Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association: interview with Yves Veyrier, workers’ spokesperson

The 317th session of the Governing Body adopted the latest report of the Committee on Freedom of Association. Yves Veyrier, the workers’ spokesperson on this Committee, fills in some details of the results obtained by the unions, on the issue of the right to strike and the application of the Committee’s decisions and recommendations.

Press release | 02 April 2013

ACTRAV INFO: The Governing Body adopted the report of the freedom of association committee. Among the cases examined by the Committee, did you achieve positive results for the workers?

Yves Veyrier: We do have positive results. A result is positive when a government answers the complainant’s allegations, provides information and responds to the ILO’s verification procedure on complaints about violations of freedom of association or of the right to collective bargaining. The supervision or verification procedure of the Committee on Freedom of Association ensures that governments feel a need to respond to the complaints lodged by trade unions.

Also, when workers’ rights are violated, notably the right to freedom of association, it is important that the rights should be restored. Sometimes, trade unionists’ physical integrity is under threat simply because they have exercised their right to take trade union action. So the result is positive when such rights are restored. For instance, at the end of this session we learned that Valentin Urusov, a trade union leader in the Russian Federation, had been released. His case was raised at the November 2012 session and the freedom of association committee expressed its deep concern and called for his release. The ILO action led to his release, and that’s a source of great satisfaction.

We also have other cases with favourable outcomes, notably in Peru, where we learned, through the government response process, that a trade union leader had been reinstated in his job and the wages owed to him had been paid. He had been dismissed in November 2008 for the sole reason that he had taken part in a work stoppage called as a protest measure by his union over wage claims. There are other cases like this, in which an agreement is reached which resolves a complaint.

So there are positive cases which should encourage both workers and unions to get to know the freedom of association committee’s supervision and verification mechanisms, as these can be of great help to them. And it’s also encouraging for governments to know that responding promptly to the Committee’s requests can lead to the rapid resolution of disputes.

ACTRAV INFO: Do you think the right to strike gives rise to complaints to this Committee?

Yves Veyrier: This is a sensitive issue, and one that is currently much discussed within the ILO. From the outset, the Committee on Freedom of Association considered that the effective right to freedom of association, and particularly to collective bargaining, could not exist unless the unions had an implicit associated right to take action in furtherance of their demands. If the employer refuses to negotiate properly, the union has no other option than to exercise pressure in order to obtain talks on, for example, a wage increase. This collective action may take the form of a strike, and the freedom of association committee has always considered that the exercise of the right to strike is an integral part of the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. In the freedom of association committee, we get complaints around the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining that are linked to the fact that the right to strike has been called into question, that strikes have been banned or that trade unionists have been subject to discrimination, dismissal or even arrest because they exercised their right to strike within a framework that was legitimate. The case law built up by the freedom of association committee has always accepted that the right to strike may be regulated, that it may be limited notably in essential services such as healthcare and public safety. In these cases, the Committee provides that compensatory mechanisms should be in place, so that these limitations on the right to strike do not amount to a de facto ban on workers and their unions negotiating their employment conditions and wages.

ACTRAV INFO: As regards the application and follow-up to the Committee’s decisions, what is your message to your fellow trade unionists?

Yves Veyrier: The important message is firstly to those who lodge complaints: you have to keep following the developments around a complaint and pay particular attention to the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations. When favourable solutions result from the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations, it is important for unions to inform the Committee, the ILO and the International Trade Union Confederation. That’s a way of placing value on the role of the mechanism for verifying and applying standards, particularly the Committee on Freedom of Association.

Unions that have lodged a complaint should also inform the ILO if governments do not respond satisfactorily to the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, or if there are new elements. The unions must provide a maximum of detailed, precise information on the elements that underlie the complaint, so that the Committee can deal with it. If allegations are not backed up by facts, and the government then contests the allegations, the Committee will not be able to decide. True, the repression is sometimes such that the unions will not find it easy to provide this information, but when they can, it is important that they do.

Finally, the Committee needs to ask for additional information from a union that has lodged complaints. By the way, the Committee takes a very demanding line with governments that do not respond rapidly to its requests, but this can get very problematic when it’s the complaining union that doesn’t respond to the Committee’s requests.

Generally, it is important that all trade unions take the ILO verification and supervision mechanisms on board, even though certain disputes have to be settled internally, through collective bargaining and social dialogue within the workplace.