Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Mauritius (Ratification: 1969)

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



A Government representative indicated, with respect to collective bargaining in export processing zones (EPZs) and the textile sector, that seminars and talks were being conducted on an ongoing basis by the information, education and communication section of the Ministry of Labour targeting workers in different sectors of employment, including the EPZ and textile sectors. Between July 2015 and April 2016, 39 training and sensitization activities had been carried out and 312 male and 430 female employees of the EPZ and textile sector had benefited from these sessions, in which emphasis was placed on legal provisions and rights at work, including those pertaining to the right to collective bargaining and unionization as guaranteed in the labour legislation. Moreover, sensitization of workers on their rights at work, including those pertaining to collective bargaining and unionization, was also carried out on an ongoing basis during inspection visits at workplaces. For the period 2009–15, a total of 757 inspection visits had been carried out in EPZs, reaching out to some 102,127 local workers (38,376 men and 63,751 women). During the same period, 2,059 inspection visits had been carried out in undertakings employing migrant workers, who currently numbered about 30,468 (20,455 men and 10,013 women) working in the manufacturing sector. During these visits, the workers had been sensitized on their rights of unionization and collective bargaining. With regard to the issue of compiling statistics on collective agreements, since February 2009, the legislation had provided that all collective agreements should be registered with the Ministry of Labour within 30 days of the date of signature. The Government had transmitted to the Committee a full list of 62 collective agreements registered at the Ministry for the period May 2010 to May 2016, and it should be noted that four of those collective agreements applied to EPZs. The Government had also taken due note of the Committee’s recommendations regarding interference in collective bargaining and compulsory arbitration, and it should be noted that there had been no such intervention since. In addition, the labour law review currently under way, in consultation with the social partners, was expected to be finalized by the end of 2016. The recommendations of the Committee on how best to encourage and promote the full development of collective bargaining would, to the extent possible, be taken into account in this context. Finally, technical assistance in relation to the issues raised by the Committee would be sought from the ILO under the second generation Decent Work Country Programme, the preparation of which is under way.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee had last examined this case in 2015 and that since 1995 the Committee of Experts had made 11 comments on it. The 2016 comments of the Committee of Experts focused on the following three areas: anti-union discrimination; collective bargaining in EPZs; and interference by the Government in collective bargaining. With regard to the latter issue, the Employer members were surprised by the Government’s statement denying that such interference existed and remained concerned that interference persisted in collective bargaining. The country had an extensive system of collective bargaining and minimum employment standards. The National Remuneration Board (NRB) promulgated orders on minimum wages and terms of employment in 30 sectors and periodically reviewed those orders to ensure that their terms remained appropriate. Remuneration orders established a floor, and employers and workers subsequently bargained for better terms. If the parties bargained in good faith, but could not agree, they could voluntarily agree to a dispute resolution procedure. While this framework was not in violation of the Convention, its practical implementation had been quite problematic. In 2010, the social partners in the sugar industry had negotiated a collective agreement, but there had been areas of disagreement where the parties had defaulted on the terms set out in the remuneration order. Several weeks later, the NRB had partially reviewed the remuneration orders that applied to the sugar industry, focusing on the areas in which no agreement could be reached during collective bargaining. The Government had withdrawn the referral of these issues to the NRB in August 2012. However, once again in 2014, the same problems had arisen. Following the expiry of the collective agreement in the sugar industry, and after months of negotiations, the union had taken strike action. The employers and the union had subsequently concluded a collective agreement. The Government had then referred the unresolved issues to the NRB, as it had done in 2010. The Government had also imposed arbitration on the social partners, which it was not permitted to do under national legislation. The Government’s interference in collective bargaining was a clear violation of the Convention. The Employer members considered that the Government’s statement did not constitute a full reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts and encouraged the Government to provide full information.

The Worker members recalled the fundamental principles on which the Convention was founded and emphasized that the economic life of Mauritius was primarily based on EPZs and on cane sugar cultivation. The Port Louis export processing zone was a central element of the national economy, with around 300 enterprises employing some 60,000 workers. EPZs constituted a major trade union issue, because of both the number of workers they engaged – over 65 million according to the ILO – and because of the difficulties experienced by those workers. The right of workers in EPZs to collective bargaining must not be limited by reason of the special status of these zones, as recalled in the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, adopted by the Governing Body in 1977. However, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining were violated in the Port Louis export processing zone, as in almost all EPZs throughout the world, despite the fact that the countries which had established them were ILO members. In all its observations since 2002, the Committee of Experts had noted that trade unions and freedom of association were barely existent or non-existent in EPZs due to the repeated violation by employers of the principles and fundamental rights of workers and the lack of adequate legislative protection; that anti-union discrimination in the textile sector was prevalent, especially vis-à-vis migrant workers; and that trade unions faced difficulties in meeting workers. All too often, when trade unions were established in EPZs, trade union representatives were faced with harassment, intimidation, threats, discrimination and unfair dismissals. Sometimes, substitute unions were established by employers, in contravention of ILO standards. The recognition of the right to collective bargaining was of general application and where this right was not given effect, the national authorities should take concrete measures to promote collective bargaining, as requested by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts, and it was regrettable that the Government had not provided any information on this subject. Furthermore, with regard to the right to collectively negotiate salaries in the sugar cane sector, the Committee of Experts noted the Government’s interventions in the collective bargaining process, the effect of which was to submit to compulsory arbitration, in contravention of ILO standards, the 21 issues which had not been resolved through collective bargaining. In a communication addressed to the ILO in 2011, the national authorities had justified the interference in collective bargaining that had been discussed by the Conference Committee in 2015. In practice, the priority given to economic commitments in relation to the European market had led to interference in collective bargaining, which ran counter to ILO Conventions. However, the imposition of arbitration was unacceptable, even in view of the economic situation or in the context of a structural adjustment policy. The restrictions on collective bargaining should be applied as exceptional measures rendered necessary only by compelling reasons of national economic interest, but should not exceed a reasonable period and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards for the effective protection of the living standards of the workers concerned, particularly those who risked being most affected. In the present case, agriculture, to which the sugar cane sector belonged, represented only 6 per cent of national economic activity and a collective dispute in this sector would not have threatened national economic interest. The intervention in the collective bargaining process was therefore not justified and the Government should have respected the autonomy of the social partners.

The Worker member of Mauritius said that anti-union discrimination still existed by way of biased and fake disciplinary committees in state-owned and private organizations. In this regard, he referred to the case of Alain Edouard, President of the Port Louis Maritime Employees Association (PLMEA), who had been dismissed following the findings of a disciplinary committee. His dismissal had in practice been the result of his fight against a prospective privatization of some of the activities of the Cargo Handling Corporation (CHC). Despite the intervention of the Minister of Labour, Mr Edouard had not been reinstated. He also referred to anti-union discrimination in Mauritius Post Limited. Recalling the Government’s commitment under both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), he urged it to provide strong safeguards against the unfair dismissal of workers and trade union leaders, including the immediate reinstatement of the victims of such practices. With respect to collective bargaining in EPZs, around 60,000 Mauritian and 15,000 foreign workers were employed in EPZs. Collective bargaining was almost inexistent because employers contested the recognition of trade unions. The degree of unionization was extremely weak in the private sector (around 15 per cent of the workforce). Labour laws gave the right to foreign workers to organize, although none of them had joined a trade union for obvious reasons: they were employed under fixed-term contracts; they feared deportation; and they feared that their contract of employment would not be renewed. In units where trade unions had recognition, employers used threats and their economic power to urge workers to leave the unions. Furthermore, trade unions did not have easy access to workplaces. The Ministry of Labour had already started procedures for the amendment of the labour law. In the light of the amendments proposed by workers’ organizations, the latter were expecting the new labour law to afford considerable protection to workers. However, the fear was that employers would object to most of these legislative amendments. He recalled that collective bargaining did not exist at all in the public sector. While the salaries of public servants were decided unilaterally by the Pay Research Bureau, a body established by the Government, conditions of service were determined at bipartite meetings between the Ministry of Civil Service and the Pay Research Bureau, without the participation of trade unions. There were no faithful and meaningful tripartite negotiations over salaries and conditions of service. The Government was therefore urged to promote an appropriate mechanism for collective bargaining in the public sector and to remove the arbitrary power of the Pay Research Bureau to take decisions concerning conditions of service, and to transform the Bureau into a platform for tripartite consultation. With respect to the Government’s interference in collective bargaining in 2010 and 2014, he concluded that, in light of what had been said and the Government’s total disregard for last year’s recommendations by the Committee, matters were now outside the ambit of technical assistance.

The Worker member of Germany indicated that the positive economic, social and industrial development of his country would not have been possible without over 71,000 collective agreements that defined solutions and conditions tailored to specific industries and enterprises. Recalling that free collective bargaining between employers and their federations, on the one hand, and trade unions, on the other, was the foundation of collective agreements, he reaffirmed that collective agreements provided a guarantee for fair remuneration and good working conditions for workers, while their respect also offered important insurance of peaceful industrial relations for employers. While encouraging the Government, workers and employers to regulate working conditions through collective agreements, he regretted that the Government had not been successful in adopting new legislation on collective bargaining. He said that there were two essential preconditions for the right to collective bargaining: the freedom to establish trade unions, which also included protection against discrimination; and the negotiation of collective agreements on an equal footing. In this regard, he called on the Government to establish a national framework for the implementation of the Convention. While noting that in Germany the basic law guaranteed freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining without interference from the Government, he welcomed the temporary influence of the Government for setting minimum wages in some cases, for example when the structure of the labour market still needed further development. Welcoming the Government’s indications on initiatives and proposals for fixing minimum wages, he emphasized the importance of social dialogue in this regard and called on the employers in Mauritius to respect the freedom of association of the workers.

The Worker member of Togo, speaking also on behalf of the Worker members of Burkina Faso, Benin, Niger, Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Ethiopia, Chad and Mali, regretted the total absence of collective bargaining in EPZs in Mauritius. The wages and working conditions of the 60,000 Mauritians and 15,000 foreign nationals working in EPZs were less favourable than those in other areas of the private sector in the country. Because the employers refused to recognize trade unions, collective bargaining was virtually non-existent and, so long as the issue was not resolved by the industrial relations tribunal, they obliged their workers to renounce union membership by means of intimidation and sanctions. Moreover, it was difficult for trade unions to have access to workplaces in EPZs, which made it almost impossible for them to carry out trade union activities. Although the protective provisions of Convention No. 87 had been incorporated in Mauritius’ legislation, labour laws allowed employers considerable latitude to dismiss their employees. Workers were therefore discouraged from joining unions, of which there were practically none in EPZs. Although the labour legislation allowed foreign workers to establish trade unions, none of them took advantage of their right to do so because they were threatened that their fixed-term contracts would not be renewed or that they would be expelled from the country. In those EPZ enterprises where collective bargaining did exist, employers deliberately made the process drag on so much that it was difficult to have any constructive negotiations. In particular, employers hindered wage negotiations and threatened to reduce the workforce if the Commission for Conciliation and Mediation ruled in favour of the workers. He finally indicated that there were other issues that EPZ workers wanted to discuss, including maternity benefits, safety and health, compensation for occupational injuries, and the organization and payment of overtime. Meanwhile, the absence of a conducive environment for collective bargaining meant that these workers were in a position of vulnerability in relation to their employers and perpetuated the existence of unacceptable conditions of work.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the trade unions of the Nordic countries, said that there had hardly been any improvement in this case since its discussion by the Committee the previous year. The number of collective agreements was abysmally and deliberately low and collective bargaining was absent in the public sector. Although union representatives could express their views, there were no real negotiations. As a consequence, she urged the Government to take measures to allow real negotiations in the public sector which could result in collective agreements. Moreover, there was no legal framework to support collective bargaining in EPZs. While welcoming the Government’s commitment to promote voluntary negotiations between employers’ and workers’ organizations in EPZs, she recalled that a pre-condition for collective bargaining was that the trade unions had access to EPZs, which was not the case in Mauritius. Another challenge for negotiations was that trade unions were only entitled to recognition as bargaining agents for a bargaining unit in an enterprise or an industry where they had the support of not less than 30 per cent of the workers in the unit. She emphasized that, in the Nordic countries, workers enjoyed the right to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing and the right to bargain collectively. In those countries, collective bargaining took place both at the national and local levels and in the public sector. National level public employees also enjoyed the right to strike. She considered that the same should apply to workers in Mauritius, as required by the Convention. Recalling that strong collective bargaining laws and practices ensured that unions were able to agree with employers on more detailed and favourable conditions of work, she urged the Government to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining mechanisms and laws, in both the private and public sectors, to increase the number of workers covered by effective collective bargaining agreements in the country. This was particularly important for vulnerable workers employed in EPZs, including women workers in the textile sector and migrant workers.

The Worker member of Australia, also speaking on behalf of the workers of New Zealand, emphasized that the interference by the Government in collective bargaining occurred in the sugar industry, a sector in which the bargaining parties were experienced and mature and the timing of negotiations was critical to the bargaining process, because there was a limited period of time each year in which sugar cane could be harvested and crushed. He noted that any outside interference in this process could have a serious impact on the relative bargaining strength of the parties, and potentially on bargaining outcomes. Acknowledging that the Employment Relations Act 2008 provided that it was for the parties themselves to negotiate collective agreements, he emphasized that the use of arbitration processes under section 63 of the Act was admissible only if the parties agreed, and that this had not been the case in the events referred to in the observation of the Committee of Experts. He emphasized that the imposition of a settlement in collective bargaining negotiation was inconsistent with the Convention and urged the Government to amend the Act. In this regard, he encouraged the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO.

The Government representative recalled the measures that had been taken by the Government to give effect to the Convention. The NRB resolved disputes and determined minimum wages at the sectoral level. Employers’ and workers’ organizations actively participated in this process. In addition, collective bargaining existed between employers and workers and their organizations. Referring to his introductory statement, he recalled that 62 collective agreements had been signed since 1 May 2010, including four in EPZs. A list of collective agreements concluded and registered for the period 1 May 2010 to 31 May 2016 had provided to the Committee. In accordance with the Employment Relations Act, workers were free to join trade unions and to bargain collectively with employers. Interference by the Government in collective bargaining in the sugar sector in 2010 and 2014 was recognized, although he added that the Government had intervened in good faith, at the request of one party, in order to assist the parties to obtain an agreement. Following conclusions on this case of the Conference Committee in June 2015, the Government, in line with Article 4 of the Convention, was now avoiding any intervention in collective bargaining between employers and workers. He added that some organizations carried out their trade union activities during the working time of employees, creating some difficulties with the employers concerned. The Government did not interfere in those matters. Referring to remuneration orders, he said that wages could not be set below minimum wages. With respect to collective bargaining in EPZs, Mauritian and foreign workers were free to join unions and bargain collectively. Courses were being offered to workers, including on collective bargaining. Working conditions were not less favourable in EPZs. No sectoral discrimination occurred and he cited the example of maternity leave, of which 14 weeks was provided in EPZs, a duration which was comparable to other sectors.

The Worker members observed that the Government representative had taken the employers’ side even though, as the regulator of industrial relations, it was obliged to maintain a balanced stance. They emphasized the importance of complying with the Convention, the principles of which were applicable both to EPZs and to the sugar cane industry. Recognition of the right to collective bargaining was general in scope and applied equally to the private and the public sectors and only members of the armed forces and the police could be excluded, while specific arrangements could be established for public servants engaged in the administration of the State. Workers in EPZs were therefore fully entitled to bargain collectively. In addition to the statistics provided by the Government and its reference to certain regulations in force, the Government also needed to take specific measures to combat the anti-union reprisals that occurred in EPZs and to promote the exercise of the right to collective bargaining. Such initiatives would send an important signal to EPZs throughout the world, which should not be considered no-rights zones, and where trade unions could play a key role as watchdogs. Under the terms of the Convention, interventions by the public authorities in collective bargaining was only possible under specific circumstances, and the Committee of Experts had established very precise criteria on the subject, the value of which had been recognized by all constituents, including the Employer members of the Conference Committee. Intervention by public authorities in collective bargaining was admissible only when justified by overriding reasons of national economic interest and should only be an exceptional measure, limited to what was essential, and should not exceed a reasonable period and be accompanied by guarantees that effectively protected the standard of living of the workers concerned. Finally, they emphasized that, even though the Government claimed to have acted in good faith, its interference in collective bargaining in the sugar sector was unfortunate. It must respect the autonomy of the social partners fully, as required under the commitments that it had entered into when it ratified the Convention. The Government needed to promote appropriate collective bargaining machinery and respond to the workers’ fear of reprisals. While noting its commitment to comply with the Convention, the Worker members called on the Government, in a report to the 2016 session of the Committee of Experts, to provide details of measures taken and the specific progress made on the issue.

The Employer members, indicating that there continued to be confusion about the facts and allegations of interference by the Government in collective bargaining, emphasized that in 2010 the Government had intervened in the voluntary collective bargaining process in the sugar industry by referring 21 unresolved issues to the NRB. Moreover, in November and December 2014, after protracted voluntary collective bargaining negotiations, which had resulted in a strike, following which a collective agreement had been concluded with the intervention of the Minister of Labour, three unresolved issues had been referred to the NRB. While more information was required from the Government on the role played by the NRB in relation to minimum wages, the Employer members emphasized the basic principle according to which the Government should not intervene in collective bargaining by imposing conditions. The selective renewal of remuneration orders in response to the outcome of collective bargaining had to cease immediately, as it constituted undue interference in voluntary collective bargaining. They encouraged the Government to engage in social dialogue with the social partners on collective bargaining and on the functioning of the NRB. They looked forward to further information in the next report of the Government to the Committee of Experts and encouraged the Government to take action in order to ensure the application of the Convention in law and practice.

Conclusions

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

The Committee noted with interest the Government’s information concerning measures taken to favour collective bargaining in the export processing zones. However, it expressed concern at the Government’s failure to respect collective bargaining in the sugar industry.

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

• - Cease its intervention into free and voluntary collective bargaining between employers and workers in the sugar industry.
• - Take concrete measures to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers/employers’ organizations on the one hand and workers’ organizations, on the other, in order to regulate the terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining agreements. This includes collective bargaining in export processing zones, in the garment sector and in the sugar industry.
• - Provide detailed information on the current situation of collective bargaining in the export processing zones and on the concrete measures to promote it in those zones.
• - Refrain from infringing Article 4 of the Convention and from committing similar violations in the future.
• - Cease all interference in collective bargaining in the private sector with respect to principles related to mandatory arbitration.
• - Accept technical assistance from the Office to comply with these conclusions.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2015, Publication: 104th ILC session (2015)



A Government representative provided the Conference Committee with an overview on the application of the Convention. He recalled that the Government had ratified the Convention shortly after independence in 1969. At that time, the provisions of the Convention had been implemented through Section 13 of the Constitution, which provided for the protection of freedom of assembly and association, while disputes concerning industrial relations were left to the parties. The Industrial Relations Act (IRA), enacted in 1973, had institutionalized the regime of industrial relations and brought about fundamental changes by providing new mechanisms and procedures for recognizing trade unions and enabling collective bargaining and industrial action, establishing institutional mechanisms for dispute resolution and arbitration, and introducing the right to strike although subject to some specific procedures. The Employment Relations Act (ERA) had been introduced in 2008 in order to comply with the provisions of the Convention and to remedy the shortcomings of the IRA in the promotion of collective bargaining. The ERA set out the conditions for the development of collective bargaining in a structured manner and aimed to protect and enhance the democratic rights of workers, including migrant workers, and trade unions rights, as well as to boost collective bargaining, while the focus had shifted towards the principle of voluntary settlement and peaceful resolution of disputes. The ERA had been amended in 2013 in order to further consolidate the process of collective bargaining. In particular, the procedure for recognizing trade unions’ bargaining power had been reviewed; the reporting of labour disputes concerning wages and conditions of employment had been limited in the event that a collective agreement was in force; and a conciliation service was now provided by the Minister upon the request of parties to a labour dispute at any time before a lawful strike took place. Any agreement reached following such conciliation would have the effect of a collective agreement.

Turning to the observations of the Committee of Experts, he noted that, in the absence of complaints made by any trade union to the Ministry of Labour, it was impossible for the Government to carry out an investigation into alleged anti-union discrimination. He added that it would be useful, in that regard, to receive additional information on the workers’ organization that had transmitted the complaint to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), alleging that the contracts of 37 female workers at the “la Colombe centre” had been amended after they joined a union. Concerning the allegations of refusal to bargain in good faith by the Mauritius Sugar Producers’ Association (MSPA) he noted that, following intervention by the Ministry of Labour, an agreement had been reached that satisfied both parties. He recalled that the Federation of Civil Service and Other Unions (FCSOU) had brought a complaint to the ILO on 10 December 2013 concerning the suspension of the President of the Mauritius Institute for Training and Development Employees Union (MITDEU). The ILO had been informed on 4 July 2014 that the case had been settled amicably by the parties and he welcomed the positive result achieved. He also referred to several cases of the Committee on Freedom of Association involving the Government, in several of which the Committee had noted with satisfaction that the parties concerned had reached an agreement on the dispute. He regretted that, despite the agreement reached, the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Mauritius Employer’s Federation (MEF) had again submitted observations on the application of the Convention in September 2014. On the promotion of collective bargaining in export processing zones (EPZs), the textile sector and for migrant workers, he said that the Government encouraged the full development of voluntary negotiation concerning terms and conditions of employment between employers’ and workers’ organizations. He emphasized that there was no legal impediment in the ERA preventing EPZ workers or migrant workers from joining unions or engaging in collective bargaining. The Government intended to organize an awareness-raising campaign for the workers concerned, and he encouraged the increasing number of trade unions in the sector to take full advantage of the constructive legal framework to engage in and promote collective bargaining. He concluded by saying that the Government firmly believed that the provisions of its labour legislation were fully in line with its vision of providing a legal framework in which the rights, interests and welfare of workers were fully safeguarded, without jeopardizing a sound business environment.

The Employer members said that this was an ongoing case involving interference in collective bargaining. The country had an extensive system for collective bargaining and minimum employment standards. The National Remuneration Board promulgated orders on minimum wages and terms of employment in 30 sectors and periodically reviewed those orders to ensure that their terms remained appropriate. The Board was not a mediation or arbitration mechanism. Remuneration orders established a floor, and employers and workers subsequently bargained for better terms. If the parties bargained in good faith but could not agree, they could voluntarily agree to a dispute resolution procedure. While this framework was not in violation of the Convention, its practical implementation had been quite problematic. In 2010, the social partners in the sugar industry had negotiated a collective agreement, but there had been 21 areas of disagreement where the parties had defaulted to the terms set out in the remuneration order. Several weeks later, the National Remuneration Board had partially reviewed the remuneration orders that applied to the sugar industry, focusing on the 21 areas in which no agreement could be reached during collective bargaining. In 2012, the Committee on Freedom of Association had reminded the Government that recourse to public authorities like the National Remuneration Board should be voluntary. The Government had subsequently withdrawn the referral of the 21 issues to the National Remuneration Board in August 2012. However, once again in 2014, the same problems had arisen. Following the expiration of the collective agreement in the sugar industry, and after months of negotiations, the union had taken strike action. The employers and the union had subsequently concluded a collective agreement. The Government had then referred the unresolved issues to the National Remuneration Board, as it had done in 2010. The Government had also imposed arbitration on the social partners, which it was not permitted to do under national legislation. The Government’s interference in collective bargaining was wrong. The Employer members hoped that the Committee would reiterate that point.

The Worker members pointed out that EPZs were of great concern to trade unions, as they benefited from special incentives in order to attract investors. That said, the special status of EPZs could not justify limiting the right to bargain collectively. Recognition of that right applied to everybody, in the private and public sector alike. As in other such zones, there was no respect for freedom of association or the right to bargain collectively in the Port Louis EPZ. Between 2002 and 2012 the Committee of Experts had noted the total absence of trade unions, the very limited practice of collective bargaining, widespread anti-union discrimination, especially in the textile sector, the difficulty for workers and trade unions to meet and a decline in the number of collective agreements signed. Quite apart from harassment and intimidation of workers, employers had often established substitute unions in contravention of Convention No. 98 and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). If the right to bargain collectively was not respected, then it was up to the Government to take concrete steps to promote it. The Worker members emphasized that an EPZ did not mean a zone without rights, and endorsed the request made by the Committee of Experts in that regard. The Committee of Experts had drawn attention to the Government’s interference in the bargaining process to set wages in the sugar cane sector, which it justified on the grounds of an imminent threat of strike action which had to be avoided if it was to honour its commitments to the European market. Negotiations had therefore been held under Government auspices, and those provisions on which no agreement had been reached had been passed on to a compulsory arbitration board. According to the principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, compulsory arbitration was permitted only in specific instances, namely, in the event of an acute national emergency, in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or in essential services in the strict sense of the term. In the present instance, the Government’s interference did not meet these criteria and was therefore unacceptable. Unfortunately, in the belief that their national circumstances called for economic stabilization policies, increasing numbers of governments had adopted measures to restrict or prevent wages from being freely determined by collective bargaining. In this regard, the Conference Committee had already stressed that if, within the context of a stabilization policy, wage rates could not be fixed freely by collective bargaining, restrictions could be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards. The Worker members stressed that such measures could only be adopted if they were rendered necessary by compelling reasons of national economic interest. Inasmuch as the sugar cane sector made up only 6 per cent of the country’s economic activity, the Government’s interference in the collective bargaining was unjustifiable.

The Employer member of Mauritius indicated that the reality in the country was not conducive to the practice of collective bargaining. While the Government had established legislation on collective bargaining, there remained some significant deficits. The legislation failed to meet its objective of providing a framework for collective bargaining and was not accompanied by appropriate policies and properly functioning institutions. The ERA stipulated that collective bargaining was mandatory and conditional on trade union membership only, which was not in conformity with the Convention. In the private sector, 88 per cent of workers had decided not to join a trade union, and an employer could not therefore freely negotiate with duly chosen workers’ representatives. The Government’s interference in fixing of private sector wages and its annual raising of salaries under the Additional Remuneration Act were problematic and limited the scope of collective bargaining. In 2010, employers in the sugar industry had been forced to sign a collective agreement, and issues not resolved during negotiations had been referred to the National Remuneration Board. Despite assurances that such interference would be discontinued, it had re-occurred in December 2014. In the context of negotiating a collective agreement, workers had organized a strike, and employers had respected their right to do so. However, the Government had intervened, requiring the signature of a collective agreement that did not take into account the concerns of employers. The trade union demands that had not been accepted during collective bargaining had again been referred to the National Remuneration Board or to arbitration. The Government’s interference in voluntary collective bargaining was unacceptable, and dispute resolution machinery was not effective in resolving industrial disputes. Allegations relating to a decrease in the number of collective agreements in EPZs were unfounded. Labour laws were applicable to that sector, and workers’ fundamental rights were protected.

Social dialogue structures existed in Mauritius, and the country’s employers had had the opportunity to exchange views with the new Minister of Labour. The new Government had set out its priorities and had taken a decision to engage in consultation with the social partners with the aim of revising labour legislation. He reiterated the call for a revision of those labour laws that were currently holding back growth and job creation. Mauritius had ambitions to become a high-income country; in order to do so, it must have effective and appropriate means of revising labour legislation. The Committee was invited to formulate clear recommendations that urged the Government to cease violations of Article 4 of the Convention, to conduct a regulatory impact assessment of national labour legislation, to cease undue interference in private sector wage fixing, to engage in dialogue with the social partners, and to request technical assistance from the ILO with a view to adapting national legislation to bring it into conformity with ILO Conventions.

The Worker member of Mauritius said that, despite current labour legislation, in practice the rights of workers were not respected. Trade unions had been calling for the Government to revise its legislation. New revisions of legislation should not be perfunctory, and the Ministry of Labour needed to pay attention to protecting workers, particularly as the existing protection for trade unions and trade union leaders was contained in a code of practice that was not binding. Anti-union discrimination still existed in the country, despite legal protection, and contract workers feared dismissal for engaging in trade union activity. While collective bargaining existed in law, it did not exist in practice. There was also a lack of social dialogue in the country. In the public sector, terms and conditions of service and salary were being imposed. Some workers in that sector were paid low wages, including below the minimum wage. That needed to be addressed by the Government, including through collective bargaining. There was no voluntary negotiation in the public sector. Trade unions could express their views to the body that regulated terms and conditions, but that body then took its own decisions. There was also difficulty with regard to the organization of migrant workers in EPZs. Such workers were not free to join unions as they could feel threatened and could face deportation. He called for firm measures to be taken to ensure that the Convention was applied in Mauritius.

The Employer member of South Africa said that the Government should respect the right to collective bargaining. It was perplexing that the application of the Convention still merited discussion more than 45 years after its ratification. He urged the Government to implement the provisions of the Convention fully.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Worker members of the Nordic countries and Estonia, said that trade unions in Mauritius were only entitled to recognition as bargaining agents for bargaining units in an enterprise or in an industry, where they must have the support of not less than 30 per cent of the workers in the unit concerned. Recognition by an employer of the main unions represented at an enterprise, or the most representative of those unions, formed the very basis for any procedure concerning collective bargaining. That legal provision had a serious impact on the right of minority unions to bargain on behalf of their members. He considered that, if no single union met the representativity criteria established in law, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the individual unions in that unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Government should therefore amend its legislation in order to allow minority unions to bargain on behalf of their members. He urged the Government to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining mechanisms and laws so as to increase the number of workers who could be covered by effective collective bargaining agreements. That was particularly important for vulnerable workers employed in the country, including women workers in the textile sector and migrant workers.

The Worker member of Mali said that his statement was supported by the Worker members of Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. Maintaining the country’s annual growth rate at more than 3 per cent had been possible thanks to solid contributions from the workforce and the country’s EPZs, which were treated as enclaves with their own sovereignty, shielded from the obligations and requirements arising from the need to respect human and trade union rights. Despite the existence of legislation, the tendency in practice was that workers could not rely on the Government to support them in claiming their trade union rights in such zones. The authorities and employers prevented workers from organizing to bargain collectively, and levels of collective bargaining had fallen by 70 per cent since 2009. Trade union organizations were being refused access to industrial sites by employers in the majority of cases, which explained why the rate of unionization in EPZs was less than 12 per cent. It was not reasonable to welcome investors and their enterprises enthusiastically unless the rights of workers, including the migrant workforce, were promoted. Without such rights, the country’s workers and their families would not have benefited from investments by the time the investors left. He welcomed the first steps taken by the Government with a view to introducing a mechanism to fix a minimum wage and took note of amendments made to labour legislation to strengthen penalties for anti-union discrimination. The Government must lift all barriers to collective bargaining and establish a strong collective bargaining culture with respect for social dialogue, especially in the EPZs. That would be the only way to share the fruits of economic growth equitably so as to improve the living standards of the population.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom noted that there were problems of anti-union hostility in EPZs. In the case of reprisals for union activity, the law provided little protection. National legislation did not allow for individuals to be reinstated if they had been dismissed on account of union activity. Furthermore, anyone who was involved in a strike that did not meet the requirements of the legal framework would face dismissal, with limited rights to seek a legal remedy if the dismissal had not been considered justifiable. There had been several examples of anti-union discrimination affecting not only workers in the EPZs and women workers, but also workers in the sugar industry. In the context of the negotiations between the Mauritius Sugar Producers’ Association and the trade unions’ joint negotiating panel, an agreement had been reached relating to requests for a pay increase following recourse to strike action. However, the workers had lost pay for the duration of their strike action, and union members had not received their end-of-year bonus as a result of the strike. The Government had committed itself to increasing fines and penalties for anti-union discrimination but it must take further steps to ensure that its legislation properly reflected its international obligations.

The Government representative recalled the measures that had been taken, over a number of years, by the Government to give effect to the Convention and to respond to the requests of the Committee of Experts, including amendments to the ERA, measures to protect against acts of interference in workers’ and employers’ organizations, and the replacement of the Export Processing Zone Act. He emphasized that there was no impediment in the ERA, as amended, preventing workers in EPZs or migrant workers from joining unions or engaging in collective bargaining. It was therefore up to trade unions to use the available legal framework to engage in and promote collective bargaining in all sectors. The Government had not intended to undermine collective bargaining. The referral of issues to the National Remuneration Board had taken place in a very specific context, as a strike in the sugar industry at that time would have had a negative impact on the country’s economic situation. It was not the policy of the Government to request the National Remuneration Board to intervene in cases where a final collective agreement had been concluded. Concerning the referral of the dispute between the joint negotiating panel and the Mauritius Sugar Producers’ Association to arbitration, he indicated that, following negotiations, no collective agreement had been reached, and both parties had referred the dispute to the Commission for Conciliation and Mediation. No agreement had been reached at the level of that Commission, and the panel had opted to take strike action, which would have had negative economic effects. Accordingly, the Minister of Labour, acting under section 79a of the ERA, had brought the two parties to the negotiating table and an interim collective agreement had been reached. The dispute had then been referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Government, in the absence of agreement between the parties. With respect to compulsory arbitration, section 53 of the ERA contained only the duty to begin negotiations when served with notice, but legislation did not require the parties to conclude a collective agreement. Requiring the social partners to engage in collective bargaining did not contravene the Convention. He referred in this regard to Report No.  68 of the CFA, Case No. 2149, (328th Report) indicating that it was not contrary to Article 4 of the Convention to oblige the social partners, in the context of encouraging and promoting the full development and utilization of collective bargaining machinery, to enter into negotiations on terms and conditions of employment. The Government would listen to the views of the social partners; the discussion had been a democratic exercise in tripartite dialogue. The Government would continue to take a transparent approach with respect to the application of the Convention and stood ready to consider any recommendation made by the Committee, with the support of technical expertise from the ILO. Any recommendations would be considered within the context of the ongoing review of labour legislation to which the Government had committed itself. In that regard, a technical committee had been set up and all stakeholders had been invited to make proposals to it with respect to the legislative review.

The Employer members noted the Government’s willingness to engage in discussion with the Committee. One example of how the National Remuneration Board had interfered in the collective bargaining process was the issue of motorcycle allowances in the sugar sector. Agreement had not been reached on that issue in the negotiation of the collective agreement, and subsequently it had been referred to the National Remuneration Board. It could be agreed that interference in collective bargaining was not a positive thing. While the legislation appeared to be adequate, the manner in which it was interpreted and applied in practice was not. The Employer members referred to Report No. 364 of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 697, in which that Committee had emphasized that the overall aim of Article 4 of the Convention was the promotion of good faith collective bargaining with a view to reaching an agreement on terms and conditions of employment. The Committee on Freedom of Association had indicated that such agreements must be respected and that public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict the right to bargain freely or impede the lawful exercise thereof. Collective bargaining, if it were to be effective, must assume a voluntary character and not entail recourse to measures of compulsion which would alter the voluntary nature of such bargaining. Not enough information was available on the situation in EPZs, and the Employer members expressed the hope that collective bargaining was being promoted in that sector. The Committee of Experts had requested additional information on the situation in that sector, and hopefully such information would be provided. The Employer members urged the Government to take steps to follow its own legislation, to stop interfering in the collective bargaining process and to stop referring issues on which the parties had not been able to reach agreement following collective bargaining to the National Remuneration Board.

While taking note of the information provided by the Government of Mauritius, the Worker members said that the case concerned not only the relevance of legislation, but also problems with its application in practice. They stressed the importance of respecting Convention No. 98, particularly its general principles, both in relation to EPZs and in terms of collective bargaining in the sugar cane industry. EPZ workers should be able to enjoy the right to bargain collectively, and the Government must take concrete steps to that end. That would send an important signal to EPZs around the world that they were not outside the law, despite the violations of workers’ rights that had too often occurred therein. The Government could only intervene in collective bargaining under certain specific circumstances that had been identified by the Committee. The way in which the Government had interfered in collective bargaining in the sugar industry had been clumsy. The Worker members invited the Government to give the social partners the full autonomy needed to negotiate collective agreements and to respect that autonomy. They also requested the Government to report to the Committee of Experts in 2015 on collective bargaining in EPZs and in the sugar industry.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statements made by the Government representative and of the discussion that ensued.

The Committee observed that the matters raised by the Committee of Experts concerned comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) relating to allegations of anti-union discrimination and the practical obstacles to collective bargaining in export processing zones, as well as the observations from the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and the Mauritius Employers’ Federation (MEF) related to alleged interference by the Government in the voluntary nature of collective bargaining, especially with respect to the sugar industry.

The Committee noted the Government representative’s indication that the 2008 Employment Relations Act was adopted with a view to establishing an industrial relations system to promote social progress and economic growth, protecting and enhancing the democratic rights of workers and trade unions, boosting collective bargaining and promoting the voluntary settlement and peaceful resolution of disputes. This Act was amended in 2013 to introduce the notion of a sole and exclusive bargaining agent and a conciliation service at the joint request of the parties. As regards the ITUC allegations of anti-union discrimination, the Government indicated that the information provided was insufficient for it to carry out an investigation and requested further particulars.

The Government had also provided information on the manner in which the dispute concerning the Mauritius Sugar Producers’ Association (MSPA) was handled, with outstanding matters being referred to the National Remuneration Board (NRB) but that subsequently, the Minister of Labour withdrew this referral, pursuant to an agreement reached by the parties. He added that it was not his Government’s intention to undermine collective bargaining, but rather that the referral was made in a very specific context with a view to avoiding a strike in the sugar industry. He further referred to the case before the Committee on Freedom of Association which had welcomed the agreement and, while observing that additional observations had been submitted by the IOE and the MEF in September 2014, had indicated that his Government was awaiting supporting evidence.

Finally, as regards to export processing zones (EPZs), the Government representative indicated that there was no legal impediment to collective bargaining for EPZ workers and that they would do everything to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers’ and workers’ organizations in this sector, including increasing awareness-raising campaigns to sensitize workers on their rights.

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

• refrain from violating Article 4 of the Convention and avoid such violations in the future;
• cease undue interference in private sector collective bargaining by selectively reviewing the Remuneration Orders in response to the outcome of collective bargaining;
• engage in social dialogue with the social partners regarding collective bargaining and the Remuneration Orders; and
• take concrete measures to promote collective bargaining in the EPZs and provide information to the Committee of Experts on the state of collective bargaining in the Zones.

The Government representative took note of the conclusions and assured the Committee that consideration would be given in the course of the ongoing reform of the labour legislation undertaken in consultation with the employers’ and workers’ organizations.

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

The Committee notes the observations made by the Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the State and Other Employees Federation, dated 26 August 2021, concerning matters examined in the present comment.

Legislative developments. In its last comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that a revision of the Employment Rights Act (2008) and the Employment Relations Act 2008 (ERA 2008) was under way. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that: (i) the Employment Rights Act (2008) was replaced by the Worker’s Rights Act 2019 (WRA) (Act No. 20) and (ii) the ERA 2008 was amended by the Employment Relations (Amendment) Act 2019 (Act No. 21).

In addition, the Committee welcomes the establishment of the National Tripartite Council provided for under section 28(j) of the ERA 2008, as amended in 2019, which aims at promoting social dialogue and consensus building on labour, industrial relations or socio-economic issues of national importance and other related labour and industrial relations issues. Observing that the Council shall make recommendations to the Government on issues relating, inter alia, to the review of the operation and enforcement of the labour legislation, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the recommendations made by the Council in relation to matters covered by the Convention, including as to giving effect to the Committee’s comments.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its last comment, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide statistical data on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination, their outcome and the number and nature of sanctions imposed or remedies awarded. It also requested it to pursue its efforts, in particular in the export processing zones (EPZs), to ensure that all allegations of anti-union discrimination give rise to expeditious investigations The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that Act No. 21 introduced the following amendments to the ERA to enhance protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination:

– new subsection 31(1)(b)(iii) provides that no person shall discriminate against, victimize or otherwise prejudice a worker or an accredited workplace representative on any employment issue on the ground of his trade union activities;

– new subsection (1A) provides for stringent conditions to curb any decision to terminate workers’ employment in relation to trade union membership or activities; and

– in section 2 of the ERA, the definition of labour dispute has been broadened to include reinstatement of a worker where the employment is terminated on the grounds specified in section 64(1A) (above-mentioned).

The Committee takes note with interest of the abovementioned measures introduced by Act No. 21 to the ERA which complement the protection against acts of anti-union discrimination already provided for in the legislation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the impact in practice of the legislative amendments and to provide statistical data in that regard, including on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination, including anti-union dismissals, brought before the competent authorities (labour inspectorate and judicial bodies), their outcome and the number and nature of sanctions imposed or remedies awarded.

In its last comment, the Committee invited the Government to engage in a dialogue with the national social partners with a view to identifying possible adjustments to improve the rapidity and efficiency of the conciliation proceedings. The Committee takes note that the Government indicates that section 69 of the ERA, as amended in 2019, provides for a timeframe for the expeditious resolution of disputes involving anti-union discrimination: 45 days at the Commission for Conciliation and Mediation (CCM) and, if no agreement is reached, the Employment Relations Tribunal (ERT) (an arbitration tribunal) must make an award within 90 days. The Committee also observes that section 87(2) of the ERA, as amended in 2019, has doubled the number of the CCM members and expresses the firm hope that this will contribute to improving the rapidity and efficiency of the conciliation procedures.

Having taken note of allegations made by social partners concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings in rights disputes (six to seven years), the Committee had requested the Government to take measures with a view to accelerating relevant judicial proceedings and to provide statistical data on their average duration. Regretting that no information was provided in this regard, the Committee requests the Government once again to take measures with a view to accelerating relevant judicial proceedings and to provide statistical data on their average duration, including with respect to cases that may arise in EPZs.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that Act No. 21 introduced the following amendments to the ERA concerning collective bargaining:

– Section 51(1)–(4) of the ERA was amended to facilitate the process of collective bargaining by drawing up a procedure agreement in view of signing a collective agreement. According to the Government, this will further encourage the union and management to proceed with the negotiations keeping abreast good faith at all times with a view to reaching a collective agreement.

– Section 88(4)(e) of the ERA was amended to widen the scope of the CCM with the aim at reinforcing the mutual trust between employer and employees.

– Section 69 of the ERA was amended to promote the settlement of labour disputes. Section 69(3) has been specifically introduced to make the recommendation of the President of the CCM binding should both parties to a labour dispute agree to confer upon the President such power. The Government indicates that this provision was added to provide a speedy solution to break the deadlock between the parties instead of having recourse to the Tribunal, thus saving time, which is crucial in industrial matter.

– Section 69(9)(b) was amended to enable both the union or the employer to request the CCM to refer a labour dispute to the ERT (arbitration tribunal) once the conciliation attempt has failed. The Government indicates that prior to the amendment; the CCM could only refer to the ERT cases brought by an individual worker. The Committee observes that, while section 63 of the ERA provides that the parties may jointly refer a dispute for voluntary arbitration, section 69(9)(b), as amended, concerns the referral of a dispute to an arbitration tribunal at the request of one of the parties. Recalling that compulsory arbitration in the case that the parties have not reached agreement is generally contrary to the principles of collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the revised section 69(9)(b) does allow for compulsory arbitration at the request of one party.

– Section 87(2) was amended to reinforce the human resource of the CCM. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had noted allegations in relation to the lack of human resources at the CCM. As mentioned in the present comment under Article 1 of the Convention, it appreciates that the revised section 87(2) has doubled the number of its members. The Committee regrets to note, however, that the revised section 87(2) has removed the requirement for the Minister to hold consultations with the most representative organizations of workers and employers in relation to the appointment of conciliators or mediators. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the rationale behind the removal of consultations to social partners under this section.

The Committee takes due note of the above-mentioned amendments and expresses the hope that, as indicated by the Government, they will contribute to facilitating collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the impact of the legislative amendments in practice.

In its previous comment, the Committee expressed its expectation that the Government would continue to carry out and strengthen inspections and sensitization activities with respect to collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) 132 sensitization activities carried out between 2017 and 2021 benefited 2,660 workers in the EPZ/textile sector; and (ii) 161 inspection visits carried out in the EPZ sector covered 21,273 local workers and 1,284 inspection visits in undertakings in the manufacturing sector covered 231,793 migrant workers. The Committee notes that 64 collective agreements have been registered with the Ministry of Labour from 2017 to 2020 and that neither of them pertains to the EPZ sector. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the COVID-19 pandemic has somehow affected the activities of the Ministry. The Committee takes note of the information provided and requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to strengthen these activities, in particular in the EPZs, textile sector, sugar industry, manufacturing sector and other sectors employing migrant workers. It also requests the Government to continue to supply statistics on the functioning of collective bargaining in practice (number of collective agreements concluded in the private sector, especially in EPZs; branches and number of workers covered).

Interference in collective bargaining. In its previous comment the Committee expressed the hope that the Government would continue to refrain from unduly interfering in and give priority to collective bargaining of a voluntary nature as the means of determining terms and conditions of employment in the sugar sector in particular and in the private sector in general. The Committee also requested the Government to provide its comments on observations made by Business Mauritius that the Remuneration Orders of the National Remuneration Board (NRB) were so elaborated and prescriptive that they acted as a disincentive to collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government states that: (i) as from 24 October 2019, the core conditions of employment of workers under Remuneration Orders (ROs) have been harmonized with the adoption of the WRA; (ii) the ROs have been repealed and replaced by 32 Remuneration Regulations, which provide for conditions of employment specific to the sector; (iii) a National Minimum Wage (NMW) was introduced as from January 2018 and was last reviewed in January 2020 and (iv) payments of additional remuneration continue to be made following recommendations by a national tripartite forum, chaired by the Prime Minister. The Committee expresses the firm hope that these developments will contribute to prioritizing bipartite collective bargaining of a voluntary nature as the means of determining terms and conditions of employment in the private sector in general.

Article 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee invited the Government, together with the professional organizations concerned, to study ways in which the current system could be developed to effectively recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes that the Government states that: (i) salary determination in the private sector is completely different than in the public sector; (ii) in the private sector, the wage fixing institution establishes a floor wage and this eventually gives room to collective bargaining; and (iii) this system cannot be imported to the public sector as the Pay Research Bureau (PRB) establishes a ceiling wage for public sector employees. The Committee notes that the Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the State and Other Employees Federation precisely highlight that collective bargaining does not exist in the public service since the setting up of the PRB. The Committee takes note that the Government states that with a view to promoting social dialogue in the public service, an Employment Relations Committee (ERC) is being set up by the Ministry of Public Service, Administrative and Institutional Reforms comprising representatives from Management and the four most representative federations of the Civil Service. Such Committee would, inter alia, consider any matter relating to or arising out of the course of employment of public officers and would make recommendation to appropriate instances. The draft regulation has been finalized after consultations with different stakeholders and is presently at the level of the Attorney-General’s Office for vetting. The Committee welcomes these developments, which aim at promoting social dialogue in the public service. It requests the Government to transmit a copy of the ERC once it has been adopted. The Committee must recall, however, that, pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, all public servants, other than those engaged in the administration of the State, should enjoy collective bargaining rights, and that, under the Convention, the establishment of simple consultation procedures for public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State (such as employees in public enterprises, employees in municipal services, public sector teachers, etc.), instead of real collective bargaining procedures, is not sufficient. The Committee therefore invites once again the Government, together with the professional organizations concerned, to take the necessary measures to effectively recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of technical assistance from the Office with respect to all issues raised in its present comments.

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

The Committee notes the observations received on 1 September 2017 from Business Mauritius and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), which relate to issues examined by the Committee below. It also notes the Government’s comments thereon, as well as on the 2016 observations from the Confederation of Private Sector Workers (CTSP) and the General Trade Unions Federation (GTUF).

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the application of Article 1 in practice, including statistical data on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination brought before the competent authorities (labour inspectorate and judicial bodies), the outcome of relevant judicial or other proceedings and their average duration, as well as the number and nature of sanctions imposed or remedies provided. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the legislative provisions providing protection against acts of anti-union discrimination: section 31 of the Employment Relations Act 2008 (ERA) (prohibiting anti-union discrimination and providing for a maximum fine of Mauritian rupees (MUR) 100,000 (US$2,936)); and sections 38(1)(d) and (f) (prohibiting anti-union dismissal), 46(5B) (providing for reinstatement or severance pay of three months’ wages per year of service) and 67(1)(e) and (2) (providing for a maximum fine of MUR25,000 ($733) or imprisonment of two years), of the Employment Rights Act 2008. Business Mauritius enumerates, in addition, the reversal of the burden of proof under section 31 of the ERA. The Committee further observes the Government’s statement that, as per its records, no complaint of anti-union discrimination has been reported to the competent authorities from 1 June 2016 until 31 May 2017; and that, since 2013, four cases of termination of employment of union delegates have been registered at the labour office (one case was settled following an amicable settlement on the agreed sum of MUR30,000; in one case, the worker was reinstated on the same terms and conditions of employment; in another case, the Industrial Court gave judgment in favour of the worker for unjustified termination of employment and the employer was ordered to pay a sum of MUR800,000 ($23,631) as severance allowance; and the fourth case is being processed for court action). In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall the CTSP 2016 allegations of frequent harassment, intimidation, threats, discrimination and unfair dismissals of trade union representatives when trade unions are established in export processing zones (EPZs), and of frequent acts of anti-union discrimination in the private sector including a recent drastic increase in anti-union dismissals of trade union leaders and delegates without compensation. The Committee requests the Government to pursue its efforts, in particular in the EPZs, so as to ensure that all allegations of anti-union discrimination give rise to expeditious investigations and, if need be, to the imposition of dissuasive sanctions. It also requests the Government to continue to provide statistical data on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination, including anti-union dismissals, brought before the competent authorities (labour inspectorate and judicial bodies), their outcome and the number and nature of sanctions imposed or remedies awarded. With regard to the CTSP 2016 allegation of judicial proceedings in rights disputes taking six to seven years, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in the absence of an amicable settlement, cases are referred to the Industrial Court, which at a preliminary stage tries to conciliate the parties, failing which the matter is fixed for trial and a judgment is delivered without a time limit set for the determination of the case. Highlighting that an excessive delay in processing cases of anti union discrimination could give rise to a denial of justice, the Committee requests the Government to take measures with a view to accelerating relevant judicial proceedings and to provide statistical data on their average duration.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee requested the Government to redouble its efforts, in particular in EPZs, in the garment sector and in the sugar industry, to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations to regulate the terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining agreements. It also requested the Government to continue to supply, or if necessary to compile, statistical information on the functioning of collective bargaining in practice as well as on the use of conciliation services. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that: (i) workers’ education sessions through seminars and talks are still being conducted on an ongoing basis by the Ministry of Labour targeting workers of different sectors including the EPZ/textile sector: from 1 June 2016 until 31 May 2017, 33 training/sensitization activities were carried out for the benefit of 323 male and 500 female employees of the EPZ/textile sector, wherein emphasis was laid on legal provisions and rights at work including those pertaining to the right to collective bargaining and unionization as guaranteed in the labour law; (ii) sensitization of workers in this regard is also effected on an ongoing basis during inspection visits at workplaces: during the abovementioned period, 79 inspection visits were carried out in the EPZ sector, covering 26,045 local workers (11,652 male/14,393 female), and 672 inspection visits in undertakings in the manufacturing sector, which employs 32,286 migrant workers (28,084 male/4,202 female); and (iii) from the 14 collective agreements registered with the Ministry of Labour as of June 2016 to date, one agreement pertains to the EPZ sector. The Committee observes that the information provided by the Government concerning the type of measures it has been taking to promote collective bargaining, is identical to that supplied in its last report. The Committee also notes that, according to Business Mauritius, the ERA sets out in a structured manner the conditions for the harmonious development of collective bargaining, and there is no impediment in the ERA preventing EPZ or migrant workers from embarking in collective bargaining. Taking due note of the legislative provisions which the Government enumerates as aiming at the promotion of collective bargaining (sections 4–6, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 51, 53 and 54 and Part VI of the ERA), the Committee expects that the Government will continue to carry out inspections and sensitization activities as described above. The Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to strengthen these activities, in particular in the textile sector, sugar industry, manufacturing sector and other sectors employing EPZ workers and migrant workers, in order to promote and encourage in practice the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective bargaining agreements.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the use of conciliation services in practice. In particular, as regards the CTSP 2016 allegation of an excessive length of the conciliation proceedings (not less than seven months) due to lack of human resources and logistic support, the Committee notes the Government’s explanations that, in practice: (i) trade unions report a dispute to the Commission for Conciliation and Mediation (CCM), as soon as the recommended duration for collective bargaining negotiations (90 days) has lapsed, without meeting the condition of a deadlock in the negotiations (section 64(2) of the ERA); and (ii) as a result, true collective bargaining negotiations start only after the dispute has been reported to the CCM, so that the 30-day period in which conciliation should be completed pursuant to section 69(3) of the ERA, is usually extended by the parties, as allowed for by section 69(4) of the ERA. Observing the divergence of views between the Government and the social partners, and considering that voluntary conciliation procedures should be expeditious, the Committee invites the Government to engage in a dialogue with the national social partners with a view to identifying the possible adjustments to be made to improve the rapidity and efficiency of the conciliation proceedings, and to provide information in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to supply statistics on the functioning of collective bargaining in practice (number of collective agreements concluded in the private sector, especially in EPZs; branches and number of workers covered).

Interference in collective bargaining. With regard to the alleged Government interference in collective bargaining in the sugar sector, the Committee trusted that, in the future, the Government would continue to refrain from having recourse to compulsory arbitration with the effect of bringing to an end collective labour disputes in that sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has already submitted its comments on the matter in 2015 and that it has taken due note of the comments and recommendations of the Committee. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will continue to refrain from unduly interfering in and will give priority to, collective bargaining of a voluntary nature as the means of determining terms and conditions of employment in the sugar sector in particular and in the private sector in general.

The Committee also takes note of the view of Business Mauritius that the Remuneration Orders of the National Remuneration Board (NRB) are so elaborated and prescriptive that they act as a disincentive to collective bargaining, and suggests that the authorities: (i) implement the decision of the International Labour Conference Committee on the Application of Standards and render collective bargaining voluntary; (ii) provide for a more conducive statutory framework for the conduct of collective bargaining; and (iii) review the functioning of the industrial relations institutions such as the CCM and the Employment Relations Tribunal in order to support the collective bargaining process by providing more speedy and free conciliation, mediation and arbitration services. Business Mauritius believes that the harmonious development of industrial relations would be promoted, if the authorities, when tackling the issue of the loss of workers’ purchasing power, were to adopt solutions, which did not entail modifications of what had been agreed upon by workers’ and employers’ organizations, without the consent of both parties. Business Mauritius stresses that, currently, the Additional Remuneration Act modifies unilaterally duly negotiated collective agreements without the consent of the parties. This interference into the process of free and voluntary collective bargaining is a disincentive for parties to engage in collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in respect of the observations of Business Mauritius.

Article 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. As regards the public sector, the Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that consultations were held by the Pay Research Bureau (PRB) in the context of the review of pay, grading structures and other conditions of service with federations and trade unions; and discussions and negotiations on general terms and conditions of employment as reviewed by PRB were carried out centrally at the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reform with the federations of civil service unions, but no agreements were signed. The Committee had also noted the statement of the Worker member of Mauritius at the Conference Committee in 2016, according to which: (i) collective bargaining did not exist at all in the public sector; and (ii) while the salaries of public servants were decided unilaterally by the PRB, conditions of service were determined at bipartite meetings between the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reform and the PRB, without faithful and meaningful tripartite negotiations. The Committee had requested the Government to provide further information on the manner in which collective bargaining took place in the case of public servants other than those engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes that the Government states that the PRB acts as a permanent and independent body, which adopts a consultative approach with workers’ organizations and the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reform, before making its recommendation to the Government. The Committee notes that, according to Business Mauritius, as Mauritius has ratified the Convention, the right to collective bargaining should be recognized in the public sector as well, subject to special modalities fixed in accordance with the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151). The Committee recalls that, pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, all public servants, other than those engaged in the administration of the State, should enjoy collective bargaining rights, and that, under this Convention, the establishment of simple consultation procedures for public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State (such as employees in public enterprises, employees in municipal services, public sector teachers, etc.), instead of real collective bargaining procedures, is not sufficient. The Committee invites the Government, together with the professional organizations concerned, to study ways in which the current system could be developed so as to effectively recognize the right to collective bargaining of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State.

Technical assistance of the Office. The Committee recalls that, in its conclusions ensuing from the debate in June 2016, the Conference Committee requested the Government to accept technical assistance from the Office to comply with the conclusions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the formulation of the second-generation Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) for Mauritius is being prepared with ILO assistance since April 2017, and that the issues raised by the Committee will be taken up within this framework. It also notes that Business Mauritius would welcome ILO technical assistance in relation to the promotion of collective bargaining, including through legislative amendments, since collective bargaining at enterprise or sectoral level is the best mechanism for regulating terms and conditions of employment and should gain momentum. Noting the Government’s indication that the revision of the Employment Rights Act and the ERA is under way, the Committee reminds the Government that it may, if it so wishes, avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office, with a specific focus on the issues raised in the present observation.

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

Article 6 of the Convention. Collective bargaining in the public sector. As regards the public sector, the Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report under the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), consultations are held by the Pay Research Bureau (PRB) in the context of the review of pay, grading structures and other conditions of service with federations and trade unions; and discussions and negotiations on general terms and conditions of employment as reviewed by PRB are carried out centrally at the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reform with the three federations of civil service unions; but no agreements are signed. The Committee also notes the statement of the Worker member of Mauritius at the Conference Committee in 2016, according to which: (i) collective bargaining does not exist at all in the public sector; and (ii) while the salaries of public servants are decided unilaterally by the PRB, a body established by the Government, conditions of service are determined at bipartite meetings between the Ministry of Civil Service and the PRB, without faithful and meaningful tripartite negotiations. The Committee recalls that under this Convention the establishment of simple consultation procedures for public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State (such as employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and those in decentralized entities, public sector teachers etc.), instead of real collective bargaining procedures, is not sufficient. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the manner in which collective bargaining takes place in the case of public servants other than those engaged in the administration of the State.

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

The Committee notes the observations from the Confederation of Private Sector Workers (CTSP) dated 31 August 2016 and from the General Trade Unions Federation (GTUF) dated 22 September 2016. The Committee notes that these observations relate to matters examined by the Committee in its present observation, as well as to denunciations of violations in practice on which the Committee is requesting the Government to provide its comments.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 105th Session, May–June 2016)

The Committee takes due note of the debate which took place within the Conference Committee in June 2016 and the ensuing conclusions, according to which the Government is requested to: (i) cease its intervention into free and voluntary collective bargaining between employers and workers in the sugar industry; (ii) take concrete measures to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations on the one hand, and workers’ organizations, on the other, in order to regulate the terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining agreements. This includes collective bargaining in EPZs, in the garment sector and in the sugar industry; (iii) provide detailed information on the current situation of collective bargaining in the EPZs and on the concrete measures to promote it in those zones; (iv) refrain from infringing Article 4 of the Convention and from committing similar violations in the future; (v) cease all interference in collective bargaining in the private sector with respect to principles related to mandatory arbitration; and (vi) accept technical assistance from the Office to comply with these conclusions.

Article 1. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the allegation of the Worker member of Mauritius before the Conference Committee that, when trade unions are established in export processing zones (EPZs), trade union representatives are often faced with harassment, intimidation, threats, discrimination and unfair dismissals. Similarly, the CTSP alleges in its observations that the right to collective bargaining is undermined in the private sector by frequent acts of anti-union discrimination, in particular that trade union leaders and delegates can be sacked without any justification and without being paid any compensation, that since the 2013 legislative amendments, the number of union delegates that have been sacked for “cosmetic reasons” through disciplinary committee has increased drastically, and that it is hence very difficult to convince union members to accept the responsibility as a union delegate. In this regard, the CTSP also denounces lengthy and cumbersome dispute settlement and judicial proceedings and denial of time-off facilities for the employees concerned to attend the hearings. Recalling that legal standards on protection against acts of anti-union discrimination are inadequate if they are not accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and effective and expeditious procedures to ensure their practical application, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of this Article in practice, including statistical data on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination brought before the competent authorities (labour inspectorate and judicial bodies), the outcome of relevant judicial or other proceedings and their average duration, as well as the number and nature of sanctions imposed or remedies provided.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee urged the Government to provide detailed information on the current situation with regard to collective bargaining in the EPZs, as well as on the concrete measures taken or envisaged to encourage and promote voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to regulating terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, in EPZs, the textile sector and for migrant workers. Furthermore, the Committee once again requested the Government to take measures in order to compile statistical information on collective agreements in the country and on the use of conciliation services.

The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee that: (i) seminars and talks are conducted on an ongoing basis by the Ministry of Labour targeting workers in different sectors including the EPZ/textile sector; between July 2015 to May 2016, 46 training/sensitization activities were carried out, and 1,769 male and 1,344 female employees in the EPZ/textile sector benefited from these sessions, wherein emphasis was laid on legal provisions and rights at work including those pertaining to the right to collective bargaining and unionization as guaranteed in labour law; (ii) sensitization of workers in this regard is also effected on an ongoing basis during inspection visits at workplaces; during the period 2009–15, 757 inspection visits were carried out in the EPZ sector reaching out to 102,127 local workers (38,376 male and 63,751 female), and 2,059 inspection visits in undertakings with 30,468 (20,455 male and 10,013 female) migrant workers employed in the manufacturing sector; and (iii) from the 62 collective agreements registered with the Ministry of Labour as of May 2010 to date, four agreements concern the EPZ sector.

While welcoming that, as reported to the Conference Committee, certain steps have already been taken to favour collective bargaining in the EPZs, the Committee observes that the Government did not provide in its report any supplementary information in relation to the issues raised in the Conference Committee’s conclusions. The Committee requests the Government to redouble its efforts, in particular in EPZs, in the garment sector and in the sugar industry, to promote and encourage the greater development and utilization of procedures of voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations to regulate the terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining agreements. It also requests the Government to continue to supply, or if necessary to compile, statistical information on the functioning of collective bargaining in practice (number of collective agreements concluded in the private sector, especially in EPZs; branches and the number of workers covered), as well as on the use of conciliation services.

Interference in collective bargaining. With regard to the alleged Government interference in collective bargaining in the sugar sector, the Committee had firmly hoped that, in the future, the Government would make every effort to refrain from having recourse to compulsory arbitration with the effect of bringing to an end collective labour disputes in the sugar sector.

In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government indicated to the Conference Committee that: (i) intervention by the Government in collective bargaining in the sugar sector in 2010 and 2014 was recognized, although the Government had intervened in good faith, at the request of one party, in order to assist the parties to obtain an agreement; and (ii) since the conclusions of the Conference Committee in June 2015, the Government was avoiding any intervention in collective bargaining between employers and workers. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication in its report that, in 2014, following requests made by both parties, the Government had intervened to provide a conciliation service to address the strike, and an agreement had been reached between parties according to which work would resume and three outstanding issues would be referred to the National Remuneration Board (NRB) whereas other issues including wage increase would be referred to an independent arbitrator; and that the Government had never intervened on its own volition and never imposed a referral to the NRB or arbitration. The Committee also takes note of the view of the GTUF that the Government’s interventions in collective bargaining in 2010, 2012 and 2014 do not amount to interference contrary to Article 4 of the Convention, and notes in particular that, according to the information supplied by the GTUF, the parties had explicitly agreed in the framework of the 2012 and 2014 collective agreements concluded following the Government intervention, to refer the unresolved issues to the NRB or to appoint an independent arbitrator. The Committee observes however that, with respect to 2010, the referral of 21 unresolved issues to the NRB did not form part of the relevant collective agreement.

The Committee recalls that the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure if the parties do not reach agreement on a draft collective agreement through collective bargaining is incompatible with the voluntary nature of collective bargaining and is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), essential services in the strict sense of the term and acute national crises, conditions that the Committee had considered were not fulfilled at the time. At the same time, the Committee emphasizes that recourse to public authorities, like the NRB, agreed voluntarily by both parties would not raise problems in relation to the application of the Convention. The Committee trusts that, in the future, the Government will, within the parameters provided above, continue to refrain from having recourse to compulsory arbitration with the effect of bringing to an end collective labour disputes in the sugar sector, and that in any event it will give priority to collective bargaining of a voluntary nature as the means of determining terms and conditions of employment in that sector.

Technical assistance of the Office. Recalling that, in its conclusions ensuing from the debate in June 2016, the Conference Committee requested the Government to accept technical assistance from the Office to comply with the conclusions, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that any request for technical assistance of the Office in relation to the issues raised by the Committee will be made under the second generation Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) for Mauritius, the preparation of which is under way. Noting that the DWCP in force will expire at the end of 2016 and that in the framework of the current labour review, the proposals for legislative amendments are expected to be finalized by the end of 2016, the Committee once again encourages the Government to consider availing itself of the technical assistance of the Office in relation to the issues raised in this observation, including as regards the labour review, so as to ensure that the final version of the proposed amendments is in full conformity with the Convention.

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

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

The Committee notes the observations from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Mauritius Employers’ Federation (MEF) received on 31 August 2015. It also notes the Government’s response to the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2014.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 104th Session, June 2015)

The Committee takes due note of the debate which took place within the Conference Committee in June 2015 and the ensuing conclusions.

Article 1 of the Convention. Alleged acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee previously requested the Government to conduct the necessary inquiries into allegations of anti-union discrimination made by the ITUC in 2014. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) as regards the suspension of a trade union leader, an agreement was reached to the satisfaction of the parties before the Commission for Conciliation and Mediation (CCM); and (ii) as regards the alleged prejudicial changes to the employment contracts of 37 female workers after they joined a union, the information provided to the Government was insufficient to be able to carry out an investigation.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that statistics were not available allowing it to comment on the alleged reduction in collective agreements in 2009, that 43 collective agreements were registered for the period June 2010–May 2014; and that there was no legislative impediment to collective bargaining in export processing zones (EPZs), the textile sector or for migrant workers. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on any concrete measures taken or envisaged to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, in EPZs, the textile sector and for migrant workers. The Committee also requested the Government to take measures in order to compile statistical information on collective agreements in the country and on the use of conciliation services.

The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee that: (i) while there is no legal impediment to collective bargaining for EPZ workers, the Government will do everything to encourage and promote the full development and utilization in the EPZs of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, including awareness-raising campaigns to sensitize workers of their rights; and (ii) since the amendment of the Employment Relations Act (ERA) in 2013, a conciliation service is provided by the Minister upon the request of the parties to a labour dispute at any time before a lawful strike takes place. The Committee duly notes that, in its conclusions ensuing from the debate in June 2015, the Conference Committee urged the Government to “take concrete measures to promote collective bargaining in the EPZs and provide information to the Committee of Experts on the state of collective bargaining in the Zones”. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has failed to provide any information in this respect in its report. The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information on the current situation with regard to collective bargaining in the EPZs, as well as on the concrete measures taken or envisaged to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to regulating terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, in EPZs, the textile sector and for migrant workers (for example, training and information activities, seminars with the social partners, etc.). Furthermore, in order for it to be able to review the functioning of collective bargaining in practice, the Committee once again requests the Government to take measures in order to compile statistical information on collective agreements in the country (for example, number of agreements concluded in the public and private sectors as well as in EPZs, branches covered, number of workers covered, etc.) and on the use of conciliation services.

Interference in collective bargaining. The Committee had previously noted the 2014 observations from the IOE and the MEF alleging that, in 2010, the Government had intervened in the collective bargaining process in the sugar industry by referring the 21 issues that could not be resolved during the collective bargaining process to the National Remuneration Board (NRB). The Committee had noted the Government’s subsequent indication that the dispute had been resolved and that the court proceedings lodged by the MEF in this regard had been withdrawn. The Committee further notes that the Government indicated to the Conference Committee that: (i) the Minister of Labour had withdrawn the referral of the 21 issues to the NRB pursuant to an agreement reached by the parties in August 2012; (ii) the referral had been made in a very specific context with a view to avoiding a strike in the sugar industry, which would have had negative economic effects; and (iii) it was not the policy of the Government to request the NRB to intervene in cases where a final collective agreement had been concluded. The Committee also notes the Worker members’ statements to the Conference Committee that: (i) the Government had justified its interference in the bargaining process to set wages in the sugar cane sector on the grounds of an imminent threat of strike action which had to be avoided if it were to honour its commitments to the European market; and (ii) negotiations had therefore been held under Government auspices, and those provisions on which no agreement had been reached had been passed on to a compulsory arbitration board.

Moreover, the Committee notes the statements by the Employer members to the Conference Committee and the observations submitted by the IOE and the MEF, according to which: (i) the same problems had arisen again in November December 2014; (ii) following the expiration of the collective agreement in the sugar industry on 31 December 2013, and after months of protracted negotiations, the union had decided to take strike action; and (iii) the Government had intervened, requiring the signature of a collective agreement and referring the three issues that had remained unresolved during collective bargaining to the NRB and to compulsory arbitration, as it had done in 2010. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government states in its report and indicated to the Conference Committee that: (i) following negotiations, no collective agreement had been concluded, and both parties had referred the dispute to the CCM where no agreement could be reached; (ii) the strike action had negative economic effects; (iii) the Minister of Labour, acting under section 79A “Conciliation service by Minister” of the ERA, had brought the two parties to the negotiating table and an interim collective agreement had been reached with the consent of both parties; (iv) in the absence of agreement between the parties, the dispute had then been referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Government, who rendered an award on 31 July 2015 concerning wage increases; and (v) the allegation that arbitration was imposed is not justified as the parties voluntarily agreed on the appointment of the arbitrator.

The Committee duly notes that the Conference Committee urged the Government, in its conclusions ensuing from the debate in June 2015 to: (i) “refrain from violating Article 4 of the Convention and avoid such violations in the future”; (ii) “cease undue interference in private sector collective bargaining by selectively reviewing the Remuneration Orders in response to the outcome of collective bargaining”; and (iii) “engage in social dialogue with the social partners regarding collective bargaining and the Remuneration Orders”.

The Committee notes that there is disagreement with regard to the events in 2014, since the Government claims in its report that recourse to arbitration in 2014 was voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, whereas the Employer members denounced before the Conference Committee, just like the IOE and MEF in their observations, that in 2014 the Government referred a dispute to compulsory arbitration during a strike in the sugar sector. The Committee observes, however, that, with respect to 2012, both social partners stated before the Conference Committee that the Government had interfered in collective bargaining and referred the dispute to compulsory arbitration in the context of an imminent strike in the sugar sector, and that the Government did not challenge this allegation. The Committee recalls that the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure if the parties do not reach agreement on a draft collective agreement through collective bargaining is incompatible with the voluntary nature of collective bargaining and raises problems in relation to the application of Convention No. 98. The Committee recalls that recourse to compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a collective labour dispute in the private sector is acceptable in conflicts in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or in situations of acute national or local crisis. Noting that regard must be had to the particular circumstances prevailing in a country, the Committee considers that, at the time of recourse to compulsory arbitration in the sugar sector, there has been no clear and imminent threat to the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and that the sector does thus not constitute an essential service within the strict sense of the term.

Considering that recourse to public authorities like the NRB should be voluntary, the Committee firmly hopes that, in the future, the Government will make every effort to refrain from having recourse to compulsory arbitration with the effect of bringing to an end collective labour disputes in the sugar sector, and that in any event it will give priority to collective bargaining of a voluntary nature as the means of determining terms and conditions of employment in that sector. Finally, noting the Government’s indication that it has taken due note of the conclusions of the Conference Committee and that it undertakes to consider to the extent possible, in the context of the labour law review currently being carried out in consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, how best to encourage and promote the full development of collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect.

The Committee reminds the Government that if it so wishes it may take advantage of ILO technical assistance in relation to the issues raised in this observation.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2016.]

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

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2014, the observations from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Mauritius Employers’ Federation (MEF) received on 21 July 2011 and 1 September 2014, and the observations of the General Workers Federation (GWF) and four unions of the sugar industry received on 22 August 2013. The Committee requests the Government to conduct the necessary inquiries into allegations of anti-union discrimination made by the ITUC and, in any cases in which the allegations are found to be substantiated, to ensure the application of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Articles 1–3 of the Convention. Sanctions against anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication of increases in the maximum fines able to be imposed in cases of anti-union discrimination or interference through the Employment Relations (Amendment) Act 2013, introducing amendments to sections 31, 103 and 104 of the Employment Relations Act, 2008 (ERA).

Article 4. Collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government’s comments on an allegation that the number of collective agreements signed in 2009 had reduced by 70 per cent; to indicate any concrete measures undertaken to promote collective bargaining in export processing zones (EPZs), the textile sector and for migrant workers; and to provide information on the establishment of a new tripartite mechanism. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that statistics are not available allowing it to comment on the alleged reduction in collective agreements. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that the National Tripartite Forum has met four times since its establishment in September 2010 and the possibility of establishment of a conciliation service at the request of parties to a dispute (section 79A of the ERA). The Committee notes that the Government reports that 43 collective agreements were registered for the period June 2010–May 2014. Noting that the Government reiterates that there is no legislative impediment to collective bargaining in EPZs, the textile sector or for migrant workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any concrete measures taken or envisaged to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, in EPZs, the textile sector and for migrant workers. So as to be able to review the operation of collective bargaining in practice, the Committee requests the Government to take measures in order to compile statistical information on collective agreements in the country (number of agreements in the public and private sectors, subjects dealt with and number of workers covered) and on the use of conciliation services.

Interference in collective bargaining. The Committee notes the observations from the IOE and the MEF alleging that the Government intervened in the collective bargaining process in the sugar industry by referring the 21 issues that could not be resolved during the collective bargaining process to the National Remuneration Board (NRB). According to the Government, the NRB is an independent body able to make recommendations and the referral was made after lengthy negotiations that had reached a deadlock. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the dispute has been resolved and the court proceedings lodged by the MEF in this regard have been withdrawn.

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

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the Mauritius Employers’ Federation dated 11 May 2010, by the Confederation of Private Sector Workers (CTSP) dated 7 June 2010, and by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010, as well as the Government’s reply thereon. The Committee further notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2685 regarding alleged anti-union dismissals and the refusal to recognize a trade union (355th Report).

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous observation, the Committee noted the comments made by trade unions regarding the prevalence of anti-union discrimination in the textile sector, especially vis-à-vis migrant workers, as well as the obstacles faced by unions in meeting workers inside or even outside work premises. The Committee requested the Government to provide its observations thereon and recalled the importance not only of prohibiting acts of interference, but also of making provision for rapid appeals procedures coupled with sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Employment Relations Act 2008 (ERA), which replaces the Industrial Relations Act 1973 (IRA), was proclaimed and took effect from 2 February 2009. The Committee notes with satisfaction that sections 30, 31 and 33 of the ERA clearly prohibit all acts of anti-union discrimination and interference – which were not sufficiently addressed by the IRA – and that sections 103 and 104 reinforce the sanctions applicable. It also notes that the Government indicates that these provisions apply to the textile sector, to export processing zones (EPZs), as well as vis-à-vis migrant workers.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the ERA includes a number of provisions which promote collective bargaining through different means (including the prohibition of unfair practices and the guarantee of the right to access the necessary information) and that it applies to all sectors, including EPZs.

Collective bargaining in the public sector. Furthermore, in its previous observations, the Committee had requested the Government to transmit its observation on the right to negotiate salaries in the public sector. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its report regarding negotiations over salaries in the public sector in 2007–08. The Committee notes, in particular, that the Pay Research Bureau constitutes the permanent and independent body in charge of keeping under review the pay and grading structures in the public sector. It further notes that the Bureau adopts a consultative approach when undertaking the general pay review every five years. The Government’s report adds that in 2007–08, although there were no negotiations over salaries in the public sector, extensive consultations took place in the context of the overall pay review (i.e. 1,275 consultative meetings and 2,600 written representations). The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that in its 2010–15 Programme, it announced that the National Pay Council will be phased out and that a tripartite mechanism will be instituted as a permanent forum for discussion among social partners, with a view to better understanding and responding to the challenges facing the country, and that appropriate consultations with stakeholders will be initiated to that effect. The Committee welcomes these consultations and recalls that bipartite collective bargaining is a fundamental element of the Convention. Finally, the Committee notes that, according to the CTSP, the number of collective agreements signed in 2009 has been reduced by 70 per cent. The Committee requests the Government to comment on this assertion.

The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report statistical information on collective agreements in the country (number of agreements in the public and private sectors, subjects dealt with and number of workers covered) and to indicate any concrete measure undertaken to promote collective bargaining in the specific sector of EPZs as well as in the textile sector and vis-à-vis migrant workers. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any development regarding the institution of the abovementioned tripartite mechanism as a permanent forum.

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

The Committee notes with interest the adoption of the Employment Relations Act, 2008 (ERA) which, once proclaimed, will replace the Industrial Relations Act 1973 (IRA) and introduce provisions against acts of interference as well as measures for the promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made with regard to the proclamation of the ERA and to transmit the relevant text as soon as it enters into force.

The Committee also takes note of the comments of the Federation of Parastatal Bodies and other Unions (FPBOU) transmitted with the Government’s report, as well as the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 29 August 2008 concerning the application of the Convention.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee takes note of the comments made by the FPBOU with regard to the prevalence of anti-union discrimination in the textile sector, especially vis-à-vis migrant workers. The FPBOU also refers to obstacles faced by unions in meeting workers inside or even outside the work premises. Finally, reference is made to the need to review the EPZ Act. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that it is an offence under the law to dismiss or discriminate against a migrant worker on trade union grounds and that regular visits to EPZs are carried out by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee requests the Government to reply in detail to the comments made by the FPBOU.

Article 2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee’s previous comments concerned the need to adopt legislation providing for protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that sections 30 and 33 of the ERA prohibit acts of interference in the establishment, functioning or administration of a workers’ or employers’ organization. They also prohibit the practice of promoting or giving assistance to a trade union with the objective of placing it or maintaining it under the employer’s control. In its previous comments, the Committee had expressed the hope that in addition to the prohibition of acts of interference, the ERA would make provision for rapid appeals procedures, coupled with sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, in order to provide full and effective protection. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the provisions of the ERA which establish rapid appeals procedures, coupled with sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

Article 4 of the Convention. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee had previously commented on the low rate of collective bargaining in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee notes that according to the Government, the ERA contains measures to encourage collective bargaining in line with Article 4. The Committee regrets that the Government makes no reference to specific measures to promote collective bargaining in EPZs, as it had previously requested. It once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the concrete measures undertaken to promote collective bargaining in the specific sector of the EPZs.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to transmit its observations on comments made by the ITUC concerning restrictions on the right to negotiate salaries in the public sector. The Government indicates that the Committee on Freedom of Association enquired into a complaint made by the Mauritius Labour Congress with regard to legislative amendments adopted in June 2003 restricting the right of the Public Service Unions to declare a dispute in relation to remuneration or allowances of any kind (Case No. 2398), and that in its 338th Report, the CFA concluded that the complaint did not call for further examination. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information in its next report on the practice followed in 2007-2008 with regard to negotiations over salaries in the public sector.

The Committee also notes the comments dated 16 May 2007 by the National Trade Union Confederation (NTUC) with regard to the setting up of a National Pay Council (NPC) by the Government in a way which bypassed the right of workers’ representatives to be chosen freely by their respective trade union organizations. The Committee notes that the issue is treated by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the framework of Case No. 2575 and that in its latest examination of this Case, the Committee on Freedom of Association requested the Government to continue to hold full and frank consultations with the representatives of the social partners whose representativeness has been objectively proven, on ways to improve the composition and functioning of the NPC. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the progress made in these consultations and their outcome.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the comments submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 10 August 2006. The ICFTU’s comments mainly refer to issues previously raised by the Committee.

The Committee notes the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA), in the follow-up of its recommendations respecting Case No. 2281 (see 342nd Report of the CFA, paragraph 137).

The Committee takes note of the Government’s “White Paper on a new legal framework for industrial relations in Mauritius”, released in 2004, in the context of, and further to the ongoing reforms to the labour law. The White Paper refers to a proposed new legislative framework for industrial relations, in the form of an employment and labour relations bill, and summarizes the main provisions of the proposed new legislation.

Article 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously referred to the need to adopt legislation providing for protection against acts of interference. The Government indicates in this regard that no cases of interference had been reported during the period under review, and that the exercise for the replacement of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) with new legislation is not over: the Bill containing, inter alia, the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention, was introduced in the National Assembly in April 2005, but the Government decided not to proceed further with the presentation of the said Bill following its rejection by both the workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Government adds that, following the general elections in July 2005, a new Government was installed and a new Technical Committee was established within the Ministry of Labour, Industrial Relations and Employment to review the IRA. As both the trade unions and the Mauritius Employers’ Federation had, in subsequent meetings of the Technical Committee, asked for the enactment of a new Bill embodying their respective principles and visions, the Government indicates that it will consider new proposals on the legislation before a new Bill is drafted. The Committee further notes that section 5 of the White Paper, which summarizes the proposed revisions to the legislation, contains an express prohibition against acts of interference by employers and employers and their organizations in the activities of workers’ organizations, and vice versa (Section 5.1.6). In these circumstances, the Committee once again expresses its firm hope that any new legislation adopted would not only expressly prohibit acts of interference by employers’ organizations in the activities of workers’ organizations – and vice versa – but also provide for rapid appeals procedures, coupled by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, in order to provide effective protection against acts of interference. It once again requests the Government to continue to pursue its endeavours and to keep it informed of the progress made in the adoption of the new legislation.

Article 4 of the Convention. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee had previously commented upon the low rate of collective bargaining in export processing zones (EPZs). In this respect, the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that new collective bargaining provisions were also dealt with in the above-discussed deliberations. Accordingly, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures undertaken to promote collective bargaining in the specific sector of the EPZs, and to transmit its observations on the ICFTU comments concerning restrictions on the right to negotiate salaries in the public sector.

The Committee reminds the Government that technical assistance from the ILO remains at its disposal and expresses the hope that the future legislation would be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

Article 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous observation the Committee had noted that the authorities were examining a draft Labour Relations Bill and would consider adopting specific legal provisions to guarantee effective protection against acts of interference by the employers and their organizations in the activities of workers’ organizations and vice versa, as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in this respect. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Government is presently examining the replacement of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) by new legislation with ILO assistance; the provisions of Article 2 have been considered in this framework and steps are being taken to include relevant provisions in the new legislation. The Committee requests the Government to pursue its endeavours in this direction and to keep it informed of progress made.

Articles 4 and 6. Promotion of collective bargaining in the public service. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the Government set wage levels in the public sector through various public bodies (Civil Service Industrial Relations Commission, Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, Pay Research Bureau, National Tripartite Commission and Central Whitley Council) and requested the Government to take account of the principles of free and voluntary collective bargaining for the determination of the conditions of employment (including salaries) of civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes that according to the Government, there is consensus by all stakeholders including trade unions representing civil servants, that negotiation on peripheral issues are held at the level of the Central Whitley Council whilst salaries as well as terms and conditions of employment are dealt with by the Pay Research Bureau which is an independent body and makes its recommendations every five years pursuant to consultations with both management and the staff. After each review, officers are given the opportunity to opt for the revised salaries, terms and conditions of employment. The Government also points out that autonomous public enterprises do not fall under the purview of the Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and Administrative Reforms and that the term "civil servants" refers only to officers employed in the civil service. Thus, as the distinction between civil servants and persons employed by the Government but not engaged in the administration of the State is not clear in the particular circumstances, it is not envisaged to include the principle of collective bargaining for public servants in the new version of the IRA. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining in EPZs. With regard to its previous comments on the low rate of collective bargaining in the export processing zones (EPZs), the Committee notes that according to the Government, emphasis will be laid on collective bargaining at enterprise level in the new legislation under preparation to replace the IRA. In this respect, a tripartite workshop on freedom of association and collective bargaining was conducted on 6-8 July 2004 with the assistance of the ILO. In the course of the seminar, several measures have been advocated by stakeholders to encourage and promote voluntary negotiation and the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. A White Paper on the subject had been released and a draft bill will be presented to Parliament shortly. The Committee takes note of this information with interest. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report the steps taken for the adoption and enactment of the draft Bill as well as any particular measures adopted with regard to the promotion of collective bargaining in the specific sector of the EPZs.

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

The Committee notes the observation made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention, as well as the detailed comments provided by the Government in this regard.

The Committee notes that according to the ICFTU, trade unions and collective bargaining in the export processing zone (EPZ) are non-existent due to the repeated violation of fundamental principles and rights of workers by the employers and the lack of adequate legislative protection against acts of both anti-union discrimination and interference by the employers.

The Government responds by indicating that the Industrial Relations Act, not criticized by the experts as far as protection against anti-union discrimination acts is concerned, applies also in the EPZ and that out of 564 export enterprises, 71 are unionized. The Government recognizes that the rate of unionization is below 10 per cent in the EPZ but states that this rate is 12 per cent in the private sector. The Government states that it is supporting a national study, funded also by the ILO, carried out to better understand the causes of the low rate of unionization in Mauritius and to develop strategies for reinvigoration.

The Committee notes that the Government, referring to ICFTU’s allegations regarding the violation of trade union rights, points out the limited number of cases related to anti-union discrimination submitted to the Conciliation and Mediation Division from 2000 to 2001 (ten in total, four withdrawn after the intervention of officers of the Division, four settled following conciliation and two pending). Moreover, the Government indicates that no complaints have been put forward regarding harassment or anti-union dismissal in the EPZ.

Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee expressed the firm hope that measures would be taken to adopt specific legal provisions in the near future to guarantee effective protection against acts of interference by the employers and their organizations in the activities of workers’ organizations and vice versa, and that such protection would be accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee had noted that the relevant authorities were examining the draft Labour Relations Bill and that consideration was given to the observations made by the Committee of Experts. The Committee requests the Government to pursue its endeavours and keep it informed of any progress in this regard.

Articles 4 and 6. The ICFTU states that the Government sets wage levels in the public sector. The Government underlines that trade union representatives are implicated in the decision process regarding statutory salaries as they sit in, or, are consulted by the different public bodies responsible in this matter: Civil Service Industrial Relations Commission, Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, Pay Research Bureau, National Tripartite Commission and Central Whitley Council. The Committee recalls that trade union organizations should be able to settle directly with their employers the conditions of employment (including salaries) of civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State through collective agreements. The Committee hopes that this principle will be taken into account in the next version of the Industrial Act and that the recourse to compulsory arbitration in the public sector will be only possible in cases regarding civil servants engaged in the administration of the State.

Given the statement of the Government on the low rate of collective bargaining in the EPZ ("almost non-existent"), the Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, any measures taken to promote collective bargaining and to guarantee the full application of Article 4 of the Convention in law and in practice in the EPZ.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on all these issues concerning collective bargaining.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It also notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and requests the Government to provide its observations on the matters raised therein.

Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee had expressed the firm hope that measures would be taken to adopt specific legal provisions in the near future to guarantee effective protection against acts of interference by employers and their organizations in the activities of workers’ organizations and vice versa, and that such protection would be accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee had noted that the Draft Labour Relations Bill was being examined by the relevant authorities, and that consideration was being given to the observations made by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee notes that the Government reiterates in its report the same information. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes that the Government's report states that the Draft Amendment Bill, elaborated in the framework of the Labour Law Reform Project, is being examined by the relevant authorities and that consideration is being given to the observations made by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that measures will be taken to adopt specific legal provisions in the near future to guarantee effective protection against acts of interference by employers and their organizations in the activities of workers' organizations, and vice versa, and that such protection will be accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any developments in the matter.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee has commented in its previous observations, for a number of years, on the need to include in the national legislation an explicit provision protecting workers' organizations against any act of interference by employers. The Committee notes that the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, which contained provisions to this effect, had met with a strong opposition of workers' organizations. It further notes that, as a result, the Government decided to come forward with additional legislation, that it has secured the assistance of the ILO in this regard, and that full consideration will be given to bring the legislation in line with Article 2 of the Convention.

The Committee once more expresses the firm hope that measures will be taken to adopt specific legal provisions in the near future to guarantee effective protection against acts of interference by employers and their organizations in the activities of workers' organizations, and vice versa, accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any developments in the matter.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the observations made by the Mauritius Employers' Federation denying the existence of problems in the country related to the application of the Convention.

Article 2 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments on the need to include in the national legislation an explicit provision protecting workers' organizations against any act of interference by employers, the Committee noted in its previous report that the Government was preparing a Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill which contained provisions to this effect. In this respect, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report that consultations are still being held with employers' and workers' organizations to reach consensus on the provisions of the Bill.

The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government for many years to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and expresses the firm hope that measures will be taken, either by means of the above Bill or any other means, to adopt specific legal provisions in the near future to guarantee effective protection against acts of interference by employers and their organizations in the activities of workers' organizations, accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

With reference to its previous comments on the need to include in the labour legislation an express provision protecting workers' organizations against acts of interference, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report according to which on 17 May 1994, the Trade Union and the Labour Relations Bill was introduced in the National Assembly; this Bill will replace the Industrial Relations Act 1973. The Committee notes with interest that this Bill prohibits an employer or organization of employers from (i) interfering with the establishment, functioning or administration of a trade union of employees (subsection 100(1)(a)); and (ii) from promoting or giving any assistance to a trade union of employees which is calculated to keep the trade union under its control (subsection 100(1)(b)). The Committee further notes that under subsection 100(3), a violation of this provision constitutes an offence punishable by a fine.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments regarding the adoption of this Bill, and to provide it with a copy once it has been adopted.

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

Further to its previous comments concerning the need to include in the labour legislation an express provision protecting workers' organizations against acts of interference, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the Committee notes with interest the indication in the Government's report that the Special Law Review Committee on the review of the Industrial Relations Act has now submitted its report, which is under consideration by the Government.

The Committee recalls that specific legislative provisions accompanied by sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions should be adopted to ensure protection against acts of interference (1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 232) and asks the Government to keep it informed of any progress in that matter, and to communicate a copy of any legislation adopted.

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

The Committee has taken note of the reports submitted by the Government.

With reference to its previous observations and comments concerning the need to include in the labour legislation an express provision protecting workers' organisations against acts of interference, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, problems of interference have not arisen in Mauritius and cannot exist in view of the prevailing trade union pluralism. Although the Government adds that there is no urgent need to amend the legislation, a Special Law Review Committee is presently considering the Industrial Relations Act; if and when that Act is amended, the Government says it will take this opportunity to incorporate an express amendment for the protection of workers' organisations against acts of interference.

The Committee notes that the Government seems to agree on the principle of such an amendment and that, as early as 1980, the Government requested and obtained technical advice from the ILO, by way of examples of provisions deemed satisfactory for the above purposes. The Committee further recalls that the Government stated in its 1984 report that the repealing and replacement of the Industrial Act was under active consideration, and that the Mauritius Labour Congress indicated the same year that a committee set up to examine the replacement of the 1973 Industrial Act had submitted its report.

Recalling, as it did in its 1983 General Survey (paragraphs 283 and 284) that specific legislative provisions accompanied by sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions should be adopted to ensure that protection, the Committee hopes that such measures will be adopted and requests the Government to keep it informed of any development in this regard.

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

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:

In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out that the provisions of the Act do not give workers' organisations sufficient protection against acts of interference, as provided for by Article 2 of the Convention. It has been requesting the Government since 1977 to include an express provision in the legislation for this purpose. The Committee noted from the observations of the Mauritius Labour Congress sent in 1984 that a committee set up to examine the replacement of the Industrial Relations Act of 1973 has submitted its report. The Committee trusts that this step will give rise in the near future to the inclusion in the Act of an express provision covering appropriate procedures and penalties, to ensure that the guarantees set forth in Article 2 of the Convention are respected. The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.