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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services (Arbitration) Act, as amended in 2009, so as to ensure that only disputes in essential services in the strict sense of the term (services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) could be referred to compulsory arbitration. In this respect, the Committee had observed that services listed in the Schedule of the Act, such as dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels or related services, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, and recalled that while some telecommunication services may constitute essential services, the broad formulation contained in the Schedule could apply to other non-essential services and thus unduly restrict the legitimate exercise of the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee further requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 19 of the Act, which sanctions the participation in an illegal strike by fines and imprisonment. The Committee recalled in that respect that no penal sanctions should be imposed against workers for having carried out a peaceful strike. The Committee notes that the Government indicates it is convinced that the services concerned are essential to the population and that their interruption would have serious economic and social repercussions for the population; but that this position does not deprive workers of the right to take industrial action, which is foreseen in the legislation. The Committee reiterates its previous comments and further recalls that in services of fundamental importance a negotiated minimum service could be appropriate as a possible alternative in situations in which a total prohibition or a substantial restriction of strike action, including through compulsory arbitration, would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that users’ basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 136). The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the above-mentioned legislation in light of the foregoing and in consultation with the social partners, so that it does not unduly restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee requests the Government to report on any progress made in this respect.

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

In its previous comment, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services (Arbitration) Act, as amended in 2009, so as to ensure that only disputes in essential services in the strict sense of the term (services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) could be referred to compulsory arbitration. In this respect, the Committee had observed that services listed in the Schedule of the Act, such as dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels or related services, do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, and recalled that while some telecommunication services may constitute essential services, the broad formulation contained in the Schedule could apply to other non-essential services and thus unduly restrict the legitimate exercise of the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee further requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 19 of the Act, which sanctions the participation in an illegal strike by fines and imprisonment. The Committee recalled in that respect that no penal sanctions should be imposed against workers for having carried out a peaceful strike. The Committee notes with regret that in its report, the Government indicates that it is not at this time inclined to effect any change to its legislation. The Committee considers that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure, in law and in practice, the application of the Convention which it has freely ratified. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the abovementioned legislation, in consultation with the social partners, so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature.

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report has not been received.

The Committee observes that the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services (Arbitration) Act (hereinafter the Act), an object of its previous comments, was amended by Act 14 of 2009. While welcoming the narrowing of the list of essential services introduced by the amendment, the Committee observes that the Act, by conferring upon the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in some services going beyond essential services in the strict sense of the term (services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, still compromises the right of workers organizations’ to organize their activities freely and to formulate their programmes as provided for under the Convention.

The Committee observes, in relation to the list of services listed in the Schedule of the Act, that “dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels or related services” do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term. As to the reference to “any service essential to the continued provision of telecommunications”, the Committee notes that, while some telecommunication services may constitute essential services (for example, in the past the committee has considered telephone services under such category) the broad formulation contained in the Schedule could apply to other non-essential services and thus unduly restrict the legitimate exercise of the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities.

Concerning section 19 of the Act, setting out penalties which had also been the object of previous comments, the Committee observes that the amendment set higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike. The Committee recalls in this regard that no penal sanctions should be imposed against workers for having carried out a peaceful strike.

The Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take any necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in a communication received on 1 September 2015.

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

The Committee recalls that its previous observation referred to the following questions:

• – the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01) in respect to: (1) conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule to a tribunal for compulsory arbitration and the sanction (fine or imprisonment) imposed on workers who take part in an illegal strike (section 19); (2) the schedule listing the essential services (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) that contains some services that go beyond those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels, the services provided by the Transport and Harbours Department and the National Drainage and Irrigation Board cannot be considered essential services in the strict sense of the term). The Committee recalled that the authorities may establish, with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, a system of minimum service in those services considered to be of public utility; and
• – section 19 of the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2006 that sets higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement to the effect that there is no restriction on the right to strike and that workers who choose to strike are protected by the law. The Committee once again reminds the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which are essential, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act and the Bill introduced to amend it compromise the workers’ right to strike which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee expresses the hope that necessary measures will be taken to amend the legislation so as to bring it in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in communications received on 27 November 2013 and 1 September 2014.

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

The Committee recalls that its previous observation referred to the following questions:

• – the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01) in respect to: (1) conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule to a tribunal for compulsory arbitration and the sanction (fine or imprisonment) imposed on workers who take part in an illegal strike (section 19); (2) the schedule listing the essential services (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) that contains some services that go beyond those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels, the services provided by the Transport and Harbours Department and the National Drainage and Irrigation Board cannot be considered essential services in the strict sense of the term). The Committee recalled that the authorities may establish, with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, a system of minimum service in those services considered to be of public utility; and
• – section 19 of the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2006 that sets higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement to the effect that there is no restriction on the right to strike and that workers who choose to strike are protected by the law. The Committee once again reminds the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which are essential, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act and the Bill introduced to amend it compromise the workers’ right to strike which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee expresses the hope that necessary measures will be taken to amend the legislation so as to bring it in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

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

Repetition

The Committee recalls that its previous observation referred to the following questions:

• – the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01) in respect to: (1) conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule to a tribunal for compulsory arbitration and the sanction (fine or imprisonment) imposed on workers who take part in an illegal strike (section 19); (2) the schedule listing the essential services (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) that contains some services that go beyond those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels, the services provided by the Transport and Harbours Department and the National Drainage and Irrigation Board cannot be considered essential services in the strict sense of the term). The Committee recalled that the authorities may establish, with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, a system of minimum service in those services considered to be of public utility; and
• – section 19 of the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2006 that sets higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement to the effect that there is no restriction on the right to strike and that workers who choose to strike are protected by the law. The Committee once again reminds the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which are essential, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act and the Bill introduced to amend it compromise the workers’ right to strike which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee expresses the hope that necessary measures will be taken to amend the legislation so as to bring it in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not reply to the outstanding comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that its previous observation referred to the following questions:

• – the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01) in respect to: (1) conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule to a tribunal for compulsory arbitration and the sanction (fine or imprisonment) imposed on workers who take part in an illegal strike (section 19); (2) the schedule listing the essential services (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) that contains some services that go beyond those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels, the services provided by the Transport and Harbours Department and the National Drainage and Irrigation Board cannot be considered essential services in the strict sense of the term). The Committee recalled that the authorities may establish, with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, a system of minimum service in those services considered to be of public utility; and
• – section 19 of the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2006 that sets higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement to the effect that there is no restriction on the right to strike and that workers who choose to strike are protected by the law. The Committee once again reminds the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which are essential, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act and the Bill introduced to amend it compromise the workers’ right to strike which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee expresses the hope that necessary measures will be taken to amend the legislation so as to bring it in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

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

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

Repetition

The Committee recalls that its previous observation referred to the following questions:

• – the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01) in respect to: (1) conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule to a tribunal for compulsory arbitration and the sanction (fine or imprisonment) imposed on workers who take part in an illegal strike (section 19); (2) the schedule listing the essential services (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) that contains some services that go beyond those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels, the services provided by the Transport and Harbours Department and the National Drainage and Irrigation Board cannot be considered essential services in the strict sense of the term). The Committee recalled that the authorities may establish, with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, a system of minimum service in those services considered to be of public utility; and
• – section 19 of the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2006 that sets higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement to the effect that there is no restriction on the right to strike and that workers who choose to strike are protected by the law. The Committee once again reminds the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which are essential, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act and the Bill introduced to amend it compromise the workers’ right to strike which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee expresses the hope that necessary measures will be taken to amend the legislation so as to bring it in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

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

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:

The Committee recalls that its previous observation referred to the following questions:

–      the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01) in respect to: (1) conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule to a tribunal for compulsory arbitration and the sanction (fine or imprisonment) imposed on workers who take part in an illegal strike (section 19); (2) the schedule listing the essential services (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) that contains some services that go beyond those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels, the services provided by the Transport and Harbours Department and the National Drainage and Irrigation Board cannot be considered essential services in the strict sense of the term). The Committee recalled that the authorities may establish, with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, a system of minimum service in those services considered to be of public utility; and

–      section 19 of the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2006 that sets higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement to the effect that there is no restriction on the right to strike and that workers who choose to strike are protected by the law. The Committee once again reminds the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which are essential, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act and the Bill introduced to amend it compromise the workers’ right to strike which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee expresses the hope that necessary measures will be taken to amend the legislation so as to bring it in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

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

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

The Committee recalls that its previous observation referred to the following questions:

–      the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01) in respect to: (1) conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule to a tribunal for compulsory arbitration and the sanction (fine or imprisonment) imposed on workers who take part in an illegal strike (section 19); (2) the schedule listing the essential services (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) that contains some services that go beyond those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels, the services provided by the Transport and Harbours Department and the National Drainage and Irrigation Board cannot be considered essential services in the strict sense of the term). The Committee recalled that the authorities may establish, with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, a system of minimum service in those services considered to be of public utility; and

–      section 19 of the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2006 that sets higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike.

The Committee had noted the Government’s statement to the effect that there is no restriction on the right to strike and that workers who choose to strike are protected by the law. The Committee once again reminds the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which are essential, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act and the Bill introduced to amend it compromise the workers’ right to strike which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee expresses the hope that necessary measures will be taken to amend the legislation so as to bring it in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. The Committee recalls that its previous observation referred to the following questions:

–      the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01) in respect to: (1) conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule to a tribunal for compulsory arbitration and the sanction (fine or imprisonment) imposed on workers who take part in an illegal strike (section 19); (2) the schedule listing the essential services (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) that contains some services that go beyond those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels, the services provided by the Transport and Harbours Department and the National Drainage and Irrigation Board cannot be considered essential services in the strict sense of the term). The Committee recalled that the authorities may establish, with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations, a system of minimum service in those services considered to be of public utility; and

–      section 19 of the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2006 that sets higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that there is no restriction on the right to strike and that workers who choose to strike are protected by the law. The Committee once again reminds the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which are essential, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act and the Bill introduced to amend it compromise the workers’ right to strike which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee expresses the hope that necessary measures will be taken to amend the legislation so as to bring it in conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and in particular of the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration (amendment) Bill of 2006.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (cap. 54:01) which confers on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) to a tribunal for compulsory arbitration for services that go beyond those considered to be essential, and renders workers who take part in an illegal strike liable to a fine or imprisonment (section 19).

As regards cap. 54:01 and in particular the schedule listing the essential services, the Committee notes that while it has been considerably reduced with respect to the services included in it, it still contains some services that go beyond those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In fact, the dockage, wharfage, discharging, loading or unloading of vessels; the services provided by the Transport and Harbours Department and the National Drainage and Irrigation Board cannot be considered as essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee recalls, however, that the authorities may establish a system of minimum service in those services considered to be of public utility. In such case, these minimum services should be defined and established with the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations.

As regards section 19, the Committee observes that the new Bill sets higher fines than those provided for in the previous Act and maintains the imprisonment for those workers who take part in an illegal strike. The Committee reminds the Government that by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which are essential, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Bill compromises the workers’ right to strike which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests. The Committee asks the Government to take into account the previous comments, so as to ensure that the legislation to be adopted is in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Concerning the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 29 October 2003, the Committee notes that the Government did not send its observations. These comments refer to the abovementioned restrictions to the right to strike and to the change by the Government of the procedure for payment of union dues by public servants. Currently, the Guyana Public Services Union (GPSU) is required to ask individual members to resubmit authorization for the deduction of union dues in favour of the union, which is an expensive and time consuming process. Although the Committee regrets that the trade union organization was not consulted prior to the adoption of the new procedure in question, the Committee notes this does not violate the principles of freedom of association. The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2187 (see 332nd Report) and, in particular, its request to the Government to ensure that the deduction of trade union dues and their payment to the GPSU are carried out promptly and in full and to undertake consultations with the GPSU without delay in order to forward to the GPSU any contributions which have been retained. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

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

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

The Committee requests the Government to transmit its observations on the comments communicated by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 29 October 2003.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had referred to the necessity of amending the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01, sections 3, 12 and 19) so that compulsory arbitration in respect of a strike, liable to a fine or two months’ imprisonment, may only be used with respect to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, and to ensure that the powers conferred on the authorities to resort to compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike are limited to strikes in services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. The Committee also takes note of the comments communicated by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 29 October 2003 and requests the Government to transmit its observations thereon.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had referred to the necessity of amending the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01, sections 3, 12 and 19) so that compulsory arbitration in respect of a strike, liable to a fine or two months’ imprisonment, may only be used with respect to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the Act has not yet been amended but it may now be possible to do so. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, and to ensure that the powers conferred on the authorities to resort to compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike are limited to strikes in services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

In its previous comments, the Committee recalled the necessity of amending the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01, sections 3, 12 and 19) so that compulsory arbitration in respect of a strike, liable to a fine or two months’ imprisonment, may only be used with respect to strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term. Noting the indication in the Government’s report that there has been no change in the application of the Convention, the Committee, once again, urges the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention, and to ensure that the powers conferred on the authorities to resort to compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike are limited, and apply only to strikes in services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its latest report.

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the necessity to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01, sections 3, 12 and 19), so that compulsory arbitration in respect of a strike, liable to a fine or two months’ imprisonment, may only be used for essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee notes that the Government has stated in its report that the industrial disputes subcommittee which is chaired by a representative of the unions has not submitted its report on the amendment of the legislation in question, and that the Government will have to take the initiative to draft the amendment to the Act to bring it in line with the Convention. Once again, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring in the near future the legislation into conformity with the Convention and to ensure that the powers conferred on the authorities to resort to compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike are limited to collective actions and strikes in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee urges the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its latest report.

The Committee takes due note of the adoption by the Parliament on 28 October 1997 of Bill No. 33 on Trade Union Recognition.

The Committee has examined the legislation in question and notes that sections 20(2), 21(2) and (3) provide that in case of both trade union unity or diversity, in a given bargaining unit, the most representative union for collective bargaining must, at least, include 40 per cent of the workers of the bargaining unit who took part in the ballot. The Committee notes that the criteria which allow the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit are contained in section 19.

The Committee notes that the law provides that an application for certification of recognition can be made by another union two years after the recognized majority union obtained certification as such (section 29(1)b)). The legislation also provides that an application may be made although two years have not expired if the board is satisfied that good reasons exist for such an application (section 29(1) (b) and (2)). However, no application for certification of recognition may be made by a trade union earlier than 12 months from the date when the application made by that union for certification with respect to the same bargaining unit was last determined or from the date when its certificate of recognition was cancelled (section 29(4)).

The Committee notes with interest that application for certification of recognition and determination of the appropriate bargaining unit are dealt with by an independent tripartite body provided by the legislation. The Committee has stated in paragraph 99 of its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, that industrial relations systems where only one bargaining agent may be certified to represent the workers of any given bargaining unit, which gives it the exclusive right to negotiate the collective agreement, does not raise difficulties under the Convention, provided that legislation or practice impose on the exclusive bargaining agent an obligation to represent fairly and equally all workers in the bargaining unit, whether or not they are members of the trade union.

In its previous comments, the Committee had also recalled the necessity to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Chapter 54:01, sections 3, 12 and 19), so that compulsory arbitration in respect of a strike, liable to a fine or two months' imprisonment, may only be used for essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee notes that the Government has stated in its report that the industrial disputes subcommittee which is chaired by a representative of the unions is still to submit its report on the amendment of the legislation in question. Once again, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure that compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike can only be imposed in services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any progress made in this respect.

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

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

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's indication that the Trade Union Recognition Bill, which is to contain provisions establishing objective, pre-established and precise criteria for determining the most representative union for collective bargaining purposes, was still under consideration. The Committee notes from the Government's latest report that the Bill was tabled in Parliament but was not taken through all the stages because the Guyana Trade union Congress objected to a section concerning dispute settlement. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that this Bill will be adopted in the near future and that it will contain the necessary safeguards for an objective determination of the exclusive bargaining agent in a given unit. It requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard in its next report.

2. As concerns its previous comment in respect of the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act, chapter 54:01, so that compulsory arbitration in respect of strikes is only used for essential services in the strict sense of the term, the Committee notes from the Government's latest report that the industrial disputes subcommittee of the standing tripartite committee has been mandated to recommend changes to this Act. The Committee once again trusts that measures will be taken in the near future to ensure that compulsory arbitration is only used in respect of services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

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

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

1. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled that, when providing for the certification of the most representative union in a given unit as the exclusive bargaining agent, the determination of the most representative organizations must be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse. Therefore certain safeguards of objectivity needed to be ensured like, for instance, the establishment of an independent body for certification and the use of a majority vote for determining the most representative union. It notes that the Trade Union Recognition Bill (under consideration since 1979) which is to contain these provisions is presently with the law officers for final drafting. The Committee expresses the firm hope that this Bill will be adopted in the near future and that it will contain the necessary safeguards for an objective determination of the exclusive bargaining agent in a given unit.

2. In comments it has been making since 1983, the Committee has urged the Government to ensure that measures be taken to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act, Chapter 54:01, so that compulsory arbitration in respect of strikes may only be used for essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee notes from the Government's latest report that the Act has still not been amended but that its observations have been submitted to the employers' and workers' organizations for their comments. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to amend this Act so as to ensure that the right to strike is guaranteed to workers in all services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term and requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this respect.

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

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

The Committee recalls that its previous comments have addressed the following issues:

- the need to adopt a Trade Union Recognition Bill;

- the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Cap. 54:01) which confers on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) to a tribunal for arbitration without having previously obtained the agreement of the two parties, and renders workers who take part in an illegal strike liable to a fine or two months' imprisonment (section 19).

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the Trade Union Recognition Bill was laid in Parliament and received its first reading in September 1991, but that the second reading was deferred as a result of objections raised by one of the parties to certain sections of the Bill. The Government indicates that further discussions are to be held with a view to clarifying those sections with which there is disagreement. The Committee further notes that the Government has taken note of its comments and that the amendments to the Act are still under consideration.

The Committee reiterates once again the hope that, as part of the present review of the legislation, the Act (Cap. 54:01) will be amended to bring the legislation in line with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on developments in this respect in its next report.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and recalls that its comments have addressed the following issues:

- the adoption of a Trade Union Recognition Bill;

- the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Cap. 54:01) which confers on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) to a tribunal for arbitration without having previously obtained the agreement of the two parties, and renders workers who take part in an illegal strike liable to a fine or two months' imprisonment (section 19).

1. The Committee takes note of the contents of the Trade Union Recognition Bill which contains provisions on the establishment of an independent body for the certification of trade unions and the determination of the most representative union in a given unit by majority vote. The Committee notes that under section 27(a) of the Bill, the recognised majority union has exclusive authority to negotiate on behalf of workers in the bargaining unit. The Committee requests the Government to state whether, where no union regroups 40 per cent of the persons in a unit as is required by section 20(2) or, where no union regroups 51 per cent after the period of time stipulated in section 20(3)(b), collective representation is granted to workers in such unions, at least for their members. The Committee stated in paragraph 141 of its 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining that minority organisations should be allowed to function and at least have the right to make representations on behalf of their members and to represent them in the case of individual grievances. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate whether, in the situation mentioned above, collective bargaining rights are granted to trade unions in these units on behalf of their own members, as it stated would be desirable in paragraph 295 of its General Survey.

2. In a previous comment, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that measures were taken to amend Act Cap. 54:01 to limit recourse to compulsory arbitration in respect of strikes relating to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services whose interruption is liable to endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the Minister has not invoked the provisions of the Act that permit him to refer disputes to arbitration without the consent of the parties for many years, that all the disputes referred to arbitration in recent years were at the instance of the unions and that the penal sanction contained in the Act has never been enforced. The Committee also notes the Government's statement that it is currently examining the legislation in view of the comments and observations made by the Committee of Experts with a view to adopting the necessary amendments.

The Committee again expresses the hope that, as part of the present review of the legislation, Act Cap. 54:01 will be amended to take account of its comments. It asks the Government to provide detailed information on developments in this respect.

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

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

The Committee recalls that its comments have addressed the following issues:

- the adoption of a Trade Union Recognition Bill;

- the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Cap. 54:01) which confers on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) to a tribunal for arbitration without having previously obtained the agreement of the two parties, and renders workers who take part in an illegal strike liable to a fine or two months' imprisonment (section 19).

1. In its previous comment, the Committee noted, on the basis of the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 1330, see 248th Report approved by the Governing Body in March 1987), that the Trade Union Recognition Bill, under consideration since 1979, was to contain provisions concerning the establishment of an independent body for the certification of trade unions, and the determination of the most representative union in a given unit by majority vote. These provisions had received the approval of the workers and employers. The Committee asked for detailed information on the contents of this Bill.

In its report, the Government indicates that no legislation has yet been enacted with regard to trade union recognition but that, when such a law has been enacted, it will be forwarded to the Office.

In the absence of any other information, the Committee again requests the Government to report in detail on the progress of the Bill and to provide a copy of any existing version of it.

2. In its previous comment, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that measures were taken to amend Act Cap. 54:01 to limit recourse to compulsory arbitration in respect of strikes relating to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services whose interruption is liable to endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

In its report, the Government indicates that this Act is still under consideration by the competent authorities.

The Committee takes note of this statement but, in the circumstances, can only remind the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which, in the opinion of the Committee, are essential services in the strict sense of the term, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Act compromises the workers' right to strike, which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee again expresses the hope that, as part of the present review of the legislation, Act Cap. 54:01 will be amended to take account of its comments. It asks the Government to provide detailed information on developments in this respect.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and recalls that its comments have addressed the following issues:

- the adoption of a Trade Union Recognition Bill;

- the need to amend the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Health Services Arbitration Act (Cap. 54:01) which confers on the Minister broad powers to refer a dispute in the services listed in the schedule (which may be revised at the discretion of the Minister) to a tribunal for arbitration without having previously obtained the agreement of the two parties, and renders workers who take part in an illegal strike liable to a fine or two months' imprisonment (section 19).

1. In its previous comment, the Committee noted, on the basis of the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 1330, see 248th Report approved by the Governing Body in March 1987), that the Trade Union Recognition Bill, under consideration since 1979, was to contain provisions concerning the establishment of an independent body for the certification of trade unions, and the determination of the most representative union in a given unit by majority vote. These provisions had received the approval of the workers and employers. The Committee asked for detailed information on the contents of this Bill.

In its report, the Government indicates that no legislation has yet been enacted with regard to trade union recognition but that, when such a law has been enacted, it will be forwarded to the Office.

In the absence of any other information, the Committee again requests the Government to report in detail on the progress of the Bill and to provide a copy of any existing version of it.

2. In its previous comment, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that measures were taken to amend Act Cap. 54:01 to limit recourse to compulsory arbitration in respect of strikes relating to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services whose interruption is liable to endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

In its report, the Government indicates that this Act is still under consideration by the competent authorities.

The Committee takes note of this statement but, in the circumstances, can only remind the Government that, by conferring on the Minister broad powers to refer to compulsory arbitration disputes in services, not all of which, in the opinion of the Committee, are essential services in the strict sense of the term, and by providing for sanctions (fine or imprisonment) in the event of an illegal strike, the Act compromises the workers' right to strike, which the Committee considers to be one of the essential means available to them to protect their interests.

The Committee again expresses the hope that, as part of the present review of the legislation, Act Cap. 54:01 will be amended to take account of its comments. It asks the Government to provide detailed information on developments in this respect.