Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Sao Tome and Principe (Ratification: 1992)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

Article 3. Right of organizations to freely elect representatives, organize activities and formulate their programmes. Recalling that the following questions have been included in its comments for several years, the Committee urgently requests the Government to take the steps necessary to modify the Labour Code and Act No. 4-2002 on civil requisition:

• the two-thirds majority required for calling a strike is too high (Section 422 of the Labour Code);
• with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (Section 428(4) of the Labour Code);
• compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense (postal, banking and loan services) (Section 429 of the Labour Code); and
• requisition of workers in cases of strikes is allowed in non-essential services while it should only be possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the term (Section 2(1) of Act No. 4-2002 on civil requisition, which provides that “in enterprises or establishments providing for essential social needs, during a strike, workers shall maintain the minimum service indispensable to fulfilling these needs”).

The Committee notes that the Government, in its report, indicates its intention to revise Act No. 6/2019 (the Labour Code) in the course of 2023, as it no longer meets the country’s most important requirements in several respects, and that it envisages establishing a commission to undertake this revision, which will certainly request ILO technical assistance to improve and bring the Act into line with the principles of ratified Conventions. The Committee firmly hopes that the Labour Code and Act No. 4-2002, will shortly be revised in consultation with the social partners to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention on the above points. It requests the Government to report on any progress made in this regard and to communicate a copy of all amendments adopted to the legislation.

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

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 organizations to freely elect representatives, organize activities and formulate their programmes. In its previous comments, the Committee trusted that the Government would take all necessary measures to amend the legislative provisions referring to the following issues so as to bring its legislation into line with the Convention:

• – the two-thirds majority required for calling a strike is too high (originally section 4 of Act No. 4/92, currently section 422 of the Labour Code);
• – with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (originally section 10(4) of Act No. 4/92, currently section 428(4) of the Labour Code);
• – compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense, such as postal, banking and loan services (originally section 11 of Act No. 4/92, currently section 429 of the Labour Code); and
• – requisition of workers in cases of strikes is allowed in non-essential services while it should only be possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the term (Act No. 4-2002).

The Committee notes with regret that the Government, in its report, states that there has been no change to its legislation regarding strikes. It also takes note of the Government’s explanation that: (i) the two-thirds majority that is required to call a strike is based on principles such as collective interest and unanimity within a trade union; (ii) minimum services are currently established by the employer since the State does not have an independent body that can determine them; and (iii) requisition of workers is only allowed in essential services and in cases where a prolonged strike affects public works to a large extent. As regards the majority required to call a strike, the Committee considers that requiring a decision by two thirds of the workers present is excessive and could unduly hinder the possibility of calling a strike. The Committee recalls that the quorum and majority to vote on a strike should be fixed at a reasonable level, taking only into account the votes cast (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 147). Concerning the establishment of minimum services, the Committee observes that the role of an independent body responsible for settling disagreements between the parties may be fulfilled, for instance, by the judicial authorities. Regarding the requisition of workers, the Committee recalls that it is desirable to limit powers of requisitioning to cases in which the right to strike may be limited, or even prohibited, namely: (i) in the public service for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (ii) in essential services in the strict sense of the term; and (iii) in the case of an acute crisis (see the 2012 General Survey, paragraph 151).Recalling once again that the above-mentioned matters have been the subject of its comments for several years, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Act No. 4/92 and Act No. 4-2002 in the very near future and requests the Government to report on any progress made in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard, if it so wishes.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to freely elect representatives, organize activities and formulate their programmes. In its previous comments, the Committee trusted that the Government would take all necessary measures to amend the legislative provisions referring to the following issues so as to bring its legislation into line with the Convention:

• – the two-thirds majority required for calling a strike is too high (originally section 4 of Act No. 4/92, currently section 422 of the Labour Code);
• – with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (originally section 10(4) of Act No. 4/92, currently section 428(4) of the Labour Code);
• – compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense, such as postal, banking and loan services (originally section 11 of Act No. 4/92, currently section 429 of the Labour Code); and
• – requisition of workers in cases of strikes is allowed in non-essential services while it should only be possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the term (Act No. 4-2002).

The Committee notes with regret that the Government, in its report, states that there has been no change to its legislation regarding strikes. It also takes note of the Government’s explanation that: (i) the two-thirds majority that is required to call a strike is based on principles such as collective interest and unanimity within a trade union; (ii) minimum services are currently established by the employer since the State does not have an independent body that can determine them; and (iii) requisition of workers is only allowed in essential services and in cases where a prolonged strike affects public works to a large extent. As regards the majority required to call a strike, the Committee considers that requiring a decision by two thirds of the workers present is excessive and could unduly hinder the possibility of calling a strike. The Committee recalls that the quorum and majority to vote on a strike should be fixed at a reasonable level, taking only into account the votes cast (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 147). Concerning the establishment of minimum services, the Committee observes that the role of an independent body responsible for settling disagreements between the parties may be fulfilled, for instance, by the judicial authorities. Regarding the requisition of workers, the Committee recalls that it is desirable to limit powers of requisitioning to cases in which the right to strike may be limited, or even prohibited, namely: (i) in the public service for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (ii) in essential services in the strict sense of the term; and (iii) in the case of an acute crisis (see the 2012 General Survey, paragraph 151). Recalling once again that the above-mentioned matters have been the subject of its comments for several years, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Act No. 4/92 and Act No. 4-2002 in the very near future and requests the Government to report on any progress made in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard, if it so wishes.

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 organizations to freely elect representatives, organize activities and formulate their programmes. For a number of years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners and, if it so wishes, with the technical assistance of the Office, to amend the various provisions of Act No. 4/92 and Act No. 4-2002, which relate to certain obstacles concerning the exercise of the right to strike, with a view to bringing them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalls that in relation to Act No. 4/92 these obstacles are: (i) the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4); (ii) with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (section 10(4)); and (iii) compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense, such as postal, banking and loan services (section 11). Regarding Act No. 4-2002, the Committee recalls that it allows requisition of workers in cases of strikes in non-essential services while the requisition of workers should only be possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in the near future there may be an amendment to the above-mentioned legislation, for which it will seek support from the Office. The Committee reiterates its previous request and trusts that the Government will take all necessary measures to amend the above-mentioned legislative provisions so as to bring the legislation into line with the Convention and to indicate any measures adopted in this respect.

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

The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It expects that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to freely elect representatives, organize activities and formulate their programmes. For a number of years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners and, if it so wishes, with the technical assistance of the Office, to amend the various provisions of Act No. 4/92 and Act No. 4-2002, which relate to certain obstacles concerning the exercise of the right to strike, with a view to bringing them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalls that in relation to Act No. 4/92 these obstacles are: (i) the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4); (ii) with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (section 10(4)); and (iii) compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense, such as postal, banking and loan services (section 11). Regarding Act No. 4-2002, the Committee recalls that it allows requisition of workers in cases of strikes in non-essential services while the requisition of workers should only be possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in the near future there may be an amendment to the above-mentioned legislation, for which it will seek support from the Office. The Committee reiterates its previous request and trusts that the Government will take all necessary measures to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions so as to bring the legislation into line with the Convention and to indicate any measures adopted in this respect.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to freely elect representatives, organize activities and formulate their programmes. For a number of years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners and, if it so wishes, with the technical assistance of the Office, to amend the various provisions of Act No. 4/92 and Act No. 4-2002, which relate to certain obstacles concerning the exercise of the right to strike, with a view to bringing them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalls that in relation to Act No. 4/92 these obstacles are: (i) the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4); (ii) with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (section 10(4)); and (iii) compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense, such as postal, banking and loan services (section 11). Regarding Act No. 4-2002, the Committee recalls that it allows requisition of workers in cases of strikes in non-essential services while the requisition of workers should only be possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in the near future there may be an amendment to the above-mentioned legislation, for which it will seek support from the Office. The Committee reiterates its previous request and trusts that the Government will take all necessary measures to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions so as to bring the legislation into line with the Convention and to indicate any measures adopted in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2014.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that for several years it has been requesting the Government to take measures to amend various provisions of Act No. 4/92 and Act No. 4-2002, which relate to certain obstacles concerning the exercise of the right to strike, with a view to bringing them into conformity with the Convention (see the Committee’s observation published in 2013).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that it has taken good note of the Committee’s comments and that the revision of the legislation referred to is planned. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures within the framework of the planned revision of the legislation, in consultation with the social partners and, if it so wishes, with the technical assistance of the Office, to amend the legislative provisions referred to, and to provide information on any measures adopted in this respect.

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Rights of organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that for several years, it has been requesting the Government to take measures to amend various provisions of Act No. 4/92 and Act No. 4-2002, which relate to various obstacles concerning the exercise of the right to strike, with a view to bringing them into conformity with the Convention (see the Committee’s last observation, published in 2013). The Committee notes that in its report the Government confines itself to providing the text of Act No. 4/92. Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to revise, in consultation with the social partners and, if it so wishes, with the technical assistance of the Office, the legislative provisions referred to in several previous observations, and to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.

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

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need for the Government to take steps to amend the provisions of Act No. 4/92, which refer to the following issues:

• – the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);
• – with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (section 10(4) of Act No. 4/92);
• – the hiring of workers without consultation with the trade unions concerned to perform services essential to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92); and
• – compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (postal, banking and loan services; section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee asks the Government to take steps to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions so as to bring the legislation into line with the Convention and to indicate, in its next report, any measures adopted in this respect. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

Finally, noting that Law No. 4-2002 of 30 December 2002, allows requisition of workers in cases of strikes in non-essential services, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to modify the legislation so as to guarantee that the requisition of workers is only possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the terms.

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

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

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

Repetition

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need for the Government to take steps to amend the provisions of Act No. 4/92, which refer to the following issues:

• – the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);
• – with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (section 10(4) of Act No. 4/92);
• – the hiring of workers without consultation with the trade unions concerned to perform services essential to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92); and
• – compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (postal, banking and loan services; section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee asks the Government to take steps to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions so as to bring the legislation into line with the Convention and to indicate, in its next report, any measures adopted in this respect. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

Finally, noting that Law No. 4-2002 of 30 December 2002, allows requisition of workers in cases of strikes in non-essential services, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to modify the legislation so as to guarantee that the requisition of workers is only possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the terms.

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

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need for the Government to take steps to amend the provisions of Act No. 4/92, which refer to the following issues:

–      the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);

–      with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (section 10(4) of Act No. 4/92);

–      the hiring of workers without consultation with the trade unions concerned to perform services essential to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92); and

–      compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (postal, banking and loan services; section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee asks the Government to take steps to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions so as to bring the legislation into line with the Convention and to indicate, in its next report, any measures adopted in this respect. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

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

Finally, noting that Law No. 4-2002 of 30 December 2002, allows requisition of workers in cases of strikes in non-essential services, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to modify the legislation so as to guarantee that the requisition of workers is only possible in the essential services in the strict sense of the terms.

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

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. Right of organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need for the Government to take steps to amend the provisions of Act No. 4/92, which refer to the following issues:

–      the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);

–      with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (section 10(4) of Act No. 4/92);

–      the hiring of workers without consultation with the trade unions concerned to perform services essential to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92); and

–      compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (postal, banking and loan services; section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee asks the Government to take steps to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions so as to bring the legislation into line with the Convention and to indicate, in its next report, any measures adopted in this respect. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

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

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

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers without distinction to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee previously asked the Government to indicate whether public employees have the right to organize and to indicate the applicable provisions. In this respect, the Committee observes that section 9 of the Civil Service Regulations (Act No. 5/97) states that public officials and employees have the right to establish trade unions.

Article 3. Right of organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need for the Government to take steps to amend the provisions of Act No. 4/92, which refer to the following issues:

–      the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);

–      with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (section 10(4) of Act No. 4/92);

–      the hiring of workers without consultation with the trade unions concerned to perform services essential to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92);

–      compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (postal, banking and loan services; section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee asks the Government to take steps to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions so as to bring the legislation into line with the Convention and to indicate, in its next report, any measures adopted in this respect.

Finally, the Committee also asks the Government to indicate whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2009.]

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and regrets to note that it does not reply to the issued raised. The Committee notes that the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) and the General Union of Workers of Sao Tome and Principe (UGT-STP) sent comments on the application of the Convention which refer mainly to the outstanding issues.

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need for the Government to take steps to amend the provisions of Act No. 4/92 which refer to the following issues:

–      the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);

–      with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (section 10, paragraph 4, of Act No. 4/92);

–      the hiring of workers without consultation with trade unions concerned to perform services essential to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92);

–      compulsory arbitration for services which are not essential in the strict sense (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (postal, banking and loan services; section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee asks the Government to take steps to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions so as to bring the legislation into line with the Convention, and to inform it, in its next report, of any measures adopted in this regard.

The Committee asks the Government, once again, to state whether public employees have the right to organize, and to indicate the applicable provisions in this respect. Finally, the Committee also asks the Government to indicate whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

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

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

The Committee observed that the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) and the General Union of Workers of Sao Tome and Principe (UGT-STP) sent comments on the application of the Convention. The Committee requests that the Government send its observations in this regard.

The Committee recalled that for many years it has been making comments on the need for the Government to take steps to amend the following provisions of Act No. 4/92 which refer to the following issues:

–      the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);

–      with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92);

–      the hiring of workers to perform essential services in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92);

–      compulsory arbitration for services which are not deemed essential (postal, banking and loans services) (section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to take steps to amend the above legislative provisions, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and to inform it in its next report of any measures adopted in this regard.

Finally, the Committee once again asks the Government to state whether public employees have the right to organize and to indicate the applicable legislation in this matter and whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

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

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

The Committee regrets to note that it has not received the Government’s report. It observes that the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) and the General Union of Workers of Sao Tome and Principe (UGT-STP) sent comments on the application of the Convention. The Committee requests that the Government send its observations in this regard.

The Committee recalls that for many years it has been making comments on the need for the Government to take steps to amend the following provisions of Act No. 4/92 which refer to the following issues:

–      the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);

–      with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92);

–      the hiring of workers to perform essential services in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92);

–      compulsory arbitration for services which are not deemed essential (postal, banking and loans services) (section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to take steps to amend the above legislative provisions, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and to inform it in its next report of any measures adopted in this regard.

Finally, the Committee once again asks the Government to state whether public employees have the right to organize and to indicate the applicable legislation in this matter and whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

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:

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government states that the Ministry of Labour has set up a drafting group to draw up the General Labour Act. The Committee trusts that the group will take full account of its earlier observations concerning the following points:

-  the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);

-  with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter should be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92);

-  the hiring of workers to perform essential services in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92);

-  compulsory arbitration for services which are not deemed essential (postal, banking and loans services) (section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Labour planned to refer the matter of the exercise of the right to strike to the National Committee for Social Cooperation. The Committee hopes that this will be a step towards the amendment of the legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this area.

Article 2. The Committee again asks the Government to state whether public employees have the right to organize and to indicate the applicable legislation.

Article 6. The Committee again asks the Government to state whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

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

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It notes the adoption of the new Constitution, Act No. 1/03, and of Act No. 4/2002 regulating the requisitioning of civilians and laying down the obligation to maintain minimum services in enterprises or establishments the purpose of which is to meet essential social needs.

1. Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government states that the Ministry of Labour has set up a drafting group to draw up the General Labour Act. The Committee trusts that the group will take full account of its earlier observations concerning the following points:

-  the majority required for calling a strike is too high (section 4 of Act No. 4/92);

-  with regard to minimum services, it is important, in the event of disagreement in determining such services, that the matter should be settled by an independent body and not by the employer (paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92);

-  the hiring of workers to perform essential services in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by a strike (section 9 of Act No. 4/92);

-  compulsory arbitration for services which are not deemed essential (postal, banking and loans services) (section 11 of Act No. 4/92).

The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Labour plans to refer the matter of the exercise of the right to strike to the National Committee for Social Cooperation. The Committee hopes that this will be a step towards the amendment of the legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this area.

2. Article 2. The Committee again asks the Government to state whether public employees have the right to organize and to indicate the applicable legislation.

3. Article 6. The Committee again asks the Government to state whether federations and confederations are able to exercise the right to strike.

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

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

1. Article 2 of the Convention. With regard to public employees, the Committee asks the Government to state whether this category of workers has the right to organize and to indicate the applicable legislation.

2. Articles 3 and 10 (right of workers’ organizations to formulate their programmes to promote and protect workers’ interests without interference from the public authorities). The Committee points out that it has always been of the opinion that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 147).

Majority for calling a strike. The Committee notes that section 4 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that decisions on the calling of strikes must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the workers present at the general assembly convened for the purpose. The Committee considers that the requirement of two-thirds of the workers is high and could be an obstacle to the exercise of the right to strike and that it would therefore be appropriate for the decision to be taken by a simple majority of the workers present at the assembly.

Minimum services. The Committee also notes that paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that employers determine the minimum services after consulting the workers’ representative. In the Committee’s view, it would be more appropriate to provide that in the event of disagreement in determining such services, the matter should be settled by an independent body.

The Committee further notes that under paragraph 2 of section 9 of the Act, the Ministry in charge of labour administration may authorize the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by the strike. Bearing in mind that the application of this provision could restrict the effectiveness of the strike as a means of pressure, the Committee considers that, in such cases, rather than authorizing the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, minimum services could be determined by negotiation in which the workers would participate along with the enterprise.

Essential services and compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes that, under section 11 of Act No. 4/92, compulsory arbitration applies to the essential services set out in section 10, which include postal services (c) and banking and loans (j), which are not essential services in the strict sense as explained by the Committee (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (see General Survey, paragraph 159). The Committee therefore asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that workers in the postal, banking and loans services may exercise the right to strike.

Grounds for strike. Lastly, the Committee notes that, under section 1 of Act No. 4/92, the sole purpose of strikes is to safeguard the legitimate occupational and social interests of workers and the interests of the national economy. In the view of the Committee, organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see General Survey, paragraph 165).

The Committee asks the Government to state whether strikes are allowed as a means of seeking solutions to economic and social policy questions which are of direct concern to the worker.

Article 6. The Committee asks the Government to state whether the right to strike also applies to federations and confederations.

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 for the fourth consecutive year the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

1. Article 2 of the Convention. With regard to public employees, the Committee asks the Government to state whether this category of workers has the right to organize and to indicate the applicable legislation.

2. Articles 3 and 10 (right of workers’ organizations to formulate their programmes to promote and protect workers’ interests without interference from the public authorities). The Committee points out that it has always been of the opinion that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 147).

Majority for calling a strike. The Committee notes that section 4 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that decisions on the calling of strikes must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the workers present at the general assembly convened for the purpose. The Committee considers that the requirement of two-thirds of the workers is high and could be an obstacle to the exercise of the right to strike and that it would therefore be appropriate for the decision to be taken by a simple majority of the workers present at the assembly.

Minimum services. The Committee also notes that paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that employers determine the minimum services after consulting the workers’ representative. In the Committee’s view, it would be more appropriate to provide that in the event of disagreement in determining such services, the matter should be settled by an independent body.

The Committee further notes that under paragraph 2 of section 9 of the Act, the Ministry in charge of labour administration may authorize the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by the strike. Bearing in mind that the application of this provision could restrict the effectiveness of the strike as a means of pressure, the Committee considers that, in such cases, rather than authorizing the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, minimum services could be determined by negotiation in which the workers would participate along with the enterprise.

Essential services and compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes that, under section 11 of Act No. 4/92, compulsory arbitration applies to the essential services set out in section 10, which include postal services (c) and banking and loans (j), which are not essential services in the strict sense as explained by the Committee (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (see General Survey, paragraph 159). The Committee therefore asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that workers in the postal, banking and loans services may exercise the right to strike.

Grounds for strike. Lastly, the Committee notes that, under section 1 of Act No. 4/92, the sole purpose of strikes is to safeguard the legitimate occupational and social interests of workers and the interests of the national economy. In the view of the Committee, organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see General Survey, paragraph 165).

The Committee asks the Government to state whether strikes are allowed as a means of seeking solutions to economic and social policy questions which are of direct concern to the worker.

Article 6. The Committee asks the Government to state whether the right to strike also applies to federations and confederations.

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, for the third year in succession, the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments, which dealt with the following.

1.  Article 2 of the Convention.  With regard to public employees, the Committee asks the Government to state whether this category of workers has the right to organize and to indicate the applicable legislation.

2.  Articles 3 and 10 (right of workers’ organizations to formulate their programmes to promote and protect workers’ interests without interference from the public authorities).  The Committee points out that it has always been of the opinion that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 147).

  Majority for calling a strike.  The Committee notes that section 4 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that decisions on the calling of strikes must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the workers present at the general assembly convened for the purpose. The Committee considers that the requirement of two-thirds of the workers is high and could be an obstacle to the exercise of the right to strike and that it would therefore be appropriate for the decision to be taken by a simple majority of the workers present at the assembly.

  Minimum services.  The Committee also notes that paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that employers determine the minimum services after consulting the workers’ representative. In the Committee’s view, it would be more appropriate to provide that in the event of disagreement in determining such services, the matter should be settled by an independent body.

The Committee further notes that under paragraph 2 of section 9 of the Act, the Ministry in charge of labour administration may authorize the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by the strike. Bearing in mind that the application of this provision could restrict the effectiveness of the strike as a means of pressure, the Committee considers that, in such cases, rather than authorizing the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, minimum services could be determined by negotiation in which the workers would participate along with the enterprise.

  Essential services and compulsory arbitration.  The Committee notes that, under section 11 of Act No. 4/92, compulsory arbitration applies to the essential services set out in section 10, which include postal services (c) and banking and loans (j), which are not essential services in the strict sense as explained by the Committee (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). The Committee therefore asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that workers in the postal, banking and loans services may exercise the right to strike.

  Grounds for strike.  Lastly, the Committee notes that, under section 1 of Act No. 4/92, the sole purpose of strikes is to safeguard the legitimate occupational and social interests of workers and the interests of the national economy. In the view of the Committee, organizations responsible for defending workers’ socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 165).

The Committee asks the Government to state whether strikes are allowed as a means of seeking solutions to economic and social policy questions which are of direct concern to the worker.

  Article 6.  The Committee asks the Government to state whether the right to strike also applies to federations and confederations.

The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will provide information on the questions it has raised.

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

The Committee notes with regret that, for the second year in succession, the Government's report has not been received.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments dealt with the following:

1. Article 2 of the Convention. With regard to public employees, the Committee asks the Government to state whether this category of workers has the right to organize and to indicate the applicable legislation.

2. Articles 3 and 10. Right of workers' organizations to formulate their programmes to promote and protect workers' interests without interference from the public authorities. The Committee points out that it has always been of the opinion that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 147).

Majority for calling a strike. The Committee notes that section 4 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that decisions on the calling of strikes must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the workers present at the general assembly convened for the purpose. The Committee considers that the requirement of two-thirds of the workers is high and could be an obstacle to the exercise of the right to strike and that it would therefore be appropriate for the decision to be taken by a simple majority of the workers present at the assembly.

Minimum services. The Committee also notes that paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that employers determine the minimum services after consulting the workers' representative. In the Committee's view, it would be more appropriate to provide that in the event of disagreement in determining such services, the matter should be settled by an independent body.

The Committee further notes that under paragraph 2 of section 9 of the Act, the Ministry in charge of labour administration may authorize the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by the strike. Bearing in mind that the application of this provision could restrict the effectiveness of the strike as a means of pressure, the Committee considers that, in such cases, rather than authorizing the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, minimum services could be determined by negotiation in which the workers would participate along with the enterprise.

Essential services and compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes that, under section 11 of Act No. 4/92, compulsory arbitration applies to the essential services set out in section 10, which include postal services (c) and banking and loans (j), which are not essential services in the strict sense as explained by the Committee (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). The Committee therefore asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that workers in the postal, banking and loans services may exercise the right to strike.

Grounds for strike. Lastly, the Committee notes that, under section 1 of Act No. 4/92, the sole purpose of strikes is to safeguard the legitimate occupational and social interests of workers and the interests of the national economy. In the view of the Committee, organizations responsible for defending workers' socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 165).

The Committee asks the Government to state whether strikes are allowed as a means of seeking solutions to economic and social policy questions which are of direct concern to the worker.

Article 6. The Committee asks the Government to state whether the right to strike also applies to federations and confederations.

The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will provide information on the questions it has raised.

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

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 dealt with the following:

Article 2 of the Convention

With regard to public employees, the Committee asks the Government to state whether this category of workers has the right to organize, as required by Article 2 of the Convention, and to indicate the applicable legislation.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. Right of workers' organizations to formulate their programmes to promote and protect workers' interests without interference from the public authorities.

The Committee points out that it has always been of the opinion that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 147).

Majority for calling a strike

The Committee notes that section 4 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that decisions on the calling of strikes must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the workers present at the general assembly convened for the purpose. The Committee considers that the requirement of two-thirds of the workers is high and could be an obstacle to the exercise of the right to strike and that it would therefore be appropriate for the decision to be taken by a simple majority of the workers present at the assembly.

Minimum services

The Committee also notes that paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that employers determine the minimum services after consulting the workers' representative. In the Committee's view, it would be appropriate to provide that in the event of disagreement in determining such services, the matter should be settled by an independent body.

The Committee further notes that under paragraph 2 of section 9 of the Act the Ministry in charge of labour administration may authorise the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by the strike. Bearing in mind that the application of this provision could restrict the effectiveness of the strike as a means of pressure, the Committee considers that in such cases, rather than authorizing the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, minimum services could be determined by negotiation in which the workers would participate along with the enterprise.

Essential services and compulsory arbitration

The Committee notes that under section 11 of Act No. 4/92, compulsory arbitration applies to the essential services set out in section 10, which include postal services (c) and banking and loans (j), which are not essential services in the strict sense as explained by the Committee (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). The Committee therefore asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that workers in the postal, banking and loans services may exercise the right to strike.

Grounds for strike

Lastly, the Committee notes that under section 1 of Act No. 4/92, the sole purpose of strikes is to safeguard the legitimate occupational and social interests of workers and the interests of the national economy. In the view of the Committee, organizations responsible for defending workers' socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 165).

The Committee asks the Government to state whether strikes are allowed as a means of seeking solutions to economic and social policy questions which are of direct concern to the worker.

Article 6 of the Convention

The Committee asks the Government to state whether the right to strike also applies to federations and confederations.

The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will provide information on the questions it has raised.

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

The Committee notes the detailed information supplied by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention, and responds with the following comments:

Article 2 of the Convention

With regard to public employees, the Committee asks the Government to state whether this category of workers has the right to organize, as required by Article 2 of the Convention, and to indicate the applicable legislation.

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. Right of workers' organizations to formulate their programmes to promote and protect workers' interests without interference from the public authorities.

The Committee reminds the Government that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests (see General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, 1994, paragraph 147).

Majority for calling a strike

The Committee notes that section 4 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that decisions on the calling of strikes must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the workers present at the general assembly convened for the purpose. The Committee considers that the requirement of two-thirds of the workers is high and could be an obstacle to the exercise of the right to strike and that it would therefore be appropriate for the decision to be taken by a simple majority of the workers present at the assembly.

Minimum services

The Committee also notes that paragraph 4 of section 10 of Act No. 4/92 establishes that employers determine the minimum services after consulting the workers' representative. In the Committee's view, it would be appropriate to provide that in the event of disagreement in determining such services, the matter should be settled by an independent body.

The Committee further notes that under paragraph 2 of section 9 of the Act the Ministry in charge of labour administration may authorise the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, in order to maintain the economic and financial viability of the enterprise should it be seriously threatened by the strike. Bearing in mind that the application of this provision could restrict the effectiveness of the strike as a means of pressure, the Committee considers that in such cases, rather than authorizing the enterprise to hire workers to perform essential services, minimum services could be determined by negotiation in which the workers would participate along with the enterprise.

Essential services and compulsory arbitration

The Committee notes that under section 11 of Act No. 4/92, compulsory arbitration applies to the essential services set out in section 10, which include postal services (c) and banking and loans (j), which are not essential services in the strict sense as explained by the Committee (services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 159). The Committee therefore asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that workers in the postal, banking and loans services may exercise the right to strike.

Grounds for strike

Lastly, the Committee notes that under section 1 of Act No. 4/92, the sole purpose of strikes is to safeguard the legitimate occupational and social interests of workers and the interests of the national economy. In the view of the Committee, organizations responsible for defending workers' socio-economic and occupational interests should, in principle, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see op. cit., paragraph 165).

The Committee asks the Government to state whether strikes are allowed as a means of seeking solutions to economic and social policy questions which are of direct concern to the worker.

Article 6 of the Convention

The Committee asks the Government to state whether the right to strike also applies to federations and confederations.

The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will provide information on the questions it has raised.

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

The Committee notes with satisfaction that section 15 of Act No. 5/92 on trade unions, promulgated on 10 March 1992 -- the year in which the Convention was ratified -- repeals all legislation on workers' and employers' organizations, including Act No. 1/91 which established the monopoly of one confederation mentioned in the Act and that the new Act ensures the possibility of trade union pluralism.

The Committee raises other points in a direct request.