From 6 to 8 October, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) begins public hearings on the request for an advisory opinion on the right to strike.
In 2023, the Governing Body of the ILO referred the matter to the ICJ under ILO Convention No. 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.
Twenty states and five international organisations have expressed their intention to participate in the oral proceedings before the Court. The schedule for the hearings, adopted by the Court, can be viewed here.
The ITUC will address the Court on the first day of the hearings, from 10:15 to 11:15 CEST. CEST is 6 hours ahead of EST (Guyana’s time)
The proceedings will be streamed live and on demand in the two official languages of the Court – English and French – here on the Court’s website and on UN Web TV.
“For democracy and social justice, the right to strike is fundamental, and this must be recognised once and for all in international law.”ITUC General Secretary Luc Triangle
“We look forward to putting our case to the ICJ, demonstrating that this right is essential for workers to secure a fair deal, and that they must be able to take strike action without fear or repression.”
“The right to strike is fundamental #ForDemocracy and social justice” says ITUC General Secretary Luc Triangle.
Find out more: https://www.ituc-csi.org/right-to-strike-court-begins…
Watch live: https://webtv.un.org/en
In Guyana the right to strike is protected in the Constitution at Article 147 — ‘Protection of freedom of assembly, association and demonstration’ which expressly states hereunder:-
- Fundamental freedoms guaranteed
Except with his or her own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of assembly, association and freedom to demonstrate peacefully; that is to say, his or her right to assemble freely, to demonstrate peacefully and to associate with other persons, and in particular to form or belong to political parties, trade unions or other associations for the protection of his or her interests. - Right to strike
Except with his or her own consent no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom to strike. - Collective arguments
Neither an employer nor a trade union shall be deprived of the right to enter into collective arguments. - Permissible limitations
Nothing in this Article shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that any law provides for restrictions that are reasonably required for certain purposes. These include:
a. Defence, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health;
b. Protecting the rights or freedoms of other persons;
c. Restrictions upon public officers; or
d. Obligations on workers to become contributors to any industrial scheme or workers’ organisation intended to provide for the welfare of workers, their fellow workers, or relatives.
High Court: Teachers’ Strike (2024) — Justice Sandil Kissoon
In April 2024, the High Court held that a teachers’ strike was justified, ruling that the government had “engaged in acts which constitute substantial interference and denial of the fundamental right … for collective bargaining,” protected under Article 147.
Justice Kissoon emphasised that the constitutional amendment to Article 147 (via Act No. 10 of 2003) “elevate[s], enshrine[s] and protect[s] a fundamental right and freedom” — specifically bringing the freedom to strike under the supreme law of the land.
He noted that the amendment inserted the right to strike and collective bargaining explicitly into the constitution, making them constitutionally protected freedoms.
In his ruling, he called the government’s opposing argument “a constitutional absurdity,” rejecting attempts to limit the strike freedom in a way inconsistent with Article 147.
