17 striking workers acquitted as court demands right to strike be included in civil service law

Seventeen post office workers facing charges of peaceful striking were acquitted by the Supreme Administrative Court on Saturday. In the absence of legislation governing the right to strike for public sector workers, the ruling stipulated that it is a right enshrined within Article 15 of the Constitution, noting that legislators have failed to include it in the civil service law.

The government employees were fired from their jobs at a post office in Ashmon, Monufiya by a court verdict issued on January 26, 2015. The verdict claimed they had failed to fulfill the demands of their public sector jobs, referring specifically to a five-day strike in February 2014.

Rights lawyer Khaled Ali told Mada Masr that Saturday’s decision proves that constitutional rights are operative even in the absence of a law regulating them. He added that the government and Parliament have both failed to translate the constitutional article permitting peaceful strike into law.

Government entities and some courts consider strikes a crime, according to Ali, who highlighted that the Supreme Administrative Court itself has on a previous occasion considered strikes a crime for not adhering with Islamic Law. It ruled on April 28, 2015 to fire a number of employees for striking, claiming that this did not adhere to Islamic teachings.

The court’s Saturday ruling emphasized that legislators have failed to regulate the right to strike for public sector employees, claiming: “The legislator was supposed to intervene in regulating the act of striking within the civil service law. In this case the legislator did not fulfill their obligation, and the court found that the employees did not surpass what within their rights.”

According to the ruling, the strike action was legitimate as the administration agreed to their demands for bonuses, and considered the strike period part of the workers’ annual leave, so it could not have hampered the post office’s work. “As such, the court can not penalize the employees for exercising a right recognized by the Constitution.”

It stated that if legislators address strikes in the civil service law, they ought to be able to specify when such actions are to be considered illegal for either hindering work or harming citizens’ interests. The court reaffirmed that strike regulations should be added to the civil service law, similarly to the labor bill currently being discussed in Parliament, which includes articles governing workers’ right to strike.

The court outlined five principles to regulate rulings on the right to strike for public sector employees in the absence of official legislation. First, the demands must be considered legitimate, pertinent to the job performed by the employees and non-political. Second, employees can only strike after resorting to all other formal communication channels such as submitting grievances and negotiating them, third, notifying relevant administration of their intention to strike in advance, fourth, giving the administration enough time to respond to the demands and starting with a partial strike before escalating to a full strike. Finally, alternatives must be provided for urgent matters relating to their work, so that citizens interests are not hampered.

--

Translated by Waad Ahmed