 |
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |
Trade union leaders and representatives (Protection against anti-union discrimination)Description:(CFA: Digest of Decisions 2006) Subject classification: Freedom of Association Document:1304 Subject: Freedom of Association, Collective Bargaining, and Industrial Relations Display the document in: French Spanish Document No. (ilolex): 2320061304 Trade union leaders and representatives A. General principles 799. One of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. (See the 1996 Digest, para. 724; and, for example, 302nd Report, Case No. 1809, para. 381; 306th Report, Case No. 1796, para. 506; 311th Report, Case No. 1944, para. 543; 320th Report, Case No. 1995, para. 371; 332nd Report, Case No. 2262, para. 394; 334th Report, Case No. 2222, para. 210; 335th Report, Case No. 2226, para. 756; 336th Report, Case No. 2336, para. 538; 337th Report, Case No. 2262, para. 260; and 338th Report, Case No. 2402, para. 467.) 800. The Committee has drawn attention to the Workers’ Representatives Convention (No. 135) and Recommendation (No. 143), 1971, in which it is expressly established that workers’ representatives in the undertaking shall enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as workers’ representatives or on union membership, or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 732; 324th Report, Case No. 2091, para. 893; 335th Report, Case No. 2276, para. 409; and 337th Report, Case No. 2395, para. 1191.) 801. The principle that a worker or trade union official should not suffer prejudice by reason of his or her trade union activities does not necessarily imply that the fact that a person holds a trade union offi ce confers immunity against dismissal irrespective of the circumstances.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 725; 316th Report, Case No. 1972, para. 706; and 335th Report, Case No. 2236, para. 963.) 802. A deliberate policy of frequent transfers of persons holding trade union offi ce may seriously harm the efficiency of trade union activities.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 733.) B. Blacklists803. All practices involving the blacklisting of trade union officials or members constitute a serious threat to the free exercise of trade union rights and, in general, governments should take stringent measures to combat such practices. (See the 1996 Digest, paras. 709, 711 and 734; 304th Report, Case No. 1850, para. 217; 335th Report, Case No. 2274, para. 1125; and Case No. 2270, para. 1394.) C. Dismissal of trade union leaders (See also paras 830 and 865)804. The Committee has pointed out that one way of ensuring the protection of trade union offi cials is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter except, of course, for serious misconduct. (See the 1996 Digest, para. 727; 311th Report, Case No. 1934, para. 129; 316th Report, Case No. 1972, para. 706; and 334th Report, Case No. 2046, para. 350.) 805. The dismissal of trade unionists for absence from work without the employer’s permission, for example, to attend a workers’ education course, does not appear in itself to constitute an infringement of freedom of association. (See the 1996 Digest, para. 728; and 336th Report, Case No. 2328, para. 885.) 806. The Committee cannot accept that the failure to work on a non-workday should be considered a breach of labour discipline leading to the dismissal of trade union leaders.(See 325th Report, Case No. 2090, para. 176.) 807. In a case in which trade union leaders could be dismissed without an indication of the motive, the Committee requested the government to take steps with a view to punishing acts of anti-union discrimination and to making appeal procedures available to the victims of such acts.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 706; and 318th Report, Case No. 2004, para. 400.) 808. In no case should it be possible to dismiss a trade union officer merely for having presented a list of dispute grievances; this constitutes an extremely serious act of discrimination.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 720; and 330th Report, Case No. 2158, para. 848.) 809. According to the findings of a court, one of the essential reasons for the dismissal of a trade union official was that he performed certain trade union activities in the employer’s time, using the personnel of the employer for trade union purposes and using his business position to exercise improper pressure on another employee – all this without the consent of the employer. The Committee considered that, when trade union activities are carried on in this way, it is not possible for the person concerned to invoke the protection of Convention No. 98 or to contend that, in the event of dismissal, his legitimate trade union rights have been infringed.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 729.) 810. In a case in which a trade union leader was dismissed and then reinstated a few days later, the Committee pointed out that the dismissal of trade union leaders by reason of union membership or activities is contrary to Article 1 of Convention No. 98, and could amount to intimidation aimed at preventing the free exercise of their trade union functions.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 730; and 330th Report, Case No. 2186, para. 371.) 811. With regard to the reasons for dismissal, the activities of trade union officials should be considered in the context of particular situations which may be especially strained and diffi cult in cases of labour disputes and strike action.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 731; 320th Report, Case No. 2014, para. 815; and 324th Report, Case No. 2091, para. 892.) 812. In a case involving a large number of dismissals of trade union leaders and other trade unionists, the Committee considered that it would be particularly desirable for the government to carry out an inquiry in order to establish the true reasons for the measures taken.(See the 1996 Digest, para. 735.) |
| ILO Home | NORMES home | ILOLEX home | Universal Query | NATLEX |
|
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |