Freedom of association and collective bargaining

All workers and employers have the right to establish and to join organisations of their choice, without prior authorisation, to promote and defend their respective interests, and to negotiate collectively with other parties. They should be able to do this freely, without interference by other parties or the state, and should not be discriminated as a result of union membership. Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and, together with collective bargaining rights, a core ILO value. The freedom to associate involves employers, unions and workers representatives freely discussing issues at work in order to reach agreements that are jointly acceptable. The right of association includes the right of workers (usually those outside of ‘essential services’) to strike. The rights to organise and to bargain collectively are enabling rights that make it possible to promote democracy and sound labour market governance. Through organisation workers are able to lobby for just and decent terms and conditions of work.

Implications for business

Businesses may be directly or indirectly associated with anti-union discrimination and restrictions on freedom of association. Such accusations often involve factories in export processing zones. Companies may also be associated with repression of union activities, which can include threats, harassment and even killings of trade union members and leaders. In some countries, freedom of association is not protected by law and trade unions are prohibited. Where this is the case, companies should, where possible, facilitate effective communication and develop a proper grievance system to ensure that freedom of association and collective bargaining is respected within the supply chain. In countries where trade unions are banned, companies may support their employees through facilitating alternative worker association arrangements. Processes of dialogue and negotiation can achieve competitive outcomes.

The following examples were identified through background research:

  • In a 2008 report the ILO notes that, on a global scale, allegations of anti-union discrimination have increased, from 23% in 1995–2000 to 26% in 2000–07. Allegations of employer interference in trade union activities increased from 6% in 2000–03 to 8% in 2004–07. Allegations of government interference in trade union activities increased from 9% in 2000–03 to 11% in 2004–07.
  • In Vietnam there is only one trade union. Workers are not permitted to join unions that are not affiliated with it. Those associated with independent trade union activities have been arrested, imprisoned, harassed, intimidated and even subject to enforced disappearance in recent years.
  • In February 2009, the International Metal Workers’ Federation (IMF) lodged a complaint with the ILO against the so-called “protection contracts” in Mexico which, the IMF claim constitute that “vast majority” of collective agreements in the country. The IMF claims that, in practice, “only unions that have the support of companies and government can operate in Mexico.”

Identifying the dilemma

How does a company respect freedom of association and collective bargaining in its value chain when its business partners or suppliers are based in a country where independent trade unions are restricted?

The following have been identified as possible components of this dilemma:

  • Labour laws inadequately enforced
  • Domestic legislation contrary to international standards and company policies
  • Lack of domestic legislation
  • Role of export-processing zones
  • Harassment and intimidation
  • Government interference
  • Company interference
  • Product misuse

                 

Comment or share a dilemma (1 Least significant » » 5 Most significant)