Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association

Right to strike10

Cases in which strikes may be restricted or even prohibited, and compensatory guarantees

Compensatory guarantees in the event of the prohibition of strikes in the public service or in essential services

1. Where the right to strike is restricted or prohibited in certain essential undertakings or services, adequate protection should be given to the workers to compensate for the limitation thereby placed on their freedom of action with regard to disputes affecting such undertakings and services.

1. In the event that an intervention would be necessary for safety reasons, the parties to the dispute should be given every opportunity to bargain collectively, for a sufficient period of time, with the help of independent facilitators and machinery and procedures designed with the foremost objective of promoting collective bargaining.

1. Based on the premise that a negotiated agreement, however unsatisfactory, is to be preferred to an imposed solution, the parties should always retain the option of returning voluntarily to the bargaining table, which implies that whatever disputes settlement mechanism is adopted, it should be possible to suspend the compulsory arbitration process, if the parties wish to resume negotiations.

1. As regards the nature of appropriate guarantees in cases where restrictions are placed on the right to strike in essential services and the public service, restrictions on the right to strike should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage and in which the awards, once made, are fully and promptly implemented.

1. The reservation of budgetary powers to the legislative authority should not have the effect of preventing compliance with the terms of awards handed down by the compulsory arbitration tribunal. Any departure from this practice would detract from the effective application of the principle that, where strikes by workers in essential services are prohibited or restricted, such prohibition should be accompanied by the existence of conciliation procedures and of impartial arbitration machinery, the awards of which are binding on both parties.

1. In mediation and arbitration proceedings it is essential that all the members of the bodies entrusted with such functions should not only be strictly impartial but, if the confidence of both sides, on which the successful outcome even of compulsory arbitration really depends, is to be gained and maintained, they should also appear to be impartial both to the employers and to the workers concerned.

1. The appointment by the minister of all five members of the Essential Services Arbitration Tribunal calls into question the independence and impartiality of such a tribunal, as well as the confidence of the concerned parties in such a system. The representative organizations of workers and employers should, respectively, be able to select members of the Essential Services Arbitration Tribunal who represent them.

1. Employees deprived of the right to strike because they perform essential services must have appropriate guarantees to safeguard their interests; a corresponding denial of the right of lockout, provision of joint conciliation procedures and where, and only where, conciliation fails, the provision of joint arbitration machinery.

1. Referring to its recommendation that restrictions on the right to strike would be acceptable if accompanied by conciliation and arbitration procedures, the Committee has made it clear that this recommendation does not refer to the absolute prohibition of the right to strike, but to the restriction of that right in essential services or in the public service, in relation to which adequate guarantees should be provided to safeguard the workers interests.

1. Regarding the requirement that the parties pay for the conciliation and mediation/arbitration services, the Committee has concluded that, provided the costs are reasonable and do not inhibit the ability of the parties, in particular those with inadequate resources, to make use of the services, there has not been a violation of freedom of association on this basis.

1. The Committee takes no position as to the desirability of conciliation over mediation as both are means of assisting the parties in voluntarily reaching an agreement. Nor does the Committee take a position as to the desirability of a separated conciliation and arbitration system over a combined mediation-arbitration system, as long as the members of the bodies entrusted with such functions are impartial and are seen to be impartial.