Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151) - Philippines (Ratification: 2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. While noting Executive Order No. 180 of 1987 (EO 180) (right of all Government employees to form, join or assist employees’ organizations of their own choosing), and article IX(B) section 2(6) of the Constitution and Supreme Court judgements (right of temporary employees to self-organization and protection against arbitrary dismissals), the Committee had observed that there is no domestic law, rule, or policy pertaining to the right to organize of temporary public employees. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that House Bills Nos. 2621 and 2846, noted in the Committee’s previous comment, were not enacted into law. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged, including legislative measures, so that temporary public employees, in line with the provisions set out in the Constitution, enjoy the rights and guarantees of the Convention.

The Committee had observed that under EO 180 and the Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize, 2004 (Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of EO 180), several other categories of workers, whose functions do not justify their exclusion from the application of the Convention, were subject to limitations: firefighters and prison and other personnel who, by the nature of their functions, are authorized to carry firearms, are also excluded from this right (except when there is express written approval from the management). The Committee notes with interest that the Public Sector Labor-Management Council (PSLMC) Resolution No. 4, s. 2021 (October 2021) clarifies section 15 of the EO 180, and provides that: (i) the exclusion from this right to members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and Philippine National Police (PNP) is not applicable to the civilian and non-uniformed employee’s association in the AFP and PNP; and (ii)these employees are accorded the right to organize and shall, upon accreditation, collectively negotiate terms and conditions of employment that are not fixed by law. The Committee observes, however, that the Government does not provide information regarding the right to organize and bargain collectively of other categories of workers, such as firefighters and prison guards, and that in previous comments on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that these categories of workers may exercise the right to freedom of association but not to the extent of forming, joining or assisting labour organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.The Committeetherefore refers to its comments regarding the application of Article 2 of Convention No. 87 and Article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

Registration requirements for trade unions in the public sector. Legislative issues. In its previous comments under Convention No. 87, the Committee had requested the Government to inform of the progress made in amending the IRR of EO 180 with regard to the registration requirement for trade unions in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that from 2017 to 2019 the number of newly registered public sector unions increased (100 in 2017 to 133 in 2019), and that, while the increase was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, it expects to continue increasing. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that: (i) House Bills No. 550 and 1513, both titled an “Act Strengthening the Constitutional Rights of Government Employees to Self-Organization, Collective Bargaining and Negotiation and Peaceful Concerted Activities and Use of Voluntary Modes of Dispute Settlement” were filed before the House of Representatives on 30 June and 7 July 2022, respectively; (ii) Bill No. 587, with the same title as the House Bills, was filed before the Senate on 14 July 2022; and (iii) these Bills seek to operationalize the Convention and will be discussed by the Congress (which formally opened sessions on 25 July 2022). The Committee observes that the Government does not provide details about the current or foreseen impact of these proposals (and others mentioned in past years by the Government such as the review of the Amended IRR) on the registration threshold for public servants’ organizations (a 10 per cent signature support requirement, which has been considered overly stringent by the Center for United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO)). In light of the above, the Committee, requests once again the Government to provide further updates on the progress made in the legislative reform concerning the right to organize of public sector employees and to indicate any impact of these reforms on the threshold for registration of public employees’ organizations.

Article 6. Facilities to be afforded to public employees’ organizations. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate in more detail the nature of facilities that are afforded to the representatives of recognized public workers’ organizations to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) a survey conducted in 2018 showed that 540 out of 1,073 Collective National Agreements (CNAs) include agency fees (75 per cent) and union time-off (64 per cent); (ii) the PSLMC passed Resolution No. 2, s. 2022 providing for the Guidelines on the Use of Time-Off by Public Sector Employees’ Organizations (Annex C), ensuring that members are guaranteed their right to attend activities of their organization without loss of pay; (iii) most unions with signed CNAs are able to negotiate for union office and support facilities; and (iv) unions are also represented in procurement committees and promotion and selection boards, subject to applicable regulations. The Committee observes that the Government does not indicate whether the CNAs mentioned in the referred survey and the other information provided regarding facilities apply to the public sector only or gather information from both the public and private sectors. Regarding the above mentioned Bills (Nos. 550 and 1513) to implement the Convention, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Bills were filed by representatives of labour and consultations have only been held with the labour sector; and (ii) the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) may be used as a venue for further consultation. The Committee observes that the Government does not provide further information on the content of these Bills with respect to the facilities afforded to the representatives of recognized public workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that the most important facilities are the granting of time off for workers’ representatives without loss of pay or benefits, the collection of trade union dues, access to the workplace and prompt access to management. The Committee further recalls that it is desirable for consultations to be held prior to the adoption of legislation on facilities so that the measures adopted are sustainable and not contingent on successive changes of government or administration. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on all the facilities that are envisaged in the above legislation and that have been agreed in public sector CNAs to representatives of public employees’ organizations to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently (including, granting of time off for workers’ representatives without loss of pay or benefits, the collection of trade union dues, prompt access to the management and the workplace and availability of premises). The Committee trusts that such legislation will address this issue, following consultations with the representative organizations concerned, and requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation once adopted.

Article 7. Participation of organizations of public employees in the determination of terms and conditions of employment of their members. The Committee had noted that the requirement of the absolute majority in a bargaining unit to obtain the status of sole and exclusive collective negotiating agent may give rise to problems every time that no union secures the absolute majority support, thus preventing collective bargaining (sections 9–12 of EO 180, Rule I, section 1(a) of IRR on EO 180)). The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether in case no union in a specific bargaining unit meets the majority requirement, the existing unions are able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to this request, indicating that only unions with status of sole and exclusive negotiating agent can conclude a CNA with their employer. The Committee observes that the referred majority requirement can significantly limit the access of public employees to collective bargaining. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how the right of public employees to participate through their organizations in the determination of their terms and conditions of employment set by article 7 of the Convention is applied in the public services where no organization reaches the referred threshold.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the number of accredited employees’ organizations as of June 2022 (1,299) and that 753 concluded and registered a CNA with the Civil Service Commission. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the number of organizations of public workers that have obtained the status of exclusive negotiating agent has increased from 148 in 2019 to 180 in 2020 and 275 in 2021. Observing that only public employee’s organizations with the status of exclusive negotiating agents can conclude a CNA, the Committee requests the Government to provide information clarifying the updated number of CNAs concluded in the public sector.

The Committee had noted that according to the legislation, terms and conditions of employment not fixed by law may be the subject of negotiation (increases in salary, allowances, travel expenses, and other benefits that are specifically provided by law cannot be negotiated). The Committee had noted the Government’s information on the existence of different mechanisms – the PSLMC, the NTIPC, the Regional Tripartite Industrial Peace Councils (RTIPCs) and the Industry Tripartite Councils (ITCs), which, according to the Government, ensure that the interests of workers in Government services are fully represented in the decision and policy-making processes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no new mechanisms have been put in place so that public sector employees’ organizations can negotiate or participate in the determination of terms and conditions of their employment. The Committee observes that the Government does not provide information on: (i) how the existing mechanisms allow public servant organizations to negotiate or participate in the determination of terms and conditions of their employment, in line with Article 7 of the Convention, without limitation of subjects; and (ii) the status of the public sector labour relations road map consistent with the principles of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the existing mechanisms allow public servant organizations to negotiate or participate in the determination of terms and conditions of their employment, in line with Article 7 of the Convention, without limitation of subjects (including salary, allowances and travel expenses). Recalling its comments on the application of Article 4 of Convention No. 98 with respect to the public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress related to the development of a labour relations framework aligned with Convention No. 151.

Article 8. Settlement of disputes. The Committee had noted that the PSLMC, due to its composition of only Government representatives, does not appear to constitute an independent and impartial means of solving disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment, as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes, that the Government reiterates that the Civil Service Commission may conciliate or mediate a dispute before is sent to the PSLMC for resolution. The Committee notes, once again, that the Government does not provide information regarding the possibility for representatives of public servants’ organizations to vote in the discussions and deliberations of the PSLMC. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no other independent and impartial means of solving disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment, as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that negotiating parties can submit proposals to the Congress and other authorities to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that independent and impartial machinery is established so that disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service can be referred to such mechanisms, which should benefit from the confidence of the parties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Tribunal decisions. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding five court decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, between 1991 and 2021, relating to the application of the Convention, including one related to the power of the Department of Budget and Management to issue rules in relation to compensation as a result of collective negotiations between government employees’ organizations and their employers (Dreneu vs. Abad, G.F. No. 204152). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the implications of this decision, regarding terms and condition of employment of public employees, and to continue to provide information on court decisions relating to questions of principle regarding the application of the Convention.

The Committee noted information supplied by the following States in an answer to a direct request: Russian Federation, Slovakia.

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

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in the Government’s first report in 2019.

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all Government employees (all branches, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including Government-owned or controlled corporations) can form, join or assist employees’ organizations of their own choosing (sections 1 and 2 of the Executive Order No. 180 of 1987 (EO 180)) and that temporary employees of the Government benefit from such protection as may be provided by law (article IX(B), section 2(6) of the Philippine Constitution). While noting that the Supreme Court has held that temporary employees in Government service have a right to self-organization and are covered by the protection against arbitrary dismissals, the Committee observes that there is no domestic law, rule, or policy pertaining to the right to organize of temporary employees. While further noting the Government’s assertion, in its supplementary report, that the Convention expressly recognizes that the country may determine the extent of applicability of the guarantees of the Convention to employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature, employees in the armed forces and the police, the Committee observes that under EO 180 and the Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize, 2004 (Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of EO 180), several other categories of workers, whose functions do not justify their exclusion from the application of the Convention, are also subject to limitations: firefighters and jail guards are not eligible to form, join or assist any employees’ organization for purposes of collective negotiations, and other personnel who, by the nature of their functions, are authorized to carry firearms, are also excluded from this right, except when there is express written approval from the management. Recalling in this regard that the 2019 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards requested the Government to ensure that all workers without distinction are able to form and join organizations of their choosing in accordance with Article 2 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee refers to its detailed comments made on this issue under Convention No. 87.

Registration requirements for trade unions in the public sector. Legislative issues. In its previous comment under Convention No. 87, the Committee requested the Government to inform of the progress made in amending the IRR of EO 180 with regard to the registration requirement for trade unions in the public sector and to provide a copy once issued. The Committee notes the Government’s indication provided to the 2019 Conference Committee that since the 2017 ratification of this Convention, there has been renewed vibrancy in organizing in the public sector and public sector unions, especially in the local government units, have been increasing. The Committee notes that, in its supplementary report, the Government adds that a 14 per cent increase was observed in union registration between 2017 and 2018 with a total of 1,789 registered unions and 493,101 union members in the public sector in July 2020 (46 per cent of employees’ organizations registered in the public sector are from the local government units, 32 per cent from the national government agencies, 13 per cent form State universities and colleges and 9 per cent from Government-owned and controlled corporations). The Committee further notes that House Bills Nos 2621 and 2846, which seek to address gaps in public sector labour relations, in particular on the right to organize, and aim at codifying all laws and relevant issuances governing the civil service into a single, comprehensive statute, were filed in the 18th Congress in July 2019 and are currently with the House Committee on Civil Service and Professional Regulation. The Government also informs that the review of the Amended IRR was presented to the Public Service Labor-Management Council (PSLMC) in January 2020, that several members requested additional time to review the amendments and that despite the current COVID-19 pandemic, work on the amendments continues. The Government adds that, in the meantime, the PSLMC adopted several resolutions which have had positive impact on the public sector unions since 2017. While welcoming this information, the Committee observes that the Government does not provide details about the current or foreseen impact of these proposals on the registration threshold for public servants’ organizations and that the titles of the PSLMC resolutions do not suggest that they address this issue. The Committee recalls in this regard that the Center for United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) previously expressed concerns that the requirements for union registration in the public sector are overly stringent (a 10 per cent signature support requirement). In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide further updates on the progress made in the legislative reform concerning the right to organize of public sector employees and to indicate any impact of these reforms on the threshold for registration of public employees’ organizations.

Article 6. Facilities to be afforded to public employees’ organizations. The Committee notes that the IRR of EO 180 allow public servants’ organizations to collect reasonable dues to finance conduct of seminars on public sector unionism and other relevant activities, as well as to negotiate over communication systems and other social and cultural facilities. The Committee also notes that House Bill No. 2621 (filed in July 2019) aims at addressing the gaps in public sector labour relations, particularly on the protection of the right to organize, facilities to be afforded to public sector employees’ organizations, procedures for determining the terms and conditions of employment, civil and political rights, and settlement of disputes arising or in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment. The Committee observes, however, that the Government does not clearly indicate the facilities currently afforded to the representatives of recognized public workers’ organizations to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently, in line with Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in more detail what facilities are afforded to the representatives of recognized public workers’ organizations to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently and trusts that the pending legislative reform will address this issue. The Committee also trusts that, in the context of the adoption of the above legislation, public workers’ organizations are meaningfully consulted, and requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation once amended.

Article 7. Participation of organizations of public employees in the determination of terms and conditions of employment of their members. The Committee notes that a duly registered employees’ organization which enjoys the support of the majority of the rank-and-file employees in the organizational unit can obtain the status of the sole and exclusive collective negotiating agent, conferred by the Civil Service Commission (sections 9–12 of EO 180, Rule I, section 1(a) of IRR on EO 180). The Committee recalls in this regard that the requirement to obtain support of an absolute majority of all workers in a bargaining unit to be recognized as a bargaining agent may give rise to problems every time that no union secures the absolute majority support, thus preventing collective bargaining. The Committee notes the detailed information provided in the Government’s supplementary report on the number of organizations of public workers that have obtained the status of exclusive negotiating agent and notes with interest that this number has increased (74 unions in 2017, 94 in 2018 and 148 in 2019 – the total number increased from 1,167 in 2017 to 1,407 in 2019) and that half of all unions registered in the public sector concluded and registered a collective bargaining agreement. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide details as to the number of public workers’ organizations with the status of exclusive bargaining agent and on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the public sector. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether, in case no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of absolute majority to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, the existing unions are able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee further notes that under chapter 1, Book V, section 3 of Executive Order No. 292 (1987) the terms and conditions of employment of all Government employees, including those in Government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, shall be fixed by law and those conditions not fixed by law may be the subject of negotiation between duly recognized employees’ organizations and appropriate Government authorities. Similarly, EO 180 and its IRR provide that the terms and conditions of employment may be the subject of negotiations between duly recognized employees’ organizations and appropriate Government authorities, except those fixed by law, which include increases in salary, allowances and travel expenses (section 13 of EO 180, Rule I, section 1(i) and Rule XII, sections 1–3 of IRR on EO 180). The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government that EO 180 establishes the PSLMC and that the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) was reconstituted in 2013 as the main consultative and advisory mechanism lodged with the Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE), in which workers, employers and Government can discuss labour and employment relevant policy and which is mandated to formulate, for submission to the President or Congress, tripartite views, recommendations and proposals on labour, economic and social concerns. Finally, the Committee notes the detailed information provided in the Government’s supplementary report on the expansion of membership of tripartite bodies, in particular that the PSLMC allows the participation of elected sectoral representatives during the deliberation of policies on public sector unionism at the level of the PSLMC-Technical Working Group and that all tripartite mechanisms under the supervision of the DOLE, including the NTIPC, the Regional Tripartite Industrial Peace Councils (RTIPCs) and the Industry Tripartite Councils (ITCs), include representatives from public sector labour unions. This ensures that the interests of workers in Government services are fully represented in the decision and policy-making processes at the national, regional and local levels, thus ensuring tripartism and social dialogue. The Government also informs about the commitments of the DOLE to continue to engage in meaningful consultations for the development of a public sector labour relations roadmap consistent with the principles of the Convention. Taking due note of the above initiatives, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any formal mechanisms for public servant organizations to negotiate or participate in the determination of terms and conditions of their employment, in line with Article 7 of the Convention, without limitation of subjects, and to provide further details on the development of a public sector relations roadmap.

Article 8. Settlement of disputes. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that the PSLMC is mandated to implement and administer the provisions of EO 180, which includes the settlement of disputes and has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes which arise in collective negotiations or when there is a dead-lock resulting therefrom. Accordingly, if a dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all the available remedies under existing laws and procedures, the parties may jointly refer the dispute to the PSLMC (section 16 of EO 180). The Committee observes, however, that members of the PSLMC are exclusively Government representatives (the Chairperson of the Civil Service Commission (the Chair); the Secretary of the DOLE (Vice-Chair); the Secretary of the Department of Finance; the Secretary of the Department of Justice; and the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management), while representatives of public servants’ organizations do not have a right to vote in its discussions and deliberations and can only participate during PSLMC deliberations. For this reason, the PSLMC does not seem to constitute an independent and impartial means of solving disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment, as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee further notes, from the Government’s supplementary report, that the IRR of EO 180 also provide guidelines for resolution of grievances (Rule XIV), unfair labour management practices (Rule XVI) and intra-employees’ organizations disputes (Rule XVII), as well as for the submission of a complaint or petition to the Council (Rules XIX and XX). The IRR of EO 180 further make reference to conciliation and mediation of disputes by the Personnel Relations Officer of the Civil Service Commission (now Human Resource Relations Officer) before a dispute is sent to the Council for resolution (Rule XVIII). The Committee observes, however, that no new information was provided with regard to the possibility for representatives of public servants’ organizations to vote in the discussions and deliberations of the PSLMC or on the existence of any other independent and impartial means of solving disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment, as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate once again whether disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service can also be referred to other independent mechanisms which benefit from the confidence of the parties involved.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding the establishment and the roles of the Civil Service Commission, the PSLMC and the Departments of Labour and Employment, Finance, Justice and Budget and Management in administering and implementing the rules governing public sector workers and observes that, in its supplementary report, the Government clarifies the role of the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Budget and Management with respect to giving effect, in practice, to the guarantees of the Convention for public sector workers. The Committee also notes with interest that the Government informs about the granting of yearly Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Incentives, as a form of reward to motivate employee efforts towards higher productivity, which may be granted to both management and rank-and-file employees of agencies with approved and successfully implemented CNAs in recognition of their efforts in accomplishing performance targets at lesser cost and in attaining more efficient and viable operations through cost-cutting measures and systems improvement.

Tribunal decisions. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding one court decision issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines relating to the application of the Convention, and its statement that there are other similar rulings. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on court decisions relating to questions of principle regarding the application of the Convention.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s first report.

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that all Government employees (all branches, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including Government-owned or controlled corporations) can form, join or assist employees’ organizations of their own choosing (sections 1 and 2 of the Executive Order No. 180 of 1987 (EO 180)) and that temporary employees of the Government benefit from such protection as may be provided by law (Article IX(B), section 2(6) of the Philippine Constitution). The Committee also notes that the Supreme Court has held that temporary employees in Government service have a right to self-organization but observes that there is no domestic law, rule, or policy pertaining to the right to organize of temporary employees. The Committee further observes that under EO 180 and the Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize, 2004 (Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of EO 180) several categories of workers are excluded from the guarantees of the Convention: firefighters and jail guards are not eligible to form, join or assist any employees’ organization for purposes of collective negotiations, and other personnel who, by the nature of their functions, are authorized to carry firearms, are also excluded from this right, except when there is express written approval from the management. Recalling in this regard that the 2019 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards requested the Government to ensure that all workers without distinction are able to form and join organizations of their choosing in accordance with Article 2 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee refers to its detailed comments made on this issue under Convention No. 87.

Registration requirements for trade unions in the public sector. Legislative issues. In its previous comment under Convention No. 87, the Committee requested the Government to inform of the progress made in amending the IRR of EO 180 with regard to the registration requirement for trade unions in the public sector and to provide a copy once issued. The Committee notes the Government’s indication provided to the 2019 Conference Committee that since the 2017 ratification of this Convention, there has been renewed vibrancy in organizing in the public sector and public sector unions, especially in the local government units, have been increasing. While welcoming this information, the Committee observes that the Government does not provide details about whether any other progress has been achieved regarding the previously announced amendments to the IRR of EO 180 to address the concerns expressed by the Center for United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) that the requirements for union registration in the public sector are overly stringent (a 10 per cent signature support requirement). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether reform in this regard is still ongoing, and if so, to indicate the progress made.

Article 6. Facilities to be afforded to public employees’ organizations. The Committee notes that the IRR of EO 180 allow public servants’ organizations to collect reasonable dues to finance conduct of seminars on public sector unionism and other relevant activities, as well as to negotiate over communication systems and other social and cultural facilities. The Committee further notes that House Bill No. 8767 (filed in December 2018 and aimed at addressing the gaps in public sector labour relations, particularly on the protection of the right to organize, facilities to be afforded to public sector employees’ organizations, procedures for determining the terms and conditions of employment, civil and political rights, and settlement of disputes arising or in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment) are expected to be refiled in the 18th Congress. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in the context of the adoption of the above legislation, public workers’ organizations are meaningfully consulted, and to provide a copy of the above legislation once amended. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in more detail what facilities are afforded to the representatives of recognized public workers’ organizations to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently.

Article 7. Participation of organizations of public employees in the determination of terms and conditions of employment of their members. The Committee notes that a duly registered employees’ organization which enjoys the support of the majority of the rank-and-file employees in the organizational unit can obtain the status of the sole and exclusive collective negotiating agent, conferred by the Civil Service Commission (sections 9–12 of EO 180, Rule I, section 1(a) of IRR on EO 180). The Committee recalls in this regard that the requirement to obtain support of an absolute majority of all workers in a bargaining unit to be recognized as a bargaining agent may give rise to problems in cases where, if a union fails to secure the absolute majority support, it is denied the possibility of bargaining. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on organizations of public workers that have obtained the status of exclusive negotiating agent, to indicate whether such organizations did, in practice, negotiate their terms and conditions of employment and if so, to provide examples of any agreements concluded. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether, in case no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of absolute majority to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, the existing unions are able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee further notes that under chapter 1, Book V, section 3 of Executive Order No. 292 (1987) the terms and conditions of employment of all Government employees, including those in Government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, shall be fixed by law and those conditions not fixed by law may be the subject of negotiation between duly recognized employee’s organizations and appropriate Government authorities. Similarly, EO 180 and its IRR provide that the terms and conditions of employment may be the subject of negotiations between duly recognized employee’s organizations and appropriate Government authorities, except those fixed by law, which include increases in salary, allowances and travel expenses (section 13 of EO 180, Rule I, section 1(i) and Rule XII, sections 1–3 of IRR on EO 180). Finally, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that EO 180 establishes the Public Sector Labour-Management Council (PSLMC) and that the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) was reconstituted in 2013 as the main consultative and advisory mechanism lodged with the Department of Labour and Employment, in which workers, employers and Government can discuss labour and employment relevant policy and which is mandated to formulate, for submission to the President or Congress, tripartite views, recommendations and proposals on labour, economic and social concerns. The Committee requests the Government to inform about the constitution of any formal mechanisms for public servant organizations to negotiate or participate in the determination of terms and conditions of their employment, in line with Article 7 of the Convention, without limitation of subjects.

Article 8. Settlement of disputes. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that the PSLMC is mandated to implement and administer the provisions of EO 180, which includes the settlement of disputes and has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes which arise in collective negotiations or when there is a dead-lock resulting therefrom. Accordingly, if a dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all the available remedies under existing laws and procedures, the parties may jointly refer the dispute to the PSLMC (section 16 of EO 180). The Committee observes, however, that members of the PSLMC are exclusively Government representatives (the Chairperson of the Civil Service Commission (the Chair); the Secretary of the Department of Labour and Employment (Vice-Chair); the Secretary of the Department of Finance; the Secretary of the Department of Justice; and the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management), while representatives of public servants’ organizations do not have a right to vote in its discussions and deliberations and can only participate during PSLMC deliberations. For this reason, the PSLMC does not seem to constitute an independent and impartial means of solving disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment, as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that the IRR of EO 180 also make reference to conciliation and mediation of disputes by the Personnel Relations Officer of the Civil Service Commission. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of dispute resolution by the PSLMC and the Civil Service Commission, and to indicate whether disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service can also be referred to other independent mechanisms which benefit from the confidence of the parties involved.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding the establishment and the roles of the Civil Service Commission, the PSLMC and the Departments of Labour and Employment, Finance, Justice and Budget and Management in administering and implementing the rules governing public sector workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the role of the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Budget and Management with respect to giving effect, in practice, to the guarantees of the Convention for public sector workers.

Tribunal decisions. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding one court decision issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines relating to the application of the Convention, and its statement that there are other similar rulings. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on court decisions relating to questions of principle regarding the application of the Convention.