Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Aruba

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

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

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

Repetition

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to clarify whether section 374(a), (b) and (c) of the Penal Code of the Netherlands Antilles, which prohibited public employees from striking under penalty of imprisonment, had been carried over into the Aruba Penal Code, which entered into force in Aruba on 27 April 2012. The Committee takes note that the Government’s decision to withdraw the reservation made with respect to Article 6(4) of the European Social Charter on the civil servants’ right to strike took effect on 6 July 2017. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any legislative measures contemplated or taken with a view to giving effect to the decision to withdraw the reservation on the civil servants’ right to strike in Aruba and thereby aligning the national legislation with the Convention.

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

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

Repetition

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to clarify whether section 374(a), (b) and (c) of the Penal Code of the Netherlands Antilles, which prohibited public employees from striking under penalty of imprisonment, had been carried over into the Aruba Penal Code, which entered into force in Aruba on 27 April 2012. The Committee takes note that the Government’s decision to withdraw the reservation made with respect to Article 6(4) of the European Social Charter on the civil servants’ right to strike took effect on 6 July 2017. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any legislative measures contemplated or taken with a view to giving effect to the decision to withdraw the reservation on the civil servants’ right to strike in Aruba and thereby aligning the national legislation with the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to clarify whether section 374(a), (b) and (c) of the Penal Code of the Netherlands Antilles, which prohibited public employees from striking under penalty of imprisonment, had been carried over into the Aruba Penal Code, which entered into force in Aruba on 27 April 2012. The Committee takes note that the Government’s decision to withdraw the reservation made with respect to Article 6(4) of the European Social Charter on the civil servants’ right to strike took effect on 6 July 2017. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any legislative measures contemplated or taken with a view to giving effect to the decision to withdraw the reservation on the civil servants’ right to strike in Aruba and thereby aligning the national legislation with the Convention.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. The Committee recalls that it had previously highlighted the need to amend or repeal section 374(a), (b) and (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 containing the Conditions of Service of Public Servants, which amounted to prohibiting public employees from striking under penalty of imprisonment. Having noted the Government’s statement that the above provisions did not prohibit public employees from exercising their right to strike, the Committee had nevertheless invited the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to confirm in a legal text that public employees could exercise the right to strike and that no criminal penalties could be imposed for their peaceful participation in strikes. While noting that the Government’s report has not been received, the Committee notes with interest that, pursuant to the Kingdom Act of 3 December 2014, the reservations formerly made for the then Netherlands Antilles, which rendered Articles 6(4) of the European Social Charter and 8(1)(d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (right to strike) not applicable to civil servants, have been withdrawn with the accord of the Government at Kingdom level, and that this is also valid for Aruba. Furthermore, the Committee understands that a new Penal Code entered into force in Aruba on 27 April 2012, replacing the old Penal Code of the Netherlands Antilles, and that it was amended in 2014. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether section 374(a), (b) and (c) of the Penal Code of the Netherlands Antilles has been carried over into the Aruba Penal Code, and, if so, to indicate any legislative measures contemplated or taken with a view to giving effect to the decision to withdraw the reservation on the civil servants’ right to strike in Aruba, thus aligning the national legislation with the Convention.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to organize their activities. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take measures to amend or repeal section 374(a)–(c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, which appeared to sanction, with imprisonment, the exercise of the right to strike by public employees. The Committee duly notes that, on repeated occasions, the Government has denied having any legislation prohibiting public employees from exercising their right to strike. The Government has stated that the right to strike is guaranteed by the Constitution of Aruba, that section 374 of the Penal Code does not prohibit public employees from striking but only from certain acts while on strike like stagnation (for example, of the traffic), and that section 82 of the Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 sets out penalties for public employees who neglect or refuse to perform labour but has no impact on strike action. The Government indicates that, considering that these sections have no bearing on the question of strikes by public employees, no changes have been introduced to them. The Committee invites the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to confirm in a legal text that public employees may exercise the right to strike and that no criminal penalties may be imposed for their peaceful participation in strikes.

As to the concerns of stagnation, the Committee observes that, in consultation with the organizations of public employees concerned, the Government may provide for the establishment of minimum services for essential services in the strict sense of the term (the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), services in which strikes of a certain magnitude and duration could cause an acute crisis threatening the normal conditions of existence of the population, or public services of fundamental importance.

Freedom of assembly. In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to take any necessary measures to ensure that the authorization for holding public meetings in specific areas could be denied only when it is feared that serious disturbances might occur and public order is threatened and that, in such cases, the authorities responsible for public order take the necessary measures to reach an agreement with the organizers of a meeting concerning the place where it can be held and the manner in which it can take place. The Committee notes that the Government responds to its request by stressing that, pursuant to section 5 of State Ordinance AB 1999 No. GT2, the right to demonstrate can be limited when public order is disturbed or there exists a severe threat of said disturbance. The Government adds that, in such cases, the responsible authorities suggest other times and places. The Committee notes that employers’ and workers’ organizations have not made any comments on these statements of the Government.

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

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that article 1 of State Ordinance AB 1999 No. GT2 prohibited the holding of any public meeting or speech in open air without prior written authorization from the Minister of General Affairs and requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of this article. In particular, the Committee requested the Government to indicate on which basis the Minister delivered the authorization and according to which specific requirements. The Committee had also noted that while section 5(1) of the State Ordinance provided that the right to assembly may be subject to certain conditions specified in a national decree, if public order is disturbed or if there is a serious risk of disturbance of public order, section 5(3) stated that “[the] provisions of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to associations, committees or bodies established by virtue of a legal regulation or to committees, associations or bodies expressly excluded in the national decree”. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to indicate if, according to section 5(3), the trade unions and other workers’ and employers’ organizations were exempted from the application of section 5(1).

The Committee had noted the following information provided by the Government. When a request is submitted to the police, the petition is evaluated on its purpose and location as to the safety and public order of the event. There are no written guidelines and it remains at the discretion of the police to determine the extent of risk to the safety and public order and to advise for or against the event. The Minister of General Affairs makes the ultimate decision, which usually is in conformity with the decision reached by the police. The Government further indicated that a national decree, as referred to in section 5(1), has not been adopted and that therefore, there are no organizations (workers’ or employers’ included) exempted from the application of section 5(1). The Committee recalled that while prohibition of demonstrations or processions on public streets, when it is feared that disturbances might occur, does not necessarily constitute an infringement of trade union rights, the authorities should strive to reach an agreement with organizers of the meeting to enable it to be held in some other place where there would be no fear of disturbances (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 37). The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information on this issue in its report. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including through adoption of legal provisions, which would ensure that the authorization for holding public meetings in the specific areas could be denied only when it is feared that serious disturbances might occur and public order is threatened and that in such cases, the authorities responsible for public order take the necessary measures to reach an agreement with the organizers of a meeting concerning the place where it can be held and the manner in which it can take place. It requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a)–(c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, which prohibited the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment.

The Committee had noted that, in the Government’s opinion, the abovementioned provisions are in conformity with the Convention, as they do not prohibit public employees from striking. According to the Government, section 374(a) of the Penal Code refers to imprisonment or fine of a public official in the case when he or she, while performing his or her duties, acts with the aim to cause stagnation or to permit the continuation of stagnation, neglects or refuses to perform labour corresponding to his or her inherent duties as a public official. The Government further indicated that section 82(2) of Ordinance No. 159, which states that punishment may be exacted on public employees who neglect or refuse to perform labour as any good public official is expected to perform is aimed at an individual’s refusal to perform his or her duties, and not at collective or individual strikes. The Government further indicated that the Penal Code will not be affected by a revision of the labour legislation as the Penal Code falls under the competency of the Ministry of Justice. However, the Code is currently under evaluation by a special committee established in March 2003. It is estimated that its work will be completed in approximately two years. After the evaluation period, the work on the suggested amendments will commence.

The Committee recalled that, in its 1992 report, the Government acknowledged that strikes by public employees, including teachers in the public sector, were forbidden by law (section 347(a)–(c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964), although in practice public employees had resorted to strikes on several occasions and that the local courts had considered such strikes to be legal on condition that they were justified. The Committee recalled that the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services would become meaningless if legislation defined the public services or essential services too broadly. The Committee considers that the prohibition should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Noting that the Government does not provide any information on this issue in its report, the Committee, recalling that in its previous observation, it had noted that the Penal Code was currently under evaluation, once again hopes that the Code, as well as section 82 of Ordinance No. 159, will be reviewed in accordance with the Committee’s comments and asks the Government to indicate any progress in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

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

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 direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that article 1 of State Ordinance AB 1999 No. GT2 prohibited the holding of any public meeting or speech in open air without prior written authorization from the Minister of General Affairs and requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of this article. In particular, the Committee requested the Government to indicate on which basis the Minister delivered the authorization and according to which specific requirements. The Committee had also noted that while section 5(1) of the State Ordinance provided that the right to assembly may be subject to certain conditions specified in a national decree, if public order is disturbed or if there is a serious risk of disturbance of public order, section 5(3) stated that “[the] provisions of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to associations, committees or bodies established by virtue of a legal regulation or to committees, associations or bodies expressly excluded in the national decree”. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to indicate if, according to section 5(3), the trade unions and other workers’ and employers’ organizations were exempted from the application of section 5(1).

The Committee had noted the following information provided by the Government. When a request is submitted to the police, the petition is evaluated on its purpose and location as to the safety and public order of the event. There are no written guidelines and it remains at the discretion of the police to determine the extent of risk to the safety and public order and to advise for or against the event. The Minister of General Affairs makes the ultimate decision, which usually is in conformity with the decision reached by the police. The Government further indicated that a national decree, as referred to in section 5(1), has not been adopted and that therefore, there are no organizations (workers’ or employers’ included) exempted from the application of section 5(1). The Committee recalls that while prohibition of demonstrations or processions on public streets, when it is feared that disturbances might occur, does not necessarily constitute an infringement of trade union rights, the authorities should strive to reach an agreement with organizers of the meeting to enable it to be held in some other place where there would be no fear of disturbances (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 37). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including through adoption of legal provisions, which would ensure that the authorization for holding public meetings in the specific areas could be denied only when it is feared that serious disturbances might occur and public order is threatened and that in such cases, the authorities responsible for public order take the necessary measures to reach an agreement with the organizers of a meeting concerning the place where it can be held and the manner in which it can take place. It requests the Government to inform in this respect.

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:

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a)–(c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, which prohibited the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment.

The Committee had noted that, in the Government’s opinion, the abovementioned provisions are in conformity with the Convention, as they do not prohibit public employees from striking. According to the Government, section 374(a) of the Penal Code refers to imprisonment or fine of a public official in the case when he or she, while performing his or her duties, acts with the aim to cause stagnation or to permit the continuation of stagnation, neglects or refuses to perform labour corresponding to his or her inherent duties as a public official. The Government further indicated that section 82(2) of Ordinance No. 159, which states that punishment may be exacted on public employees who neglect or refuse to perform labour as any good public official is expected to perform is aimed at an individual’s refusal to perform his or her duties, and not at collective or individual strikes. The Government further indicated that the Penal Code will not be affected by a revision of the labour legislation as the Penal Code falls under the competency of the Ministry of Justice. However, the Code is currently under evaluation by a special committee established in March 2003. It is estimated that its work will be completed in approximately two years. After the evaluation period, the work on the suggested amendments will commence.

The Committee recalls that, in its 1992 report, the Government acknowledged that strikes by public employees, including teachers in the public sector, were forbidden by law (section 347(a)–(c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964), although in practice public employees had resorted to strikes on several occasions and that the local courts had considered such strikes to be legal on condition that they were justified. The Committee recalls that the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services would become meaningless if legislation defined the public services or essential services too broadly. The Committee considers that the prohibition should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Noting that the Penal Code is currently under evaluation, the Committee hopes that the Code, as well as section 82 of Ordinance No. 159, will be reviewed in accordance with the Committee’s comments and asks the Government to indicate any progress in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

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

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

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 it had previously noted that article 1 of State Ordinance AB 1999 No. GT2 prohibited the holding of any public meeting or speech in open air without prior written authorization from the Minister of General Affairs and requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of this article. In particular, the Committee requested the Government to indicate on which basis the Minister delivered the authorization and according to which specific requirements. The Committee had also noted that while section 5(1) of the State Ordinance provided that the right to assembly may be subject to certain conditions specified in a national decree, if public order is disturbed or if there is a serious risk of disturbance of public order, section 5(3) stated that “[the] provisions of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to associations, committees or bodies established by virtue of a legal regulation or to committees, associations or bodies expressly excluded in the national decree”. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to indicate if, according to section 5(3), the trade unions and other workers’ and employers’ organizations were exempted from the application of section 5(1).

The Committee had noted the following information provided by the Government. When a request is submitted to the police, the petition is evaluated on its purpose and location as to the safety and public order of the event. There are no written guidelines and it remains at the discretion of the police to determine the extent of risk to the safety and public order and to advise for or against the event. The Minister of General Affairs makes the ultimate decision, which usually is in conformity with the decision reached by the police. The Government further indicated that a national decree, as referred to in section 5(1), has not been adopted and that therefore, there are no organizations (workers’ or employers’ included) exempted from the application of section 5(1). The Committee recalls that while prohibition of demonstrations or processions on public streets, when it is feared that disturbances might occur, does not necessarily constitute an infringement of trade union rights, the authorities should strive to reach an agreement with organizers of the meeting to enable it to be held in some other place where there would be no fear of disturbances (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 37). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including through adoption of legal provisions, which would ensure that the authorization for holding public meetings in the specific areas could be denied only when it is feared that serious disturbances might occur and public order is threatened and that in such cases, the authorities responsible for public order take the necessary measures to reach an agreement with the organizers of a meeting concerning the place where it can be held and the manner in which it can take place. It requests the Government to inform in this respect.

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, which prohibited the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment.

The Committee had noted that, in the Government’s opinion, the abovementioned provisions are in conformity with the Convention, as they do not prohibit public employees from striking. According to the Government, section 374(a) of the Penal Code refers to imprisonment or fine of a public official in the case when he or she, while performing his or her duties, acts with the aim to cause stagnation or to permit the continuation of stagnation, neglects or refuses to perform labour corresponding to his or her inherent duties as a public official. The Government further indicated that section 82(2) of Ordinance No. 159, which states that punishment may be exacted on public employees who neglect or refuse to perform labour as any good public official is expected to perform is aimed at an individual’s refusal to perform his or her duties, and not at collective or individual strikes. The Government further indicated that the Penal Code will not be affected by a revision of the labour legislation as the Penal Code falls under the competency of the Ministry of Justice. However, the Code is currently under evaluation by a special committee established in March 2003. It is estimated that its work will be completed in approximately two years. After the evaluation period, the work on the suggested amendments will commence.

The Committee recalls that, in its 1992 report, the Government acknowledged that strikes by public employees, including teachers in the public sector, were forbidden by law (section 347(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964), although in practice public employees had resorted to strikes on several occasions and that the local courts had considered such strikes to be legal on condition that they were justified. The Committee recalls that the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services would become meaningless if legislation defined the public services or essential services too broadly. The Committee considers that the prohibition should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Noting that the Penal Code is currently under evaluation, the Committee hopes that the Code, as well as section 82 of Ordinance No. 159, will be reviewed in accordance with the Committee’s comments and asks the Government to indicate any progress in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

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

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

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government’s report in reply to its previous direct request.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that article 1 of State Ordinance AB 1999 No. GT2 prohibited the holding of any public meeting or speech in open air without prior written authorization from the Minister of General Affairs and requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of this article. In particular, the Committee requested the Government to indicate on which basis the Minister delivered the authorization and according to which specific requirements. The Committee had also noted that while section 5(1) of the State Ordinance provided that the right to assembly may be subject to certain conditions specified in a national decree, if public order is disturbed or if there is a serious risk of disturbance of public order, section 5(3) stated that “[the] provisions of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to associations, committees or bodies established by virtue of a legal regulation or to committees, associations or bodies expressly excluded in the national decree”. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to indicate if, according to section 5(3), the trade unions and other workers’ and employers’ organizations were exempted from the application of section 5(1). 

The Committee notes the following information provided by the Government. When a request is submitted to the police, the petition is evaluated on its purpose and location as to the safety and public order of the event. There are no written guidelines and it remains at the discretion of the police to determine the extent of risk to the safety and public order and to advise for or against the event. The Minister of General Affairs makes the ultimate decision, which usually is in conformity with the decision reached by the police. The Government further indicates that a national decree, as referred to in section 5(1), has not been adopted and that therefore, there are no organizations (workers’ or employers’ included) exempted from the application of section 5(1). The Committee recalls that while prohibition of demonstrations or processions on public streets, when it is feared that disturbances might occur, does not necessarily constitute an infringement of trade union rights, the authorities should strive to reach an agreement with organizers of the meeting to enable it to be held in some other place where there would be no fear of disturbances (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 37). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including through adoption of legal provisions, which would ensure that the authorization for holding public meetings in the specific areas could be denied only when it is feared that serious disturbances might occur and public order is threatened and that in such cases, the authorities responsible for public order take the necessary measures to reach an agreement with the organizers of a meeting concerning the place where it can be held and the manner in which it can take place. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, which prohibited the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment.

The Committee notes that in the Government’s opinion, the abovementioned provisions are in conformity with the Convention, as they do not prohibit public employees from striking. According to the Government, section 374(a) of the Penal Code refers to imprisonment or fine of a public official in the case when he or she, while performing his or her duties, acts with the aim to cause stagnation or to permit the continuation of stagnation, neglects or refuses to perform labour corresponding to his or her inherent duties as a public official. The Government further indicates that section 82(2) of Ordinance No. 159, which states that punishment may be exacted on public employees who neglect or refuse to perform labour as any good public official is expected to perform is aimed at an individual’s refusal to perform his or her duties, and not at collective or individual strikes. The Government further informs the Committee that the Penal Code will not be affected by a revision of the labour legislation as the Penal Code falls under the competency of the Ministry of Justice. However, the Code is currently under evaluation by a special committee established in March 2003. It is estimated that its work will be completed in approximately two years. After the evaluation period, the work on the suggested amendments will commence.

The Committee recalls that, in its 1992 report, the Government acknowledged that strikes by public employees, including teachers in the public sector, were forbidden by law (section 347(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964), although in practice, public employees had resorted to strikes on several occasions and that the local courts had considered such strikes to be legal on condition that they were justified. The Committee recalls that the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services would become meaningless if legislation defined the public services or essential services too broadly. The Committee considers that the prohibition should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Noting that the Penal Code is currently under evaluation, the Committee hopes that the Code, as well as section 82 of Ordinance No. 159, will be reviewed in accordance with the Committee’s comments and asks the Government to keep it informed of any progress in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

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

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 direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee takes note of State Ordinance AB 1999 No. GT2 with respect to the right to organize and to assemble. Article 1 of the State Ordinance prohibits the holding of any public meeting or speech in open air without prior written authorization from the Minister of General Affairs. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of article 1. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to indicate on which basis the Minister delivers the authorization and according to which specific requirements, if any, and to supply a copy of any relevant rule, regulation, decree or other text in this respect.

Furthermore, section 5(1) of the State Ordinance provides that the right to assembly may be subject to certain conditions specified in a national decree, if public order is disturbed or if there is a serious risk of disturbance of public order. However, section 5(3) states that “[the] provisions of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to associations, committees or bodies established by virtue of a legal regulation or to committees, associations or bodies expressly excluded in the national decree”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if, according to section 5(3), the trade unions and other workers’ and employers’ organizations are exempted from the application of section 5(1).

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the abovementioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

In addition, the Committee is addressing a request on other points directly to the Government.

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

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

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 takes note of State Ordinance AB 1999 No. GT2 with respect to the right to organize and to assemble. Article 1 of the State Ordinance prohibits the holding of any public meeting or speech in open air without prior written authorization from the Minister of General Affairs. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of article 1. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to indicate on which basis the Minister delivers the authorization and according to which specific requirements, if any, and to supply a copy of any relevant rule, regulation, decree or other text in this respect.

Furthermore, section 5(1) of the State Ordinance provides that the right to assembly may be subject to certain conditions specified in a national decree, if public order is disturbed or if there is a serious risk of disturbance of public order. However, section 5(3) states that "[the] provisions of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to associations, committees or bodies established by virtue of a legal regulation or to committees, associations or bodies expressly excluded in the national decree". The Committee requests the Government to indicate if, according to section 5(3), the trade unions and other workers’ and employers’ organizations are exempted from the application of section 5(1).

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment. The Committee had noted from the Government’s report of 1993 that the Department of Labour was undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it was considering requesting ILO technical assistance in this regard.

It notes with regret that, in its latest report, the Government simply indicates that no changes have been made to section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code or to section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, without making any further references to the labour legislation review.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the abovementioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

In addition, the Committee is addressing a request on other points directly to the Government.

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

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

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government’s report in reply to its previous observation.

The Committee takes note of State Ordinance AB 1999 No. GT2 with respect to the right to organize and to assemble. Article 1 of the State Ordinance prohibits the holding of any public meeting or speech in open air without prior written authorization from the Minister of General Affairs. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of article 1. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to indicate on which basis the Minister delivers the authorization and according to which specific requirements, if any, and to supply a copy of any relevant rule, regulation, decree or other text in this respect.

Furthermore, section 5(1) of the State Ordinance provides that the right to assembly may be subject to certain conditions specified in a national decree, if public order is disturbed or if there is a serious risk of disturbance of public order. However, section 5(3) states that "[the] provisions of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to associations, committees or bodies established by virtue of a legal regulation or to committees, associations or bodies expressly excluded in the national decree". The Committee requests the Government to indicate if, according to section 5(3), the trade unions and other workers’ and employers’ organizations are exempted from the application of section 5(1).

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment. The Committee had noted from the Government’s report of 1993 that the Department of Labour was undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it was considering requesting ILO technical assistance in this regard.

It notes with regret that, in its latest report, the Government simply indicates that no changes have been made to section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code or to section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, without making any further references to the labour legislation review.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the abovementioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the Convention and asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

In addition, the Committee is addressing a request on other points directly to the Government.

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

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

  Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment. The Committee had noted from a Government’s previous report that the Department of Labour was undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it was considering requesting ILO technical assistance in this regard. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the abovementioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the principle of freedom of association and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

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

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment. The Committee had noted from a Government’s previous report that the Department of Labour was undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it was considering requesting ILO technical assistance in this regard. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the abovementioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the principle of freedom of association and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

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

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention.  In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to amend or repeal section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment. The Committee had noted from a Government’s previous report that the Department of Labour was undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it was considering requesting ILO technical assistance in this regard. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the abovementioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the principle of freedom of association and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

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

The Committee notes with regret that for the fourth year in succession, the Government's report has not been received. It recalls that its previous comments concerned the following:

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee had asked the Government to envisage amending or repealing section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees under threat of imprisonment. The Committee had noted from the Government's latest report that the Department of Labour was undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it was considering requesting ILO technical assistance in this regard. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the abovementioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the principle of freedom of association and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

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

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 direct request, which read as follows:

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to envisage amending or repealing section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees. The Committee noted from the Government's latest report that the Department of Labour was currently undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it was considering requesting ILO assistance in this regard. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the above-mentioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the principle of freedom of association and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

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

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 direct request, which read as follows:

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to envisage amending or repealing section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees. The Committee notes from the Government's latest report that the Department of Labour is currently undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it is considering requesting ILO assistance in this regard. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the above-mentioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the principle of freedom of association and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

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

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 matter raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to envisage amending or repealing section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees. The Committee notes from the Government's latest report that the Department of Labour is currently undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it is considering requesting ILO assistance in this regard. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the above-mentioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the principle of freedom of association and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to envisage amending or repealing section 374(a) to (c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 which prohibit the right to strike by public employees. The Committee notes from the Government's latest report that the Department of Labour is currently undertaking a complete revision of existing labour legislation and that it is considering requesting ILO assistance in this regard. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the above-mentioned provisions of the legislation into conformity with the principle of freedom of association and requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

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

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

Article 3. The Committee had asked the Government to envisage amending or repealing section 374(a)-(c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 limiting the right to strike, in order to bring its legislation into line with national case-law and practice and with the principles of freedom of association. It also had asked the Government to indicate whether strikes of public servants not exercising authority in the name of the State have been prohibited by local courts.

The Government states that the matter is under study by the Aruban Legislation Department and that more information in this respect will be provided in the next report. It adds that it will indicate, as soon as possible, which strikes have been - or have not been - prohibited by local courts.

The Committee expects the Government to give full details on these matters and in particular on the measures taken to bring its legislation into conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

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

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:

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that according to the Government legal personality has never been refused to a workers' organization by virtue of sections 1665 to 1685 of the Civil Code (refusal in the public interest). It nevertheless requests the Government once again to indicate the possible motives that could be invoked in case of a refusal and the available channels of appeal in case of a refusal.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government acknowledges in its report that strikes by public employees, including teachers in the public sector, are forbidden by law (section 347(a)-347(c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964). The Government nonetheless states that public employees have resorted to strikes on several occasions and that the local courts consider such strikes to be legal on condition that they are justified.

The Committee recalls that the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services would become meaningless if the legislation defined the public service or essential services too broadly. The Committee has always considered that the prohibition should be confined to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

In these circumstances, the Committee asks the Government to envisage amending or repealing section 347(a)-347(c) of the Penal Code in order to bring its legislation into line with national case law and practice and with the principles of the Convention, and to provide information on any progress in this respect in its next report.

The Committee also asks the Government to indicate in its future reports whether strikes of public servants not acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority have been prohibited by local courts.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

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

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government's report in reply to its previous direct request.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that according to the Government legal personality has never been refused to a workers' organisation by virtue of sections 1665 to 1685 of the Civil Code (refusal in the public interest). It nevertheless requests the Government once again to indicate the possible motives that could be invoked in case of a refusal and the available channels of appeal in case of a refusal.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government acknowledges in its report that strikes by public employees, including teachers in the public sector, are forbidden by law (section 347(a)-347(c) of the Penal Code and section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964). The Government nonetheless states that public employees have resorted to strikes on several occasions and that the local courts consider such strikes to be legal on condition that they are justified.

The Committee recalls that the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services would become meaningless if the legislation defined the public service or essential services too broadly. The Committee has always considered that the prohibition should be confined to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

In these circumstances, the Committee asks the Government to envisage amending or repealing section 347(a)-347(c) of the Penal Code in order to bring its legislation into line with national case law and practice and with the principles of the Convention, and to provide information on any progress in this respect in its next report.

The Committee also asks the Government to indicate in its future reports whether strikes of public servants not acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority have been prohibited by local courts.

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.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, under the provisions of the Civil Code concerning associations (sections 1665-1684), the competent authorities may refuse to grant legal personality to an association in the general interest. The Committee asks the Government to state whether this provision has already been applied against any trade union and to indicate the grounds invoked and the rights of appeal available in the event of refusal by the competent authority.

Article 3. 1. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether any laws, other than the Civil Code, contain provisions which could restrict the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom or to stand for election to trade union office (legislation on citizenship, bankruptcy, elections, Criminal Code, etc.).

2. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the meaning and scope of section 14.1.3 of Ordinance No. 99 of 1932, prohibiting any association that compromises the exercise of the rights of others, and in particular to state whether this provision has already been applied in the event of strikes.

3. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether sections 347a-347c of the Penal Code of the Netherlands Antilles are in force in Aruba and, if so, to provide a copy of the text. The Committee understands that, read in conjunction with section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 containing the Conditions of Service of Public Servants, these provisions prohibit the right to strike of the persons covered by the above Ordinance.

The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would indicate the meaning and scope of the above-mentioned sections of the Penal Code and Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, in respect of public sector employees, including teachers, other than those acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority.

4. The Committee notes that dispute settlement in the private sector is governed by the Ordinance of 1946 respecting labour disputes. The Committee gathers from the available information that this Ordinance was amended in 1957 and 1972 with a view to prohibiting strikes in the vital sectors of the economy and/or pending termination of conciliation procedures. These amendments also appear to suspend the right to strike in these services for a period of 90 days.

The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of the 1957 and 1972 amendments and the list of vital sectors of the economy covered by these provisions if the latter still apply in Aruba.

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

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government's first report on the application of the Convention.

It would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information on the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, under the provisions of the Civil Code concerning associations (sections 1665-1684), the competent authorities may refuse to grant legal personality to an association in the general interest. The Committee asks the Government to state whether this provision has already been applied against any trade union and to indicate the grounds invoked and the rights of appeal available in the event of refusal by the competent authority.

Article 3. 1. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether any laws, other than the Civil Code, contain provisions which could restrict the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom or to stand for election to trade union office (legislation on citizenship, bankruptcy, elections, Criminal Code, etc.).

2. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the meaning and scope of section 14.1.3 of Ordinance No. 99 of 1932, prohibiting any association that compromises the exercise of the rights of others, and in particular to state whether this provision has already been applied in the event of strikes.

3. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether sections 347a-347c of the Penal Code of the Netherlands Antilles are in force in Aruba and, if so, to provide a copy of the text. The Committee understands that, read in conjunction with section 82 of Ordinance No. 159 of 1964 containing the Conditions of Service of Public Servants, these provisions prohibit the right to strike of the persons covered by the above Ordinance.

The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would indicate the meaning and scope of the above-mentioned sections of the Penal Code and Ordinance No. 159 of 1964, in respect of public sector employees, including teachers, other than those acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority.

4. The Committee notes that dispute settlement in the private sector is governed by the Ordinance of 1946 respecting labour disputes. The Committee gathers from the available information that this Ordinance was amended in 1957 and 1972 with a view to prohibiting strikes in the vital sectors of the economy and/or pending termination of conciliation procedures. These amendments also appear to suspend the right to strike in these services for a period of 90 days.

The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of the 1957 and 1972 amendments and the list of vital sectors of the economy covered by these provisions if the latter still apply in Aruba.