an injunction restraining unlawful strike action and not to seek the imposition of penalties under sections 74(3), 76(2)(b) or 77(2)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act. The Government also indicates that it will further review the provisions of the domestic law with a view to ensuring compliance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Act are amended, so as to ensure that persons organizing or participating in a peaceful strike are not liable to imprisonment involving an obligation to work.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act (sections 129(b) and (c); 131(a) and (b) and 135), under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee also noted that under sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 penalties of imprisonment are still applied for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, desertion and absence without leave. It further noted the adoption of the Merchant Shipping Regulations of 2012, which amends the First Schedule to the Merchant Shipping (Chapter 268), but do not contain any provision with regard to disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee therefore requested the Government to indicate whether or not sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 had been amended.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the concerned provisions have not been amended. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act are amended, in order to ensure that no sanctions for breaches of labour discipline involving compulsory labour are applicable to seafarers.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited. Under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act, violation of the prohibition is punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above). The Committee had also noted the non-conformity with the Convention of section 76(1), according to which, a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b). The Committee further noted that sections 73, 74(3), 76(1), 76(2)(b), and 77(2)(a) under consideration were not amended during the amendment to the Industrial Relations Act in 2012. The Government indicated that it would further review the provisions of the domestic law with a view to ensuring compliance with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Industrial Relations Act was amended in 2017. However, the concerned provisions have not been amended to ensure compliance with the Convention. The Government states that discussions on the improvement of the Industrial Relations Act are ongoing and that this issue will also be discussed with the Tripartite Council for further consideration. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Act are amended, so that persons organizing or peacefully participating in a strike are not liable to imprisonment involving an obligation to work.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments initially made in 2015.

Repetition

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act (sections 129(b) and (c); 131(a) and (b) and 135), under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the amendment of the abovementioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has undertaken to advice stakeholders, inclusive of shipowners’ and seafarers’ representatives of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, requiring amendment in order to ensure full application of the Convention. The Committee also notes that under sections 129 (b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 penalties of imprisonment are still applied for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, desertion and absence without leave. It further notes the adoption of the Merchant Shipping Regulations of 2012, amending the First Schedule to the Merchant Shipping (Chapter 268). The Committee observes, however, that the 2012 Regulations do not contain any provision with regard to disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether or not sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 have been amended. If these provisions have been amended, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the new provisions applicable to breaches of discipline by seafarers.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; the recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited. Under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act, violation of the prohibition is being punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above). The Committee has further noted the non-conformity with the Convention of section 76(1), according to which, a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that certain sections of the Industrial Relations Act have been amended in 2012. The Committee observes, however, that sections 73, 74(3), 77(2)(a), 76(1), and 76(2)(b) under consideration, have not been amended yet. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the Supreme Court decision of 3rd October 2014, in which inter alia the interpretation and application of sections 72, 76, 77 and 83 of the Industrial Relations Act were considered. It also notes the Government’s indication that the decision reflects the approach typically taken by employers in such matters, that is, to seek an injunction restraining unlawful strike action and not to seek the imposition of penalties under sections 74(3), 76(2)(b) or 77(2)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act. The Government also indicates that it will further review the provisions of the domestic law with a view to ensuring compliance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Act are amended, so as to ensure that persons organizing or participating in a peaceful strike are not liable to imprisonment involving an obligation to work.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act (sections 129(b) and (c); 131(a) and (b) and 135), under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the amendment of the abovementioned provisions.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has undertaken to advice stakeholders, inclusive of shipowners’ and seafarers’ representatives of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, requiring amendment in order to ensure full application of the Convention. The Committee also notes that under sections 129 (b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 penalties of imprisonment are still applied for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, desertion and absence without leave. It further notes the adoption of the Merchant Shipping Regulations of 2012, amending the First Schedule to the Merchant Shipping (Chapter 268). The Committee observes, however, that the 2012 Regulations do not contain any provision with regard to disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether or not sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 268) of 2006 have been amended. If these provisions have been amended, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the new provisions applicable to breaches of discipline by seafarers.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; the recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited. Under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act, violation of the prohibition is being punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above). The Committee has further noted the non-conformity with the Convention of section 76(1), according to which, a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that certain sections of the Industrial Relations Act have been amended in 2012. The Committee observes, however, that sections 73, 74(3), 77(2)(a), 76(1), and 76(2)(b) under consideration, have not been amended yet. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference to the Supreme Court decision of 3rd October 2014, in which inter alia the interpretation and application of sections 72, 76, 77 and 83 of the Industrial Relations Act were considered. It also notes the Government’s indication that the decision reflects the approach typically taken by employers in such matters, that is, to seek an injunction restraining unlawful strike action and not to seek the imposition of penalties under sections 74(3), 76(2)(b) or 77(2)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act. The Government also indicates that it will further review the provisions of the domestic law with a view to ensuring compliance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Act are amended, so as to ensure that persons organizing or participating in a peaceful strike are not liable to imprisonment involving an obligation to work.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous observation, which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in its earlier reports that some amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act have been made. It notes, however, that under sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the updated text of the Merchant Shipping Act, which it has consulted on the Government’s website, penalties of imprisonment may still be imposed for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, neglect of duty, desertion and absence without leave, and section 135 of the Act still provides for the forcible conveyance of deserting seafarers to ships registered in another country, where it appears to the minister that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, only acts which endanger the ship or the life or health of persons are excluded from the scope of the Convention (see, for example, paragraphs 179–181 of the General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour). The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to amending the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to the situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered (as is the case, e.g. in section 128 of the same Act). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard in its next report.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; the recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited, violation being punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above) under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act. The Committee has further noted that, according to section 76(1), a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b).

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications in its earlier report that the proposed Trade Unions and Industrial Relations Bill had been tabled in the House of Assembly, and that it contained no provisions imposing sanctions of imprisonment for breach of the legislation, which may be punished only with fines. The Committee also noted the Government’s repeated statement that the above provisions of the Industrial Relations Act had never been applied in practice, and that the legislation would be amended when a consensus is achieved after further consultation with the social partners.

While having noted these indications, the Committee reiterates the firm hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of the above provisions, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peaceful participation in a strike, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Referring also to its comments made in 2007 under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by the Bahamas, the Committee asks the Government to supply a copy of the new legislation, as soon as it is adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in its earlier reports that some amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act have been made. It notes, however, that under sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the updated text of the Merchant Shipping Act, which it has consulted on the Government’s website, penalties of imprisonment may still be imposed for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, neglect of duty, desertion and absence without leave, and section 135 of the Act still provides for the forcible conveyance of deserting seafarers to ships registered in another country, where it appears to the minister that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, only acts which endanger the ship or the life or health of persons are excluded from the scope of the Convention (see, for example, paragraphs 179–181 of the General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour). The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to amending the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to the situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered (as is the case, e.g. in section 128 of the same Act). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard in its next report.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; the recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited, violation being punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above) under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act. The Committee has further noted that, according to section 76(1), a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b).

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications in its earlier report that the proposed Trade Unions and Industrial Relations Bill had been tabled in the House of Assembly, and that it contained no provisions imposing sanctions of imprisonment for breach of the legislation, which may be punished only with fines. The Committee also noted the Government’s repeated statement that the above provisions of the Industrial Relations Act had never been applied in practice, and that the legislation would be amended when a consensus is achieved after further consultation with the social partners.

While having noted these indications, the Committee reiterates the firm hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of the above provisions, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of peaceful participation in a strike, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Referring also to its comments made in 2007 under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by the Bahamas, the Committee asks the Government to supply a copy of the new legislation, as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Repetition

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in its earlier reports that some amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act have been made. It notes, however, that under sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the updated text of the Merchant Shipping Act, which it has consulted on the Government’s website, penalties of imprisonment may still be imposed for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, neglect of duty, desertion and absence without leave, and section 135 of the Act still provides for the forcible conveyance of deserting seafarers to ships registered in another country, where it appears to the minister that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, only acts which endanger the ship or the life or health of persons are excluded from the scope of the Convention (see, for example, paragraphs 179–181 of the General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour). The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to amending the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to the situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered (as is the case, e.g. in section 128 of the same Act). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard in its next report.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; the recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited, violation being punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above) under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act. The Committee has further noted that, according to section 76(1), a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b).

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications in its earlier report that the proposed Trade Unions and Industrial Relations Bill had been tabled in the House of Assembly, and that it contained no provisions imposing sanctions of imprisonment for breach of the legislation, which may be punished only with fines. The Committee also noted the Government’s repeated statement that the above provisions of the Industrial Relations Act had never been applied in practice, and that the legislation would be amended when a consensus is achieved after further consultation with the social partners.

While having noted these indications, the Committee reiterates the firm hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of the above provisions, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of participating in a peaceful strike, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Referring also to its comments made in 2007 under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by the Bahamas, the Committee asks the Government to supply a copy of the new legislation, as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in its earlier reports that some amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act have been made. It notes, however, that under sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the updated text of the Merchant Shipping Act, which it has consulted on the Government’s website, penalties of imprisonment may still be imposed for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, neglect of duty, desertion and absence without leave, and section 135 of the Act still provides for the forcible conveyance of deserting seafarers to ships registered in another country, where it appears to the minister that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, only acts which endanger the ship or the life or health of persons are excluded from the scope of the Convention (see, for example, paragraphs 179–181 of the General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour). The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to amending the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to the situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered (as is the case, e.g. in section 128 of the same Act). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard in its next report.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; the recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited, violation being punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above) under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act. The Committee has further noted that, according to section 76(1), a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b).

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications in its earlier report that the proposed Trade Unions and Industrial Relations Bill had been tabled in the House of Assembly, and that it contained no provisions imposing sanctions of imprisonment for breach of the legislation, which may be punished only with fines. The Committee also noted the Government’s repeated statement that the above provisions of the Industrial Relations Act had never been applied in practice, and that the legislation would be amended when a consensus is achieved after further consultation with the social partners.

While having noted these indications, the Committee reiterates the firm hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of the above provisions, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of participating in a peaceful strike, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Referring also to its comments made in 2007 under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by the Bahamas, the Committee asks the Government to supply a copy of the new legislation, as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to certain provisions of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules) and deserting seafarers from ships registered in another country may be forcibly conveyed on board the ship. The Committee has noted the Government’s indications in its earlier reports that some amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act have been made. It notes, however, that under sections 129(b) and (c) and 131(a) and (b) of the updated text of the Merchant Shipping Act, which it has consulted on the Government’s web site, penalties of imprisonment may still be imposed for breaches of discipline such as disobedience to lawful command, neglect of duty, desertion and absence without leave, and section 135 of the Act still provides for the forcible conveyance of deserting seafarers to ships registered in another country, where it appears to the minister that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) expressly prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, only acts which endanger the ship or the life or health of persons are excluded from the scope of the Convention (see e.g. paragraphs 179–181 of the Committee’s 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour). The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to amending the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, either by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour or by restricting their application to the situations where the ship or the life or health of persons are endangered (as is the case, e.g. in section 128 of the same Act). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard in its next report.

Article 1(d). Punishment for having participated in strikes. Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, as amended, under which the minister may refer a dispute in non-essential services to the tribunal for settlement, if he considers that a public interest so requires; the recourse to strike action in this situation is prohibited, violation being punishable with penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour, as explained above) under sections 74(3) and 77(2)(a) of the same Act. The Committee has further noted that, according to section 76(1), a strike which, in the opinion of the minister, affects or threatens the public interest, might also be referred to the tribunal for settlement, failure to discontinue the participation in such a strike being punishable with imprisonment under section 76(2)(b).

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications in its earlier report that the proposed Trade Unions and Industrial Relations Bill had been tabled in the House of Assembly, and that it contained no provisions imposing sanctions of imprisonment for breach of the legislation, which may be punished only with fines. The Committee also noted the Government’s repeated statement that the above provisions of the Industrial Relations Act had never been applied in practice, and that the legislation would be amended when a consensus is achieved after further consultation with the social partners.

While having noted these indications, the Committee reiterates the firm hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of the above provisions, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the mere fact of participating in a peaceful strike, in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention. Referring also to its comments made in 2007 under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by the Bahamas, the Committee asks the Government to supply a copy of the new legislation, as soon as it is adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore repeat the matters raised in its previous observation.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. For many years, the Committee has been referring to sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules). It also referred to section 134 of the Act, which provides for the forcible return of deserting seafarers to ships registered in another country, provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that some amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act have been concluded. It observes, however, that copies of the amendments have not yet been communicated by the Government. The Committee hopes that the abovementioned provisions of the Act will at last be amended so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to supply copies of the amendments.

Article 1(d). Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act (Official Gazette, Supplement Part I, 10 September 1970, No. 36), under which the Minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement, if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour). The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary amendments would be adopted to ensure that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee also referred to section 72 of the same Act, under which participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. Referring to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers.

The Government indicates in its report that the proposed Trade Unions and Industrial Relations Bill was concluded and tabled in the House of Assembly in May 2001, and that it contains no provisions imposing sanctions of imprisonment for breach of the legislation, which may be punished only with fines. The Government reiterates its previous statement that the above provisions of the Industrial Relations Act have never been applied in practice, and that the legislation will be amended when a consensus is achieved after further consultation with the social partners.

The Committee notes this information. It expresses firm hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of the above provisions and the legislation will be brought into conformity with the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to supply a copy of the new Trade Unions and Industrial Relations Act, as soon as it is adopted.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. For many years, the Committee has been referring to sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules). It also referred to section 134 of the Act, which provides for the forcible return of deserting seafarers to ships registered in another country, provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that some amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act have been concluded. It observes, however, that copies of the amendments have not yet been communicated by the Government. The Committee hopes that the abovementioned provisions of the Act will at last be amended so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to supply copies of the amendments.

Article 1(d). Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act (Official Gazette, Supplement Part I, 10 September 1970, No. 36), under which the Minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement, if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment (involving an obligation to perform labour). The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary amendments would be adopted to ensure that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee also referred to section 72 of the same Act, under which participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. Referring to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers.

The Government indicates in its report that the proposed Trade Unions and Industrial Relations Bill was concluded and tabled in the House of Assembly in May 2001, and that it contains no provisions imposing sanctions of imprisonment for breach of the legislation, which may be punished only with fines. The Government reiterates its previous statement that the above provisions of the Industrial Relations Act have never been applied in practice, and that the legislation will be amended when a consensus is achieved after further consultation with the social partners.

The Committee notes this information. It expresses firm hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of the above provisions and the legislation will be brought into conformity with the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to supply a copy of the new Trade Unions and Industrial Relations Act, as soon as it is adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the prison rules, an obligation to work). The Committee also noted that section 134 of the 1976 Act provides for the forcible return of deserters to ships registered in another country provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Legal Officers would be consulted as to how the necessary amendments could be made and that, meanwhile, the provisions in question were not applied. The Committee trusts that the action required will at last be taken to bring merchant shipping law into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this effect.

  2. Article 1(d). In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act (Official Gazette, Supplement Part I, 10 September 1970, No. 36), the minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government’s communication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Industrial Relations Act was up for review in the Legal Department, which was also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lockouts and that section 73 would be reconsidered in this context. Since the Government has undertaken for a number of years to review sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary amendments will soon be adopted to ensure both in law and in practice that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government would indicate the action taken.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 72 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. The Committee also referred to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it indicated that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers. The Committee noted that although there had been recent strikes in furtherance of trade disputes no one had been imprisoned under section 72 of the Act. The Committee also noted the indication given by the Government to the 1988 Conference Committee that section 72 was impossible to apply in practice. The Committee accordingly expresses again the hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of section 72, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end. Pending amendment of the Act, the Government is again requested to continue to supply information on any cases of practical application of sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 128, 130 and 134 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) and deserting seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship; and sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act (Official Gazette, Supplement Part I, 10 September 1970, No. 36), under which participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government’s indication in its report received in 1999 that the abovementioned sections of the Merchant Shipping Act had not been amended. As regards the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, the Government stated that no such provisions had been applied for participation in an industrial action, that 1998 and early 1999 were typical examples of high industrial action activity and no repressive measures have been used against any group of participants. While noting this information, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend or repeal the abovementioned provisions in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard and to supply a copy of the latest consolidated text of the Industrial Relations Act.

The Committee is addressing a more detailed request on the matter directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

With reference to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes that the Government's report gives no further particulars in reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving, under section 10 of the prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the prison rules, an obligation to work). The Committee also noted that section 134 of the 1976 Act provides for the forcible return of deserters to ships registered in another country provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee had noted the Government's indication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Legal Officers would be consulted as to how the necessary amendments could be made and that, meanwhile, the provisions in question were not applied. The Committee trusts that the action required will at last be taken to bring merchant shipping law into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this effect.

Article 1(d). 2. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, the minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government's communication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Industrial Relations Act was up for review in the Legal Department, which was also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lock-outs and that section 73 would be reconsidered in this context. Since the Government has undertaken for a number of years to review sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary amendments will soon be adopted to ensure both in law and in practice that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government would indicate the action taken.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 72 of the Industrial Relations Act, participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. The Committee also referred to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it indicated that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers. The Committee noted that although there had been recent strikes in furtherance of trade disputes no one had been imprisoned under section 72 of the Act. The Committee also noted the indication given by the Government to the 1988 Conference Committee that section 72 was impossible to apply in practice. The Committee accordingly expresses again the hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of section 72, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end. Pending amendment of the Act, the Government is again requested to continue to supply information on any cases of practical application of sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments made for many years, the Committee has referred to sections 128, 130 and 134 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) and deserting seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship; and sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act (Official Gazette, Supplement Part I, 10 September 1970, No 36), under which participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee notes the Government's indication in the report that the abovementioned sections of the Merchant Shipping Act have not been amended. As regards the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, the Government states that no such provisions have been applied for participation in an industrial action, that 1998 and early 1999 were typical examples of high industrial action activity and no repressive measures have been used against any group of participants. While noting this information, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken to amend or repeal the abovementioned provisions in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. It asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard and to supply a copy of the latest consolidated text of the Industrial Relations Act.

The Committee is addressing a more detailed request on the matter directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving, under section 10 of the prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the prison rules, an obligation to work). The Committee also noted that section 134 of the 1976 Act provides for the forcible return of deserters to ships registered in another country provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee had noted the Government's indication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Legal Officers would be consulted as to how the necessary amendments could be made and that, meanwhile, the provisions in question were not applied. The Committee trusts that the action required will at last be taken to bring merchant shipping law into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this effect.

Article 1(d). 2. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, the minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government's communication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Industrial Relations Act was up for review in the Legal Department, which was also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lock-outs and that section 73 would be reconsidered in this context. Since the Government has undertaken for a number of years to review sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary amendments will soon be adopted to ensure both in law and in practice that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government would indicate the action taken.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 72 of the Industrial Relations Act, participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. The Committee also referred to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it indicated that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers. The Committee noted that although there had been recent strikes in furtherance of trade disputes no one had been imprisoned under section 72 of the Act. The Committee also noted the indication given by the Government to the 1988 Conference Committee that section 72 was impossible to apply in practice. The Committee accordingly expresses again the hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of section 72, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end. Pending amendment of the Act, the Government is again requested to continue to supply information on any cases of practical application of sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore return to its previous observation on the following matters:

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to sections 128, 130 and 134 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) and deserting seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship; and sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act, under which participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, involving an obligation to perform labour. The Government has supplied no information concerning amendment of the legislation. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report concrete action to amend or repeal the above-mentioned provisions. The Committee is once again addressing a more detailed request on the matter directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules, an obligation to work). The Committee also noted that section 134 of the 1976 Act provides for the forcible return of deserters to ships registered in another country provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee had noted the Government's indication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Legal Officers would be consulted as to how the necessary amendments could be made and that, meanwhile, the provisions in question were not applied. The Committee trusts that the action required will at last be taken to bring merchant shipping law into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this effect.

2. Article 1(d). In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, the Minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government's communication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Industrial Relations Act was up for review in the Legal Department, which was also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lock-outs, and that section 73 would be reconsidered in this context. Since the Government has undertaken for a number of years to review sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary amendments will soon be adopted to ensure both in law and in practice that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government would indicate the action taken.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 72 of the Industrial Relations Act, participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. The Committee also referred to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey, in which it indicated that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers. The Committee noted that although there had been recent strikes in furtherance of trade disputes no one had been imprisoned under section 72 of the Act. The Committee also noted the indication given by the Government to the 1988 Conference Committee that section 72 was impossible to apply in practice. The Committee accordingly expresses again the hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of section 72, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end. Pending amendment of the Act, the Government is again requested to continue to supply information on any cases of practical application of sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee has referred to sections 128, 130 and 134 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) and deserting seamen may be forcibly returned on board ship, and sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act, under which participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, involving an obligation to perform labour, contrary to Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. The Committee notes that in a report received on 16 June 1994, the Government stated that while there had been no change in the legislation to fully comply with the Convention, it was expected that with a new Government having come into power in August 1992, there would be a review and reappraisal. However, in its last report, received on 5 September 1995, the Government has supplied no information concerning measures that may have been taken to amend the legislation at issue. In the circumstances, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will at last be taken, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report concrete action to amend or repeal the above-mentioned provisions.

The Committee is once more addressing a more detailed request on the matter directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes with regret that once more no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules, an obligation to work). The Committee also noted that section 134 of the 1976 Act provides for the forcible return of deserters to ships registered in another country provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee had noted the Government's indication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Legal Officers would be consulted as to how the necessary amendments can be made and that, meanwhile, the provisions in question are not applied. The Committee trusts again that the action required will thus soon be taken to bring merchant shipping law into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this effect.

2. Article 1(d). In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, the Minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government's communication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Industrial Relations Act was up for review in the Legal Department, which is also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lock-outs, and that section 73 will be reconsidered in this context. Since the Government has undertaken for a number of years to review sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary amendments will soon be adopted to ensure both in law and in practice that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government would indicate the action taken.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 72 of the Industrial Relations Act, participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. The Committee also referred to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey, in which it indicates that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers. The Committee noted that although there had been recent strikes in furtherance of trade disputes no one had been imprisoned under section 72 of the Act. The Committee noted the indication give by the Government to the 1988 Conference Committee that section 72 is impossible to apply in practice. The Committee accordingly expresses again the hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of section 72, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end. Pending amendment of the Act, the Government is again requested to continue to supply information on any cases of practical application of sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes with regret that once more the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules, an obligation to work). The Committee also noted that section 134 of the 1976 Act provides for the forcible return of deserters to ships registered in another country provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee had noted the Government's indication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Legal Officers would be consulted as to how the necessary amendments can be made and that, meanwhile, the provisions in question are not applied. The Committee trusts again that the action required will thus soon be taken to bring merchant shipping law into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this effect.

2. Article 1(d). In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, the Minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government's communication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Industrial Relations Act was up for review in the Legal Department, which is also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lock-outs, and that section 73 will be reconsidered in this context. Since the Government has undertaken for a number of years to review sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary amendments will soon be adopted to ensure both in law and in practice that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government would indicate the action taken.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 72 of the Industrial Relations Act, participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. The Committee also referred to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey, in which it indicates that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers. The Committee noted that although there had been recent strikes in furtherance of trade disputes no one had been imprisoned under section 72 of the Act. The Committee noted the indication give by the Government to the 1988 Conference Committee that section 72 is impossible to apply in practice. The Committee accordingly expresses again the hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of section 72, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end. Pending amendment of the Act, the Government is again requested to continue to supply information on any cases of practical application of sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes with regret that once more the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request on the following points:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules, an obligation to work). The Committee also noted that section 134 of the 1976 Act provides for the forcible return of deserters to ships registered in another country provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee had noted the Government's indication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Legal Officers would be consulted as to how the necessary amendments can be made and that, meanwhile, the provisions in question are not applied. The Committee trusts again that the action required will thus soon be taken to bring merchant shipping law into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this effect.

2. Article 1(d). In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, the Minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government's communication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Industrial Relations Act was up for review in the Legal Department, which is also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lock-outs, and that section 73 will be reconsidered in this context. Since the Government has undertaken for a number of years to review sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the Committee again expresses the hope that the necessary amendments will soon be adopted to ensure both in law and in practice that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government would indicate the action taken.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 72 of the Industrial Relations Act, participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. The Committee also referred to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey, in which it indicates that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers. The Committee noted that although there had been recent strikes in furtherance of trade disputes no one had been imprisoned under section 72 of the Act. The Committee noted the indication give by the Government to the 1988 Conference Committee that section 72 is impossible to apply in practice. The Committee accordingly expresses again the hope that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of section 72, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end. Pending amendment of the Act, the Government is again requested to continue to supply information on any cases of practical application of sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes with regret that once more the Government's report contains no reply to previous comments. It must, therefore, repeat its previous direct request which read as follows:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules, an obligation to work). The Committee also noted that section 134 of the 1976 Act provides for the forcible return of deserters to ships registered in another country provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee has noted the Government's indication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Legal Officers would be consulted as to how the necessary amendments can be made and that, meanwhile, the provisions in question are not applied. The Committee trusts that the action required will thus soon be taken to bring merchant shipping law into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this effect.

2. Article 1(d). In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, the Minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government's communication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Industrial Relations Act was up for review in the Legal Department, which is also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lock-outs, and that section 73 will be reconsidered in this context. Since the Government has undertaken for a number of years to review sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the Committee hopes that the necessary amendments will soon be adopted to ensure both in law and in practice that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government will indicate the action taken.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 72 of the Industrial Relations Act, participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. The Committee also referred to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey, in which it indicates that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but that restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers. The Committee noted that although there had been recent strikes in furtherance of trade disputes no one had been imprisoned under section 72 of the Act. The Committee noted the indication give by the Government to the 1988 Conference Committee that section 72 is impossible to apply in practice. The Committee accordingly hopes that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of section 72, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end. Pending amendment of the Act, the Government is requested to continue to supply information on any cases of practical application of sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no reply to previous comments. It must, therefore, repeat its previous direct request which read as follows:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under sections 128 and 130 of the 1976 Merchant Shipping Act, various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment (involving, under section 10 of the Prisons Act and rules 76 and 95 of the Prison Rules, an obligation to work). The Committee also noted that section 134 of the 1976 Act provides for the forcible return of deserters to ships registered in another country provided the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal arrangements will be made in that country. The Committee has noted the Government's indication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Legal Officers would be consulted as to how the necessary amendments can be made and that meanwhile the provisions in question are not applied. The Committee trusts that the action required will thus soon be taken to bring merchant shipping law into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this effect.

2. Article 1(d). In earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 73 of the 1970 Industrial Relations Act, the Minister may refer a dispute which is not in an essential service to the Industrial Relations Board for settlement if he considers that a strike which is in progress affects or threatens the public interest; any worker who continues to participate in such a strike is liable to a punishment of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform labour. The Committee noted the Government's communication to the 1988 Conference Committee that the Industrial Relations Act was up for review in the Legal Department, which is also considering provisions as to recognition, strikes, lock-outs, and that section 73 will be reconsidered in this context. Since the Government has undertaken for a number of years to review sections 72 and 73 of the Act, the Committee hopes that the necessary amendments will soon be adopted to ensure both in law and in practice that compulsory arbitration, when enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour, be limited to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the Government will indicate the action taken.

3. In earlier comments, the Committee noted that under section 72 of the Industrial Relations Act, participation in a strike is punishable with imprisonment, inter alia, if the strike has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged or if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting severe hardship on the community. The Committee also referred to paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey, in which it indicated that the prohibition of purely political strikes lies outside the scope of the Convention, but restrictions on the right to engage in strikes should not apply to matters of a broader economic and social nature affecting the occupational interests of workers. The Committee noted that although there had been recent strikes in furtherance of trade disputes no one had been imprisoned under section 72 of the Act. The Committee noted the indication given by the Government to the 1988 Conference Committee that section 72 is impossible to apply in practice. The Committee accordingly hopes that the review of the Act announced by the Government for a number of years will soon result in the amendment of section 72, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end. Pending amendment of the Act, the Government is requested to continue to supply information on any cases of practical application of sections 72 and 73 of the Industrial Relations Act.