Regulated by the law

Teachers ended their strike in a welcome development, but that came after many days of negotiations between the Jordan Teachers Association and the Ministry of Education, at the expense of the education of public schools students.

The fact that it took such a long time for the teachers to forego their strike despite all efforts, including by the Lower House of Parliament, suggests that there is a real problem in the national laws on labour disputes.

To start with, Jordanian legislation on strikes does not have effective provisions on how to regulate them or  submit them for judicial arbitration by special tribunals.

Nor does existing legislation have a binding mechanism to force employees who offer essential services to end a strike or face punishment.

Had the country had the necessary legislative and judicial tools to deal with the JTA strike, the crisis would have been dealt with more promptly, without depriving the students of their right to education.

Losing one week of schooling may seem relatively unimportant, but it does cost children a lot.

Most countries have special labour courts or mandate one of the existing courts to exercise jurisdiction over labour disputes.

Jordan has witnessed, at different times, strikes by various groups of workers and employees, often working in vital sectors, which makes the need for a specialised judicial system  to deal with them all the more pressing.

Article 8 (d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is binding on Jordan, stipulates that state parties to the covenant must provide for the right to strike “provided [it] is exercised in conformity with laws of the country”.

Hence, the need for laws regulating the exercise of this right.