ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1997, publiée 86ème session CIT (1998)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Namibie (Ratification: 1995)

Autre commentaire sur C098

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the Government's report, including the relevant provisions of the Export Processing Zones Amendment Act, 1996 (Act No. 6, 1996) attached thereto.

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, pursuant to the Export Processing Zones Amendment Act, workers in export processing zones are denied the right to strike and consequently denied some of the protection against discipline and dismissal provided under the Labour Act, 1992. As a legitimate trade union activity in export processing zones, workers engaging in strikes in those zones should be fully protected from dismissal or other prejudice in employment for engaging in such action. The Committee urges the Government to review and amend the legislation to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Articles 2(2) and 3 of the Convention. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted the absence of protection under the Labour Act, 1992, of workers' and employers' organizations directly against acts of interference by each other in their establishment, functioning or administration, and requested the Government to adopt specific measures in this regard. The Committee notes that the Government has indicated that at present the tripartite Labour Advisory Council is considering proposed amendments to the Labour Act, 1992, taking into account the Committee's comments. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the status of the Labour Advisory Council's recommendations, and of any amendments made to the Labour Act in consequence.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's response to its previous direct request regarding the rights of minority trade unions, in particular whether, in practice, if no union represents the majority of employees in a bargaining unit, collective bargaining rights are denied to all unions in such a unit. The Government in its report points to section 58(1) of the Labour Act, 1992, allowing a group of registered trade unions jointly to approach an employer for the purpose of collective bargaining as a single exclusive bargaining agent. While noting the ability of trade unions to join together for the purposes of exclusive bargaining, the Committee considers that if no union or group of unions covers more than 50 per cent of the workers, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to review and amend the Labour Act in order to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee recalls its previous comment with reference to section 58(6)(a)(i)(bb), which provides that if, upon an application by an employer, the Labour Court is satisfied that the majority of the employees within a bargaining unit is no longer represented by the trade union, the Labour Court may make any such order as it deems necessary in relation to the continuance or cessation of any collective agreement. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate whether in practice employees concerned would no longer be covered by any collective agreement since the Act establishes a system of recognition of an exclusive bargaining agent.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer