Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Botswana (Ratification: 1997)

The Committee notes the Government’s comments on the observations made in 2016 by Education International (EI) and the Trainers and Allied Workers Union (TAWU). The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2017 concerning alleged cases of anti-union discrimination and obstruction to collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these observations, as well as on the pending observations made by the Botswana Federation of Trade Unions (BFTU) in 2016, the ITUC in 2013 and 2014 and by the TAWU in 2013, alleging violations of the right to collective bargaining in practice.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments initially made in 2016.

Scope of the Convention. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act (TDA) and section 2 of the Trade Union and Employers’ Organisations Act (TUEO Act), which exclude employees of the prison service from their scope of application, as well as section 35 of the Prison Act, which deprives members of the prison service from the right to unionize under the threat of being dismissed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the prison service is part of the disciplined force and that amendments to the stated laws would not alter their situation, but that civilian personnel in prisons, governed by the Public Service Act and the Employment Act, are allowed to unionize and that 50 such workers are members of trade unions. As regards the Government’s statement that the prison service is part of the disciplined force justifying its exclusion from the Convention, the Committee observes that while the prison service does form part of the disciplined force of Botswana together with the armed forces and the police (article 19(1) of the Constitution), each of these categories is governed by a separate legislation – the Prison Act, the Police Act and the Botswana Defence Force Act – and the Prison Act does not appear to provide members of the prison service the status of the armed forces or the police. The Committee, therefore, considers that the prison service cannot be considered to be part of the armed forces or the police for the purposes of exclusion under Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures, including the pertinent legislative amendments, to grant members of the prison service all rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had previously examined the ITUC concern that if a union was not registered, its committee members were not protected against anti-union discrimination, and had recalled the importance of legislation prohibiting and specifically sanctioning all acts of anti-union discrimination as set out in Article 1 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all union committee members, including those of unregistered trade unions, enjoy an adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee regrets that the Government failed to provide any comments on this point and it underlines that the fundamental rights accorded by the Convention to members or officers of trade unions, such as protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, cover all workers wishing to establish or join a trade union; therefore, such protection should not be dependent on the registered or unregistered status of a trade union, even if the authorities consider registration to be a simple formality. In these circumstances, the Committee reiterates its previous request.

Articles 2 and 4. Adequate protection against acts of interference; promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the progress made in respect to: (i) the adoption of specific legislative provisions ensuring adequate protection against acts of interference by employers coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions; (ii) the repeal of section 35(1)(b) of the TDA, which permits an employer or employers’ organization to apply to the commissioner to withdraw the recognition granted to a trade union on the grounds that the trade union refuses to negotiate in good faith with the employer; and (iii) the amendment of section 20(3) of the TDA (this section read together with section 18(1)(a) and (e) allows the Industrial Court to refer a trade dispute to arbitration, including where only one of the parties made an urgent appeal to the Court for determination of the dispute) so as to ensure that the recourse to compulsory arbitration does not affect the promotion of collective bargaining. In this regard, the Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), or in essential services in the strict sense of the term or in cases of acute national crises. The Committee further observes that a draft TDA Bill (Bill No. 21 of 2015) is in the process of being adopted but regrets that the Committee’s comments have not been reflected in the draft Bill and that the Government fails to provide any information on this point. The Committee, therefore, reiterates its request to the Government and trusts that it will be able to observe progress in this regard in the near future. The Committee encourages the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office, if it so wishes.

The Committee had previously noted that, in terms of section 48 of the TUEO Act, as read with section 32 of the TDA, the minimum threshold for a union to be recognized by the employer for collective bargaining purposes is set at one third of the relevant workforce. It had therefore requested the Government to ensure that where no union represented one third of the employees in a bargaining unit, collective bargaining rights would be granted to all unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee observes, however, that section 35 of the TDA Bill does not implement these changes but merely reproduces the text of section 32 of the TDA in this regard. Additionally, the Committee notes that section 37(5) of the draft TDA Bill also provides a one third minimum threshold requirement for union recognition at the industry level. The Committee recalls that the determination of the threshold of representativity to designate an exclusive agent for the purpose of negotiating collective agreements which are destined to be applied to all workers in a sector or establishment is compatible with the Convention in so far as the required conditions do not constitute an obstacle to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining in practice. In this regard, the Committee considers that if no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of representativity to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, minority trade unions should be able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. Regretting that no information has been provided in this respect, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that if no union reaches the required threshold to be recognized as a bargaining agent, unions should be given the possibility to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members.

Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to clarify whether the provisions of the Public Service Regulations, 2011 (Statutory Instrument No. 50), providing for general conditions of service in the public sector (hours of work, shift work, weekly rest periods, paid public holiday, overtime and annual paid leave), constituted fixed conditions of service or rather minimal legislative protection clauses on the basis of which the parties are able to negotiate special modalities and additional benefits. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that some provisions of the Instrument constitute fixed conditions of service while for others the parties may determine special modalities and additional benefits, as long as they are in conformity with the Public Service Act, 2008. However, the BFTU indicates that it is unclear from the Government’s report which provisions are fixed and which are not. Recalling that measures taken unilaterally by the authorities to restrict the scope of negotiable issues are generally incompatible with the Convention and that tripartite discussions for the preparation, on a voluntary basis, of guidelines for collective bargaining are a particularly appropriate method of resolving these difficulties, the Committee requests the Government to specify which provisions of the Public Service Regulations are not open for negotiation and invites the Government to reconsider the limitation imposed on the scope of collective bargaining for public sector workers not engaged in the administration of the State.

The Committee further observes that a new Public Service Bill, 2016, is in the process of being adopted and should replace the Public Service Act, 2008, and that the TUEO Act is also in the process of being amended. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure full conformity of both the Public Service Bill, 2016, and the amended TUEO Act with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee encourages the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office, if it so wishes.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.