**BEFORE THE UNITED STATES**

**TRADE REPRESENTATIVE**

**WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED UNITED STATES - TRANS-PACIFIC
PARTNERSHIP FREE TRADE AGREEMENT**

**filed by**

**THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR &**

**CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS (AFL-CIO)**

**MARCH 10, 2009**

> On January 23, 2009, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
> (USTR) published in the Federal Register a Request for Comments and
> Notice of Public Hearing concerning the proposed Trans-Pacific
> Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPPFTA) with Singapore, Chile, New
> Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam. The USTR
> seeks public comment to assist the United States Trade Representative
> (USTR) in amplifying and clarifying negotiating objectives for the
> proposed agreements and to provide advice on how specific goods and
> services and other matters should be treated under the proposed
> agreement. On February 25, 2009, the AFL-CIO submitted testimony,
> which was delivered at a hearing on March 4, 2009. In that testimony,
> we promised to provide written comments outlining labor law concerns
> in the TPP FTA countries.
>
> These comments are drawn from two sources. With regard to Vietnam, the
> comments here are those prepared by the AFL-CIO in response to USTR's
> request for comments on Vietnam's request to be designated an eligible
> country for purposes of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences
> (GSP). The comments on Brunei, Singapore and Australia were prepared
> by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2007
> (Australia) and 2008 (Brunei and Singapore) to coincide with the WTO
> Trade Policy Review for those countries. Earlier this year, the
> AFL-CIO provided USTR with an extensive and detailed memorandum which
> evaluated the extent to which the country had complied with the
> commitments made to the House Committee on Ways and Means in 2007 and
> its obligations under the labor chapter of the US-Peru FTA. Due to its
> length, that memo is incorporated hereto by reference.
>
> At this time, we do not have comments with regard to the labor laws of
> New Zealand or Chile. We are or will be in consultation with the union
> federations of these two countries and will provide written comments
> as they are developed.
>
> All comments herein have been edited from their original form for
> length.

**VIETNAM**

*A. Freedom of Association*

> 1\. All labor unions must affiliate to the state-controlled Vietnam
> General Confederation of Labor (VGCL) in order to operate legally.

The U.S. State Department has repeatedly observed, "Workers are not free
to join or form unions of their choosing. The Communist Party of Vietnam
(CPV) controls the single trade union, the VGCL, an umbrella
organization that approves and manages a range of subsidiary labor
unions organized according to location and industry."[^1] Indeed, under
Article 1(1) of the Trade Union Law, a union is by definition an
organization of the Communist Party of Vietnam. The right of freedom of
association cannot be said to exist where workers are unable to
affiliate with or form an organization of their own choosing, and one
that is free from political control.[^2] Although some independent labor
organizations have been formed, they do not have the legal rights of
officially recognized unions.

2\. Employers are required to facilitate the establishment of enterprise
level unions,

> which may diminish union independence from management.

Article 153 of the Labor Code of Vietnam provides that the local and
industry trade union shall establish an enterprise-level trade union
organization within six months of commencement of operation of a new
enterprise. The employer is required to "facilitate the early
establishment of trade union organizations." Article 154(2) also states
that the employer must "co-operate closely with trade unions." In
foreign enterprises, enterprise level labor unions are paid by
management. Article 2 of ILO Convention No. 98 establishes the total
independence of workers\' organizations from employers in exercising
their activities. In the case of direct payments to the union, such
direct employer support most likely diminishes their independence and
effectiveness as advocates for workers. The obligation to facilitate and
cooperate closely with a union also has some potential to limit the
union's independence.

Despite the requirement that enterprise level unions be formed within
six months, the ITUC reported that Ministry of Labor officials "publicly
admitted on numerous occasions during the year that many enterprises,
particularly those owned by foreign investors, have no union
presence."[^3]

*B. Right to Organize and Bargaining Collectively*

> 1\. The right to bargain collectively is limited to VGCL-affiliated
> unions.

The ITUC has observed that only VGCL affiliated unions have the right to
bargain collectively on behalf of all workers in an enterprise.
Moreover, the ITUC noted that, "The VGCL\'s ability to effectively
bargain with management is handicapped by the fact that at many
enterprises, VGCL representatives are also the firm\'s human resources
officials."[^4]

The number of collective agreements is relatively limited, and in most
cases management deals directly with workers and signs short-term
individual labor agreements. In the Export Processing Zones (EPZs), the
ITUC observed that, "Only about ten per cent of workers have long-term
employment contracts. The remainder are on 'definite term' contracts of
between one to three years, or seasonal contracts of one year's duration
which are not legally permitted for a job which is 'regular.' Both types
of contracts help employers avoid the legal requirement to set up a
union in enterprises with ten employees or more."[^5]

2\. Excessive Requirements for Strike Vote

The ITUC recently observed, "Thresholds for workers to approve a
decision to strike are excessive. The new sections of law state that at
least 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise with less than 300
workers must vote for the strike. For enterprises with 300 workers or
more, the requirement increases to 75 per cent."[^6] See Article 174b of
the Labor Code of 2006.[^7] The ILO has repeatedly criticized
requirements that the majority (or more) of all workers in an enterprise
need to support a strike before it may be legally called.[^8]

3\. Strikes Improperly Banned in Numerous Economic Sectors

The State Department noted that, "The law prohibits strikes in 54
occupational sectors and businesses that serve the public or are
considered by the government to be important to the national economy and
defense."[^9] See Article 175 of the Labor Code of 2006.[^10] These
enterprises include those involved in electricity production; post and
telecommunications; railway, maritime, and air transportation; banking;
public works; and the oil and gas industry. The ILO has held that "The
right to strike may be restricted or prohibited: (1) in the public
service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the
State; or (2) 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)."[^11]
Moreover, the ILO has specifically found that railway, maritime, air
transportation, banking and the oil and gas industry do not constitute
essential services.[^12]

The State Department also observed, "The law also grants the Prime
Minister the right to suspend a strike considered detrimental to the
national economy or public safety." See Article 176 of the Labor
Code.[^13] Again, such authority is contrary to the right of freedom of
association, except in those limited circumstances where the Prime
Minister could claim that a strike would endanger the public safety of
whole or part of the population. In those cases where a strike may
lawfully be limited or banned, the government has an obligation to
provide "adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration
proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage
and in which the awards, once made, are fully and promptly
implemented."[^14]

4\. Additional Restrictions on the Right to Strike

Both the State Department and the ITUC observed that strikes that do not
arise from an interest-based collective labor dispute are illegal.[^15]
See Article 173(1) of the Labor Code.[^16] The ILO has held that strikes
may be maintained for reasons other than conflicts over interests. "The
right to strike should not be limited solely to industrial disputes that
are likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement;
workers and their organizations should be able to express in a broader
context, if necessary, their dissatisfaction as regards economic and
social matters affecting their members' interests."[^17]

The ITUC also took note that "sectoral/industrial strikes are
effectively banned by a new provision of the law which states that any
strike that involves more than one enterprise is illegal."[^18] The ILO
has also held that strikes may be legally undertaken at levels superior
to the enterprise.

5\. Excessively Long Procedures Create Obstacles to Legal Strikes

As the ITUC noted, "The July 2007 amendments to the Labor Law will
significantly change legal procedures for strikes in Vietnam. Disputes
will be divided into disputes over rights (compliance with the law) and
disputes over interests (demands beyond what the law provides), setting
out different procedures for both. The law sets out an extensive process
of mediation and arbitration that must be followed before a strike can
legally take place."[^19]

For rights related disputes, meaning "a dispute over violations in the
implementation of the provisions of the labor law, collective labor
agreements or labor rules," the parties must bring the conflict before a
grassroots conciliation council or labor conciliator. The grassroots
conciliation council is a standing body that consists of an equal number
of worker and employer representatives from the enterprise. Conciliation
lasts for a maximum of three days. If that is unsuccessful, the parties
must then appear before the president of the district People\'s
Committee. The president of this Committee has five days to resolve the
dispute from the date of the receipt of the complaint. If that process
fails, the dispute will be brought before a People\'s Court. The
decision of the People's Court ends the rights-related collective
dispute. No union may engage in an industrial action over a
rights-related dispute.

For interest-related disputes, meaning "a dispute over the collective
labor collective's claim for the establishment of new labor conditions
not yet prescribed by the labor law, collective labor agreement or labor
rules," the parties must appear before grassroots conciliation councils
or labor conciliators and, if unsuccessful, a labor arbitration council.
An arbitration council is standing body established by a People's
Committee and together consists of no more than seven persons
representing government, the employer, the union and the local lawyers'
association. The arbitration council has a maximum of seven working days
for receipt of the request to resolve the dispute. If the dispute is not
resolved, then either party may resort to industrial action. Neither
party may resort to industrial action before or during the conciliation
and arbitration process.

The 2007 reforms shortened the length of each step of the process for
the resolution of a collective labor dispute. However, the process
remains unduly cumbersome and will likely continue to frustrate the
right of workers to conduct a legal strike.[^20] It is too early to know
how these new procedures are functioning in practice. Further, workers
had previously faced numerous obstacles to pursuing their claims because
the institutions designated to resolve them, such as the enterprise
conciliation council and arbitration committee at the district and
provincial level, simply did not exist. It is unclear whether the
institutions designated under the new procedures exist or function
fully. The impartiality of the institutions under the previous
procedures, particularly at the initial stages of conflict resolution,
was also suspect due to employer and government domination.

## C. Acceptable Conditions of Work

*Wages*

According to the State Department:

"The law requires the government to set a minimum wage, which is
adjusted for inflation and other economic changes. In November the
government raised minimum wages across all categories and locations, in
part to account for rising inflation. Effective January 1, 2008, the
official monthly minimum wage for unskilled laborers at foreign-invested
joint ventures and foreign and international organizations was set to be
\$62 (one million VND) in the urban districts of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh
City; \$56 (900,000 VND) in the suburban districts of Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh
City, and several other industrial districts and towns; and \$50
(800,000 VND) elsewhere. The government may temporarily exempt certain
joint ventures from paying the minimum wage during the first months of
an enterprise\'s operations or if the enterprise is located in a very
remote area, but the minimum monthly wage in these cases can be no lower
than \$50 (800,000 VND). The official monthly minimum wage for unskilled
labor in the state sector was \$34 (540,000 VND) in the provinces and
\$39 (620,000 VND) in the urban districts of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City,
an increase of 38 percent. Nevertheless, this amount remained inadequate
to provide a worker and family a decent standard of living. State-owned
enterprises consistently paid more than the state-sector minimum wage.
The number of workers who received government-subsidized housing
decreased. Many workers received bonuses and supplemented their incomes
by engaging in entrepreneurial activities. Households frequently
included more than one wage earner."[^21]

*Hours of Work*

With regard to hours of work, the State Department observed:

"The government sets the workweek for government employees and employees
of companies in the state sector at 40 hours, and it encouraged the
private business sector and foreign and international organizations that
employ local workers to reduce the number of hours in the workweek to 40
hours but did not make compliance mandatory. The law also sets normal
working hours at eight hours per day, with a mandatory 24-hour break
each week. Additional hours require overtime pay at one and one-half
times the regular wage, two times the regular wage for weekdays off, and
three times the regular wage for holidays and paid leave days. The law
limits compulsory overtime to four hours per week and 200 hours per year
but provides for an exception in special cases, where this maximum can
be up to 300 overtime hours worked annually, subject to approval by the
government after consulting with VGCL and employer representatives. The
law also prescribes annual leave with full pay for various types of
work." [^22]

The State Department explained that it could not ascertain how strictly
the government enforced those provisions. However, there is little doubt
that these provisions are not adequately enforced, especially in
foreign-owned footwear and apparel manufacturers.

*Conditions of Work*

In its 2007 Country Report, the U.S. State Department observed, "The
labor law requires the government to promulgate rules and regulations
that ensure worker safety...but enforcement was inadequate because of
low funding and a shortage of trained enforcement personnel."[^23] The
2006 Human Rights Report also noted, "The VGCL reported that there were
300 labor inspectors in the country but that at least 600 were needed.
On‑the‑job injuries due to poor health and safety conditions in the
workplace were a problem."[^24] The 2006 report also cited Ministry of
Labor statistics regarding industrial accidents: 3,691 injuries and 473
fatalities resulting from 4,050 work related accidents in 2005 alone.

**BRUNEI DARUSSALAM**

**Introduction**

Brunei Darussalam became an ILO member at the end of 2007 and has
ratified none of the eight ILO core labor standards. In many areas,
Brunei Darussalam's law and practice require major improvements in order
to comply with the commitments Brunei accepted at Singapore in 1996 and
Doha in 2001 in the WTO Ministerial Declarations, and in the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work adopted in June
1998.

Brunei has ratified neither of the fundamental trade union rights
Conventions. There is virtually no trade union activity in the country
and there is no legal basis for either collective bargaining or strikes.
Furthermore the suspension of democratic rights precludes effective
trade union activity. Non-Brunei citizens are excluded from coverage of
most labor laws including freedom of association.

Brunei has ratified neither of the fundamental ILO anti-discrimination
Conventions. Brunei women do not enjoy the same access to employment and
often hold temporary positions while men hold permanent positions.
Non-Brunei citizens face serious discrimination on the labor market as
they fall outside the scope of most labor legislation. Although in some
cases the government has shown willingness to sanction illegal acts
committed against foreign female domestic workers, the situation of this
particular group of workers remains a source of great concern.

Brunei has ratified neither of the fundamental ILO child labor
Conventions. There is no significant report on Brunei children having to
perform work. No data are available on the situation of non-citizens'
children.

Brunei has ratified neither of the fundamental ILO forced labor
Conventions. Although the law prohibits forced and compulsory labor, the
living and working conditions of some foreign workers may be assimilated
to forced labor. Trafficking in persons for the purpose of work
occasionally occurs.

Constitutional provisions regarding fundamental rights of freedom of
speech, association, press and assembly remain suspended under a state
of emergency declaration dating from 1962 and renewed by the government
every two years. The government has recourse to an Internal Security Act
(ISA) which it can use to imprison opponents without charge or access to
counsel for up to two years. The Sultan appoints all Ministers in the
Cabinet, and judges are appointed by the Sultan and serve at his
pleasure. The associational rights of civil servants and members of the
security forces are significantly limited by a strict prohibition
against them joining political parties of any kind. There are no trade
union centers in Brunei.

**I. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining**

The Trade Union Act of 1961 authorizes the creation of trade unions,
which must be registered with the government. The law prohibits
employers from any sort of discrimination against workers connected to
trade union activities, and unions are permitted to form federations.
However, the law prohibits unions and federations from affiliating with
international trade union bodies unless they receive prior written
consent from both the Minister of Home Affairs and the Labor Department.

There are only three trade unions registered in the country, all in the
oil sector, representing a total of approximately 1,500 workers. Two of
the unions representing office workers are allegedly inactive, while the
remaining union, comprised of manual oil field workers, has limited
activities. These unions exercise little independence from government
authority.

Civil servants are permitted in theory to form and join unions, except
for those in the army, police, and prisons, but none have done so. There
is no provision in law that underpins the right to collective
bargaining. An individual contract is required between an employer and
each employee, and legal trade union activities are not allowed to
violate these individual employee contracts.

The law does not explicitly recognize any right to strike.

The majority of labor laws only apply to citizens of Brunei, thereby
failing to cover skilled and unskilled migrant workers, who comprise
between 30 to 40 per cent of the total workforce.

There is one export processing zone, the Muara Export Zone, where labor
laws apply in full.

**II. Discrimination and Equal Remuneration**

The law does not contain specific provisions prohibiting discrimination
based on race, sex, disability, language, or social status. The Brunei
government has expressed its concern that the provisions of the UN
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against
Women, 1979, "may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam
and to the beliefs and principles of Islam".

Brunei women do not enjoy equal access to employment and occupation, but
there is a lack of statistical information regarding their situation.

Men are eligible for permanent positions in government service whether
or not they hold a university degree, but married women without such
degree are eligible to hold government positions only on a month to
month basis. There are no men in month to month positions except for
those who were reemployed by the government after retirement.

Non-citizens of Brunei face serious discrimination on the labor market
as they are not covered by labor law. They represent between 30 to 40
per cent of the total workforce or over 100,000 migrant workers,
including over 10,000 garment workers. Many have complained of poor
working conditions and a failure to respect their terms of employment.
Migrant women domestic workers have complained of beatings, long working
hours, and pay being withheld. Some migrant workers have reportedly
carried out work stoppages in protest, which are illegal under the labor
law. In September 2005, a public protest was held by 300 foreign migrant
workers employed by a garment factory who complained they had not been
paid for six months. While the protest was not permitted to continue,
Brunei government officials reportedly worked with foreign Embassy staff
to find alternative employment for the workers while prosecuting the
company's representatives, which included a former government minister.

In particular female domestic servants, most of whom were foreign
workers, are often subjected to abuse by their employers. Several cases
are reported of servants being beaten or refused the right to leave the
house on days off. Since most foreign female domestics are highly
dependent on their employers, those subject to abuse are often unwilling
or unable to bring complaints.

**III. Child Labor**

For Brunei children education is free, compulsory, and universal for the
first 12 years, after which it is still free but no longer compulsory.
Various laws prohibit the employment of children under age 16. Parental
consent and approval by the Labor Commission is required for those under
18. Female workers under 18 may not work at night or on offshore oil
platforms. The Department of Labor, which is part of the Ministry of
Home Affairs, enforces the employment law for Brunei children.

**IV. Forced Labor**

Brunei Darussalam has not ratified Convention 29 (Forced labor
Convention, 1930) nor Convention 105 (Abolition of forced labor
Convention, 1957).

The law prohibits forced or compulsory labor. However, there are reports
that some foreign domestic workers work under unacceptable conditions
that may amount to forced labor. Foreign workers are recruited mainly
from Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh and
occasionally face harsh, exploitative conditions. Some workers, most
notably in the garment industry, sign contracts with employment agents
or other sponsors in their home countries that reduce their promised
salaries through payments to the agencies or sponsors.

Under the Trafficking and Smuggling Persons Order, a person convicted of
trafficking persons, harboring smuggled persons, or endangering the
lives or safety of trafficked or smuggled persons can be fined up to
US\$ 600,000 imprisoned for up to 30 years, and caned. Although there
are very few denounced cases of trafficking, it does occur most
particularly in the labor context.

**Conclusions and Recommendations**

1\. The government of Brunei must ratify all ILO core Conventions.

2\. The government of Brunei needs to ensure that all workers enjoy
freedom of association and have a right to bargain collectively and to
strike through adopting legislative provisions recognizing these rights.

3\. The government of Brunei needs to ensure that foreign workers are
covered by labor legislation.

4\. Legislation must be enacted to stipulate that all workers must enjoy
equal opportunities on the labor market regardless of their origins,
sex, religion, or political convictions.

5\. The legislation regarding protection against discrimination must be
strengthened, so as to protect migrant workers adequately against
abuses. The situation of foreign domestic workers requires greatly
increased attention from the Government.

6\. Women workers should enjoy equal access to work than their male
counterparts. In particular women should have access to permanent
positions on the same basis as men.

7\. The government of Brunei should implement policies and programs to
achieve equal opportunities for men and women in employment and
occupation.

8\. The government of Brunei should ensure that its legislation on the
protection of children is in conformity with the ILO Conventions.

9\. Legislation on forced labor must be in conformity with the ILO
Conventions concerned.

10\. The government of Brunei should take all necessary measures to
prevent abuses and exploitation of foreign workers in conditions
amounting to forced labor. This should include more and better
preventive measures as well as assistance to victims of forced labor.

**SINGAPORE**

**Introduction**

Singapore has ratified five of the eight core ILO labor Conventions. In
view of restrictions on the trade union rights of workers,
discrimination, and other legal restrictions, further measures are
needed to comply with the commitments Singapore accepted at Singapore,
Geneva and Doha in the WTO Ministerial Declarations over 1996-2001, and
in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
Singapore has ratified the ILO core Convention on the Right to Organize
and Collective Bargaining but not the Convention on Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organize. Workers in the
private sector have the right to organize and form trade unions. Public
sector workers do not have the right to organize, but in practice
exceptions are made. The right to organize is generally respected. The
right to collective bargaining is protected by law, and collective
bargaining takes place in practice. The right to strike is recognized
but restricted. Strikes are rare and most disputes are resolved through
conciliation.

Singapore has ratified the core ILO Convention on Equal Remuneration. It
has not ratified the Convention on Discrimination. Discrimination is
prohibited by law but does occur in practice. Many women are still
working in low-wage, low-skilled sectors and thus earn generally less
than their male counterparts, although gaps are narrowing. The situation
of foreign domestic workers remains a source of preoccupation despite
certain efforts made by the Government to tackle the issue.

Singapore has ratified the ILO core Convention on the Worst Forms of
Child Labor as well as the Convention on Minimum Age. Despite recent
efforts in this domain, there remain some elements of Singapore's
legislation on child labor which still need to be brought in conformity
with international standards. In particular hazardous work should be
prohibited for children below the age of 18 years. In practice however
there is no indication of child labor in Singapore, as a result of the
high priority accorded by the government to education.

Singapore has ratified the Convention on the Abolition of Forced Labor
but not the Convention on Forced Labor. There is no indication of forced
labor in Singapore; however, trafficking of women for forced
prostitution occurs.

**I. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining**

Singapore has not ratified ILO Convention No. 87 on the Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organize. It ratified
Convention No. 98 on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining in
1965.

Workers in the private sector are free to form trade unions; however the
parliament may impose restrictions on the grounds of security, public
order or morality. The Registrar of Trade Unions has to approve the
union, and has wide-ranging powers to refuse or cancel registration.
Refusal may occur when a trade union already exists in an industry or
occupation. These powers could therefore obstruct the establishment of a
trade union or impose a single-union structure.

Trade unions must also submit new rules, or alterations to their
existing rules, to the Registrar for approval within seven days of the
rule change. The Registrar has the right to refuse the rule change if in
the Registrar's discretion the rule change is either unlawful or
"oppressive or unreasonable." In addition the Registrar has wide-ranging
powers to investigate union finances and the Trade Unions Act limits
what unions can spend their funds on, and prohibits payments to
political parties or the use of funds for political purposes.

Public sector workers do not have the right to form trade unions, but
the President of Singapore can set exemptions, which has allowed for the
existence of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE), with over
16,000 workers organized. The scope of representation has been
periodically widened over the years and virtually all public sector
employees, except the most senior civil servants, have been able to join
a union. In addition to AUPE, 15 other public sector unions, including
public employees paid on a daily rate, are exempted.

The Trade Unions Act restricts the right of trade unions to elect their
officers. Foreigners and those with criminal convictions may not hold
union office or become employees of unions, although exemptions can be
granted by the Minister of Manpower. Despite the fact that Singapore has
an increasingly multinational work force, the Trade Unions Act bars any
person "who is not a citizen of Singapore" from serving as a national or
branch officer of a trade union unless prior written approval is
received from the Minister. The Act also stipulates that a foreign
national cannot be hired as an employee of a trade union without prior
written agreement from the Minister. Similarly, a foreign national is
forbidden to serve as a trustee of a trade union without the Minister's
written permission.

In practice foreign domestic workers have little opportunity to organize
to defend their rights or demand improvements in their conditions of
work. However, the NTUC reports that it advocates their rights through
its Migrant Workers' Forum.

An employer cannot dismiss, injure, or threaten to injure his/her
employees because of trade union membership. The Industrial Arbitration
Court can order reinstatement and back pay for dismissed workers.

The law provides for the right to collective bargaining. Collective
agreements have to be certified by the Industrial Arbitration Court
before coming into effect. Certification can be refused on grounds of
public interest, although this has never happened. Transfers and
lay-offs are excluded from the scope of collective bargaining although
unions have the right to ask for the reasons behind the retrenchment and
are not precluded from negotiating compensation for workers in such
cases.

Most industrial relations disagreements are resolved through
union-management negotiations, in the failure of which, informal
discussions are held with the Ministry of Manpower. If conciliation
fails, the case can be submitted to the Industrial Arbitration Court
which has representatives from labor, management and the government. In
limited situations the law provides for a system of recourse to
compulsory arbitration, which can put an end to collective bargaining at
the request of only one of the parties, although this provision of the
law is rarely invoked. The last time it was invoked was in 2004, when
the Minister for Manpower compulsorily referred a dispute between the
Singapore Industrial and Service Employees Union

(SISEU) and a textile company to the IAC over the management's delay in
concluding a collective agreement.

In practice collective bargaining is used widely, particularly in the
manufacturing sector. Collective bargaining agreements are renewed every
two or three years, although increases in wages are negotiated on an
annual basis. Guidelines for negotiations are recommended by the
National Wages Council, which includes labor, industry and state
representatives. In June 2002, the Industrial Relations Bill was passed.
It stipulates that newly established companies can provide more
favorable conditions than the minimum conditions in the Employment Act,
although in practice this had already been the case.

Workers have the right to strike, but to call a strike 50% of all union
members have to vote in favor. The requirement is excessive by
comparative international standards, since the requirement which is
commonly regarded as reasonable is for over 50% of union members who
take part in the ballot to vote in favor. Union members who are employed
in managerial positions within an enterprise are not allowed to strike.
Strikes are not prohibited except in the essential services of water,
gas and electricity, while workers in other essential services have to
give 14 days' notice to the employer. Strikes are rare and there is no
specific legislation which prohibits retaliation against strikers

The Free Trade Zones Act provides for the establishment of export
processing zones. There are no specific labor provisions or labor rights
exclusions in the Free Trade Zones.

**II. Discrimination and Equal Remuneration**

Singapore has ratified Convention No. 100 on Equal Remuneration in 2002
but has not ratified Convention No. 111 on Discrimination (Employment
and Occupation). Singapore further ratified the UN Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983. It
signed the Declaration for the Advancement of Women in the ASEAN region
in 1988.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Revised Edition)
states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal
protection under the law (Art. 12) and that all citizens of Singapore
enjoy freedom of speech, assembly and association (Art. 14). The
Employment Act ensures non-discrimination in recruitment, promotion and
terms of employment. However there is no specific reference to
discrimination based on sex or gender.

Current legislation does not provide for the principle enshrined in
Convention 100 of equal remuneration for work of equal value. However
according to the government the principles of the Convention are
entrenched through tripartite partnerships such as in the Tripartite
Declaration on Equal Remuneration for men and women performing work of
equal value.

Further, the Industrial Arbitration Court draws attention to the
recommendation made by tripartite partners to include an equal pay
clause in collective agreements submitted for certification. Statistical
information provided by the Government indicates that the gender wage
gap (gross wages/mean) among managers is at 20.6%. Among professionals
the gap is at about 10% while for technicians and associate
professionals it amounts to 21%. The wage gap is widest

among plant and machine operators and assemblers (37.5%).

Women constitute 45% of the labor force and are well represented in many
professions. The labor force participation rate for women aged 30 to 54
years is about 68%, while it is of 45% for women aged 55 and over.
However, women hold few leadership positions in the private sector and
no ministerial positions in the government. Women are overrepresented in
low-wage jobs such as clerks and secretaries. However with equal
opportunities in education since independence in 1965 and positive
action programs such as encouraging women to take up careers in
engineering and science, the profile of working women is improving. The
illiteracy rate in 2003 was 3.4% for men and 10.4% for women. Enrolment
rates are almost equal for boys and girls, and the number of girls
enrolling for tertiary education is increasing.

The Presidential Council on Minority Rights examines all pending bills
to ensure that they are not disadvantageous to a particular group. It
reports to the government on matters that affect any racial or religious
community and investigate complaints.

Malays, who constitute some 15% of the total population, do not on
average have the same educational or income levels as the other major
groups in the population. The gap has decreased and the government has
taken measures to promote education among Malay people, but they remain
underrepresented at senior corporate levels.

The Ministry of Manpower has, in consultation with the NTUC and
Singapore National Employers' Federation, issued guidelines that call
for eliminating language referring to age, gender, or ethnicity in
employment advertisements. These guidelines are generally followed
although specific language requirement remains legal in job
advertisements.

There is no legislation that provides for equal opportunities for the
disabled in employment. However, there is an extensive job training and
placement program for the disabled.

Because of a domestic labor shortage, some 600,000 foreign workers are
legally employed in Singapore, representing 30% of the total workforce.
There is no reliable data on undocumented foreign workers. Most of the
foreign workers are unskilled or domestic workers from other Asian
countries. They are concentrated in low-wage, low-skilled jobs. Working
hours tend to be longer although to some extent this consists of
remunerated overtime work. The employers of the foreign workers are
required to provide accommodation but there are reports that housing
conditions, particularly for construction workers, are inadequate.

An estimated 150,000 domestic female workers (mainly from the
Philippines, Indonesia and Sri Lanka) are employed in Singapore. They
have legal contracts, but low wages and dependence on their employers
makes them vulnerable to mistreatment, abuse, and labor conditions that
may amount to involuntary servitude.

The authorities fined or imprisoned employers who abused their domestic
workers. The ministry also regularly distributes pamphlets making
domestic workers aware of their rights. In September 2006 the Employment
Agencies Singapore, a nongovernmental agency that accredits the
country\'s approximately 500 domestic workers agencies, implemented a
new standard employment contract providing a minimum of one compulsory
day off each month or cash compensation.

Foreign workers seeking to enter the Singapore labor market to engage in
domestic work must comply with certain requirements such as being 23
years of age and having passed an exam. In 2006 the Ministry of Manpower
launched a new system through which employment agencies violating
government regulations can be penalized. All new domestic workers and
their new employers must undergo mandatory training on workers\' rights
and responsibilities.

The Employment Act protects foreign workers such as the many employed in
the construction industry. However, domestic servants (both local and
foreign) are not covered by this Act. Foreign domestic workers are
covered by the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, which applies to
foreign workers\' basic terms and conditions of employment; Chapter 91A
(revised 1991 edition) governs recruitment and deployment in Singapore.
The labor inspectorate in the Ministry of Manpower is mandated to
enforce the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, carrying out inspections
in all types of establishments. All foreign workers who feel that they
have not been treated according to these statutory provisions can seek
the Ministry of Manpower's assistance to take it up with their employer,
while individual dispute settlement through conciliation and
adjudication by the Labor Court provides another potential recourse.

**III. Child Labor**

Singapore ratified Convention No. 138, the Minimum Age Convention in
2005 and Convention No. 182, the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention
in 2001. The Employment Act was amended in 2004 to rise the minimum age
for admission to employment from 14 to 15 in line with Convention 138.
There are some exceptions:

-   Children below the age of 15 may be employed in an industrial
    undertaking in which only members of the same family are employed.

-   Section 72 of the Employment Act excludes from the minimum age
    provisions the employment of children and young persons related to
    apprenticeship programs. It is worth noting however that national
    legislation does not provide for a minimum age for entering such
    programs.

Furthermore the Employment Act only applies to work performed under the
terms of a contract and does not cover those types of employment not
carried out on the basis of an employment relationship or not
remunerated. As a result the Committee of Experts on Application of
Conventions and Recommendations (CEARC) has requested the Government of
Singapore to provide information on the manner in which children who are
not bound by an employment relationship, such as those who are
self-employed, are covered by the Convention.

By virtue of the Children and Young Persons Act, persons under 16 years
of age shall not perform work hazardous to their morals or dangerous to
their life or prejudicial to their health, physical fitness or kind
treatment such as night employment, underground work, and work with any
machinery in motion, or live electrical apparatus lacking effective
insulation. This is not in line with the provisions of the Convention
and the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations (CAERC) has on several occasions requested the
Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no persons
under the age of 18 years undertake work which by its nature or the
circumstances in which it is carried out is likely to harm the health,
safety or morals of children. Likewise Singapore's legal provisions
concerning personal involvement in pornography, begging or gambling
activities should set the minimum age at 18 years. However, it should be
noted the newly enacted Workplace Safety and Health Act (replacing the
Factories Act), which came into effect on 1 March 2006, contains
specific provisions for the protection of young workers. For example, no
person under the age of 20 is allowed to manipulate, adjust or lubricate
dangerous machinery; and no person under the age of

18 is allowed to operate equipment for raising or lowering a suspended
scaffold, operate any lifting machine by mechanical power, be designated
as a lift attendant in the construction industry or shipyard, work in
any blasting chamber, work with asbestos or benzene.

Generally the Ministry of Manpower enforces the laws and regulations
relative to child labor effectively. As a result the incidence of
children taking up permanent employment is low, and abuses almost
nonexistent. The government has achieved the virtual elimination of
child labor through its substantial investment in education. Primary
education was made compulsory since January 2003 under the Compulsory
Education Act, and there has been a substantial increase in literacy.
Education is not free but students only pay a small amount of
miscellaneous fees which range from S\$5.50 to S\$11 per month, with
financial assistance available for families facing financial
difficulties. Net primary enrolment was 96% in 2000, whereas net
secondary enrolment was 92%.

**IV. Forced Labor**

Singapore ratified Convention No. 29, the Forced Labor Convention in
1965. Singapore initially ratified Convention No. 105, the Abolition of
Forced Labor in 1957 but then denounced it in 1979.

Forced labor is prohibited by law, including forced labor by children.
However, the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations (CEACR) has criticized sections 3, 13 and 16 of the
Destitute Persons Act of 1989, which state that any destitute person may
be placed in a welfare home and assigned suitable work subject to penal
sanctions, as not being in compliance with the ILO Convention on Forced
Labor. Although the

Government of Singapore indicated that in practice destitute persons are
not compelled to work, arguing that they are only assigned chores after
they have given their written consent and are paid an allowance, in 2008
the CEAR has reiterated its request to put the current legislation into
conformity with the Convention so as to ensure compliance both in law
and practice.

Trafficking in persons is prohibited by law and punishable by up to 5
years imprisonment (or 10 years under the Penal Code's "wrongful
constraint" provision). The US State Department's 2008 Trafficking in
Persons Report stated that trafficking is a problem in Singapore. The
report stated that many women are trafficked into Singapore for the
purpose of forced prostitution, with most coming from Thailand, the
Philippines, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, India and Sri Lanka.
Some of them have their passports held by their employer upon arrival,
and others are offered jobs as maids or waitresses and find themselves
forced to work as prostitutes, subject to threats and violence. It
should be noted that this is disputed by the Singapore Government, whose
Ministry of Home Affairs reports that the authorities only found
substantiating evidence to pursue 1 out of 28 cases of human
trafficking, with instances of women being duped into vice "few and far
between". The Ministry adds that none of the prostitutes were found to
be forced or lured into prostitution under false pretences, constituting
trafficking in persons' offences under Singapore's laws.

**Conclusions and Recommendations**

1\. The government of Singapore should ratify ILO Conventions No. 87 and
No. 111 and should ratify once again Convention No. 105.

2\. The government has to bring various legal provisions in line with
Convention No. 87 and No. 98. Most of these provisions are outdated, and
they are not applied in practice. These provisions include the absence
of a legal right to form unions for public sector workers, the refusal
of certification of collective agreements, compulsory arbitration, and
restrictions on strikes.

3\. In the area of discrimination against women, more can be done to
address the wage gaps and occupational constraints to employment for
women, including greater encouragement to women to upgrade their skills,
more positive action programs, and enforcement of the law on equal
rights.

4\. The minimum age for engagement in hazardous work should be raised to
at least 18 years of age, in line with international minimum standards.

5\. The provisions of the Destitute Persons Act of 1989 which infringe
international labor standards on forced labor should be amended as
indicated in ILO recommendations.

6\. Existing measures to protect migrant workers should be further
strengthened, in particular concerning unskilled laborers and domestic
workers. Legislation should be amended to extend the provisions of the
Employment Act to domestic workers.

7\. The government should continue its efforts to eliminate the
trafficking of women for the purpose of forced prostitution.

**AUSTRALIA**

**I. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining**

Australia ratified Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to Organize and Convention No. 98 on the Right
to Organize and Collective Bargaining in 1973.

Australian workers have the right to organize and the right to
collective bargaining but these rights have been increasingly
restricted.

Prior to the commencement of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work
Choices) Act 2005 ("the Work Choices legislation") on 27 March 2006,
Australia's industrial relations law had repeatedly been the subject of
observations by the ILO's Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations about lack of compliance with the
requirements of Conventions 87 and 98.

Rather than addressing concerns raised by the Committee of Experts, the
Work Choices legislation has moved in the opposite direction, even
further restricting workers' ability to bargain collectively and to be
represented by trade unions. Australia is the only developed country
where an employer can refuse to negotiate with a union even when its
employees are union members and wish to be collectively represented.

The overall effect of the Work Choices legislation can be seen in the
falling level of real wages despite the strongest labor market for many
years.

[Level of bargaining]{.underline}

The Work Choices legislation further restricts the ability of bargaining
at a multi-employer or industry level. Pre-authorization and subsequent
approval is required from the Employment Advocate (EA) (an independent
statutory officer with the responsibility of facilitating and overseeing
the operation of workplace agreements) after private deliberations,
where previously this occurred in an open hearing by the Industrial
Relations Commission (IRC).

Industrial action in support of multi-employer agreements remains
unlawful, as was previously the case, but this is broadened by a new
prohibition on "pattern bargaining;" that is, the pursuit of common
claims against a number of employers even with a preparedness to
separately negotiate each agreement. The ban on pattern bargaining
applies even to subsidiaries of the same parent company.

[Individual agreements]{.underline}

The Work Choices legislation substantially strengthens the place of
individual Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) in the industrial
relations system. AWAs are no longer subject to collective agreements
during the term of those agreements. This means that an employer is free
to offer to all employees, and to require new employees to sign,
inferior AWAs even where there is a collective agreement in place
binding the employer in respect of all employees. This totally
undermines the integrity of any collective bargaining process.

The incentives for employers to require AWAs have also been greatly
increased. AWAs are now required to include only five minimum conditions
(minimum wage, annual leave, sick leave, unpaid parental leave and
maximum weekly working hours) rather than being measured against
comprehensive industrial awards, meaning that they can substantially
undercut employees' previous wages and working conditions. Once an AWA
is made, awards cease to operate for that employee even after the expiry
of the AWA. Further, AWAs operate from the time lodged, rather than
requiring scrutiny and approval from the EA or the IRC, as was
previously the case.

Around 250,000 AWAs have been lodged since the commencement of the Work
Choices legislation and early trends show a move towards AWAs and away
from union-negotiated collective agreements.

An EA analysis of the first AWAs lodged under the Work Choices
legislation showed that every one had removed conditions such as
penalties rates, overtime rates, shift loadings, public holiday pay and
meal beaks. The Work Choices legislation provides for application of
these conditions unless specific provision is made in the AWA to remove
them. The WEA no longer collects information about "protected"
conditions.

There have been a number of examples of employers using AWAs to slash
the wages and conditions of their workers. A notorious example is a
major retail chain which implemented AWAs replacing all loadings and
penalties with a A\$0.02 per hour wage increase, resulting in pay
reductions of up to A\$150 per week. Other national retailers have used
AWAs to freeze wages or to reduce them to the new minimum rate.

For example, the Cowra abattoir in New South Wales was able to dismiss
employees and offer to rehire them on the basis of AWAs cutting their
wages by up to A\$180 per week. This was held to be lawful as the
dismissals were for "operational reasons".

A recent report by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on the
effect of the Work Choices legislation sets out many examples of
employees being seriously disadvantaged by employers using the new laws.

The economic benefit of the Work Choices legislation is open to
question. A study on labor market developments in Australia by the
National Institute of Labor Studies found that "the best synthesis of
available data reveals that while individualized negotiations are
beneficial to enterprise profitability they are neutral with respect to
labor productivity growth. And since the latter contributes most to the
rising material living standards on which the government's broader
promises are founded, little weight can be placed on the assertion that
there is an economic case for moving away from collective determination
of general employment conditions....Neither, it seems, can much stock be
placed in the 'employment-generating' case for changes to unfair
dismissal".

[Employer greenfields agreements (EGA)]{.underline}

The Work Choices legislation introduces a new type of agreement which
allows an employer to unilaterally set the terms of an agreement
covering the first 12 months of operation of a new project or
undertaking, which can include an extension of an existing business or
in some circumstances when a business is sold.

EGAs have been used in the fast food industry for new franchise
operations to provide for low wages and removal of all award conditions.
They have also been used in the construction industry primarily to
prevent union involvement and the possibility of industrial action,
which is prohibited during the period of operation of the EGA.

In one case, a company was able to buy a number of petrol stations and
then, claiming that this was a new undertaking, implement an EGA,
cutting pay by A\$190 per week.

[Restrictions on bargaining subject matter]{.underline}

The Work Choices legislation increases the number of matters which are
prohibited by law from being the subject of bargaining, providing for
financial penalties to apply to individuals or organizations which seek
to include these matters in their agreements. "Prohibited content"
includes: leave to attend trade union meetings or training; right of
entry for union officials; general representative rights for unions;
restrictions on contractors; encouragement of trade union membership;
remedies for unfair dismissal; and restrictions on AWAs.

These prohibitions have led to a number of employers being told by the
EA that the agreements they have reached with unions are not valid
because they contain prohibited content. In the building industry there
is even greater uncertainty as the Building and Construction Industry
Improvement Act 2005 requires agreements covering work directly or
indirectly funded by the federal government to comply with a restrictive
code issued by the Minister. The code was recently amended to prohibit
the making of agreements concerning prohibited matters even where this
is outside the statutory system.

After a year of negotiations resulting in concluded agreements, the
parties to agreements in the electrical contracting industry were
informed by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations that
they had not complied with amendments to the code because a side
agreement had been reached covering union right of entry and a
requirement that AWAs not undercut the collective agreement.

[The right to strike]{.underline}

The Work Choices legislation imposes significant and new restrictions on
the right to strike:

-   Lawful action cannot be taken in support of common claims or of
    "prohibited content";

-   The IRC's discretion to make orders stopping industrial action has
    been weakened, so that such orders are close to mandatory - for
    example, in cases of sympathy action or where the action could
    damage the Australian economy or an important part of it;

-   Third parties have been given an expanded right to seek orders
    against workers taking industrial action;

-   All industrial action must be authorized through a cumbersome and
    legalistic secret ballots procedure;

-   Penalties for taking unlawful industrial action have been sharply
    increased.

The Work Choices legislation has been used a number of times against
workers taking industrial action. In Western Australia, 107 construction
workers are facing A\$28,000 individual fines for participating in
industrial action protesting the dismissal of a union delegate.

[Unfair dismissal]{.underline}

The Work Choices legislation removed unfair dismissal protection for
employees of employer with fewer than 100 employees, meaning that around
two thirds of private sector workers lose their right to challenge an
unfair dismissal. Even in workplaces with 101 or more employees, a
dismissal which is even partly for operational reasons cannot be
challenged for unfairness.

## II. Discrimination and Equal Remuneration

Australia ratified Convention No. 100 on Equal Remuneration in 1974, and
Convention No. 111 on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) in
1973.

Australia has legislation to implement these Conventions although, in
practice, women face discrimination in employment in relation to equal
remuneration for work of equal value and in access to senior positions.

In August 2006, average total earnings for full-time female (including
managerial) employees were 80% of that for men, or 84% when ordinary
time earnings are used.

The National Institute of Labor Studies comments that "Further concern
has been expressed about the effects of WorkChoices on gender equity,
with female-to-male wage differentials persisting both at aggregate and
sectional levels. Few commentators believe that the changes will help to
correct existing pay inequalities or assist women in combining unpaid
household work with time in the paid labor market".

A recent study of AWAs made prior to the commencement of the Work
Choices legislation found that female non-managerial employees earned
79.6% of the earnings of comparable men in 2004, compared to 87.5% of
male earnings under federal collective agreements.

It is expected that this gap will continue to widen as AWA coverage
increases at the expense of collective instruments. It is notable that
in the six months to August 2006 nominal private sector ordinary time
wages for women rose 0.5% for women (meaning that real wages fell 2%)
compared to 1.3% for men. This reflects, in part, the concentration of
women in relatively low-paid service sector and clerical occupations and
their under-representation at senior levels in employment.

The Indigenous population, approximately 2% of the total, faces
substantial disadvantage and discrimination. The 2001 Census found
Indigenous unemployment at 20%, three times that of the general labor
force.

##### 

######## Child Labor

Australia has not ratified Convention No. 138, the Minimum Age
Convention. Australia ratified Convention No. 182, the Worst Forms of
Child Labor Convention in 2006.

There is no federal legislation in Australia that sets a minimum age for
employment, as this is a state responsibility, with standards differing
between the states. State legislation also covers compulsory education,
the age for unemployment benefits and the entrance to certain
occupations. In addition, federal and state industrial instruments
regulate aspects of the employment of children and young people.

The first Australian Bureau for Statistics (ABS) survey of child
employment in 2006 found that 7% of children aged 5 to 14 worked in the
previous year. Of these, a third worked for their parents and just over
half for employers. 2.4% of children aged 10 to 14 worked more than five
hours a week during school terms and most worked fewer than 13 weeks in
the year. Fewer than 2% of children aged 5 to 9 were employed, mostly in
family farms and businesses. Common jobs other than assisting in family
businesses were delivering newspapers and leaflets, gardening,
babysitting and retail. There has also been evidence that children work
assisting parents who are outworkers in the garment industry.

There is no federal legislation that prohibits forced or bonded child
labor, although the Criminal Code charges high penalties in case of
conditions amounting to slavery and for forcing children under 18 to
provide sexual services. The Migration Act punishes trafficking of
people and the Proceeds of Crime Act punishes sexual servitude offences.

III. **Forced Labor**

Australia ratified Convention No. 29, the Forced Labor Convention in
1932, and Convention No. 105, the Abolition of Forced Labor Convention,
in 1960.

The law does not explicitly prohibit forced labor.

Prison labor does occur in Australia. Private prisons exist in several
states, although these prisons remain under the control of a public
authority and are subject to government established guidelines.

Work or service from a prisoner is only compatible with the Convention
if the work or service is carried out under the supervision and control
of a public authority and if the person is not hired to or placed at the
disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. Work by
prisoners for private companies can be compatible with the Convention
only when such work is performed in conditions approximating a free
employment relationship. This necessarily requires the formal consent of
the persons concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards
covering the essential elements of a free labor relationship, such as
wages, social security etc.

##### 

##### Trafficking of persons is prohibited but occurs. Although the number of people trafficked into Australia is unknown, a parliamentary inquiry into sexual servitude in Australia estimated the number of trafficked women as ranging from 300 to 1,000 each year. Most of the women trafficked into Australia are recruited from South East Asia and China for the sex industry. Some have to repay debts of up to \$40 000.

##### 

##### Conclusions and Recommendations

1.  The government should amend its legislation to ensure that workers
    have an enforceable right to bargain collectively if that is what
    they prefer. Parties should be free to negotiate collectively at
    whatever level they prefer and they should be free to include
    whatever matters they choose in agreements, subject to minimum
    standards.

2.  The government should implement the recommendations of the ILO
    Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
    Recommendations (CEACR) with regard to Conventions 87 and 98, to
    bring legislation in line with these core standards.

3.  There is substantial occupational segregation that needs to be
    addressed. In particular the government must implement policies to
    give effective meaning to the principle of equal pay for work of
    equal value.

4.  More efforts have to be made to address the unequal situation of the
    Indigenous population, given the high unemployment and low education
    levels.

5.  Measures should be taken to ensure the elimination of child labor
    and to strengthen child labor legislation, particularly in certain
    states, at the same time as the government ratifies Convention 138
    on the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment.

6.  The government should take the necessary measures to bring prison
    labor in line with the Convention.

[^1]: U.S. State Department, Country Report on Human Rights Practices
    (Vietnam), March 2008.

[^2]: The right of workers to establish organizations of their own
    choosing implies, in particular, the effective possibility of
    forming, in a climate of full security, organizations independent
    both of those which exist already and of any political party. See
    ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, Digest of Decisions
    (2006)(hereinafter referred to as "CFA Digest") ¶ 273.

[^3]: ITUC, Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights (2007),
    Vietnam (hereinafter referred to as "Annual Survey").

[^4]: Id.

[^5]: Id.

[^6]: Id.

[^7]: Article 174b. 1. The grassroots trade union executive committee or
    the representative of the labor collective shall issue a written
    decision on strike and make a written petition when over 50% of
    total laborers in an enterprise or a section of an enterprise with
    under 300 laborers agree to go on strike or over 75% of the number
    of consulted persons in an enterprise or a section of an enterprise
    with 300 laborers or more.

[^8]: See CFA Digest ¶556 (The requirement of a decision by over half of
    all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive
    and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a
    strike, particularly in large enterprises.); CFA Digest ¶ 557 (The
    requirement that an absolute majority of workers should be obtained
    for the calling of a strike may be difficult, especially in the case
    of unions which group together a large number of members. A
    provision requiring an absolute majority may, therefore, involve the
    risk of seriously limiting the right to strike.); CFA Digest ¶ 558
    (The Committee requested a government to take measures to amend the
    legal requirement that a decision to call a strike be adopted by
    more than half of the workers to which it applies, in particular in
    enterprises with a large union membership).

[^9]: U.S. State Department, Country Report on Human Rights Practices
    (Vietnam), March 2008.

[^10]: Article 175. Strikes are not allowed in enterprises providing
    public services and products and enterprises that are essential for
    the national economy or national security and defense as stipulated
    by the Government. State management agencies shall organize
    periodical dialogues with representatives of labor collectives and
    labor users of these enterprises in order to provide timely
    assistance and deal with their legitimate concerns and demands.
    Collective labor disputes arising in these enterprises shall be
    settled by the labor arbitration council. Either or both of the
    parties to a dispute has or have the right to request settlement by
    a People\'s Court if it/they does/do not agree with the decision of
    the labor arbitration council.

[^11]: CFA Digest ¶ 576

[^12]: CFA Digest ¶ 587

[^13]: Article 176. When the Prime Minister sees that the strike may
    seriously endanger the national economy and public interests, he/she
    may decide to postpone or suspend a strike and assign a competent
    state agency or organization to settle it. The Government shall
    provide regulations postponement or suspension of strikes and
    settlement of the interests of labor collectives.

[^14]: CFA Digest ¶ 596.

[^15]: See U.S. State Department, Country Report on Human Rights
    Practices (Vietnam), March 2008; ITUC Annual Survey. Article 157(3)
    of the Labor Code defines an interest-related collective labor
    dispute as "one over the collective's claim for the establishment of
    new labor conditions not yet prescribed by the labor law, collective
    labor agreements or labor rules...or other regulations and lawful
    agreements in an enterprise emerging from the process of negotiation
    between the labor collective and labor user.

[^16]: Article 173 - A strike is considered illegal if conducted in the
    following cases:

    1\. It does not arise from an interest-related dispute;

    2\. It is not organized by laborers in one enterprise;

[^17]: CFA Digest ¶ 531.

[^18]: ITUC Annual Survey

[^19]: Id.

[^20]: The ILO has found that a strike may be temporarily restricted by
    law until procedures such as conciliation and arbitration have been
    exhausted. However, any such restriction must be accompanied by
    adequate, impartial and speedy proceedings. See CFA Digest ¶ 551.

[^21]: U.S. State Department, Country Report on Human Rights Practices
    (Vietnam), March 2008.

[^22]: Id.

[^23]: Id.

[^24]: U.S. State Department, Country Report on Human Rights Practices
    (Vietnam), March 2007.