Introduction

1. The Committee on Freedom of Association, set up by the Governing Body at its 117th Session (November 1951), met at the International Labour Office, Geneva on 16, 17 and 24 March 2000, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

2. The members of Australian, Mexican and Zimbabwean nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Australia (Case No. 1963), Mexico (Case No. 2013) and Zimbabwe (Case No. 2027).

3. Currently, there are 98 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 31 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 22 cases and interim conclusions in nine cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

4. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the examination of the following cases: Nos. 2060 (Denmark), 2061 (New Zealand), 2062 (Argentina), 2063 (Paraguay), 2064 (Spain), 2065 (Argentina), 2067 (Venezuela), 2068 (Colombia), 2069 (Costa Rica), 2072 (Haiti), 2073 (Chile), 2074 (Cameroon), 2075 (Ukraine), 2076 (Peru) and 2077 (El Salvador) because it is awaiting information and observations from the governments concerned. All these cases relate to complaints or representations submitted since the last meeting of the Committee.

Observations requested from governments

5. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the following cases: Nos. 1880 (Peru), 1986 (Venezuela), 2012 (Russian Federation), 2022 (New Zealand), 2028 (Gabon), 2035 (Haiti), 2037 (Argentina), 2043 (Russian Federation), 2045 (Argentina), 2050 (Guatemala), 2053 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2058 (Venezuela) and 2059 (Peru). In Cases Nos. 2028 (Gabon) and 2037 (Argentina), the governments have stated that they would send their observations. With regard to Case No. 2022 (New Zealand), the Government has indicated that, due to the recent change of government, its reply would be sent later.

Observations requested from complainants

6. In Case No. 1835 (Czech Republic), the reply of the Government has been transmitted to the complainants for comments. The Committee requests the complainants to send them without delay.

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1851 and 1922 (Djibouti), 1970 and 2017 (Guatemala), 2011 (Estonia), 2036 (Paraguay), 2042 (Djibouti) and 2049 (Peru), the governments have sent partial information on the allegations made. As concerns Case No. 1951 (Canada/Ontario), the Committee is waiting for a copy of the court judgement that the Government is to transmit as soon as it has been handed down. The Committee requests all of these governments to send the remaining information without delay so that it can examine these cases in full knowledge of the facts.

Observations received from governments

8. As regards Cases Nos. 1965 (Panama), 1975 (Canada/Ontario), 1979 (Peru), 1980 (Luxembourg), 1991 (Japan), 2005 (Central African Republic), 2006 (Pakistan), 2028 (Gabon), 2031 (China), 2041 (Argentina), 2055 (Morocco), 2056 (Central African Republic), 2066 (Malta), 2070 (Mexico) and 2071 (Togo), the Committee has received the governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting. In Cases Nos. 1960 and 2021 (Guatemala), the Committee requests the Government to complete its observations on the recent developments in these cases.

Urgent appeals

9. As regards Cases Nos. 1888 (Ethiopia), 2019 (Swaziland), 2028 (Gabon), 2052 (Haiti) and 2055 (Morocco), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the submission of the complaints or the last examination of the case, it has not received the observations of the governments concerned. The Committee draws the attention of the governments in question to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of these cases if their observations or information have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests these governments to transmit their observations or information as a matter of urgency.

Serious lack of cooperation

10. The Committee draws the Governing Body's attention to Case No. 1995 (Cameroon), dealt with in this report, in which the Government has demonstrated a total lack of cooperation with regard to the procedure. It urges the Government to send its observations immediately.

Withdrawal of complaint

11. In Case No. 2039 (Mexico), the complainant indicates that it wishes to withdraw its complaint in a communication dated 20 February 2000. The Committee requests it to specify the reasons thereof so as to determine, in accordance with its procedure, whether this decision was taken independently.

Progress report on the direct contacts mission carried out in Colombia (Bogotá and Medellin) from 7 to 16 February 2000

12. At its November 1999 meeting, the Committee on Freedom of Association submitted to the Governing Body the following recommendations concerning the complaint filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution by various delegates to the 86th Session (1998) of the Conference, relating to Colombia's non-observance of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98):

The Committee notes the contents of the complaint submitted pursuant to article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO and the Government's reply thereto. The Committee deplores that no significant progress in the cases pending before it has taken place and trusts that the Governing Body will take this into account when coming to its decision on whether a commission of inquiry should be established or not (see 319th Report, para. 219).

13. The Governing Body debated these questions at its November 1999 meeting. During the debate the Chairman of the Governing Body read an agreement, dated 16 November 1999, concluded between the representatives of the Government of Colombia and the representatives of the workers of Colombia in which the Governing Body was requested as follows:

(1) To postpone until the June 2000 session of the Governing Body the decision on whether or not a commission of inquiry should be established for Colombia.

(2) In the meantime, to urge the Director-General to appoint a direct contacts mission to evaluate the situation in Colombia with respect to freedom of association, particularly as regards the cases currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government of Colombia commits itself to grant this mission the necessary guarantees for it to visit the country for the amount of time and on the number of occasions necessary to fulfil its mandate.

(3) This mission will be made up of two independent experts appointed by the Director-General and will have the support of the International Labour Office.

(4) The mission will have a deadline of 15 May 2000 to perform its duties, but it will submit a progress report to the Committee on Freedom of Association at the March session of the Governing Body.

(5) The mission report will be considered by the Committee on Freedom of Association at its May 2000 meeting, when it will make the relevant recommendations to the Governing Body.

(6) In June 2000 the Governing Body will decide on whether or not to establish a commission of inquiry. The Governing Body will take into account the information provided by the mission and by the Committee on Freedom of Association when it takes the decision on whether or not to establish a commission of inquiry for Colombia.

(7) The appointment of the direct contacts mission does not in any way restrict the ILO's supervisory bodies (CFA and CE) which will continue to assess the cases and the situations, and neither does it restrict the submission of new complaints, representations or observations.

14. Having noted the contents of this agreement, the Governing Body:

(a) noted the recommendation made by the Committee on Freedom of Association in paragraph 219 of its 319th Report;

(b) agreed that it would decide whether or not to establish a commission of inquiry for Columbia in June 2000. Making the decision at that time would enable the Governing Body to take into account the information provided by the direct contacts mission and the Committee on Freedom of Association.

15. The direct contacts mission took place in Colombia (Bogotá and Medellín) from 7 to 16 February 2000. In accordance with the decision of the Director-General of the ILO, it was made up of Mr. Cassio Mesquita Barros, a member of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and professor of labour law (Sao Paulo), and of Mr. Alberto Pérez-Pérez, professor of human rights and constitutional law (Montevideo) who were accompanied by Messrs. Alberto Odero and Horacio Guido, officials from the Freedom of Association Branch of the International Labour Standards Department.

16. According to the agreement concluded between the Government and the Colombian trade union confederations, the mission's mandate was to "evaluate the situation in Colombia with respect to freedom of association, particularly as regards the cases currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association", to submit a progress report to the Committee on Freedom of Association at its March 2000 meeting and to present a complete report for consideration at its May 2000 meeting.

17. Bearing in mind the content of the complaints submitted under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO and the cases pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association, the mission decided to focus its activities on: (1) reminding the authorities and individuals it met of the deep concern expressed by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Governing Body about the acts of violence suffered by numerous trade union leaders and trade unionists and to identify the measures being taken by the authorities to remedy this situation; (2) obtaining as much information as possible about the pending allegations submitted in the various cases currently before the Committee; (3) emphasizing the importance of bringing legislation fully into line with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 - which was one of the issues raised in the complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO - supporting the measures already undertaken in this connection by the authorities and promoting other possible ways of making legislation fully compliant; and (4) obtaining information about the exercise of trade union rights and practical problems in this regard.

18. The mission accordingly interviewed and spoke to over 200 individuals, including in particular: President Andrés Pastrana Arango; Vice-President Gustavo Bell Lemus; Ms. Gina Magnolia Riaño Barón, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare; Dr. Guillermo Fernández de Soto, Minister of External Affairs; Dr. Nestor Humberto Martínez Neira, Minister of Interior; Dr. Luis Fernando Ramírez Acuña, Minister of National Defence; Dr. Rómulo González Trujillo, Minister of Justice; and Dr. Mauricio Cárdenas, Director, National Department of Planning; members of the two Houses of Congress; magistrates from the Supreme Court of Justice, the Constitutional Court, the Council of State and the Superior Council of the Judicature; the Procurator-General ("Procurador General") of the Nation; the Ombudsman; the Deputy Attorney-General of the Nation (replacing the Attorney-General then on holiday); as well as other personalities and more than 100 representatives of the trade union organizations and confederations and of the employers' organizations. The mission wishes to underline that it was given every assistance and full cooperation by the Government and the authorities it met with and that it carried out its work entirely freely; the same goes for the trade union confederations and employers' organizations. The mission wishes to thank everyone sincerely for the frank and constructive spirit they showed.

19. The complete report that the mission will submit to the Freedom of Association Committee at its meeting in May 2000 will be prepared once all the extensive documentation submitted by the authorities and the employers' and workers' organizations has been examined. The mission may, however, indicate already in this preliminary report - without prejudging the conclusions concerning the concrete results obtained - that the Government is making sincere efforts to solve the problems which prompted the sending of this direct contacts mission.

(a) The Government shares in particular the deep concern expressed by the Freedom of Association Committee and the Governing Body as regards the acts of violence against numerous trade union members and leaders; the Government, among other measures, has earmarked substantial human and financial resources for a special plan of protection and safety of trade union leaders, the effect of which should be assessed in the context of violence (attributable to armed groups acting illegally and to organized drug-traffickers) which, unfortunately, still prevails in Colombian society.

(b) As regards the numerous allegations made in the complaints presented to the ILO, the Government has provided information which will be communicated to the Freedom of Association Committee; in addition, the mission received information from employers' organizations and from some complainant trade unions, and new complaints from other organizations, which will be transmitted to the secretariat of the Committee, so that they may be dealt with appropriately.

(c) From a standards point of view, the Government has taken important steps as regards the ratification of international labour Conventions Nos. 151 and 154, concerning in particular the collective bargaining rights of public servants, which have been approved by the Congress; the only remaining step regarding Convention No. 154 is the examination of constitutionality, for which the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction. The Government is committed to complete as soon as possible the process of ratification of Convention No. 151, as well as that of Convention No. 154, if the result of its examination is positive. The mission has also examined the draft text of Bill No. 184, which would introduce amendments to trade union legislation, with a view to bringing it into conformity with the international obligations accepted by Colombia. This draft Bill has been approved by the Senate, and the Government has asked the Chamber of Representatives to expedite its adoption.

20. For its own part, the mission has elaborated other texts, based on drafts already prepared by the Ministry of Labour, which suggest amendments on other issues raised by the Committee of Experts. The Government has indicated that it will submit these drafts and proposals to the social partners, in accordance with the applicable legal procedures, and then to the Congress for its examination. These projects deal with the following points: (1) the right of public servants to bargain collectively; (2) the determination of essential public services; and (3) other issues raised by the ILO supervisory bodies.

(Signed) Cassio Mesquita Barros,

Alberto Pérez-Pérez.

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

21. The Committee draws the legislative aspects of the following cases to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: Australia (Case No. 1963), Belarus (Case No. 1849), Canada (Ontario) (Case No. 2025), Cape Verde (Case No. 2044), Cuba (Case No. 1961), Romania (Cases Nos. 1891 and 2017) and United Kingdom (Bermuda) (Case No. 1959).

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

Case No. 1949 (Bahrain)

22. The Committee last examined this case at its May 1999 meeting (see 316th Report, paras. 102 to 129). It had urged the Government to re-examine Orders Nos. 9 and 10 of 1981, adopted in pursuance of Labour Law No. 23 of 1976, which dealt with the establishment of joint labour-management consultative committees (JCCs) and prescribed the terms under which the employers' and workers' representatives are elected to these joint committees. The Committee had then requested the Government to bring its legislation into line with the principles of freedom of association and, in general terms, had urged the Government to take the necessary measures so that the workers' right to organize was effectively guaranteed.

23. In a communication dated 28 December 1999, the Government merely reiterates what it had stated in the past, namely that the right to organize provided for in article 27 of the Constitution is prescribed by the 1976 Labour Law and by Ministerial Orders Nos. 9 and 10 of 1981. The Government explains once again that the national trade union body is the General Committee for Bahraini Workers (GCBW) and its members are elected from JCC workers. The GCBW has the components and elements of a workers' organization and its objective is to protect workers' rights. The Government insists that the GCBW, its form and framework determined by the Labour Law, is in conformity with international labour standards as well as with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and that these Conventions do not impose a special designation for workers' or employers' organizations and require to take into consideration the economic and social conditions of each country. Finally, the Government points out that the most important element in any workers' organization, whatever its name may be, is that it should aim at organizing workers' affairs, protecting their interests and endeavouring at the establishment of a genuine labour practice in the framework of the regulations in force and the established social values.

24. The Committee takes note of this information and regrets that the provisions of Ministerial Orders Nos. 9 and 10 of 1981, on which it has commented for numerous years in the context of several cases, have still not been amended. The Committee still considers that there is a risk that in certain cases the workers' representatives on joint committees may not be freely elected, especially as it is the management itself that organizes their election (article 4 of Order No. 9/1981). Furthermore, the Committee recalls that articles 2 and 8 of Order No. 10 requiring that the rules for the conduct of the GCBW's affairs and any amendment to them be approved by the Ministry of Labour, as well as article 10 prohibiting the GCBW from investing its funds or acquiring assets without the prior approval of the Ministry and from engaging in political activities, are incompatible with the principles of freedom of association. Therefore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into line with the principles of freedom of association so that the workers' right to organize freely is effectively guaranteed. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Case No. 1862 (Bangladesh)

25. At its June 1999 meeting, when it last examined this case (see 316th Report, paras. 17-23), the Committee:

-- noted with regret that the Government refused to amend sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which mandate a threshold of 30 per cent of workers in an establishment or group of establishments in order for a union to be registered; it recalled the repeated recommendations of the Committee of Experts and that a Government representative had stated at the 1998 Conference that it was considering taking measures concerning these provisions; it urged it once again to review the situation;

-- noted with regret that the union of workers of Saladin Garments Ltd. had not been registered yet, in spite of the fact that these workers have been applying for such registration for over three years, and urged the Government to register that union without delay;

-- also urged the Government to register without delay the Palmal Knitwear Ltd. Karmachari union;

-- requested the Government to continue supplying information on the appeals lodged by workers victims of anti-union reprisals at the Palmal Knitwear Ltd., including Ms. Kalpana, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that the workers dismissed, harassed or blacklisted because of their trade union membership obtained appropriate redress, including reinstatement if they so wished.

26. In its communication of 6 January 2000, the Government indicates that consultations continue with employers' and workers' representatives in order to reach a consensus concerning an amendment of the IRO, and that it expects a fruitful result soon.

27. The Committee notes this information and deeply regrets that no action has been taken yet in this respect, and hopes that concrete legislative measures will be taken soon, particularly in view of the commitment given by a Government representative at the 1998 Conference and of the reiterated calls by the Committee of Experts. Given the lengthy time elapsed, the Committee urges the Government to bring these tripartite discussions to a fruitful conclusion in the very near future, and requests to be kept informed of developments in this respect.

28. The Government states that the case concerning the registration of the trade union at Saladin Garments Ltd. is still pending in the Labour Court, mainly due to the reluctance of the complainant union; the Committee will be informed as soon as the Court's decision is issued.

29. The Committee notes with regret that no progress has been made in this matter, notwithstanding the fact that the trade union has applied for recognition since April 1996, almost four years ago. It urges once again the Government to speed up the recognition process and to keep it informed, as soon as possible, of its results as regards the situation at Saladin Garments Ltd.

30. The Government mentions that the case concerning the situation at Palmal Knitwear Ltd. is still pending; most of the workers have left the company's service and the union is not contesting the case; the Government has directed the public prosecutor to move the matter in the High Court Division for a speedy disposal, and awaits the Court's decision. As regards the other pending issues at Palmal Knitwear Ltd., Ms. Kalpana has applied for withdrawal of her case due to an amicable settlement; and the Government states it is taking all necessary measures to protect the rights of workers against all acts of anti-union discrimination.

31. The Committee, once again, urges the Government to register without delay the Karmachari union. Regarding the case of Ms. Kalpana, contrary to the indication given in the Government's communication, the court's decision witnessing the out-of-court settlement was not attached; the Committee requests the Government to provide that decision. More generally, the Committee emphasizes that all the serious legal violations and factual events which are the subject-matter of this complaint date back to 1995, without much concrete progress to date. The Committee recalls that justice delayed is justice denied. It therefore urges the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure adequate redress to all workers and trade unions concerned.

Case No. 1849 (Belarus)

32. During its last examination of this case at its meeting in November 1998, the Committee once again requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in amending Order No. 158 of 28 March 1995 so as to ensure that strikes may only be prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term, as well as the measures taken to ensure the reinstatement in their jobs of all workers dismissed in connection with the strikes in Minsk and Gomyel in August 1995 (see 311th Report, paras. 18-20).

33. In a communication dated 13 January 2000, the Government indicates that the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus came into force on 1 January 2000 and that it deals with several matters, including social partnership, the representation of workers' interests and strikes. The Government also states that, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999, 38 national trade unions and two trade union associations were re-registered, including the Free Trade Union of Belarus and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions of Belarus.

34. The Committee takes due note of this information and would draw the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case within the framework of its examination of the application of Convention No. 87. The Committee must, however, once again request the Government, as no information was provided in this respect, to keep it informed of the measures taken to reinstate the workers dismissed in connection with the Minsk and Gomyel in August 1995.

Case No. 2016 (Brazil)

35. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the refusal of the state government of Paraná to deduct trade union membership dues, at its meeting in November 1999 (see the Committee's 318th Report, paras. 93-102).

36. On that occasion the Committee suggested that the "check-off" facility should not be withdrawn because this could cause financial difficulties for trade union organizations and was not conducive to harmonious industrial relations, and requested the Government, as soon as the trade unions concerned presented proof of their members' authorization for the deduction of trade union dues, to take the necessary measures to make those deductions and ensure that they are promptly credited to the trade unions.

37. In a communication dated 26 January 2000 the Government indicates that, in accordance with the Committee's request, the state government of Paraná has begun deducting trade union dues for those members who authorize it. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction.

Case No. 1943 (Canada/Ontario)

38. The Committee last examined this case concerning compulsory interest arbitration in certain areas of the public service, at its November 1999 meeting (see 318th Report, paras. 103-118). At that time, the Committee, noting that the Government wished to adopt a new policy regarding the members of public agencies, including the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), requested the Government to keep it informed of the adoption of that policy and its content. The Committee also stressed that the chairpersons of the arbitration boards appointed by the Minister of Labour in the event of a disagreement between the parties should not only be strictly impartial, but should also appear to be so if the confidence of both sides is to be gained and maintained.

39. In a communication of 10 January 2000, the Government informs the Committee that the case regarding interest arbitrator appointments under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act was scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal on 25 November 1999, but has been rescheduled for 12 April 2000. The Committee requests the Government to forward a copy of this decision once it is rendered.

40. Regarding the review of the public appointment process, the Government states that on 19 November 1999, the Government of Ontario announced its acceptance of the Public Appointments Secretariat's recommendations on the appointment process. The key recommendations include the following: a clear application process with job descriptions based on core competencies; chairpersons of agencies, boards and commissions to have greater involvement in the recommendation process for new appointments and renewals; development of a learning strategy, with training requirements based on core competencies; appointment "agreements" to be developed and to include notice provisions; and the duration of the appointments to be three years with a limit of two terms. Implementation of the policy is expected over the next few months, and the reforms will apply to new appointees. The Committee takes note of this information, and trusts that the new appointment and renewal process will ensure that the Ontario Labour Relations Board is fully independent and impartial.

Case No. 1985 (Canada)

41. When it last examined this case at its November 1999 meeting (see 318th Report, paras. 23-25), the Committee again suggested that the Government examine the possibility of introducing, in agreement with the trade union concerned, measures, such as a negotiated minimum service, in order to avoid recourse to back-to-work legislation in the postal service, and requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

42. In a communication of 7 January 2000, the Government provided information concerning the recent developments with respect to collective bargaining between the Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW). After the mediation-arbitration process provided in the back-to-work legislation was completed, but before the report of the mediator-arbitrator was filed, Canada Post Corporation and the CUPW renewed negotiations and arrived at a new collective agreement which is in force until January 2003. The agreement, scheduled for a union ratification vote in February 2000, will override the requirement for the mediation-arbitration report and take effect as the new collective agreement between the parties. The Government also points to a provision of the Canada Labour Code, which is a general provision requiring employers and workers subject to the Code to maintain activities (supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods) to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public during a legal work stoppage. In the Government's view, this approach is in line with the supervisory bodies' position concerning minimum services. Which postal service activities would be required to be maintained during a particular work stoppage is subject to the agreement of the employer and the trade union, or failing their agreement, such determination is made by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal. However, given the recent conclusion of bargaining resulting in a new collective agreement which does not expire until January 2003, this question will not be subject to determination for another three years.

43. The Committee takes note of this information. The Committee also again draws the Government's attention to the fact that the legislative provisions referred to apply to essential services in the strict sense of the term, which would not include the postal service.

Case No. 1942 (China/Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)

44. The Committee examined this case at its November 1999 meeting (see 318th Report, paras. 26 to 35) on which occasion it had requested the Government to: (a) take steps to repeal section 5 of the Employment and Labour Relations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance, 1997 (ELRO), which restricted union office to persons actually employed in the trade, industry or occupation of the trade union concerned; (b) take the necessary steps to repeal: (i) section 8 of the ELRO which subjected the use of union funds in certain instances to the approval of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong; and (ii) section 9 of the ELRO which instituted a blanket prohibition on the use of union funds for any political purpose; (c) review the Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance, 1997, with a view to ensuring that provision was made in legislation for: (i) protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination; and (ii) the possibility of the right to reinstatement which would not be conditional upon the prior mutual consent thereto of both the employer and the employee concerned; (d) give serious consideration to the adoption of legislative provisions laying down objective procedures for determining the representative status of trade unions for collective bargaining purposes which respected freedom of association principles.

45. In a communication dated 14 January 2000, the Government refers to the above recommendations of the Committee. Concerning the issue of restrictions on the eligibility of union officials to stand for office, the Government points out that section 17(2) of the Trade Union Ordinance, which provides that persons who are or who have been engaged or employed in the trade, industry or occupation of the trade union concerned can become officers of the union, only seeks to ensure that officers of a union should generally have some experience in the union concerned so that they can know the needs of union members better. In addition, any person who is or has not been engaged or employed in the trade, industry or occupation of the trade union concerned can become an officer with the approval of the Registrar of Trade Unions under section 17(2). So far, all applications for consent have been approved. The Government is nevertheless actively reviewing the occupational requirement of trade union officers and is in the process of consulting the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) on the outcome of the review.

46. In this regard, the Committee once again recalls that the determination of conditions of eligibility of union office is a matter that should be left to the discretion of union by-laws and the public authorities should refrain from any intervention which might impair the exercise of this right by trade union organizations. Noting that the Government has reviewed the occupational requirement of trade union officers, the Committee once again requests the Government to repeal section 5 of the Employment and Labour Relations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance, 1997 (ELRO), which restricts union office to persons actually or previously employed in the trade, industry or occupation of the trade union concerned.

47. With regard to government restrictions on the use of union funds, the Government states that the current provisions of the Trade Union Ordinance on the use of union funds seek to encourage the development of healthy and responsible trade unionism. Their coverage is so broad that in general trade unions are free to administer their funds for advancing the social and economic interests of their members. The Government nevertheless indicates that it has completed a review of the provisions on union funds and is in the process of consulting the Labour Advisory Board on the outcome of the review.

48. Recalling that section 8 of the ELRO subjects financial contributions to trade unions or similar organizations abroad as well as the use of union funds for any other purposes than those enumerated in section 33(1) of the Trade Union Ordinance of 1989 to the "approval of the Chief Executive", the Committee would reiterate that provisions which give authorities the right to restrict the freedom of a trade union to administer and utilize its funds as it wishes for normal and lawful trade union purposes are incompatible with the principles of freedom of association. Similarly, recalling that section 9 of the ELRO contains a blanket prohibition on the use of union funds for any political purpose, the Committee would once again remind the Government that provisions imposing a general prohibition on political activities by trade unions for the promotion of their specific objectives are contrary to the principles of freedom of association. Noting the Government's statement that it has completed a review of the provisions on union funds, the Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to repeal sections 8 and 9 of the ELRO.

49. With regard to the issue of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Government indicates that section 21B(1) of the Employment Ordinance provides for the right of employees to trade union membership and to participate in union activities. It also protects an employee against discriminatory acts, including but not confined to dismissals, during employment. Under section 21B(2) of the Employment Ordinance, an employer who dismisses, prevents, deters, penalizes, or discriminates against an employee for exercising his trade union rights commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of HK$100,000. Moreover, Part VIA of the Employment Ordinance provides for compensation or reinstatement subject to the prior mutual consent of the employer and employee concerned, for unlawful dismissals, including dismissals on grounds of union discrimination. The Government indicates that it has now completed a review on the requirement of mutual consent for reinstatement and is in the process of consulting the Labour Advisory Board on the outcome of the review.

50. As regards the issue of the scope of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that section 21B(1) and (2) of the Employment Ordinance provides for protection against dismissal and other discriminatory acts during employment. As regards the requirement of prior mutual consent in the absence of which a worker may not be reinstated but instead awarded compensation, the Committee does not consider that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as set out in Convention No. 98, is granted by legislation in cases where employers can in practice, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal, dismiss any worker, if the true reason is the worker's trade union membership or activities. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to review the Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance, 1997, with a view to ensuring that provision is made in the legislation for the possibility of the right to reinstatement which would not be conditional upon the prior mutual consent of both the employer and the employee concerned.

51. Finally, with regard to the issue of promoting collective bargaining through legislation, the Government points out that it firmly believes in the voluntary nature of collective bargaining and has all along been promoting voluntary negotiation between employees and employers or their respective organizations. This approach has served Hong Kong well as evidenced by its harmonious labour relations over the years. The results of the motion debates in the Legislative Council in 1998 and 1999 illustrate clearly that there is no consensus in the community on the issue of introducing collective bargaining and related matters by legislation.

52. The Committee recalls that the right to bargain freely with employers with respect to conditions of work constitutes an essential element in freedom of association and trade unions should have the right, through collective bargaining or other lawful means, to seek to improve the living and working conditions of those whom the trade unions represent. Since the Committee had previously considered that the case at hand furnished a clear illustration of the appropriateness of adopting provisions laying down objective procedures for determining the representative status of trade unions for collective bargaining purposes, the Committee once again requests the Government to give serious consideration to the adoption of appropriate provisions which respect freedom of association principles.

53. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken to give effect to its recommendations.

Case No. 1890 (India)

54. At its May-June 1999 meeting, the Committee last examined this case concerning the dismissal of Mr. Laximan Malwankar, President of the Fort Aguada Beach Resort Employees' Union (FABREU), the suspension or transfer of 15 FABREU members following strike action, and refusal to recognize the most representative workers' organization for collective bargaining purposes (see 316th Report, paras. 66-68).

55. In a communication dated 3 January 2000, the Government informs the Committee that adjudication proceedings concerning the dismissal of Mr. Malwankar are still pending, and that the case was heard on 17 December 1999 on the preliminary issues relating to the fairness of the inquiry. The Government also confirms that eight workers were transferred to other establishments: of those, Mr. Joseph Gomes reported to the new place of work and then resigned. The other seven workers did not report to their new assignments and thus were "charge sheeted" and inquiries were initiated. Subsequently, two of the workers, Messrs. Joseph Nobert D'Souza and Angelo Quadros, resigned and settled their dues. The inquiries relating to two of the workers, Messrs. Shri Shyam Kerkar and Shri Neville Pinho, have been completed, resulting in their dismissal, and an application for approval of the dismissals is pending before the Industrial Tribunal pursuant to the Industrial Disputes Act. The inquiries concerning the other three workers, namely Messrs. Shri Ashok Deulkar, Michael Fernades and Sitaram Rathod, are still in progress. With respect to the seven workers who were suspended, two have resigned (on 1 March 1999 and 8 October 1999 respectively) and have settled their dispute with the employer. The five others are still the subject of inquiries for misconduct, which are in progress. Finally, regarding the refusal to recognize FABREU, the Government states that management signed two settlements (dated 7 June 1995 and 5 May 1998) with another workers' organization (the Fort Aguada Beach Resort Workers' Association), and all the workers employed in the hotel have accepted the benefits of both the settlements. The adjudication proceedings in respect of the dispute on the charter of demands raised by FABREU are still in progress.

56. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. With respect to Mr. Malwankar, since he was dismissed due to his trade union activities, the Committee again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that he is reinstated in his post, if he so desires. The Committee must also deplore the fact that the events to which the proceedings relate occurred in 1995 and earlier, and recalls that "justice delayed is justice denied" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, 4th edition, para. 56). The Committee trusts that the court proceedings will now be expedited, and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings, including forwarding copies of the preliminary and final decisions.

57. Concerning the management inquiries, some of which have led to the dismissal or resignation of some workers, and some which are still proceeding, the Committee again deplores the fact that these inquiries relate to events that occurred in 1995. In addition, the Committee must recall its previous conclusion that these inquiries constitute anti-union discrimination. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to take measures to ensure that those workers who have been dismissed or have resigned are reinstated in their posts if they so desire, and that those inquiries that have not been concluded are immediately dropped, and the workers be reinstated in their initial posts. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of any court or tribunal decisions concerning these workers.

58. Concerning the recognition of FABREU as the collective bargaining agent, the Committee must again insist on the importance of the employer recognizing FABREU, since it is the most representative organization of workers at the Fort Aguada Beach Resort. The Committee must again urge the Government to take appropriate conciliatory measures to obtain the employer's recognition of FABREU for collective bargaining purposes, and again insists on the need to take urgent measures to restore harmonious industrial relations in the Fort Aguada Beach Resort. The Committee requests to be kept informed of any developments in this regard, and of the results of the adjudication proceedings concerning the charter of demands.

Case No. 1869 (Latvia)

59. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in November 1998 wherein it noted from the Government's communication of August 1998 that the transfer of property to the Latvian Book Industry Trade Union (LGAS) had not yet been completed and requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect (see 311th Report, paras. 515-524). In a communication dated 3 February 2000, the Government indicated that the State Real Estate Agency transferred the real estate building in Riga which was the subject of the complaint to the LGAS on 1 September 1998 in compliance with the Law on the Restoration of the Real Estate Rights to the Latvian Book Industry Trade Union. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction.

Case No. 2000 (Morocco)

60. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in June 1999 (see the Committee's 316th Report, paras. 618-641). The case concerns the eight-day suspension of Mr. Dalil, a trade union delegate, by the Director-General of the Harbour Authorities' Office (ODEP), as well as strikes which took place at that establishment on 28 December 1998 and 9 January 1999. In February 2000, the complainant forwarded the text of an agreement signed in January 1999. The Committee notes this agreement with satisfaction, in particular the fact that no disciplinary measures have been imposed as a result of the strikes and the sanction against Mr. Dalil has been lifted.

Case No. 1944 (Peru)

61. At its March 1999 meeting, the Committee asked the Government: (1) to take measures to ensure that the trade union leader, Mickey Juán Alvarez Aguirre, of the National Federation of Judiciary Workers (FNTPJ), be reinstated in his job without loss of vested rights; (2) to communicate the decision by the municipality of Lima on the appeal lodged by the Federation of Peruvian Electricity and Energy Workers (FTEP) concerning the refusal to grant a certificate allowing the Private Higher Technology Institute of Energy and Development (ISTED) to operate as an advanced professional training centre; and (3) to communicate the judicial decision concerning the appeal lodged by the same Federation concerning the refusal of the employers Electro Sur Este Ltd. and EGEM Ltd. to observe an arbitration award that concluded a collective bargaining process (see 313th Report, paras. 50-54).

62. In a communication dated 18 March 1999, the Government provides a copy of the decision handed down by the municipality of Lima on 16 February 1999, declaring that following an inspection of the premises the certificate will be granted to the ISTED if the entire premises are owned by the FTEP and if the educational activities concerned relate to distance learning.

63. In another communication dated 26 October 1999, the Government indicates, with respect to the dispute between the FTEP and the enterprises Electro Sur Est SA and EGEM SA, that the Supreme Court of Justice of Cuzco granted the appeal by the complainant organization on 15 November 1996 but that the enterprises lodged an application for judicial review concerning this decision. On 25 June 1998, the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's case and sentenced it to a fine.

64. The Committee notes with interest the information concerning the complaints by the Federation of Peruvian Electricity and Energy Workers.

65. The Committee is still waiting for information on the measures taken to reinstate the leader of the FNTPJ, Mickey Juán Alvarez Aguirre, in his job without loss of vested rights.

Case No. 1891 (Romania)

66. At its meeting in November 1998, the Committee had asked the Government to send a copy of the new law on the settlement of labour disputes to enable it to examine the law's contents in the light of the principles of freedom of association (see 311th Report, paras. 70-72).

67. In a communication dated 22 December 1999, the Government supplies the text of Act No. 168 of 12 November 1999 respecting the resolution of labour disputes, and indicates that this text was adopted following consultations with the social partners and in the light of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

68. The Committee notes with satisfaction the improvements contained in the new law and in particular the provisions relating to the following: (1) the purpose of strike action, which may be taken in order to defend the occupational, economic and social interests of workers; (2) binding arbitration, which can take place only at the request of the two parties involved; (3) the abolition of the requirement that a worker must spend at least three years in an occupation in order to be eligible for election as a trade union delegate; (4) the reduction from 90 to 30 days of the period for which a court may suspend a strike at the employer's request if the strike endangers the life or health of the population and not, as before, if it is likely to cause major problems for the national economy; (5) the removal of pharmaceutical, educational, rolling stock repair and food supply establishments from the list of essential services in which at least one-third of normal activity must be maintained in the event of a strike; (6) recognition of the lawfulness of one-day sympathy strikes in support of demands made by employees in other areas; and lastly (7) the ban on employers hiring other workers to replace those on strike.

69. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts to this legislation in the context of monitoring the application of Convention No. 87.

Case No. 1618 (United Kingdom)

70. At its November 1999 meeting, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government in respect of the 1998 Data Protection Act which extended restrictions on the processing of "sensitive" personal data to both manually processed and computer- processed data, thus closing the loophole previously exploited by the Economic League. It further noted the Government's intention to make regulations under the powers granted by the 1999 Employment Relations Act to prohibit the compilation, dissemination and use of lists containing information about trade union membership or activities with a view to their being used by employers or employment agencies in recruitment or to discriminate against trade unionists in employment (see 318th Report, paras. 71-73).

71. In a communication dated 18 January 2000, the Government indicated its intention to draft these regulations later this year.

72. The Committee takes due note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this regard.

Case No. 1852 (United Kingdom)

73. At its meeting in November 1999, the Committee expressed its regret at the Government's persistent refusal to establish an independent investigation into the allegations of anti-union tactics at the Co-Steel Sheerness plant and once again requested the Government to undertake such an investigation and to keep it informed of any further developments at Co-Steel in respect of union recognition for collective bargaining purposes (see 318th Report, paras. 74-76).

74. In a communication dated 18 January 2000, the Government once again indicated that the Employment Relations Act would enable the types of problems which arose at Co-Steel to be resolved more easily in the future. The Government reiterated that it was not its intention to carry out an inquiry into the events at Co-Steel as it does not operate a labour inspection system, and any cases of alleged infringement of individual employment rights can be heard by the employment tribunals.

75. The Committee can only express its regret at the Government's unwillingness to address the specific issues raised in this particular case concerning anti-union discrimination and the fact that, consequently, the effects of any such discrimination may remain without redress if the available procedures do not produce an appropriate result.

Case No. 1843 (Sudan)

76. The Committee examined the substance of this case at its meetings in March 1997, March 1998 and November 1998 (see 306th Report, paras. 601-618, 309th Report, paras. 371-386 and 311th Report, paras. 81-84, respectively). The Committee also drew the Governing Body's attention to this case due to the seriousness and urgency of the issues raised (see 309th Report, para. 9), namely dismissals, arrest, detention, torture and death of trade unionists.

77. When it last examined this case, the Committee insisted that the Government provide specific and detailed information on the situation of each of the workers listed in the appendices to the 306th Report, who were allegedly dismissed for carrying out union activities, were prevented from carrying out these activities by the authorities, or were subjected to anti-union measures. The Committee also requested the Government to forward copies of any written reasons or recommendations of the appeal board set up to re-examine the complaints of unfair dismissal.

78. In a communication dated 18 October 1999, the Government indicates that the President of the Republic issued a number of decrees to the various ministries indicating names of persons to be reinstated and those whose pension benefits were to be improved. The Government appended a table setting out the decree numbers, the number of persons reinstated and the number of persons whose pensions were improved, as well as their place of work.

79. The Committee recalls that in its previous report, it deplored the fact that the Government again provided only very partial information on the situation of the various workers. The Committee must again deplore this fact, and again insists that the Government provides specific and detailed information on the situation of each of the workers noted in the appendices to the 306th Report, and forward copies of any written reasons or recommendations of the appeal board. The Committee also requests the Government to forward copies of the Presidential decrees noted in its most recent communication.

80. With respect to the allegations of arrest and detention of trade unionists, often accompanied by acts of torture, the Committee had urged the Government to open an inquiry into the precise circumstances in which Messrs. Abdel Moniem Suliman, Abdel Moniem Rahma, Mohamed Babiki, Yousif Hussain, Osman Abdel Gadir and Daoud Suliaman were detained, tortured or killed. The complainant in a communication of 18 November 1998, states that the detention of active trade unionists continues. Deeply regretting that the Government does not appear to have opened an inquiry as requested, and has to date not addressed the specific and very serious allegations of detention and torture concerning Messrs. Osman Abdel Gadir and Daoud Suliaman, the Committee strongly urges the Government to open an inquiry to establish the precise circumstances in which the above-noted persons were detained, tortured or killed, to take the necessary steps for legal proceedings against those responsible, to punish the guilty parties and for the redress of the prejudice suffered. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

81. The Government states that the tripartite committee established to revise the Trade Union Act, 1992, has completed its work and has drafted a new Trade Union Act taking into consideration the observations of the ILO supervisory bodies. This draft legislation was submitted to the Attorney-General to finalize and to take the necessary steps to have it approved through the Council of Ministers and the National Council.

82. The Committee takes note of this information, and requests the Government to forward to it a copy of the draft Trade Union Act and to keep it informed of the status of the draft and the likely time frame for its adoption.

Case No. 1581 (Thailand)

83. The Committee last examined this case at its November 1999 meeting when it noted that the Senate and the House of Representatives have still not been able to agree on a draft of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill which has been referred to by the Government since 1993. It urged the Government to ensure that the Bill, in its final form, would be in conformity with the freedom of association principles and requested the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard (see 318th Report, paras. 77-79).

84. In a communication dated 16 March 2000, the Government indicates that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill was passed by both the House and the Senate on 16 February 2000 and is now awaiting the King's assent. According to the Government, under the passed Bill, state enterprise employees will enjoy the right to organize and to bargain collectively in a manner compatible with ILO standards. In this connection, they are free to form labour unions and a labour federation. The new Bill also allows state enterprise labour unions to affiliate with private sector labour organizations. In order for this right to take effect, the provisions of the current Labour Relations Act require amendment. The amendment process is currently ongoing in Thailand's legislature.

85. The Committee notes this information with interest. It trusts that this new legislation will restore fully the right to organize and to bargain collectively to state enterprise employees and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect, as well as concerns the necessary accompanying amendment to the Labour Relations Act, and to transmit a copy of the SELRA which has been adopted by the Parliament.

Case No. 1977 (Togo)

86. At its meeting in November 1999 (see 318th Report, paras. 80-82), the Committee again asked the Government to issue without delay the acknowledgement awaited by the Force ouvrière togolaise (FOT) and to keep it informed of any measures taken in this regard.

87. In a communication dated 19 January 2000, the Government indicates that the file of the Force ouvrière togolaise (FOT) was never received by the authority responsible for issuing the acknowledgement. Since no trace of the file was found by the Ministry of the Interior, Security and Decentralization, the Government says that it asked the General Secretary of the FOT to send another copy of the organization's by-laws to the competent ministry for the purpose of registration, which it has still not done.

88. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of any new developments in the matter.

Case No. 1886 (Uruguay)

89. At its meeting in March 1998, the Committee requested the Government to send the text of the court ruling concerning alleged acts of discrimination arising from the appointment of only non-union members to executive positions within Lloyds Bank (see 309th Report, para. 43). In its communication of 15 December 1999, the Government sent a copy of the Administrative Court ruling of 5 November 1999 according to which the Association of Banking Employees of Uruguay lacks the legal capacity to seek annulment of an administrative ruling which reversed a decision of the General Inspectorate of Labour under which the company was fined in connection with the allegations in Case No. 1886 (Uruguay). The Committee takes note of this information.

Case No. 1895 (Venezuela)

90. At its meetings in June 1998 and March 1999 (see 310th Report, para. 66, and 313th Report, para. 65), when it examined allegations concerning the arbitrary detention of Mr. José Ramón Pacheco, President of the Single Grass-Roots Union of Workers of the Department of Education (SUBATRA), the Committee noted that the judicial authorities had decided to release Mr. Pacheco while an investigation continued concerning falsification of documents which he was alleged to have committed (the case remaining open until such time as responsibility for the offence could be determined, given that there is evidence that a criminal act was committed, although the identity of the culprit has not yet been established). The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the results of these judicial proceedings.

91. In a communication of 15 October 1999, the Government attaches for the Committee's attention a communication from the President and the Secretary of SUBATRA. It requests the Committee to close the case, since Mr. Pacheco, the former President, was expelled from the union by the general assembly of municipal education workers. The Government considers that, in the light of this letter, the case lacks any elements which would justify continued examination.

92. The Committee takes note of this information. However, bearing in mind that the issue pending in this case concerns proceedings against a trade union official for alleged falsification of documents and that it is not clear that these proceedings are related to the official's subsequent expulsion from the union, the Committee reiterates its demand that the Government should inform it of the results of the proceedings against the former union leader Mr. José Ramón Pacheco.

Case No. 1937 (Zimbabwe)

93. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in November 1998 when it once again urged the Government to amend sections 98, 99, 100, 106 and 107 of the Labour Relations Act so as to ensure that compulsory arbitration may only be imposed with respect to essential services and in cases of acute national crisis. It further requested the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken to ensure the reinstatement in their jobs of those workers who were dismissed as a result of their participation in the Standard Chartered Bank strike of April 1997 under the same conditions of employment and with the same benefits as were enjoyed prior to the strike. Finally, it requested to be kept informed of the outcome of the case of these workers before the Labour Relations Tribunal (see 318th Report, paras. 89-91).

94. In a communication dated 11 January 2000, the Government sent a copy of the judgement rendered by the Labour Relations Tribunal in respect of the case of the workers at the Standard Chartered Bank and indicated that Standard Chartered Bank has appealed this case to the Supreme Court. The Government indicates that it will furnish a copy of the Supreme Court's judgement as soon as it is rendered and states that it will respect the final judgement reached.

95. The Committee takes due note of the judgement of the Labour Relations Tribunal. In particular, the Committee notes the Labour Relations Tribunal finding that the employer's conduct in choosing the employee representatives on the Grievance and Disciplinary Committee which was to consider the dismissals of the 211 bank workers constituted a fundamental breach of the Code of Conduct rendering the proceedings, and thus the dismissals, null and void. The Labour Relations Tribunal thereby ordered the reinstatement of the 211 workers in question without any loss of salary or benefits with effect from the date of the unlawful dismissal. This decision is now being appealed by the Bank to the Supreme Court. The Committee nevertheless notes from this judgement that the workers of Standard Chartered Bank have been obliged to follow a long and circuitous route through the courts in order to resolve their dispute. Nearly three years have elapsed since their dismissal yet the workers in question have not yet been reinstated. The Committee must therefore recall that cases concerning anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98 should be examined rapidly so that the necessary remedies can be really effective. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 749). The Committee regrets this delay of justice even more so in view of its recommendation to the Government in March 1998 to take the necessary measures to ensure the reinstatement of those workers dismissed as a result of their participation in the Standard Chartered Bank strike of April 1997. The Committee trusts that the final judgement of this case will be rendered in the very near future and that these workers who were dismissed for the exercise of legitimate trade union activity will be promptly reinstated without loss of salary or benefit. It requests the Government to transmit a copy of the Supreme Court judgement as soon as it has been handed down.

96. The Committee further regrets that the Government has not supplied any information concerning measures taken to amend the provisions of the Labour Relations Act which provide for compulsory arbitration. It would point out that a 1999 Labour Relations Amendment Bill has been brought to its attention which, while making certain cosmetic amendments to the Act as concerns compulsory arbitration, retains the possibility of the labour officer or appropriate authority to refer a dispute to compulsory arbitration and provides that any engagement in collective job action at such time may be punishable with up to two years' imprisonment. The Committee notes these proposals with concern and would recall that ILO technical assistance is available in the event the Government might wish advice on the conformity of this Bill with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee continues to urge the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the relevant sections of the Labour Relations Act so as to ensure that compulsory arbitration may only be imposed with respect to essential services and in cases of acute national crisis and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard(JM1).

97. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1698 (New Zealand), 1769 (Russian Federation), 1826 (Philippines), 1854 (India), 1877 (Morocco), 1878 (Peru), 1884 (Swaziland), 1908 (Ethiopia), 1914 (Philippines), 1930 (China), 1952 (Venezuela), 1954 (Côte d'Ivoire), 1957 (Bulgaria), 1966 (Costa Rica), 1974 (Mexico), 1988 (Comoros), 1993 (Venezuela), 1994 (Senegal), 1996 (Uganda), 1999 (Canada/Saskatchewan), 2004 (Peru), 2009 (Mauritius), 2018 (Ukraine), 2020 (Nicaragua) and 2038 (Ukraine), the Committee requests the governments concerned to keep it informed of any developments relating to these cases. It hopes that these governments will quickly provide the information requested. In addition, the Committee has received information concerning the following cases: Nos. 1512 and 1539 (Guatemala), 1785 (Poland), 1793 and 1935 (Nigeria), 1796, 1813 and 1926 (Peru), 1925 (Colombia), 1931 and 1967 (Panama), 1939 (Argentina), 1972 (Poland) and 1978 (Gabon), which it will examine at its next meeting.