A human right curtailed

Abstract

INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 5 Volume 21 Issue 4 2014 text message following a coordinated sick leave action taken in response to the Turkish government ’s decision to add aviation services to the list of industries where industrial action was prohibited . Turkey currently has one of the worst rates in the International Trade Union Confederation’s (‘ITUC’) Global Rights Index. It is quite clear from these examples that the critical economic role of transport is being used as a pretext to defend the free movement of passengers and goods beyond the rights of people involved in the transportation itself. This trend is especially concerning as transport workers, including those employed in aviation , trucking and commercial seafaring, have some of the most dangerous jobs in the world. This is why the protection of the right to strike under Convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation (‘ILO’) and its enforcement through the ILO’s supervisory mechanisms is particularly important for transport workers. Not only have these supervisory bodies acknowledged the right, they have developed clear principles which have subsequently been relied on by national and regional courts. For example, it has been unequivocally held that the right to strike may only be restricted or prohibited in the public service for those exercising authority in the name of the state or in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). Furthermore, it has also been held that transport generally does not constitute an essential service and that minimum operational services can only be applied to non-essential services in very limited circumstances. Notwithstanding this extensive jurisprudence, the Employers’ Group at the ILO has since 2012 been doing its best to undermine the authority of the ILO’s supervisory mechanisms. Not only has it questioned the mandate and capacity of the Committee of Experts, it has challenged the very existence of a right to strike under Convention 87. The Employers’ continued intransigence has left the Workers’ Group no alternative but to call on the ILO’s Governing Body to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) on the question of the existence of a right to strike. There is little doubt that the ICJ will recognise the right’s protection under Convention 87. Railway personnel in Korea and Thailand, Turkish flight attendants and workers all around the world depend on it. There can be no compromise on the right to strike. There can be no compromise on human rights. “I t is good to finally shake your hand; the last time I saw you, I was in prison”. These were the poignant words Myounghwan Kim, President of the Korean Railway Workers’ Union (‘KRWU’), greeted me with when we met at the International Transport Workers’ Federation’s 43rd Congress in Sofia earlier this year. Indeed, the last time we spoke, we had to do it through a prison intercom system as Kim, along with other leaders of the KRWU, was being detained for organising a strike in opposition to rail privatisation. Despite complying with all ‘essential services’ requirements under Korean law, the authorities declared the action illegal even before it began. Kim and his colleagues are now facing so-called ‘obstruction of business’ charges which carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison or a fine not exceeding 15 million won (US$14,000). Furthermore, the state rail operator is pursuing a damages suit against the union and its leaders for 16.2 billion won (US$16 million) together with separate proceedings for alleged ‘damage to brand value’ amounting to 1 billion won (US$990,000). These legal actions are just the tip of the iceberg . Hundreds of strikers have been dismissed or relocated and the union’s assets have been seized by the authorities. All this simply because the KRWU sought to defend its members from an ill-conceived privatisation drive that would have heavily diluted terms and conditions of employment . What this example illustrates is that despite being a fundamental human right enshrined in international law, the right to strike is certainly not guaranteed...