ATS saga and ILO convention '98
Suva Susana Tuisawau,
The case regarding some ATS workers who are still on strike is to me a very clear one that could have been immediately solved by the Permanent Secretary for Labour in the first place.
The reason being is that in my view, it is at times like this when a standoff takes place at the workplace between an employer and a workers union that the ministry should quickly refer to all labour laws that govern workers and employers.
My reading of the situation is that this was a clear violation of workers’ rights under ILO Convention 98, which the Fiji Government had ratified.
Article1:1 of the Convention stipulates that “Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment” .
Article 1:2 (b) clarifies this by stating that “Such protection shall apply more particularly in respect to acts calculated to “cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities outside of working hours or with the consent of the employers, within working hours”.
Now, in this case the ATS workers have been approved shareholders by their employers or their authority.
Hence, to me, attending the ATS shareholders’ meeting is supposed to be a given authorised activity for the workers.
This should have been pointed out to the ATS employers and all would have been resolved.
Article 2 of the Convention further elaborates that “… workers and employment organisations shall enjoy protection against interferences by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration.”
Hence, the attendance by workers of this meeting was I believe one in which the workers were exercising their right and hence was a legitimate everyday union activity.
The Prime Minister had said to keep within the law. I believe that the employers should be asked to respect the Labour Convention, which the Fijian Government had ratified, that is the law.