Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Barbados (Ratification: 1967)

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

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2024, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.

Repetition

The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has been requesting the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, with a view to eliminating the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and thus for merely exercising an essential right, and therefore that measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed in such cases. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. The Committee observes that, in its 2014 observations, the ITUC raised this issue as well. The Committee regrets that once again the Government’s report contains no information in this regard and trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, taking into account the above-mentioned principles.

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

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2024, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.

Repetition

The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 10 September 2014, concerning matters examined under this comment, as well as other allegations of violations of the Convention in the law. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature. The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there are no further developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition, and that a number of the observations made by the ITUC refer to issues concerning trade union registration. Hoping that it will be able to observe progress in the near future, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in the legislative review process and it recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2023, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.

Repetition

The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has been requesting the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, with a view to eliminating the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and thus for merely exercising an essential right, and therefore that measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed in such cases. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. The Committee observes that, in its 2014 observations, the ITUC raised this issue as well.The Committee regrets that once again the Government’s report contains no information in this regard and trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, taking into account the above-mentioned principles.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2023, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.

Repetition

The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 10 September 2014, concerning matters examined under this comment, as well as other allegations of violations of the Convention in the law. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature. The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there are no further developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition, and that a number of the observations made by the ITUC refer to issues concerning trade union registration.Hoping that it will be able to observe progress in the near future, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in the legislative review process and it recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

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

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2022, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.

Repetition

The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has been requesting the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, with a view to eliminating the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and thus for merely exercising an essential right, and therefore that measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed in such cases. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. The Committee observes that, in its 2014 observations, the ITUC raised this issue as well. The Committee regrets that once again the Government’s report contains no information in this regard and trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, taking into account the above-mentioned principles.

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

The Committee notes with deep concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments. The Committee informs the Government that, if it has not supplied replies to the points raised by 1 September 2022, then it may proceed with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal at its next session.

Repetition

The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 10 September 2014, concerning matters examined under this comment, as well as other allegations of violations of the Convention in the law. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature.

The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there are no further developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition, and that a number of the observations made by the ITUC refer to issues concerning trade union registration. Hoping that it will be able to observe progress in the near future, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in the legislative review process and it recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes with concern 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

The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has been requesting the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, with a view to eliminating the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and thus for merely exercising an essential right, and therefore that measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed in such cases. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. The Committee observes that, in its 2014 observations, the ITUC raised this issue as well. The Committee regrets that once again the Government’s report contains no information in this regard and trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, taking into account the above-mentioned principles.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 10 September 2014, concerning matters examined under this comment, as well as other allegations of violations of the Convention in the law. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature.

The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there are no further developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition, and that a number of the observations made by the ITUC refer to issues concerning trade union registration. Hoping that it will be able to observe progress in the near future, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in the legislative review process and it recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has been requesting the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, with a view to eliminating the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and thus for merely exercising an essential right, and therefore that measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed in such cases. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. The Committee observes that, in its 2014 observations, the ITUC raised this issue as well. The Committee regrets that once again the Government’s report contains no information in this regard and trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, taking into account the above-mentioned principles.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 10 September 2014, concerning matters examined under this comment, as well as other allegations of violations of the Convention in the law. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature.

The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there are no further developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition, and that a number of the observations made by the ITUC refer to issues concerning trade union registration. Hoping that it will be able to observe progress in the near future, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in the legislative review process and it recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has been requesting the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, with a view to eliminating the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and thus for merely exercising an essential right, and therefore that measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed in such cases. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. The Committee observes that, in its 2014 observations, the ITUC raised this issue as well. The Committee regrets that once again the Government’s report contains no information in this regard and trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, taking into account the abovementioned principles.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 10 September 2014, concerning matters examined under this comment, as well as other allegations of violations of the Convention in the law. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature.

The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there are no further developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition, and that a number of the observations made by the ITUC refer to issues concerning trade union registration. Hoping that it will be able to observe progress in the near future, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in the legislative review process and it recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 30 August 2013 referring to the issues raised by the Committee below.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report contains no information on the measures taken to address the Committee’s previous request. It therefore hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future to address the following points.

The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has been requesting the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, so as to eliminate the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and thus for merely exercising an essential right, and therefore that measures of imprisonment or fines should not be imposed in such cases. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where, during a strike, violence against persons or property, or other serious infringements of penal law have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, taking into account the abovementioned principles.

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition.

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

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on the right to strike in a communication dated 29 August 2012, which are dealt with in the General Report of the Committee.

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:

Article 3 of the Convention. The right of organizations freely to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has advised the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, so as to eliminate the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. The Committee notes that the Government indicated that the administrative authority has undertaken to move towards the drafting of an essential services legislation. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account, including as regards strikes in essential services. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Nevertheless, even in the absence of violence, if the strike modalities had the effect of making the strike illegitimate, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed against strikers. The Committee trusts that the Government will take duly into account the abovementioned principle when drafting the essential services legislation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect and to provide a copy of the legislation once adopted. Moreover, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition to which the Government had referred, or to indicate whether the drafting legislation process concerning trade union recognition could be considered as abandoned. In its previous observation, the Committees had also noted that the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados indicated that the Government submitted an amended Trade Union Act Cap. 361 to trade unions for comment and review. The Committee had noted that the Government indicated that the drafting process regarding legislation or trade union recognition is ongoing. The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report information on any development in this respect.

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

Repetition

Article 3 of the Convention. The right of organizations freely to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has advised the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, so as to eliminate the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. The Committee notes that the Government indicated that the administrative authority has undertaken to move towards the drafting of an essential services legislation. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account, including as regards strikes in essential services. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Nevertheless, even in the absence of violence, if the strike modalities had the effect of making the strike illegitimate, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed against strikers. The Committee trusts that the Government will take duly into account the abovementioned principle when drafting the essential services legislation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect and to provide a copy of the legislation once adopted. Moreover, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition to which the Government had referred, or to indicate whether the drafting legislation process concerning trade union recognition could be considered as abandoned. In its previous observation, the Committees had also noted that the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados indicated that the Government submitted an amended Trade Union Act Cap. 361 to trade unions for comment and review. The Committee had noted that the Government indicated that the drafting process regarding legislation or trade union recognition is ongoing. The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report information on any development in this respect.

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

Finally, the Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 4 August 2011, as well as the comments submitted by the Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU) in a communication dated 1 September 2011, on issues already raised by the Committee.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply to the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 26 August 2009. The Committee also notes the communication made by the ITUC dated 24 August 2010.

Article 3 of the Convention. The right of organizations freely to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has advised the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, so as to eliminate the possibility of employers invoking it in cases of strikes. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the administrative authority has recently undertaken to move towards the drafting of an essential services legislation. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account, including as regards strikes in essential services. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Nevertheless, even in the absence of violence, if the strike modalities had the effect of making the strike illegitimate, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed against strikers. The Committee trusts that the Government will take duly into account the abovementioned principle when drafting the essential services legislation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect and to provide a copy of the legislation once adopted. Moreover, the Committee once again requests the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Finally, the Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition to which the Government had referred, or to indicate whether the drafting legislation process concerning trade union recognition could be considered as abandoned. In its previous observation, the Committees had also noted that the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados indicated that the Government submitted an amended Trade Union Act Cap. 361 to trade unions for comment and review. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the drafting process regarding legislation or trade union recognition is ongoing. The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report information on any development in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments made in 2008 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados on the application of the Convention.

Article 3. The right of organizations freely to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled the need to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, so as to eliminate the possibility of employers invoking it in a case of future strikes. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government once again states that there is no record that this section has ever been invoked and that in practice, workers in all sectors take industrial action when they perceive it to be beneficial. The Committee recalls that no penal sanction should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike and therefore measures of imprisonment should not be imposed on any account. Such sanctions could be envisaged only where during a strike, violence against persons or property or other serious infringements of rights have been committed, and can be imposed pursuant to legislation punishing such acts. Nevertheless, even in the absence of violence, if the strike modalities had the effect of making the strike illegitimate, proportionate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed against strikers. Once again, the Committee invites the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

In addition, the Committee notes that, in its 2008 comments on the application of the Convention, the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados indicated that the Government submitted an amended Trade Union Act Cap. 361 to the trade unions for comment and review. The Committee requests the Government to provide with its next report a draft copy of this legislation and to indicate any progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee takes note of the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 29 August 2008 as well as the comments submitted by the Congress of Trade Union and Staff Associations of Barbados indicating that legislation commented upon by the Committee remains in place.

The Committee recalls that for numerous years it has advised the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, so as to eliminate the possibility of employers invoking it in a case of future strikes. The Committee notes the statement in the Government’s report that section 4 of the Better Security Act 1920, has not been invoked in the case of a strike. The Committee recalls that if this provision is applicable in the case of a strike, it should be amended so that such penalties may only be imposed with respect to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal health or safety of the whole or part of the population, and that the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations. Once again, the Committee strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the Act in the very near future to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken in this regard.

Furthermore, the Committee has been requesting the Government since 1998 to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition, to which the Government had referred. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that no further action has been taken. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report if the drafting legislation process concerning trade union recognition could be considered as abandoned.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. The Committee recalls that for many years it has advised the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully broke a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, so as to eliminate the possibility of invoking it in a case of future strikes. Once again, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to make every effort to take the necessary action in order to amend the Act in the very near future and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition which began in 1998. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Finally, the Committee takes note of the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 28 August 2007 which mainly refer to issues concerning the application of Convention No. 98.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had advised the Government to amend section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which, any person who wilfully broke a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this could endanger real or personal property, was liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment, so as to eliminate the possibility of invoking it in case of future strikes, with the possible exception of those in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee once again notes the Government’s indication that this provision has never been invoked in the context of strike action. Recalling that the Government has been indicating its intention to amend the Better Security Act since 1984, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to make every effort to take the necessary action in order to amend the Act in the very near future and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

As concerns the Committee’s previous request to provide information on developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition, the Committee notes the lack of progress in this respect and hopes that the process which began in 1998 would soon result in adoption of a new legislation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

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

The Committee recalls that its comments concerned section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this may endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had pointed out that, although according to the Government this provision has never been invoked in the context of strike action, its amendment is nevertheless advisable so as to eliminate the possibility of invoking it in case of future strikes, with the possible exception of those in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the current legal status of the Better Security Act, 1920, as well as to confirm that section 4 has still not been invoked in the context of strike action and that it is not considered as applicable to strike action.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government’s report.

The Committee observes that the report does not contain any reply to the comments that the Committee has been making for many years now concerning section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, according to which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this may endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months’ imprisonment. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had pointed out that, although according to the Government this provision has never been invoked in the context of strike action, its amendment is nevertheless advisable so as to eliminate the possibility of invoking it in case of future strikes, with the possible exception of those in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the current legal status of the Better Security Act, 1920, as well as to confirm that section 4 has still not been invoked in the context of strike action and that it is not considered as applicable to strike action.

The Committee also notes the comments communicated by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) according to which, while trade union recognition is generally straightforward and respected by employers, it is not mandated by law and thus workers’ right to join and form unions can be subject to pressure from employers. In this respect, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that the process of reviewing legislation regarding trade union recognition, to which it has referred in previous reports, is still ongoing. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard in its next report.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It further notes the observations made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and requests the Government to transmit its observations thereon. It must repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, provided that any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this may endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine of up to three months’ imprisonment and recalled that, if this provision applied to strike action, it should be amended so that such penalties may only be imposed with respect to essential services in the strict sense of the term and that the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation. Noting the indication in the Government’s latest report that this section has never been invoked, the Committee requests the Government to consider amending this provision so as to ensure that it may not be invoked in the case of strikes, with the possible exception of those in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and thus ensure that workers’ organizations may carry out their activities and formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities.

The Committee also noted the Government’s indication that the draft legislation regarding trade union recognition was still at the consultative stage with the employers’ and workers’ representatives and that a copy of the text would be transmitted once the draft legislation has been reviewed and approved. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee takes note of the information provided in the Government’s report.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, provided that any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this may endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine of up to three months’ imprisonment and recalled that, if this provision applied to strike action, it should be amended so that such penalties may only be imposed with respect to essential services in the strict sense of the term and that the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation. Noting the indication in the Government’s latest report that this section has never been invoked, the Committee requests the Government to consider amending this provision so as to ensure that it may not be invoked in the case of strikes, with the possible exception of those in essential services in the strict sense of the term, and thus ensure that workers’ organizations may carry out their activities and formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities.

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the draft legislation regarding trade union recognition is still at the consultative stage with the employers’ and workers’ representatives and that a copy of the text will be transmitted once the draft legislation has been reviewed and approved. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report.

The Committee notes with concern that for 15 years it has been commenting on section 4 of the Better Security Act, 1920, which provides that any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or hiring, knowing that this may endanger real or personal property, is liable to a fine or up to three months' imprisonment, and that the Government in its report again informs the Committee that the Act has not yet been amended. The Committee again recalls that if this provision is applicable in the case of a strike, it should be amended so that such penalties may only be imposed with respect to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal health or safety of the whole or part of the population, and that the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation. The Committee, therefore, urges the Government to amend the legislation to bring it into conformity with the principles of freedom of association, and requests it to inform the Committee of any measures taken in this regard, and to state whether this provision has been invoked in recent years.

The Committee also notes the statement in the Government's report that draft legislation regarding trade union recognition is currently under review. The Committee requests the Government to forward it a copy of this draft legislation and to keep it informed of the various stages in the adoption process that it has passed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, under section 4 of the Better Security Act of 1920 (Chapter 160), any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or employment knowing that he or she may thus endanger real or personal property is liable to three months' imprisonment or a fine. The Committee had recalled that, if this provision was applicable in the event of a strike, it should be amended so that such penalties could only be imposed with respect to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of whole or part of the population and that the sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations.

The Committee notes that, although the Government has been indicating its intention to amend the Better Security Act since 1984, the Government has once again indicated in its latest report that no amendment has been made in this respect. The Committee therefore once again asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged to bring section 4 of the Better Security Act into conformity with the principles of freedom of association and to state whether this provision has been invoked in recent years.

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

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

In its previous comments concerning section 4 of the Better Security Act of 1920 (Chapter 160) under which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or employment, knowing that he or she may thus endanger real or personal property, is liable to imprisonment or a fine, the Committee had noted the Government's statement to the effect that this provision had not been invoked for many years and that it was unlikely that its sanctions would be applied, since it was outdated. The Committee once again recalls that if this provision is applicable in the event of a strike, it should be amended in order to limit the scope of restrictions which are enforceable with penalties to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of whole or part of the population and that sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of violations (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 178). In its latest report, the Government indicated that the Better Security Act had not yet been amended. As the Government had indicated its intention to amend the Act since 1984, the Committee asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged to bring the provision in question into conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

In its previous comments concerning section 4 of the Better Security Act of 1920 (Chapter 160) under which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or employment, knowing that he or she may thus endanger real or personal property, is liable to imprisonment or a fine, the Committee had noted the Government's statement to the effect that this provision had not been invoked for many years and that it was unlikely that its sanctions would be applied, since it was outdated.

The Committee once again recalls that if this provision is applicable in the event of a strike, it should be amended in order to limit the scope of restrictions which are enforceable with penalties to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of whole or part of the population and that sanctions should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of violations (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 178).

In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Better Security Act has not yet been amended. As the Government has indicated its intention to amend the Act since 1984, the Committee asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged to bring the provision in question into conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

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

In its previous comments concerning section 4 of the Better Security Act of 1920 (Chapter 160) under which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or employment, knowing that he may thus endanger real or personal property, is liable to imprisonment or a fine, the Committee had noted the Government's statement to the effect that this provision had not been invoked for many years and that it was unlikely that its sanctions would be applied, since it was outdated.

Given the Government's statement that it would consider amending this provision of the Act along the lines suggested by the Committee in its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the amended Act once adopted.

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

In its previous direct requests concerning section 4 of the Better Security Act of 1920 (Chapter 160) under which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or employment, knowing that he may thus endanger real or personal property, is liable to imprisonment or a fine, the Committee had noted the Government's statement to the effect that this provision had not been invoked for many years and that it was unlikely that its sanctions would be applied, since it is outdated.

The Committee points out once more that if this provision is applicable in the event of a strike, it should be amended in order to limit the scope of restrictions which are enforceable with penalties, to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes the Government's statement reiterating that it will consider amending the Better Security Act, an intention it already expressed in its 1984 and 1988 reports. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate when this amending legislation will be tabled, and would appreciate receiving a copy of the Act once adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

In its previous direct requests concerning section 4 of the Better Security Act of 1920 (Chapter 160) under which any person who wilfully breaks a contract of service or employment, knowing that he may thus endanger real or personal property, is liable to imprisonment or a fine, the Committee had noted the Government's statement to the effect that this provision had not been invoked for many years and that it was unlikely that its sanctions would be applied, since it is outdated.

The Committee points out once more that if this provision is applicable in the event of a strike, it should be amended in order to limit the scope of restrictions which are enforceable with penalties, to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes with interest the Government's statement to the effect that it will consider amending the Better Security Act, an intention it already expressed in its 1984 report. The Committee requests the Government to indicate when this amending legislation will be tabled, and would appreciate receiving a copy of the Act once adopted.