Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) - Eswatini (Ratification: 1981)

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

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Criteria for determining the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls its 2017 observation, in which it noted the Government’s indication that one of the key challenges affecting social dialogue in Eswatini was the absence of clear criteria for determining the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations for purposes of the Convention. On the question of the establishment of clear and transparent criteria for determining the most representative organizations of employers and workers, the Government indicates that the definition of such criteria was left to the social partners. Therefore, it was agreed that the workers’ federations (the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA) and the Federation of Swaziland Trade Unions (FESWATU)) and the employers’ federations (Business Eswatini (BE) and the Federation of the Swazi Business Community (FESBC)), would hold their own bilateral discussions on this issue and inform the Government of the outcomes. Subsequently, the workers’ federations signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on this issue on 21 February 2019. The employers’ federations have not yet informed the Government of the outcome of their bilateral discussions in this regard. The Committee notes that the Government provides a copy of the MoU signed by the workers’ federations. The Committee invites the Government to provide updated information in its next report on developments in relation to this issue.

Article 5(1). Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government relative to the two main tripartite social dialogue institutions established in Eswatini: the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) and the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue (NSCSD). The Committee notes that, pursuant to section 24(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, No. 1 of 2000, LAB is mandated to, among other things, carry out tripartite consultations in respect of all of the matters relative to international labour standards enumerated under Article 5(1) of the Convention. With regard to the frequency of consultations, section 25(4) of the Industrial Relations Act provides that LAB shall convene four times a year, or upon presentation of a petition by any six members of LAB. The Government indicates, however, that over the years, some overlaps occurred with regard to the functions of LAB and the NSCSD. In particular, some of the issues that pertain to the mandate of LAB pursuant to Part III of the Industrial Relations Act, such as consultations on reports to be submitted to the ILO and matters relating to preparations for the annual International Labour Conference, were being tabled for discussion before the NSCSD instead of LAB. This situation gave rise to confusion regarding the functioning of these two national social dialogue institutions. This issue was raised by the social partners during a special social dialogue meeting held on 10 December 2018 in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. At the initiative of the tripartite constituents, an Ad Hoc Tripartite Working Committee on Social Dialogue was created to study options for strengthening the national social dialogue structures and clarify the functions of the two tripartite bodies to avoid any similar confusion in future. The Government adds that, to improve the practical implementation of the Convention, the Ad Hoc Tripartite Working Committee will collaborate with the ILO-Pretoria office. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the activities of LAB and the NSCSD; however, it notes that the report contains no information on tripartite consultations relating to the matters required under Article 5(1) of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its request that the Government provide detailed information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held in Labour Advisory Board (LAB) on the matters relative to international labour standards covered by the Convention under Article 5(1)(a)–(e). It further requests the Government to communicate updated information in its next report on developments with regard to the clarification of the mandates and activities of LAB and the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue, as well as in respect to its efforts to strengthen and promote social dialogue more generally.

Article 5(1)(c) and (e). Prospects of ratification of unratified Conventions and proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions. The Government refers to a communication of 9 April, 2019 from the Director of International Labour Standards, drawing its attention to the impact that the submission of four outdated Conventions, notably the Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 (No. 45), to the International Labour Conference for abrogation in 2024, will have on the Kingdom of Eswatini, considering the country’s ratification status. The Government reports that this matter will be tabled before LAB in its first meeting following the appointment of a new Board. The Government further indicates that a Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) is currently being drafted for the country, which will include proposals for the ratification of certain international labour standards. The Government refers to the possibility of requesting the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard. The Committee encourages the Government to avail itself of ILO assistance, as appropriate, and invites the Government to provide updated information on the content and outcome of tripartite consultations held regarding the possible ratification of up-to-date Conventions, as well as in relation to the possible denunciation of outdated Conventions. In particular, and recalling its 2017 observation, noting that the Labour Advisory Board had agreed on a time-bound work plan in 2016 to discuss the possible ratification of the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), the Committee requests the Government to provide information on progress in respect of such discussions and their outcomes.

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

Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. Representativeness. Effective tripartite consultations. Representation of the social partners. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on the matters regarding international labour standards covered by the Convention (Article 5) and the measures taken to select the most representative organizations of employers and workers in the tripartite bodies discussing international labour standards. The Government reports that there are two institutionalized national social dialogue structures in Swaziland: the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) and the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue (NSCSD). Pursuant to section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act, No. 1 of 2000, the LAB is mandated to: examine items or texts to be discussed by the International Labour Conference (ILC); prepare for the submission of Conventions and Recommendations to the competent authorities; provide measures for the implementation of Recommendations or the ratification of Conventions; address questions arising out of reports submitted under articles 19 and 22 of the ILO Constitution; and examine the possible denunciation of ratified Conventions. The Government adds that the tripartite consultations relating to international standards, as required under Article 5 of the Convention, are carried out in the LAB. In contrast, the NSCSD was established to facilitate social dialogue in respect of all other socio-economic issues which are not within the scope and mandate of the LAB. The Government indicates that one of the key challenges affecting social dialogue in Swaziland is the absence of clear criteria for determining the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations for purposes of the Convention. It adds that discussions in this regard are currently pending before the NSCSD. The Committee refers to its General Survey on tripartite consultations, 2000, paragraph 34, in which it indicates that if in a particular country there are two or more organizations of employers or workers which represent a significant body of opinion, even though one of them may be larger than the others, they may all be considered to be “most representative organizations” for the purpose of the Convention. The Government should endeavour to secure an agreement of all the organizations concerned in establishing the consultative procedures provided for by the Convention, but if this is not possible it is in the last resort for the Government to decide, in good faith, in the light of the national circumstances, which organizations are to be considered as the most representative. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to provide detailed information on the frequency, content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held in the Labour Advisory Board on the matters regarding international labour standards covered by the Convention under Article 5(1)(a)–(e). It also requests the Government to communicate information regarding the tripartite discussions held and the measures taken or envisaged with respect to the development of clear and transparent criteria for selecting the most representative organizations of employers and workers for purposes of the Convention.

Article 5(1)(c) and (e). Prospects of ratification of unratified Conventions and proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions. The Government indicates that a time-bound work plan to consider the ratification of the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), was agreed upon by the LAB on 17 August 2016, but that implementation of the work plan has been delayed due to reasons beyond the parties’ control. Therefore, the LAB will discuss revising the timelines set in the work plan in order to envisage the ratification of the Convention, No. 189, before the end of November 2017. The Government undertakes to keep the Committee informed of progress made in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information on the content and outcome of tripartite consultations held regarding the possible ratification of up-to-date Conventions as well as in relation to the possible denunciation of outdated Conventions.

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

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Government indicates in its report that the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue had been meeting on a monthly basis since February 2010; however, on 28 March 2014, workers’ organizations had notified the Government that they were withdrawing from all tripartite structures. The Committee notes from the Government’s most recent report received in October 2015 that the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue was established with effect from 1 August 2015 by way of Legal Notice No. 120 of 2015. It also notes from the report that the social partners indicated at the Labour Advisory Board meeting of 22 October 2015 that there is a need to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are applied, especially with regard to the inclusion of representatives from employers’ and workers’ organizations in the tripartite structures, as more trade union federations would be registered in the future. In the view of workers’ organizations, the principle of “most representative” was not being followed. The Government indicates that it was concluded that the Labour Advisory Board would devise a formula in this regard and advise the Minister for Labour and Social Security accordingly. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the content and outcome of the tripartite consultations held on the matters regarding international labour standards covered by the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to select the most representative organizations of employers and workers in the tripartite bodies discussing international labour standards (Article 3).

Article 5(1)(c) and (e). Prospects of ratification of unratified Conventions and proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions. In reply to the previous comments regarding the possible denunciation of the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers Convention, 1936 (No. 50), the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 64), the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 65), and the Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1955 (No. 104), as well as the prospects of ratification of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), the Government indicates that there has been no conclusion of the discussions of these Conventions since tripartite structures had not been operational. The Government adds that the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176), and the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187), will be included in the agenda of the Labour Advisory Board for necessary action with a view to submitting these two instruments to the competent authorities for ratification. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any developments occurring in a tripartite context regarding the ratification of up-to-date Conventions and the denunciation of outdated Conventions.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in October 2010. The Government indicates that the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue has been restructured in order to operationalize social dialogue. The Committee also notes that, in September 2010, the ILO facilitated a workshop to the members of the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue. This workshop assisted the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue in moving the dialogue process forward. The Government also indicates that the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue has been meeting monthly since February 2010. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report detailed information on the tripartite consultations held, especially within the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue, on the matters regarding international labour standards covered by the Convention. It further requests the Government to provide examples of any reports or recommendations made as a result of the consultations held under the established procedures.

Prospects of ratification of unratified Conventions and proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions. The Government indicates that, as regards its replies to questionnaires on items of the agenda of the Conference, a joint meeting of the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) and the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue was held in May 2010. The Government further indicates that Convention No. 176 has not been ratified yet. However, the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187), has been submitted to the LAB for its consideration. Concerning the denunciation of the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers Convention, 1936 (No. 50), the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 64), the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 65), and the Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1955 (No. 104), the Government reports that the issue is on the LAB agenda and is being considered. In this regard, the Committee recalls again that the ILO Governing Body invited States parties to contemplate ratifying the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and denouncing Conventions Nos 50, 64, 65 and 104 at the same time. The Committee invites the Government to provide information on the follow-up regarding the ratification of Convention No. 187, as well as to supply information on any developments regarding the denunciation of Conventions Nos 50, 64, 65 and 104 and the ratification of Convention No. 169 (Article 5(1)(c) and (e) of the Convention).

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

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in October 2010. The Government indicates that the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue has been restructured in order to operationalize social dialogue. The Committee also notes that, in September 2010, the ILO facilitated a workshop to the members of the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue. This workshop assisted the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue in moving the dialogue process forward. The Government also indicates that the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue has been meeting monthly since February 2010. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report detailed information on the tripartite consultations held, especially within the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue, on the matters regarding international labour standards covered by the Convention. It further requests the Government to provide examples of any reports or recommendations made as a result of the consultations held under the established procedures.

Prospects of ratification of unratified Conventions and proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions. The Government indicates that, as regards its replies to questionnaires on items of the agenda of the Conference, a joint meeting of the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) and the National Steering Committee on Social Dialogue was held in May 2010. The Government further indicates that Convention No. 176 has not been ratified yet. However, the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187), has been submitted to the LAB for its consideration. Concerning the denunciation of the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers Convention, 1936 (No. 50), the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 64), the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 65), and the Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1955 (No. 104), the Government reports that the issue is on the LAB agenda and is being considered. In this regard, the Committee recalls again that the ILO Governing Body invited States parties to contemplate ratifying the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and denouncing Conventions Nos 50, 64, 65 and 104 at the same time. The Committee invites the Government to provide information on the follow-up regarding the ratification of Convention No. 187, as well as to supply information on any developments regarding the denunciation of Conventions Nos 50, 64, 65 and 104 and the ratification of Convention No. 169 (Article 5(1)(c) and (e) of the Convention).

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

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s reports received in January 2007 and September 2008. The Committee notes from the Government’s report received in January 2007 that the institutionalization of social dialogue was approved by the Cabinet and that the High-Level Social Dialogue Steering Committee commenced its work under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government indicates in its report received in September 2008 that it will ensure that there is consultation of the social partners in line with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the outcome of the process of the institutionalization of social dialogue, and to indicate what effect this has had on the implementation of effective tripartite consultations within the meaning of the Convention.

Article 5. Tripartite consultation required by the Convention. The Committee notes that in conformity with Article 5, paragraph 1(b), further to section 25 of the Industrial Relations Act, as amended, all instruments tabled in Parliament by the Ministry are a product of thorough consultation in the Labour Advisory Board. The Committee invites the Government to provide details on the activities of the Labour Advisory Board on all the matters listed in Article 5, paragraph 1. The Government is also requested to indicate the frequency of consultations held in this regard and to indicate the nature of any reports or recommendations made as a result thereof (Article 5, paragraph 2). In this respect, the Committee recalls that in its previous comment it noted that the Government was contemplating denouncing the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers Convention, 1936 (No. 50), the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 64), the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 65), and the Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1955 (No. 104), and that it will inform the Committee of developments regarding the ratification of the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176). In this regard, the Committee recalls again that the ILO Governing Body invited States parties to contemplate ratifying the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and denouncing Conventions Nos 50, 64, 65 and 104 at the same time. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard (Article 5, paragraph 1(e), of the Convention).

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

1. Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Strengthening social dialogue. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in January 2007 indicating that the institutionalization of social dialogue has been approved by the Cabinet and that the High‑level Social Dialogue Steering Committee has commenced its work and is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister. An inter-ministerial secretariat has also been established and is headed by the Commissioner of Labour. The Committee welcomes the establishment of the High-level Social Dialogue Steering Committee and would appreciate receiving information in the Government’s next report on its activities, as well as on the impact of other measures taken to improve social dialogue in the country and to implement effective tripartite consultation within the meaning of the Convention.

2. Article 5, paragraph 1(b). Prior tripartite consultation on proposals made to the National Assembly. The Committee notes that some instruments adopted by the Conference at its 82nd, 86th, 88th, 89th, 90th, 91st and 92nd Sessions were submitted to the House of Assembly on 27 February 2007. The Committee recalls that, for those States which have already ratified the Convention, effective prior consultations have to be made on the proposals made to the competent authorities in connection with the submission of the instruments adopted by the Conference. Governments have complete freedom as to the nature of the proposals to be made when submitting the instruments but, even if the Government does not intend proposing the ratification of a Convention, the social partners must be consulted sufficiently in advance for them to formulate their opinions before the Government finalizes its decision (please refer to paragraph 89 of the Committee of Experts’ General Report of 2004, as well as Part VII of the 2005 Memorandum concerning the obligation to submit Conventions and Recommendations to the competent authorities). The Committee trusts that the Government and the social partners will examine the measures to be taken with a view to holding “effective consultations” on the proposals made to the House of Assembly when submitting the instruments adopted by the Conference, as required by the Convention.

3. Article 5, paragraph 1(e). Other tripartite consultations required by the Convention. In its report, the Government indicates once again that the tripartite consultation required by the Convention concerning the denunciation of the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers Convention, 1936 (No. 50), the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 64), the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 65), and the Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1955 (No. 104), and concerning the ratification of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), has not been undertaken so far. The Committee once again expresses interest in being kept informed of any developments in this regard.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its 2005 observation, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in November 2004 in reply to its 2001 direct request, as well as the communication from the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) forwarded to the Government in November 2004.

2. Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. In its latest report, the Government indicates that it is contemplating denouncing the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers Convention, 1936 (No. 50), the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 64), the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 65), and the Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1955 (No. 104), and that it will inform the Committee on developments regarding the ratification of the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176). In this regard, the Committee recalls that the ILO Governing Body has invited States parties to contemplate ratifying the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and denouncing Conventions Nos. 50, 64, 65 and 104 at the same time. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard (Article 5, paragraph 1(e), of the Convention).

3. The Government also indicates that the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) is currently perusing the draft strategic action plan proposed by the Tripartite Workshop held in July 2004 under ILO auspices. While taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the consultations held by the LAB on each of the other matters set out in Article 5, paragraph 1, and to include information on the nature of the recommendations made by the LAB as a result of the consultations.

4. The Committee asks the Government to continue to include in its next report information on any consultations on the working of the procedures provided for in the Convention (Article 6).

5. Finally, in relation to the comments formulated by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions to the effect that workers’ organizations were prevented from submitting their views in the Constitution-making process on issues related to their fundamental rights, the Committee recalls that, at its 90th Session (June 2002), the Conference adopted a resolution concerning tripartism and social dialogue in which it emphasized that social dialogue and tripartism have proven to be valuable and democratic means to address social concerns, build consensus, help elaborate international labour standards and examine a wide range of labour issues in which the social partners play a direct, legitimate and irreplaceable role. The Committee trusts that the Government’s next report will contain indications on any measures taken in order to improve social dialogue in the country and to implement effective tripartite consultation in the sense of the Convention (Articles 2 and 5).

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

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

1. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in November 2004 in reply to its 2001 direct request, as well as the communication from the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) forwarded to the Government in November 2004.

2. Tripartite consultations required by the Convention. In its latest report, the Government indicates that it is contemplating denouncing the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers Convention, 1936 (No. 50), the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 64), the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 65), and the Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1955 (No. 104), and that it will inform the Committee on developments regarding the ratification of the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176). In this regard, the Committee recalls that the ILO Governing Body has invited States parties to contemplate ratifying the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and denouncing Conventions Nos. 50, 64, 65 and 104 at the same time. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard (Article 5, paragraph 1(e), of the Convention).

3. The Government also indicates that the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) is currently perusing the draft strategic action plan proposed by the Tripartite Workshop held in July 2004 under ILO auspices. While taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the consultations held by the LAB on each of the other matters set out in Article 5, paragraph 1, and to include information on the nature of the recommendations made by the LAB as a result of the consultations.

4. The Committee asks the Government to continue to include in its next report information on any consultations on the working of the procedures provided for in the Convention (Article 6).

5. Finally, in relation to the comments formulated by the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions to the effect that workers’ organizations were prevented from submitting their views in the Constitution-making process on issues related to their fundamental rights, the Committee recalls that, at its 90th Session (June 2002), the Conference adopted a resolution concerning tripartism and social dialogue in which it emphasized that social dialogue and tripartism have proven to be valuable and democratic means to address social concerns, build consensus, help elaborate international labour standards and examine a wide range of labour issues in which the social partners play a direct, legitimate and irreplaceable role. The Committee trusts that the Government’s next report will contain indications on any measures taken in order to improve social dialogue in the country and to implement effective tripartite consultation in the sense of the Convention (Articles 2 and 5).

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

1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information received from the Government in August 2000 and February 2001. It notes that the provisions of section 24(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2000, which received Royal Assent on 6 June 2000, reproduce the terms of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It also recalls that in its comments on the application of Convention No. 87, which were discussed as well by the 2001 Conference Committee, the Conference Committee urged the Government to pursue its commitment to full and meaningful social dialogue. In this sense, the Committee would appreciate it if the Government would provide more precise information on the consultations held at the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) on each of the matters set out in Article 5, paragraph 1. Please include information on the nature of the recommendations made by the LAB as a result of the consultations on the matters set out in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d).

2. Article 5, paragraph 1(e). The Committee notes with interest that the LAB has proposed Conventions Nos. 138 and 182 for ratification. The Government also indicates in its report that of the 31 Conventions which the country has ratified, no need has occurred to denounce any. The Committee recalls that the ILO Governing Body has invited States parties to the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers Convention, 1936 (No. 50), of the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 64), of the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1939 (No. 65) and of the Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention, 1955 (No. 104) - all of which Swaziland has ratified ­- to contemplate ratifying the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), and denouncing Conventions Nos. 50, 64, 65 and 104 at the same time. States parties to the Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 (No. 45) were invited to contemplate ratifying the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176).

3. The Committee trusts that the Government will continue to provide any available information on the consultations held by the LAB on the matters covered by the Convention, including indications on any consultations on the working of the procedures provided for in the Convention (Article 6) and a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country (Part V of the report form).

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

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

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period ending in May 1997 which contains no relevant information in reply to its previous comments. The Committee is therefore bound to note once again that, in none of its reports since 1983, has the Government provided any information on the consultations held during the periods covered on the matters enumerated in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it already stressed in its previous report the special importance it attaches to the regular monitoring of the application of this fundamental provision, particularly by means of the information that should be provided by the Government in each of its reports, in accordance with the report form.

The Committee has been informed of the entry into force in 1996 of the new Industrial Relations Act. It notes the provisions concerning the Labour Advisory Board and particularly its composition (section 21) and its duties (section 22) which cover all the matters set out in Article 5, paragraph 1. The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Governing Body's Committee on Freedom of Association deploring the circumstances in which the new Act was adopted and the many provisions which are in breach of ILO freedom of association standards (Case No. 1884, 306th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association). It also notes the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards at the International Labour Conference in June 1997, noting that the Government has made little progress in remedying the discrepancies between the Act and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). It hopes that the Government will take account of proposals made by the Labour Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of section 22(1)(b) of the Act, to set right the provisions which are in breach of the fundamental principles of freedom of association. The Committee recalls that in its General Survey of 1982 it stated that for the purposes of the procedures provided for in the Convention, the representatives of employers and workers must be chosen freely by representative organizations enjoying freedom of association, and asks the Government to indicate to what extent effect is given to Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention despite the offending provisions.

The Government indicates in its report that the annual report on the working of the procedures provided for in the Convention as required by Article 6 is included in the Annual Report of the Department of Labour which will be sent to the ILO shortly. The Government is asked to send the report as soon as possible. The Committee is bound to recall that in its previous direct request it noted that the Government had indicated in its report received by the Office on 26 November 1986 that the annual report on the working of the consultation procedures would be included in the Annual Reports of the Department of Labour. It attached to its 1988 report a copy of the above report, which did not contain the information expected. The Committee pointed out that no other report on the working of these procedures had reached the Office since then. The Government is once again asked to indicate the reasons for the interruption in the communication of such reports. It is also asked, if it has not yet done so, to initiate consultations in the Labour Advisory Board on the need to issue the report, and to provide information on these consultations in its next report.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period ending in May 1997 which contains no relevant information in reply to its previous comments. The Committee is therefore bound to note once again that, in none of its reports since 1983, has the Government provided any information on the consultations held during the periods covered on the matters enumerated in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it already stressed in its previous report the special importance it attaches to the regular monitoring of the application of this fundamental provision, particularly by means of the information that should be provided by the Government in each of its reports, in accordance with the report form.

The Committee has been informed of the entry into force in 1996 of the new Industrial Relations Act. It notes the provisions concerning the Labour Advisory Board and particularly its composition (section 21) and its duties (section 22) which cover all the matters set out in Article 5, paragraph 1. The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Governing Body's Committee on Freedom of Association deploring the circumstances in which the new Act was adopted and the many provisions which are in breach of ILO freedom of association standards (Case No. 1884, 306th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association). It also notes the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards at the International Labour Conference in June 1997, noting that the Government has made little progress in remedying the discrepancies between the Act and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). It hopes that the Government will take account of proposals made by the Labour Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of section 22(1)(b) of the Act, to set right the provisions which are in breach of the fundamental principles of freedom of association. The Committee recalls that in its General Survey of 1982 it stated that for the purposes of the procedures provided for in the Convention, the representatives of employers and workers must be chosen freely by representative organizations enjoying freedom of association, and asks the Government to indicate to what extent effect is given to Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention despite the offending provisions.

The Government indicates in its report that the annual report on the working of the procedures provided for in the Convention as required by Article 6 is included in the Annual Report of the Department of Labour which will be sent to the ILO shortly. The Government is asked to send the report as soon as possible. The Committee is bound to recall that in its previous direct request it noted that the Government had indicated in its report received by the Office on 26 November 1986 that the annual report on the working of the consultation procedures would be included in the Annual Reports of the Department of Labour. It attached to its 1988 report a copy of the above report, which did not contain the information expected. The Committee pointed out that no other report on the working of these procedures had reached the Office since then. The Government is once again asked to indicate the reasons for the interruption in the communication of such reports. It is also asked, if it has not yet done so, to initiate consultations in the Labour Advisory Board on the need to issue the report, and to provide information on these consultations in its next report.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report to the effect that there has been no change since the previous report in the application of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the draft Industrial Relations Act and Employment Act will be adopted in the near future and that the definitive texts will be transmitted rapidly to the Office.

The Committee notes that since 1983 the Government has not provided any information, in any of its successive reports, on the consultations held during the periods covered on the matters enumerated in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Committee wishes to emphasize the particular importance that it attaches to the regular follow-up of the application of this fundamental provision, particularly by means of the information that should be provided by the Government in each of its reports, in accordance with the report form. The Committee trusts that, following the establishment of the new Labour Advisory Board, the Government will henceforth be in a position to supply this information regularly on these consultations which, under paragraph 2 above, should be held at least once a year.

The Government announced in its report received by the Office on 26 November 1986 that the annual report on the functioning of the consultation procedures provided for in Article 6 would be included in the annual reports of the Department of Labour and it attached to its 1988 report a copy of the above report, which did not contain the information that was expected. The Committee notes that no other report on the functioning of these procedures has reached the Office since then. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate the reasons for the interruption in the communication of such reports. Furthermore, it requests the Government, if it has not yet done so, to consult the representative organizations, as required by this Article, on the need to issue the report, and to provide information on these consultations in its next report.

Finally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate, as requested in point VI of the report form, whether any observations have been received from the representative organizations to which copies of each report on the application of the Convention are communicated in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the ILO.