Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Ghana (Ratification: 1959)

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

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the nature and outcome of the inquiries carried out into a series of allegations of anti-union discrimination made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009 and 2011. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that after an investigation, the allegations were considered to be unfounded. It briefly indicates that the investigation showed that an employer refused to allow its workers to unionise, which created a misunderstanding between the workers and the employer. However, the situation was settled amicably and the workers have been unionised ever since. The Government added that there have been no discrimination problems in the country. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government concerning one specific case of alleged anti-union discrimination. Highlighting that the absence of anti-union discrimination complaints may be due to reasons other than an absence of anti-union discrimination acts and recalling the allegations raised by the ITUC concerned a series of different instances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, on the one hand, the competent authorities take fully into account in their control and prevention activities the issue of anti-union discrimination, and that on the other hand, the workers in the country are fully informed of their rights regarding this issue. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken in this regard, as well as any statistics concerning the anti-union discrimination acts reported to the authorities and the decisions taken in this respect.

Article 4. Collective bargaining certification. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the procedure to be followed in the event that no consensus is reached by all the stakeholders concerning the mode of verification and venue of elections for the determination of the most representative union. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that if consensus is not reached, the National Labour Commission (NLC) decides on the matter. While noting that section 10(3) of the Labour Regulations, 2007 does not provide the procedure to be followed by the NLC, the Committee recalls that the criteria to be applied to determine the representative status of organizations for the purpose of bargaining must be objective, pre-established and precise so as to avoid any opportunity for partiality or abuse (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 228). The Committee therefore requests the Government, after consulting the representative organizations of workers and employers, to take the necessary legislative or regulatory initiatives so as to ensure that the procedure concerning the mode of verification and venue of elections for the determination of the most representative union fully complies with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Article 5. Prison staff. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that prison staff enjoyed the right to organize and bargain collectively whether through an amendment to the Labour Act or other legislative means. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that it is examining the revision of the Labour Act in tripartite consultations. The Committee hopes that the Government and the social partners will reach an agreement to amend the legislation along the lines that the Committee has been suggesting for years. The Committee requests the Government to provide any information on the results of the consultative process in the near future. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance from the Office.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements signed and in force in the country and to indicate the sector and the number of workers covered.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2017, the content of which is being examined under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the nature and outcome of the inquiries carried out into allegations of anti-union discrimination made by the ITUC in 2009 and 2011 and to ensure the application of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in all cases where they proved to be well founded. The Committee regrets that the only information transmitted by the Government with regard to these allegations is a mere reference to the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) and provisions concerning termination of appointment by the employers. The Committee, once again, firmly requests the Government to provide detailed information on the nature and outcome of the inquiries carried out into allegations of anti-union discrimination made by the ITUC, including information on any sanctions or remedies applied in any cases in which the allegations were found to be substantiated.

Article 4. Collective bargaining certification. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation clearly provides for an election with a view to determining the most representative union for the purposes of collective bargaining in the event of plurality of trade unions in workplaces. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that in practice, the Chief Labour Officer calls a meeting to discuss with the union representatives the mode of verification and venue for elections to determine the most representative union and that elections are held when a consensus is reached by all the stakeholders. The Committee takes note that this process is based on section 10(1) of the Labour Regulations, 2007. Recalling that the criteria to be applied to determine the representative status of organizations for the purpose of bargaining must be objective, pre-established and precise so as to avoid any opportunity for partiality or abuse (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 228), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the procedure to be followed in the event that no consensus is reached by all the stakeholders with regard to the mode of verification and venue of elections for the determination of the most representative union.

Article 5. Prison staff. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that prison staff enjoyed the right to organize and bargain collectively whether through amendment to the Labour Act or other legislative means. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that prisons services staff are excluded from the right to form a union guaranteed by the Labour Act because they have their own mode of handling their social and welfare issues, but that the concerns raised are being considered by the appropriate authorities. Recalling once again that the provisions of the Convention apply to prison staff, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that prison staff may exercise the guarantees in the Convention through organizations capable of defending their interests, including in collective bargaining, and to provide information on development made by the appropriate authorities in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to conduct the necessary inquiries into allegations of anti-union discrimination made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009 and 2011 and, in all cases where they proved to be well founded, to ensure the application of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee also requested the Government to reply to the ITUC’s allegation that some employers had used a 2008 decision of the Accra High Court, that employers could dismiss workers without giving any reasons, to remove trade unionists from their enterprises. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that it has taken the necessary steps to investigate the ITUC’s allegations and refers to the prohibition against anti-union discrimination in the Labour Act 2003. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the nature and outcome of the inquiries carried out into allegations of anti-union discrimination made by the ITUC including, in any cases in which the allegations were found to be substantiated, information on any sanctions or remedies applied.

Article 4. Collective bargaining certification. In previous observations, the Committee had requested the Government to ensure that legislation clearly provided for an election with a view to determining the most representative union for the purposes of collective bargaining in the event of plurality of trade unions. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the unions have the prerogative of deciding in good faith the modality that best suits them and that the union issued with the bargaining certificate is obliged to consult or, where appropriate, invite other unions to participate in the negotiation process. The Government further indicates that, in practice, the Chief Labour Officer will call a meeting to discuss with union representatives the mode of verification and venue for elections to determine the most representative union. The Committee again recalls that when national legislation provides for a compulsory procedure for recognizing unions as exclusive bargaining agents, certain safeguards should be attached. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the legislation clearly provides for an election with a view to determining the most representative union for the purposes of collective bargaining in the event of plurality of trade unions in workplaces, and to provide information on developments in this regard.

Article 5. Prison staff. In previous observations, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that members of the prison service staff enjoyed the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Committee notes that the Government has indicated that the exclusion of prisons services staff from the Labour Act is reasonably necessary in the interest of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others and that the concerns raised are being considered by the appropriate authorities. Recalling once again that the provisions of the Convention apply to prison staff, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that prison staff may exercise the guarantees in the Convention through organizations capable of defending their interests, including in collective bargaining, whether through amendment to the Labour Act or other legislative means, and to provide information on developments in this regard.

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

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it requested the Government to reply to several comments by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). The Committee requests the Government to conduct the necessary inquiries into the allegations of anti-union discrimination contained in these comments and, in all cases where they prove to be well founded, to ensure the application of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee also once again requests the Government to reply to the comments of the ITUC concerning the 2008 decision of the Accra High Court that employers can dismiss workers without giving any reasons denouncing that some employers use this ruling to remove trade unionists from their enterprises.

Prison staff. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that members of the prison service staff enjoy the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that appropriate action will be taken to bring the legislation in this area into line with the provisions of the Convention. Recalling once again that the Convention’s guarantees apply to prison service staff, the Committee hopes to be able to note tangible progress on this subject in the Government’s next report.

Collective bargaining certification. The Committee previously noted that, under section 99(4) of the 2003 Labour Act, the Chief Labour Officer appeared to have full discretion to decide which trade union to grant recognition to, in situations where more than one trade union existed at the workplace, and that the criteria upon which this decision should be based were not specified. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 10.1 of the 2007 Labour Regulations provides that, in this situation, “the Chief Labour Officer shall invite the unions concerned to a meeting to determine the date, venue and the mode of the verification exercise to determine the union with the majority of votes to be issued with a Bargaining Certificate”. The Committee notes however that, according to the Labour Regulations available on the ILO NATLEX database, section 10.1 of the Regulations provides that “the Chief Labour Officer shall invite the unions to a meeting to undertake verification to determine which union represents the majority of the workers to be issued with a bargaining certificate”. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the legislation clearly provides for an election with a view to determining the most representative union for the purposes of collective bargaining in the event of plurality of trade unions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 August 2011, particularly concerning a 2008 decision of the Accra High Court to the effect that employers could hire and fire without giving any reasons for the termination of employment and that some employers are using this ruling to get rid of unionists. The Committee had also previously noted the comments made by the ITUC in 2009 concerning the persistent refusal of some employers to the unionization of their employees in export processing zones, a current dispute concerning unionization in the export processing zones pending before the National Labour Commission and instances of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to respond to all these comments of the ITUC.

Prison staff. In several of its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that prison service staff enjoys the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Committee noted that the Government indicated that the Ghana Prison Service is a state agency classified under the security and intelligence agencies which derived its mandate from the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526). The Committee further noted that the Government indicated that the concerns raised by the Committee had been communicated to the competent authorities. Recalling once again that the Convention’s guarantees apply to prison service staff, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Labour Act, so as to ensure that prison service staff expressly enjoy the right to organize and to collective bargaining, and to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated in this regard.

Collective bargaining certification. The Committee had previously noted that sections 99–100 of the Labour Act, 2003, regulate the issue of trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes by providing that the Chief Labour Officer shall issue, upon request by a trade union, a certificate appointing that trade union as the appropriate representative to conduct negotiations on behalf of the class of workers specified in the collective bargaining certificate. The Committee further noted that under section 99(4), the Chief Labour Officer appeared to have full discretion to decide which trade union to grant recognition to, in situations where more than one trade union existed at the workplace, and that the criteria upon which this decision should be based were not specified. The Committee also noted that the Government indicated that in this situation, the Chief Labour Officer would consult with both trade unions to undertake verification to determine which union is to be issued a bargaining certificate. In these circumstances, the Committee once again recalled that when national legislation provides for a compulsory procedure for recognizing unions as exclusive bargaining agents, certain safeguards should be attached, such as: (a) the certification to be made by an independent body; (b) the representative organization to be chosen by a majority vote of the employees in the unit concerned; (c) the right of an organization, which in a previous trade union election failed to secure a sufficiently large number of votes, to request a new election after a stipulated period; and (d) the right of any new organization other than the certified organization to demand a new election after a reasonable period has elapsed (see the General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 240). The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to adopt the appropriate regulations establishing procedures and objective criteria concerning the Chief Labour Officer’s competence to determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate, in keeping with the abovementioned principle, and to provide information on developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the ITUC dated 31 July 2012 concerning anti-union practices.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 August 2011, particularly concerning a 2008 decision of the Accra High Court to the effect that employers could hire and fire without giving any reasons for the termination of employment and that some employers are using this ruling to get rid of unionists. The Committee had also previously noted the comments made by the ITUC in 2009 concerning the persistent refusal of some employers to the unionization of their employees in export processing zones, a current dispute concerning unionization in the export processing zones pending before the National Labour Commission and instances of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to respond to all these comments of the ITUC.

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

Prison staff. In several of its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that prison service staff enjoys the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Committee noted that the Government indicated that the Ghana Prison Service is a state agency classified under the security and intelligence agencies which derived its mandate from the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526). The Committee further noted that the Government indicated that the concerns raised by the Committee had been communicated to the competent authorities. Recalling once again that the Convention’s guarantees apply to prison service staff, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Labour Act, so as to ensure that prison service staff expressly enjoy the right to organize and to collective bargaining, and to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated in this regard.

Collective bargaining certification. The Committee had previously noted that sections 99–100 of the Labour Act, 2003, regulate the issue of trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes by providing that the Chief Labour Officer shall issue, upon request by a trade union, a certificate appointing that trade union as the appropriate representative to conduct negotiations on behalf of the class of workers specified in the collective bargaining certificate. The Committee further noted that under section 99(4), the Chief Labour Officer appeared to have full discretion to decide which trade union to grant recognition to, in situations where more than one trade union existed at the workplace, and that the criteria upon which this decision should be based were not specified. The Committee also noted that the Government indicated that in this situation, the Chief Labour Officer would consult with both trade unions to undertake verification to determine which union is to be issued a bargaining certificate. In these circumstances, the Committee once again recalled that when national legislation provides for a compulsory procedure for recognizing unions as exclusive bargaining agents, certain safeguards should be attached, such as: (a) the certification to be made by an independent body; (b) the representative organization to be chosen by a majority vote of the employees in the unit concerned; (c) the right of an organization, which in a previous trade union election failed to secure a sufficiently large number of votes, to request a new election after a stipulated period; and (d) the right of any new organization other than the certified organization to demand a new election after a reasonable period has elapsed (see the General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 240). The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to adopt the appropriate regulations establishing procedures and objective criteria concerning the Chief Labour Officer’s competence to determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate, in keeping with the abovementioned principle, and to provide information on developments in this regard.

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

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 26 August 2009, particularly concerning the persistent refusal of some employers to the unionization of their employees in export processing zones, a current dispute concerning unionization in the export processing zones pending before the National Labour Commission and instances of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to respond to the comments of the ITUC.

Prison staff. In several of its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that prison service staff enjoy the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Committee notes that the Government’s report indicates that the Ghana Prison Service is a state agency classified under the security and intelligence agencies which derived its mandate from the Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526). The Committee notes that the Government’s report once again indicates that the concerns raised by the Committee have been communicated to the competent authorities. Recalling once again that the Convention’s guarantees apply to prison service staff, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Labour Act, so as to ensure that prison service staff expressly enjoy the right to organize and to collective bargaining, and to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated in this regard.

Collective bargaining certification. The Committee had previously noted that sections 99–100 of the Labour Act, 2003, regulate the issue of trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes by providing that the Chief Labour Officer shall issue, upon request by a trade union, a certificate appointing that trade union as the appropriate representative to conduct negotiations on behalf of the class of workers specified in the collective bargaining certificate. The Committee further noted that under section 99(4), the Chief Labour Officer appeared to have full discretion to decide which trade union to grant recognition to, in situations where more than one trade union existed at the workplace, and that the criteria upon which this decision should be based were not specified. The Committee notes that the Government, in its report, indicates that in this situation, the Chief Labour Officer will consult with both trade unions to undertake verification to determine which union is to be issued a bargaining certificate. In these circumstances, the Committee once again recalls that when national legislation provides for a compulsory procedure for recognizing unions as exclusive bargaining agents, certain safeguards should be attached, such as: (a) the certification to be made by an independent body; (b) the representative organization to be chosen by a majority vote of the employees in the unit concerned; (c) the right of an organization, which in a previous trade union election failed to secure a sufficiently large number of votes, to request a new election after a stipulated period; and (d) the right of any new organization other than the certified organization to demand a new election after a reasonable period has elapsed (see the General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 240). The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to adopt the appropriate regulations establishing procedures and objective criteria concerning the Chief Labour Officer’s competence to determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate, in keeping with the abovementioned principle, and to provide information on developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It further notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication of 29 August 2008; the ITUC’s comments primarily refer to legislative matters previously raised by the Committee.

Prison staff. Previously, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that prison service staff enjoy the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that this request has been communicated to the Sector Minister for due consideration. Recalling that the Convention’s guarantees apply to prison service staff, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Labour Act, so as to ensure that prison service staff expressly enjoy the right to organize and to collective bargaining, and to provide information on developments in this regard.

Collective bargaining certification. The Committee had previously noted that sections 99–100 of the Labour Act, 2003, regulate the issue of trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes by providing that the Chief Labour Officer shall issue, upon request by a trade union, a certificate appointing that trade union as the appropriate representative to conduct negotiations on behalf of the class of workers specified in the collective bargaining certificate (section 99). Further noting that under section 99(4), the Chief Labour Officer appeared to have full discretion to decide which trade union to grant recognition to, in situations where more than one trade union existed at the work place, and that the criteria upon which this decision should be based were not specified, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any regulations adopted or envisaged under section 99 of the Labour Act with a view to setting up procedures and criteria relevant to the Chief Labour Officer’s competence to determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no indications in respect of the abovementioned relevant criteria, but rather limits itself to repeating the provisions of section 99 of the Labour Act, 2003. In these circumstances, the Committee once again recalls that in cases in which a system of “compulsory” recognition has been established, where the employer must recognize the existing trade union(s) under certain conditions, it is important for the determination of the trade union in question to be based on objective and pre-established criteria so as to avoid any opportunity for partiality or abuse. Furthermore, when national legislation provides for a compulsory procedure for recognizing unions as exclusive bargaining agents, certain safeguards should be attached, such as: (a) the certification to be made by an independent body; (b) the representative organization to be chosen by a majority vote of the employees in the unit concerned; (c) the right of an organization, which in a previous trade union election failed to secure a sufficiently large number of votes, to request a new election after a stipulated period; and (d) the right of any new organization other than the certified organization to demand a new election after a reasonable period has elapsed (see the General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 240). The Committee requests the Government to take measures to adopt the appropriate regulations establishing procedures and objective criteria concerning the Chief Labour Officer’s competence to determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate, in keeping with the abovementioned principle, and to provide information on developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It further notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

The Committee had previously taken note of the comments submitted by the ITUC in 2006, which referred to acts of anti-union discrimination in many companies. The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its reply to the ITUC’s 2006 comments, that it has received no reports of complaints of anti-union discrimination and that the legislation provides adequate protection, including sanctions, against such acts.

Prison staff. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the Convention No. 87 report that while no legal provisions set forth the right to organize of prison staff, prison service staff have formed an association to protect and promote their interests. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to amend the Labour Act so as to ensure that prison service staff expressly enjoy the right to organize and to collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining certification. Finally, the Committee had previously noted that sections 99–100 of the Labour Act, 2004, regulate the issue of trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes by providing that the Chief Labour Officer shall issue, upon request by a trade union, a certificate appointing that trade union as the appropriate representative to conduct negotiations on behalf of the class of workers specified in the collective bargaining certificate (section 99). The Chief Labour Officer shall, subject to regulations made by the minister, determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate in a situation where there is more than one trade union at the workplace (section 99(4)), and may issue an amending certificate after consultation with the trade union named in the certificate and the appropriate employers’ organization (section 100).

It seems to the Committee that the Chief Labour Officer has full discretion to decide whether to grant recognition to a trade union and that the criteria upon which this decision should be based are not specified. The Committee considers that in cases in which a system of “compulsory” recognition has been established, where the employer must recognize the existing trade union(s) under certain conditions, it is important for the determination of the trade union in question to be based on objective and pre-established criteria so as to avoid any opportunity for partiality or abuse. Furthermore, when national legislation provides for a compulsory procedure for recognizing unions as exclusive bargaining agents, certain safeguards should be attached, such as: (a) the certification to be made by an independent body; (b) the representative organization to be chosen by a majority vote of the employees in the unit concerned; (c) the right of an organization, which in a previous trade union election failed to secure a sufficiently large number of votes, to request a new election after a stipulated period; and (d) the right of any new organization other than the certified organization to demand a new election after a reasonable period has elapsed (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 240). Noting also that the comments submitted by the ITUC refer to the refusal to grant trade union recognition in two enterprises, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any regulations adopted or envisaged under section 99 of the Labour Act with a view to setting up procedures and criteria relevant to the Chief Labour Officer’s competence to determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) of 10 August 2006, referring to the denial of the right to collective bargaining for workers in the prison services, who are excluded from the right of association in the same way as workers in the intelligence services, and to acts of anti-union discrimination in many companies. The Committee notes the recent reply from the Government, which will be examined at its next session.

The Committee also requests the Government, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, to provide its observations for the Committee’s next session (November-December 2007) on all of the issues relating to legislation and the application of the Convention in practice raised in its previous direct request in 2005 (see 2005 direct request, 76th Session).

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Article 4 of the Convention. Measures to encourage and promote the development of voluntary negotiation between employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes that sections 99-100 of the Labour Act, 2004, regulate the issue of trade union recognition for collective bargaining purposes by providing that the Chief Labour Officer shall issue, upon request by a trade union, a certificate appointing that trade union as the appropriate representative to conduct negotiations on behalf of the class of workers specified in the collective bargaining certificate (section 99); the Chief Labour Officer shall, subject to regulations made by the Minister, determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate in a situation where there is more than one trade union at the workplace (section 99(4)); the Chief Labour Officer may issue an amending certificate after consultation with the trade union named in the certificate and the appropriate employers’ organization (section 100).

It seems to the Committee that the Chief Labour Officer has full discretion to decide whether to grant recognition to a trade union and that the criteria upon which this decision should be based are not specified. The Committee considers that in cases in which a system of "compulsory" recognition has been established, where the employer must recognize the existing trade union(s) under certain conditions, it is important for the determination of the trade union in question to be based on objective and pre-established criteria so as to avoid any opportunity for partiality or abuse. Furthermore, when national legislation provides for a compulsory procedure for recognizing unions as exclusive bargaining agents, certain safeguards should be attached, such as: (a) the certification to be made by an independent body; (b) the representative organization to be chosen by a majority vote of the employees in the unit concerned; (c) the right of an organization, which in a previous trade union election failed to secure a sufficiently large number of votes, to request a new election after a stipulated period; and (d) the right of any new organization other than the certified organization to demand a new election after a reasonable period has elapsed (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 240). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any regulations adopted or envisaged under section 99 of the Labour Act with a view to setting up procedures and criteria relevant to the Chief Labour Officer’s competence to determine which union shall hold a collective bargaining certificate.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report containing information on the Labour Act, 2004, which entered into force on 31 March 2004 and notes with interest that this legislation, adopted following ILO technical assistance, takes largely into account the provisions contained in the Convention.

The Committee addresses a request on another point directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. The Committee recalls its previous comments which referred to the need to repeal the 1985 Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) Law 125, section 2 of which prohibits the application of the collective agreement to the Ghana Cocoa Board in cases where the Board decides to declare workers redundant for economic reasons, and section 3 of which cancels the provisions of collective agreements with respect to redundancy awards in the case of redundancies declared for economic reasons.

The Committee notes with satisfaction that the Government indicates in its report that the 1985 (PNDC) Law 125 has been repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1996 (Act No. 516).

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. Recalling that its previous comments concerned the 1985 Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) Law 125, section 2 of which prohibits the application of the collective agreement to the Ghana Cocoa Board in cases where the Board decides to declare workers redundant for economic reasons, and section 3 of which cancels the provisions of collective agreements with respect to redundancy awards in the case of redundancies declared for economic reasons, the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the law in question, has in fact now been repealed and, if not, to take the necessary measures to see that this is done. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

The Committee hopes that the Government will do all in its power to take the necessary measures in the very near future.

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

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

With reference to the Ghana Trades Union Congress's (TUC) observations on the redundancies which took place at the Ghana Cocoa Board under the terms of the Ghana Cocoa Board (Re-organization and Indemnity) Law, 1985 Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) Law 125, the Committee notes the Government's statement that action has been initiated to repeal the law in question. This process, however, entails submission of a cabinet memorandum and the eventual submission of a draft bill to Parliament which has the responsibility for repeal of legislation. The Committee would request the Government to provide it with the text of the repealing legislation once the process described above has been completed.

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 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the observations of the Ghana Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the reply of the Government thereto.

1. In its communication concerning certain restrictions on bargaining of wages and salaries in subsidized (publicly financed) organizations, the TUC states that in order to narrow the disparities between civil service salaries and those of public sector agencies, the Government issued Circular No. B.2/93 which introduced a freeze on salaries and wages in subsidized organizations which employ union members with collective bargaining rights. The Committee notes the TUC's statement that subsidized organizations are not civil service establishments and that the right of their employees to bargain collectively and freely becomes frustrated by this directive. The Government states that the above-mentioned Circular was not aimed at stopping negotiations on wages and salaries. The Circular was issued to enable the Government time to study an impending report of a Salaries Commission on salary relativities; however, steps have been taken since then to withdraw the said Circular.

The Committee notes the above information and would recall that since Article 6 of Convention No. 98 only allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope, other categories should enjoy the guarantees of the Convention and therefore be able to negotiate collectively their conditions of employment, including wages (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 262).

2. In its communication relating to redundancies in the cocoa industry, the TUC explains that section 2 of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) Law 125 outlaws collective bargaining within the Ghana Cocoa Board in cases where the Board decides to declare workers redundant, while section 3 sets aside provisions in existing collective agreements with respect to Redundancy Awards. By virtue of this law, 10,400 workers were declared redundant by the Cocoa Board in July 1993. Contrary to its own previous decision to pay two years' salary to redundant workers as severance pay, the Cocoa Board decided to reduce the award to six months' pay, even though other workers declared redundant in January 1993 were paid two years' award.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that agreement was reached to pay the severance award to the above-mentioned 10,400 workers based on an formula agreed between the Ghana Cocoa Board and the trade unions, and that payment has been made accordingly. It further notes that the Government is taking steps to repeal the law in question; it would request the Government to supply the repealing legislation.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

With reference to the Ghana Trades Union Congress's (TUC) observations on the redundancies which took place at the Ghana Cocoa Board under the terms of the Ghana Cocoa Board (Re-organization and Indemnity) Law, 1985 Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) Law 125, the Committee notes the Government's statement that action has been initiated to repeal the law in question. This process, however, entails submission of a cabinet memorandum and the eventual submission of a draft bill to Parliament which has the responsibility for repeal of legislation.

The Committee would request the Government to provide it with the text of the repealing legislation once the process described above has been completed.

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

The Committee takes note of two communications of the Ghana Trade Union Congress (TUC) relating to the application of the Convention with regard to certain restrictions on bargaining of wages and salaries in publicly financed organizations and on redundancy in the cocoa industry.

In view of the fact that the Government has not yet replied to the comments of the TUC, the Committee will deal with these questions at its next meeting once it has examined the Government's observations.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1994.]

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

The Committee notes the written information provided by the Government in reply to its previous direct request at the Conference Committee in 1989, to the effect that there are no accurate statistics of the number of collective agreements concluded, and the number of workers covered by these agreements, as the obligation by law to forward all collective agreements was not always complied with. However, the Government indicates that many collective agreements are negotiated at the level of the enterprise.

The Committee trusts that it will be possible for arrangements to be made to have such statistics compiled. Furthermore, it would be grateful if, in its future reports, the Government would provide information on the practical operation of the machinery to promote collective bargaining and on any difficulties encountered and steps taken to remedy them.