 |
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |
Favouritism or discrimination in respect of particular organizations (Right of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing)Description:(CFA: Digest of Decisions 2006) Subject classification: Freedom of Association Document:0505 Subject: Freedom of Association, Collective Bargaining, and Industrial Relations Display the document in: French Spanish Document No. (ilolex): 2320060505 Favouritism or discrimination in respect of particular organizations 339. Considering the limited functions which, in one case, were by law open to certain categories of trade unions, the Committee felt that the distinction made between trade unions under the national legislation could have the indirect consequence of restricting the freedom of workers to belong to the organizations of their choosing. The reasons which led the Committee to adopt this position are as follows. As a general rule, when a government can grant an advantage to one particular organization or withdraw that advantage from one organization in favour of another, there is a risk, even if such is not the government’s intention, that one trade union will be placed at an unfair advantage or disadvantage in relation to the others, which would thereby constitute an act of discrimination. More precisely, by placing one organization at an advantage or at a disadvantage in relation to the others, a government may either directly or indirectly infl uence the choice of workers regarding the organization to which they intend to belong, since they will undeniably want to belong to the union best able to serve them, even if their natural preference would have led them to join another organization for occupational, religious, political or other reasons. The freedom of the parties to choose is a right expressly laid down in Convention No. 87. (See the 1996 Digest, para. 303; and 328th Report, Case No. 2139, para. 445.) 340. By according favourable or unfavourable treatment to a given organization as compared with others, a government may be able to influence the choice of workers as to the organization which they intend to join. In addition, a government which deliberately acts in this manner violates the principle laid down in Convention No. 87 that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the rights provided for in the Convention or impede their lawful exercise; more indirectly, it would also violate the principle that the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in the Convention. It would seem desirable that, if a government wishes to make certain facilities available to trade union organizations, these organizations should enjoy equal treatment in this respect.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 304; 324th Report, Case No. 2067, para. 988; 325th Report, Case No. 1888, para. 397; 328th Report, Case No. 2139, para. 445; 330th Report, Case No. 2200, para. 1100; 331st Report, Case No. 2090, para. 164; 334th Report, Case No. 2200, para. 750; 337th Report, Case No. 2244, para. 1272; and 338th Report, Case No. 2200, para. 325.) 341. In a case in which there was at the very least a close working relationship between a trade union and the labour and other authorities, the Committee emphasized the importance it attaches to the resolution of 1952 concerning the independence of the trade union movement and urged the government to refrain from showing favouritism towards, or discriminating against, any given trade union, and requested it to adopt a neutral attitude in its dealings with all workers’ and employers’ organizations, so that they are all placed on an equal footing.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 305; 309th Report, Case No. 1851/1922, para. 242; and 323rd Report, Case No. 1888, para. 192.) 342. On more than one occasion, the Committee has examined cases in which allegations were made that the public authorities had, by their attitude, favoured or discriminated against one or more trade union organizations:(1) pressure exerted on workers by means of public statements made by the authorities; (2) unequal distribution of subsidies among unions or the granting to one union, rather than to the others, of premises for holding its meetings or carrying on its activities; (3) refusal to recognize the leaders of certain organizations in the performance of their legitimate activities. Discrimination by such methods, or by others, may be an informal way of infl uencing the trade union membership of workers. It is therefore sometimes diffi cult to prove. The fact, nevertheless, remains that any discrimination of this kind jeopardizes the right of workers set out in Convention No. 87, Article 2, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. (See the 1996 Digest, para. 306; 311th Report, Case No. 1969, para. 146; 334th Report, Case No. 2200, para. 750, and Case No. 2249, para. 871; and 338th Report, Case No. 2200, para. 325.) 343. Both the government authorities and employers should refrain from any discrimination between trade union organizations, especially as regards recognition of their leaders who seek to perform legitimate trade union activities.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 307; 311th Report, Case No. 1969, para. 146; 324th Report, Case No. 2055, para. 683; and 338th Report, Case No. 2374, para. 509.) 344. Situations in which the local authorities interfere in the activities of a freely constituted trade union by establishing alternative workers’ organizations and inciting workers using unfair means to change their membership violate the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. (See 330th Report, Case No. 2144, para. 719.) 345. Generally, the fact that a government is able to offer the use of premises to a particular organization, or to evict a given organization from premises which it has been occupying in order to offer them to another organization, may, even if this is not intended, lead to the favourable or unfavourable treatment of a particular trade union as compared with others, and thereby constitute an act of discrimination.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 308.) |
| ILO Home | NORMES home | ILOLEX home | Universal Query | NATLEX |
|
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |