“The Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) is a tripartite body set up in 1951 by the Governing

Body (GB) of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The CFA examines alleged infringements of the principles of freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining enshrined in the ILO Constitution (Preamble), the Declaration of Philadelphia and as expressed by 1970 ILC Resolution” (Paragraph 1, Introduction to the Compilation of Decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Sixth Edition, 2018 – official text agreed on a tripartite basis).

The CFA is composed of nine regular members and nine deputies from the Government, Workers’ and

Employers’ groups in the Governing Body, and one independent chairperson. It meets three times per

year and examines around 30 cases per session.

Since the ILO Constitution provides the legal basis for the CFA to examine complaints related to freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, all ILO Members States may be subject to this procedure, whether or not they have ratified any ILO Convention, or the Conventions related to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

The CFA is not a judicial entity and its views do not constitute case law and have no legal basis to represent an interpretation of the Conventions. CFA conclusions and recommendations are merely non-binding guidance to governments.

The March 2021 virtual session examined 22 cases. It agreed to definitively close 4 cases, while the rest shall be discussed again in the future.

The following two cases, Argentina No. 3320 and Colombia No. 3316, dealt with the concept and meaning of essential services.

There is no internationally recognised definition of “essential services” and each national legislation may or may not detail its meaning. “Essential services” may be considered as those services that are important for the life, personal safety, or health of the population, but also those services that are key for the economic development of a country, or simply services of general interests.

When examining complaints on limitation to strike action in essential services, the CFA specified on multiple occasions that “As to what is meant by essential services in the strict sense of the term depends to a large extent on the particular circumstances prevailing in the country. Moreover, this concept is not absolute, in the sense that a non-essential service may become essential if a strike lasts beyond a certain time or extends beyond a certain scope, thus endangering the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population” (for instance Case No. 3038 from Norway,Inizio modulo Report No 372, June 2014).

In both cases, Argentina No. 3320 and Colombia No. 3316, the CFA restated that the concept of essential services Fine modulo

is not absolute. The possibility for a limitation on the right to strike, the use of compulsory conciliation and the establishment of minimum service are justified, when the duration of the strike exceeds a certain period or scope and thus endangers the life, the safety of the people or the health of all or part of the population. For both cases, the CFA refrained from adopting a restrictive criterion and acknowledged the need for the government to determine the situation based on the national circumstances.

Therefore, for the Argentinian case, the CFA considered that “in this case the education sector is essential. In this regard, the call made by the administrative authority to put forward a compulsory conciliation procedure between the parties, prior to the strike, is reasonable with the superior protection of minors in their school meals and timely education”.

For the case of Colombia, the CFA observed that “it is clear [...] that, for some limited parts of the country, which, owing to their remoteness, rely to a large extent on air transport for their provisions and access to health services, and for the transport of certain health products throughout the country, the corresponding air transport operations carried out by the enterprise appear to be of such importance that there are indications that the total interruption of these limited operations may endanger the life of part of the population. [...] and that its importance could justify the establishment of a minimum service aimed at ensuring that users’ basic needs are met, without calling into question the right to strike of the majority of workers in the sector”.

Two other cases must be highlighted for their seriousness in terms of violation to freedom of association, firstly the case of Cuba No. 3271 for the lack of progress and absence of recognition of trade union federations other than the one controlled by the State. Secondly, the case of Belarus could be particularly concerning given the new allegations of violations of trade union rights and human rights sent by the complainant on 22 December 2020.