Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Algeria (Ratification: 1962)

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

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations from the following representative employers’ and workers’ organizations received on: 12 February and 30 August 2023 from the General and Autonomous Confederation of Workers in Algeria (CGATA), 1 March 2023 from CGATA, the Trade Union Confederation of Productive Workers (COSYFOP), the National Autonomous Union of Public Administration Personnel (SNAPAP), the Autonomous National Union of Electricity and Gas Workers (SNATEG), Public Services International (PSI), the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) and IndustriALL Global Union; 31 August from COSYFOP; and 1 September 2022 and 2023 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). The Committee notes the replies provided by the Government to certain observations.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes with concern the observations provided regularly between 2022 and 2023 by national and international trade union organizations concerning acts of anti-union discrimination and interference against independent trade unions and their leaders. The Committee recalls that the Committee on Freedom of Association has had before it several cases concerning harassment and dismissal of trade union leaders and members, as indicated in the observations of the trade union organizations. The Committee refers to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in the cases concerned, such as that of the Autonomous National Union of Electricity and Gas Workers (SNATEG) (see 403rd Report, June 2023, Case No. 3210).

The Committee further wishes to recall that the situation of the dismissed trade unionists and the cases of interference were also the subject of the conclusions and recommendations of a high-level mission that visited Algiers in May 2019, in the context of the recommendations of the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference concerning the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

The Committee previously expressed its concern at the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference against the COSYFOP and affiliated trade union organizations, including threats against and dismissals of trade union leaders of BATIMETAL-COSYFOP, the Workers’ Union of the Commission for Electricity and Gas Regulation (STCREG), the National Union of the Higher Institute of Management and the National Federation of Workers of the Social Security Funds, affiliated with the COSYFOP. The Committee expressed its expectation that the Government would ensure adequate protection for the leaders and members of these trade union organizations against any acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by the employers and administrative authorities concerned. Noting that the Government refers to its previous replies to the Committee and other supervisory bodies, while recalling that this information focuses on the reinstatement of dismissed workers in the public administration and workers of the SONELGAZ group, the Committee is bound to reiterate its request to the Government to provide without delay its comments concerning the allegations of threats and anti-union dismissals affecting the above-mentioned organizations affiliated with the COSYFOP, indicating whether the organizations concerned continue their activities and are able to engage in collective bargaining in the establishments concerned.

Adoption of new legislation. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 23-02 of 25 April 2023 on the exercise of the right to organize, and of Act No. 23-08 of 21 June 2023 concerning the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike. These two Acts contain provisions implementing the Convention, some of which will be examined below.

Procedures for protection against anti-union discrimination. In general terms, the Government indicates that Act No. 23-02 gives greater protection in that it provides expressly that trade union leaders may not face any punishment, dismissal or discrimination on grounds of their trade union activities. This protection is also guaranteed to any worker who is a member of a trade union organization, whether representative or not. The Government draws attention to the new procedure allowing a salaried worker who considers him or herself to be the victim of an act of anti-union discrimination to refer the matter to the labour inspector covering the relevant area, who now has enhanced powers to investigate, give notice to comply to an employer who has committed an act of anti-union discrimination, or address a violation notice to the competent courts if the employer refuses to comply (sections 133 to 147 of Act No. 23-02). In the light of the repeated allegations of the trade union organizations concerning the failure of the labour inspectorate to act on the actions lodged with it following acts of anti-union discrimination and dismissals affecting organizations affiliated with the COSYFOP, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of sections 133 to 147 of Act No. 23-02 on procedures for the protection of salaried workers in the private sector and public servants and employees in public institutions and administrations against discrimination, including statistical data on the number of actions lodged with labour inspectorates, and the percentage of investigations carried out by the inspectorate that resulted in formal notice being given to the employer, or in violation notices on the employer’s refusal to comply.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that it previously noted the concerns expressed by the high-level mission concerning delays in complying with court rulings ordering the reinstatement of trade union leaders, which have still not been given effect, and the excessive use of judicial action against trade unions and their members by certain enterprises and authorities. The Committee also noted the difficulty, identified by the mission, in the application of Article 1 of the Convention for the founding members of unions. It noted that under the current legislation and procedures, it would be possible for an employer to dismiss the founding members of a union during the period when it was applying for registration (which in practice can take several years), without the latter benefiting from the protection afforded by the legislation against anti-union discrimination. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take, in consultation with the social partners, the necessary measures to ensure adequate protection to trade union leaders and members during the period in which an established trade union is applying for registration. Noting that Act No. 23-02 makes no such provision and in the absence of information from the Government,the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether consultations have been held or are envisaged to address the issue of the protection of trade union leaders and members during the period in which an established trade union is applying for registration. If not, the Committee requests the Government to initiate consultations with the social partners on the issue and to indicate any progress made in this regard.

Protection against interference. With regard to protection against interference, the Government states that the law prohibits any natural or legal person from interfering in the functioning of a trade union organization, except as expressly provided for by law (section 8 of Act No. 23-02). In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to specify the exceptions provided for in section 8 of Act No. 23-02, to provide the relevant legislation and to indicate whether in the implementation of the law, such exceptions have been invoked in alleged cases of interference.

Determination of trade union representativeness. The Committee notes that under the terms of section 69 of Act No. 23-02, the representativeness of a trade union organization is conditional upon its achievement of a specific unionization rate and a minimum voting strength in professional elections, under sections 73 to 77 of the Act, but that the financial transparency of its accounts and its political neutrality are also taken into consideration. The Committee underscores the importance of ensuring that the criteria to be applied to determine the representativeness of organizations are objective, preestablished and precise so as to avoid any opportunity for partiality or abuse. In this regard, the Committee: (i) notes that the criterion of political neutrality contained in this provision could give rise to difficulties in that it could allow objections and thereby give rise to risks of partiality or abuse; and (ii) wishes to know how the criterion of financial transparency is applied. The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify the extent to which the criteria of financial transparency and political neutrality have been applied in practice when determining representativeness following professional elections. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to consult the social partners on the means of recognition of representativeness under section 69 et seq of Act No. 23-02, with a view to their revision.

The Committee further observes that pursuant to sections 79 et seq of the Act, the maintenance of the representative status of trade union and employers’ organizations is conditional upon their obtaining, every three years, a certificate issued by the competent governmental authority after the organizations concerned have provided, via an electronic platform, information relating to their members, which, according to the Act, would make it possible to ascertain their representativeness (section 81 of Act No. 23-02). The Committee wishes to know how section 81 is implemented in practice, and, in particular, how it is applied to trade union organizations that have acquired representative status via election results pursuant to section 73 of the Act. The Committee considers that the requirement to provide information concerning the members of a representative organization in order to maintain representative status would obviate the criterion of election results.

The Committee would also like to draw the Government’s attention to the requirement to provide the employer with information relating to the criteria for representativeness, under the terms of section 79(3) of the Act. The Committee notes the completeness of the information requested (the name and social security number of each member, their membership card number and date, and dues paid). It notes the concerns expressed by trade union organizations concerning the risks of anti-union discrimination that could ensue. In this regard, the Committee considers it unnecessary to draw up a list of names of members of trade union organizations in order to determine membership numbers, since this could be established from a statement of union dues without drawing up a list of names, which would entail a risk of acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures in this respect, in consultation with the representative organizations concerned, and to remove the requirement to provide information that could facilitate acts of anti-union discrimination.

Lastly, noting that the administrative approval mechanism for the validation and maintenance of the representative status of trade union organizations could have an impact on the development of industrial relations and collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to provide timely information on the renewal of the representative status of organizations, and to indicate the number of certificates provided each year and the number of refusals to renew, appeals and outcomes thereof.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the extent to which it is anticipated that, if no trade union attains the requisite threshold to be declared representative in professional elections, minority organizations might unite to negotiate a collective agreement applicable to the negotiating unit or, at least, conclude a collective on behalf of their respective members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to specify the applicable regulations that allow minority trade unions of the unit to bargain collectively, at least on behalf of their members, when there is no union that represents the majority of the workers.

Application of the Convention in practice. Noting the data provided on the total number of collective agreements and accords signed since the enactment of labour laws in 1990,the Committee encourages the Government to provide, as previously for the period from 2016 to 2020, statistics on the number of collective agreements and accords registered by the Labour Inspectorate, and to specify the sectors concerned as well as the number of workers covered.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2025.]

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

The Committee notes the observations, received on 29 March 2021 of the General and Autonomous Confederation of Workers in Algeria (CGATA) on the application of the Convention, as well as the Government’s response.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls having noted, in its previous comments, the observations regularly provided by the national and international trade union organizations concerning acts of anti-union discrimination and interference against autonomous trade unions and their leaders. This issue is addressed regularly by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (hereinafter the Conference Committee) on the occasion of their discussion on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which requested the Government to provide information on the situation of trade union leaders and members whose anti-union dismissal had been reported (the latest discussion being in June 2019). The Committee also recalls that several cases concerning harassment and dismissal of trade union leaders and members have been brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association mentioned in the observations of the trade union organizations. Lastly, the Committee recalled that the situation of the dismissed trade unionists and the cases of interference was the subject of the conclusions and recommendations of a high level mission that visited Algiers in May 2019, within the framework of the recommendations made by the Conference Committee.

In its previous comments, noting the observations provided between 2017 and 2019 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Trade Union Confederation of Productive Workers (COSYFOP), the Committee noted with concern the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference against COSYFOP and affiliated trade union organizations. The Committee recalls that the observations of COSYFOP alleged the following discrimination and interference measures: (i) harassment of Mr Raouf Mellal, the president of COSYFOP, who was regularly the subject of intimidation and abusive detention and was subjected to physical violence during his detention; (ii) the dismissal of leaders and members of the National Union of Workers of BATIMETAL-COSYFOP, who were only reinstated by the enterprise after they had left the union and the establishment of a union by anti-union interference; (iii) threats of dismissal and criminal prosecution against members of the Workers’ Union of the Commission for Electricity and Gas Regulation (STCREG); (iv) the dismissal of all the leaders of the National Union of the Higher Institute of Management and the refusal of the Labour Inspectorate to enforce the provisions for the protection of trade union representatives under the law; and (v) the circular of the Ministry of Labour inciting all the Social Solidarity Funds to dismiss all the members of the National Federation of Workers of the Social Security Funds, affiliated to COSYFOP, which led to the judicial harassment and dismissal of the president of the Federation, who had resigned from COSYFOP shortly after being reinstated in January 2020. Given the seriousness of these allegations, the Committee requested that the competent authorities conduct the necessary investigations into the alleged acts.

The Committee notes that, in response, the Government indicates that Mr Mellal and other alleged leaders of COSYFOP fraudulently use this registered trade union organization without having complied with the terms for renewing the board as required by law. The Government states that it asked the leaders in question to rectify the situation and informed the social security funds of this infringement. The Government recalls in general that trade union leaders are provided adequate protection through legal provisions, which are enforced by a labour inspection service. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information in response to the specific allegations of discrimination and interference recalled above. The Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference against members of BATIMETAL-COSYFOP, STCREG, the National Union of the Higher Institute of Management and the National Federation of Workers of the Social Security Funds. The Committee also expects that, as required by the Convention, the Government ensures that the leaders and members of these trade union organizations are provided adequate protection against any acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by the employers and administrative authorities concerned.

In its previous comments, the Committee also noted that observations of the Autonomous National Union of Electricity and Gas Workers (SNATEG) denouncing the mass dismissal of its members by an enterprise in the energy sector and interference in the activities of the union. The Government provided information on the situation of the dismissed trade unionists, recently reporting measures for the reinstatement of most of the workers concerned, situations that are in the process of being resolved and dismissals that have been confirmed on the grounds of serious faults in the case of certain workers. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association, which has been dealing with the complaint of SNATEG since 2016, once again issued an opinion on the merits of the case in November 2021. The Committee on Freedom of Association indicated in this regard that it had contradictory information on the issue of the dismissal of certain representatives of SNATEG, given reference to the different legal decisions of the complainant organization and the Government. The Committee notes with concern the conclusion of the Committee on Freedom of Association noting an especially large number of leaders and representatives of SNATEG who have been dismissed, in a context of conflict and harassment against them [see 393rd report, November 2021, case No. 3210].  The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to follow up on the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and in particular those requesting details on the situation of the leaders of SNATEG who have still not been reinstated.

Revision of the legislation. With regard to the need to provide adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee previously noted the concerns expressed by the high level mission concerning delays in complying with court rulings ordering the reinstatement of trade union leaders, which have still not been given effect, and the excessive use of judicial action against trade unions and their members by certain enterprises and authorities. The Committee also noted that the high level mission identified difficulties in the application of Article 1 of the Convention to the founding members of unions. Under the current legislation and procedures, it would be possible for an employer to dismiss the founding members of a union during the period when it was applying for registration, which in practice can take several years, without the latter benefiting from the protection afforded by the legislation against anti-union discrimination. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take, in consultation with the social partners, the necessary measures to ensure adequate protection to trade union leaders and members during the registration period of the established trade union.

The Committee notes that the Government refers to a bill amending and supplementing Act No. 90-14, which will soon be examined by the National Popular Assembly. According to the Government, the proposed amendments are part of the implementation of the recommendations of the Conference Committee concerning sections 4, 6 and 56 of Act No. 90-14. This bill provides for: (i) the participation of trade unions in legal action as a civil party; (ii) the possibility for the labour inspector covering the relevant area to draw up a statement on refusal to comply with an order, containing the main points that they have been able to gather and which confirm that the dismissal or removal of a worker is linked to trade union activity; and (iii) the tightening of criminal penalties to ensure they are effective and dissuasive in cases of obstruction to the exercise of trade union rights and a breach of the protection of trade union representatives.

According to the Government, this bill has been the subject of broad consultation with the social partners, as well as with the Office. The Government also indicates that it has availed itself of the technical assistance of the Office to strengthen the capacities of the Labour Inspectorate in methods and techniques for identifying anti-union acts, particularly measures of anti-union discrimination in employment.

Noting this information, which is in keeping with the previous recommendations, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will continue its efforts, in consultation with the social partners, in the overall examination of the legal framework and practice concerning protection against anti-union discrimination and interference. This examination should include the issue of protection of trade union leaders and members during the period when the union that has been established is applying for registration. The Committee requests the Government to continue reporting progress in this regard and to provide a copy of the amendment to Act No.90-14, once it has been adopted.

Article 4. Appointment to the Joint Council of the Civil Service and the National Arbitration Commission. The Committee notes the observations of the CGATA, contesting the Government’s registration of worker representatives of the Joint Council of the Civil Service and the National Arbitration Commission. The CGATA denounces, in particular, the registration of a trade union established by government interference and its probable impact on the work of the bodies in question. In its reply, the Government indicates that the appointments to the Joint Council of the Civil Service and the renewal of the mandate of the National Arbitration Commission were carried out on the basis of the representativity of the two trade unions organizations in question. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall that the bodies called on to resolve grievances should be independent and should enjoy the confidence of the parties.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the statistics provided on the number of collective agreements and accords registered by the labour inspectorate between 2016 and 2020, as well as the number of workers covered. The Committee invites the Government to continue providing the statistics available concerning the number of collective agreements and accords registered and, as far as possible, to specify the sectors and number of workers covered.

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

The Committee notes the observations received on 30 September 2020 from the Trade Union Confederation of Productive Workers (COSYFOP), supported by Public Services International (PSI), the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF), and IndustriALL Global Union (IndustriALL). As it has not received any supplementary information from the Government, the Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019, as well as the observations of COSYFOP (see Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention below).

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the observations denouncing discrimination against trade union leaders and members, received between 2017 and 2019, from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Autonomous National Union of Electricity and Gas Workers (SNATEG), and COSYFOP. The Committee notes that this issue has also been addressed repeatedly by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (hereinafter the Conference Committee) during its discussion of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), (discussions held in June 2017, June 2018 and June 2019), which has consistently requested the Government to report on the situation of trade union leaders and members who have been the victims of anti union dismissal. The Committee further notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has examined several cases relating to the harassment and dismissal of trade union leaders and members, as indicated in the observations of the trade union organizations. The Committee notes that, within the framework of the recommendations made by the Conference Committee in June 2018, a high level mission visited Algiers in May 2019 and was able to gather information on the spot relating to the situation of the dismissed trade unionists. Finally, the Committee notes that the Government has regularly provided information in response to the observations received from the trade union organizations, as well as in response to the recommendations made by the Conference Committee.

The Committee recalls that in 2016 the ITUC and the CGATA provided observations on acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union leaders and the dismissal of trade union members following social protests in enterprises in various sectors and in the public sector (justice, postal services, public health, the national water agency). In this regard, it notes the information provided by the Government on the measures taken for the reinstatement of the workers dismissed in the public administration. The Committee notes that certain trade union leaders have still not been reinstated, in certain cases despite court rulings in their favour. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure, on the one hand, the immediate implementation of all court decisions ordering the reinstatement of trade union leaders and trade unionists in the public administration and on the other hand, to continue to provide information on other dismissed trade union leaders and trade unionists whose situation has not yet been resolved.

The Committee notes that the observations received from trade unions since 2017 relate largely to the mass dismissal of the members of SNATEG by an enterprise in the gas sector and interference in the activities of the union. The Government has provided information on the situation of the dismissed trade unionists, recently reporting measures for the reinstatement of most of the workers concerned, situations that are in the process of being resolved and dismissals that have been confirmed on the grounds of serious faults in the case of certain workers. In this regard, the Committee recalls that SNATEG has lodged a complaint with the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) and that the high-level mission gathered updated information in the field on the case from both the Government and trade union representatives. On this basis, the CFA once again issued an opinion on the merits of the case in its meeting in October 2020 and made recommendations calling on the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect, without further delay, to the court rulings and decisions of the Labour Inspectorate concerning the reinstatement of members of SNATEG, and to provide information on the allegations that the majority of the workers reinstated into the enterprise were obliged to give up their membership of SNATEG and to join another trade union within the enterprise (see 392nd Report of the CFA, Case No. 3210, October 2020). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to follow up on the recommendations of the CFA and in particular those concerning the trade union leaders of SNATEG who have still not been reinstated.

The Committee notes the observations of COSYFOP on acts of discrimination against its members since the recent renewal of its executive body. The Committee notes that in May 2019 the high-level mission met the representatives of COSYFOP, who provided information on the harassment of its leaders, and particularly Mr Raouf Mellal, Mr Ben Zein Slimane and Mr Abdelkader Kouafi, and intimidation at work against Ms Haddad Racheda and Ms Sarah Ben Maich, which led to the latter giving up their trade union functions. The Committee also notes that Mr Mellal was subjected to physical violence during his detention as a result of his trade union activities and is regularly the subject of intimidation and abusive detention. In addition, the Committee notes that COSYFOP denounces the following measures of discrimination and interference against affiliated trade union organizations: (i) the dismissal in October 2019 of 17 leaders and members of the National Union of Workers of BATIMETAL-COSYFOP, and the threat by the enterprise not to reinstate them unless they leave the union. The reinstatement of the union delegates by the enterprise was effective only after they had left the union, and it was revealed that one of these former delegates has been, since February 2020, an office member of an union constituted by anti-union interference; (ii) threats of dismissal and criminal prosecution against members of the Workers' Union of the Commission for Electricity and Gas Regulation (STCREG); (iii) the dismissal of all the leaders of the National Union of the Higher Institute of Management and the refusal of the Labour Inspectorate to enforce the provisions for the protection of trade union delegates under section 56 of Act No. 90-14 on the terms and conditions of the exercise of the right to organize; and (iv) the circular of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Labour, inciting all the Social Solidarity Funds to dismiss all the members of the National Federation of Workers of the social security funds affiliated to COSYFOP, which led to the judicial harassment and dismissal of the President of the Federation, who had resigned from COSYFOP shortly after being reinstated in January 2020. The Committee notes with concern the seriousness of the allegations and urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities conduct the necessary investigations into acts of anti-union discrimination against the members of COSYFOP and its affiliated trade union organizations. The Committee expects the Government to take corrective measures to re-establish the rights of workers who are victims of anti-union discrimination and to obtain the cessation without delay of interference by employers and administrative authorities in the exercise of freedom of association. The Committee urges the Government to provide its comments and detailed information on this subject.

Revision of the legislation. With regard, in general, to the need to provide adequate protection to trade union leaders and members against acts of anti union discrimination, the Committee refers to the concerns expressed by the high level mission concerning delays in complying with court rulings ordering the reinstatement of trade union leaders, which have still not been given effect, and the excessive use of judicial action in relation to the respective procedures. The Committee also notes that the high-level mission identified difficulties in the application of Article 1 of the Convention to the founding members of unions. According to the high-level mission, under the current legislation and procedures, it would be possible for an employer to dismiss the founding members of a union during the period when it was applying for registration, which in practice can take several years, without the latter benefiting from the protection afforded by the legislation against anti-union discrimination. The Committee urges the Government to engage without delay, in consultation with the social partners, in an in-depth review of the whole of the legal framework and of practice in relation to protection against anti-union discrimination, with a view to the adoption of the necessary measures to ensure adequate protection to trade union leaders and members during the period when the union that has been established is applying for registration. It requests the Government to report any progress achieved in this respect, and trusts that the Government will avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office for this purpose.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the statistics provided on the number of collective agreements registered by the Labour Inspectorate between 1990 and 2019, as well as the number of workers covered. The Committee invites the Government to continue providing any available statistics on the number of collective agreements registered and, where possible, to indicate the sectors and number of workers covered.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2021.]

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

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes the observations denouncing discrimination against trade union leaders and members, received between 2017 and 2019, from the following organizations: (i) the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) (received on 1 September 2017, 1 September 2018 and 1 September 2019); the Autonomous National Union of Electricity and Gas Workers (SNATEGS) (received on 5 July 2018); and (iii) the Trade Union Confederation of Productive Workers (COSYFOP) (received on 28 August and 13 November 2019). The Committee notes that this issue has also been addressed repeatedly by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (hereinafter the Conference Committee) during its discussion of the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), (discussions held in June 2017, June 2018 and June 2019), which has consistently requested the Government to report on the situation of trade union leaders and members who have been the victims of anti union dismissal. Finally, the Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has examined several cases relating to the harassment and dismissal of trade union leaders and members, as indicated in the observations of the trade union organizations. The Committee notes that, within the framework of the recommendations made by the Conference Committee in June 2018, a high level mission visited Algiers in May 2019 and was able to gather information on the spot relating to the situation of the dismissed trade unionists. Finally, the Committee notes that the Government has regularly provided information in response to the observations received from the trade union organizations, as well as in response to the recommendations made by the Conference Committee.

The Committee recalls that in 2016 the ITUC and the General and Autonomous Confederation of Workers in Algeria (CGATA) provided observations on acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union leaders and the dismissal of trade union members following social protests in enterprises in various sectors and in the public sector (justice, postal services, public health, the national water agency). In this regard, it notes the information provided by the Government on the measures taken for the reinstatement of the workers dismissed in the public administration. The Committee notes that certain trade union leaders have still not been reinstated, in certain cases despite court rulings in their favour. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure, on the one hand, the immediate implementation of all court decisions ordering the reinstatement of trade union leaders and trade unionists in the public administration and on the other hand, to continue to provide information on other dismissed trade union leaders and trade unionists whose situation has not yet been resolved.

The Committee notes that the observations received from trade unions since 2017 relate largely to the mass dismissal of the members of SNATEGS by an enterprise in the gas sector and interference in the activities of the union. The Government has provided information on the situation of the dismissed trade unionists, recently reporting measures for the reinstatement of most of the workers concerned, situations that are in the process of being resolved and dismissals that have been confirmed on the grounds of serious faults in the case of certain workers. In this regard, the Committee recalls that SNATEGS has lodged a complaint with the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) which in its recommendations called on the Government to ensure compliance with the provisions of the law in order to allow the union to organize its activities and represent its members (Case No. 3210, 386th Report of the CFA, June 2018). The Committee notes that the high level mission also gathered updated information on the spot concerning the case, both from the Government and from trade union representatives, and that the CFA will once again examine the substance of the case in light of the information received. The Committee trusts that the Government will take all the necessary measures to give effect without delay to the recommendations of the CFA and that it will report in particular on the situation of the trade union leaders of SNATEGS who have still not been reinstated.

The Committee notes the observations of COSYFOP on acts of discrimination against its members since the recent renewal of its executive body. The Committee notes that in May 2019 the high-level mission met the representatives of COSYFOP, who provided information on the harassment of its leaders, and particularly Raouf Mellal, Ben Zein Slimane and Abdelkader Kouafi, and intimidation at work against Ms Haddad Racheda and Ms Sarah Ben Maich, which led to the latter giving up their trade union functions. The Committee also notes that Mr Mellal was subjected to physical violence during his detention as a result of his trade union activities and is regularly the subject of intimidation and abusive detention. The Committee notes that, in its most recent communication, COSYFOP denounces the mass dismissal of the leaders of the National Union of Workers of BATIMETAL, an affiliate of COSYFOP, and the threat by the enterprise not to reinstate them unless they leave the union. The Committee notes with concern the seriousness of certain of the allegations and urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities conduct the necessary investigations into acts of anti-union discrimination against the members of COSYFOP, and to take corrective measures without delay and impose adequate sanctions if violations are found to have occurred of the trade union rights set out in the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to provide its comments and detailed information on this subject.

Revision of the legislation. With regard, in general, to the need to provide adequate protection to trade union leaders and members against acts of anti union discrimination, the Committee refers to the concerns expressed by the high level mission concerning delays in complying with court rulings ordering the reinstatement of trade union leaders, which have still not been given effect, and the excessive use of judicial action in relation to the respective procedures. The Committee also notes that the high-level mission identified difficulties in the application of Article 1 of the Convention to the founding members of unions. According to the high-level mission, under the current legislation and procedures, it would be possible for an employer to dismiss the founding members of a union during the period when it was applying for registration, which in practice can take several years, without the latter benefiting from the protection afforded by the legislation against anti-union discrimination. The Committee urges the Government to engage without delay, in consultation with the social partners, in an in-depth review of the whole of the legal framework and of practice in relation to protection against anti-union discrimination, with a view to the adoption of the necessary measures to ensure adequate protection to trade union leaders and members during the period when the union that has been established is applying for registration. It requests the Government to report any progress achieved in this respect, and trusts that the Government will avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office for this purpose.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee invites the Government to provide any available statistics on the number of collective agreements registered and, where possible, to indicate the sectors and number of workers covered.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. Right of collective bargaining. The Committee notes that, according to the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), certain matters are excluded from the scope of collective bargaining under section 120 of Act No. 90-11 on industrial relations. The Committee recalls in this regard that it considers that measures taken unilaterally by the authorities to restrict the scope of negotiable issues for a collective agreement are generally incompatible with the Convention. The Committee nevertheless observes that the wording of section 120 does not establish an exhaustive list. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the collective agreements negotiated under section 120 of Act No. 90-11 on industrial relations could include elements relating to terms and conditions of employment and work other than those included in the list established under this provision.

The Committee notes that, according to the ITUC, the procedure provided for in sections 35 to 38 of Act No. 90-14 of the modalities of the exercise of the right to organize, which obliges trade union organizations to provide information on their representativeness to the employer or the competent administrative authority at the beginning of each year, in order to be able to participate in collective bargaining, amounts to conferring the power to determine the most representative organization, upon the employer or the administrative authority concerned. Recalling that the determination of representativeness for the purpose of collective bargaining should be carried out by an independent body that enjoys the confidence of the parties, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in reply to the allegations of the ITUC.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the number of branch and enterprise collective agreements concluded between 1990 and 2015, and invites the Government to continue providing statistics on the number of collective agreements registered and, where possible, to indicate the sectors and number of workers covered.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 1 September 2016 concerning acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union leaders, as well as dismissals of trade union members following protest action in enterprises in the urban transport, automobile, steel and mining sectors. The Committee also notes the observations made by the General and Autonomous Confederation of Workers in Algeria (CGATA) in communications received on 9 June 2015 and 27 June 2016, reporting cases of anti-union discrimination in the public sector (justice, postal services, public health, national water resources agency) and in several enterprises in the gas and cleaning industries. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not responded to the allegations from the ITUC and the CGATA, previously submitted to the Committee, concerning anti-union discrimination, among other things, in enterprises in the maritime, finance and construction sectors and in certain public establishments (postal services and education). In light of the gravity of the allegations, some of which date back to 2014, the Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future and to provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the CGATA, and in particular to indicate, in cases where anti-union discrimination is found, the corrective measures taken and the penalties applied on those responsible.

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

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee takes note of the observations submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 1 September 2014 concerning acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union officials in a number of enterprises in the maritime, financial and building sectors, as well as in certain public establishments (the Post Office and the education sector). The Committee urges the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 4. Right of collective bargaining. The Committee notes that, according to the ITUC’s observations, a trade union must provide evidence that it represents at least 20 per cent of the total number of workers in a bargaining unit and at least 20 per cent of the participation committee within the employer’s organization in order to be able to bargain collectively. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, from its point of view, while it is acceptable that the union which represents the majority or a high percentage of workers in a bargaining unit should enjoy preferential or exclusive bargaining rights, the Committee considers, in cases where no union meets these conditions, or does not enjoy such exclusive rights, minority trade unions should at least be able to conclude a collective or direct agreement on behalf of their own members (see General Survey on the fundamental rights, 2012, paragraph 226) The Committee requests the Government to guarantee the respect of this principle and to continue providing statistics on the number of collective or direct agreements registered, both in the private and public sectors.

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

The Committee notes the observations of 26 August 2009 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) addressing a number of issues already examined. In that communication, however, the ITUC alleges the recurrence of acts of interference in the running of member trade union organizations, including the General Union of Algerian Workers (UGTA), support from the authorities in establishing dissident organizations to weaken certain trade unions, and harassment of trade unionists, particularly those of the National Autonomous Union of Public Administration Workers (SNAPAP). The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on the ITUC’s observations.

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

The Committee notes the comments of 31 August 2006 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention. The Committee will examine the matters raised in the context of Convention No. 87.

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

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

With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes that the effect of section 134 of Act No. 90-11 is that collective agreements are submitted to the labour inspectorate and court registrar of the territory concerned only for the purpose of registration. The Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on cases where the labour inspectorate has submitted to the competent court a collective agreement that it deemed to be inconsistent with the legislation or to seriously impair the interests of third parties, if any such cases have arisen during the period covered by the report.

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

With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes from the the Government's latest report that the effect of section 134 of Act No. 90-11 is that collective agreements are submitted to the labour inspectorate and court registrar of the territory concerned only for the purpose of registration. The Committee again asks the Government to provide information in its next report on cases where the labour inspectorate has submitted to the competent court a collective agreement that it deemed to be inconsistent with the legislation or to seriously impair the interests of third parties, if any such cases have arisen during the period covered by the report.

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

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

With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes that the effect of section 134 of Act No. 90-11 is that collective agreements are submitted to the labour inspectorate and court registrar of the territory concerned only for the purpose of registration. The Committee again asks the Government to provide information in its next report on cases where the labour inspectorate has submitted to the competent court a collective agreement that it deemed to be inconsistent with the legislation or to seriously impair the interests of third parties, if any such cases have arisen during the period covered by the report.

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

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

Article 4 of the Convention. With reference to Act No. 90-11 of 21 April 1990, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the scope of section 134 which authorizes the labour inspectorate to submit any collective agreement whose content would seriously impair the interests of third parties to the competent legal body, and would provide information on cases where the inspectorate has had recourse to this entitlement.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. With reference to Act No. 90-11 of 21 April 1990, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the scope of section 134 which authorises the labour inspectorate to submit any collective agreement whose content would seriously impair the interests of third parties to the competent legal body, and would provide information on cases where the inspectorate has had recourse to this entitlement.

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

The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Act No. 90-11 of 21 April 1990 respecting labour relations and Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990 respecting procedures for the exercise of the right to organise, which bring to a conclusion the Committee's previous comments, as they repeal section 87 of Act No. 75-31 whereby the coming into force of a collective agreement was subject to prior approval by the Minister, and section 127 of Act No. 78-12 under which wage fixing was a prerogative of the Government.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government for information on another point.

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

1. With reference to its previous comments concerning the inadequacy of the provisions to guarantee the application of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, the Committee notes with interest that Act No. 88-28 of 19 July 1988, respecting procedures for the exercise of the right to organise, ensures protection for workers against any act of anti-union discrimination on the part of employers, both at the time of taking up employment and in the course of employment, and protection for workers' organisations against acts of interference on the part of employers' organisations, accompanied by civil remedies and penal sanctions, in accordance with the requirements of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention.

2. With regard to the application of Article 4 of the Convention, the Committee's comments concerned:

- section 87 of Act No. 75-31 which makes the entry into force of a collective agreement subject to previous approval by the Minister; and

- section 127 of Act No. 78-12 whereby wage fixing, which must be linked to the objectives of economic planning, is a perogative of the Government.

In its report, the Government indicates that the purpose of section 87 of Act No. 75-31 is to ensure that collective agreements are consistent with the laws and regulations in force and that, although the State is responsible for determining wage policy, it fixes wages only after broad consultations with the representatives of the workers and employers.

While noting that the social partners are involved indirectly in fixing wages, the Committee recalls that the final decision rests with the Government, which has the practical effect of excluding wages from the scope of free and voluntary collective bargaining. This impairs attainment of the objective of Article 4 which is to encourage and promote, by appropriate measures, the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements with a view to regulating the terms and conditions of employment by means of such agreements, including collective bargaining for wages.

The Committee notes that reforms are currently being carried out to reorganise the national economy and that, in the context of these reforms, consideration is being given to ways and means of adjusting and adapting the legislation in force.

The Committee trusts that the measures taken or under consideration will remove the restrictions on collective bargaining and will aim to bring the question of wages into the scope of collective bargaining.

The Committee asks the Government to report on progress in this respect.