Introduction

1. The Committee on Freedom of Association, set up by the Governing Body at its 117th Session (November 1951), met at the International Labour Office, Geneva, on 6, 7 and 11 November 1986 under the chairmanship of Mr. Roberto Ago, former Chairman of the Governing Body.

2. The members of the Committee of Danish, Indian and Spanish nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Denmark (Case No. 1338), India (Case No. 1346) and Spain (Case No. 1366).

3. The Committee is currently seized of 64 cases in which the complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting it examined 22 cases in substance, reaching definitive conclusions in 10 cases and interim conclusions in 12 cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the various reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

4. New cases: The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the cases relating to Australia (Case No. 1371), Nicaragua (Case No. 1372), Spain (Case No. 1375), Brazil (Case No. 1377), Fiji (Case No. 1379), Malaysia (Case No. 1380), Portugal (Case No. 1382) and Pakistan (Case No. 1383) concerning which it is still awaiting information or observations from the governments concerned. All these cases relate to complaints submitted since the last meeting of the Committee.

5. Adjournments: The Committee awaits observations or information from governments concerning the cases relating to El Salvador (Cases Nos. 953, 973, 1168 and 1273), Honduras (Cases Nos. 1271 and 1369), Nepal (Case No. 1337) and Nicaragua (Case No. 1361). As regards Case No. 1352 (Israel), the Committee is still awaiting receipt of further information requested from the complainant organisation. As regards Cases Nos. 1250 (Belgium) and 1364 (France), the governments have transmitted certain information and additional observations are awaited. The Committee again adjourned these cases and requests the governments of these countries to transmit the information or observations requested. As regards Case No. 1362 (Spain), the Committee adjourned the case at the request of the complainant.

6. As regards Cases Nos. 1190, 1199, 1363 and 1367 (Peru), 1356 (Canada/Quebec), 1358 and 1374 (Spain), 1365 and 1370 (Portugal), 1376 (Colombia) and 1381 (Ecuador), the Committee has received the observations of these governments and intends to examine these cases in substance at its next meeting.

7. As regards Case No. 1130 (United States) the Government, in a communication dated 10 October 1986, indicates that the lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court concerning the House restaurant workers has not yet been resolved, but that a motion has been introduced by the Architect of the Capitol to dismiss the lawsuit. The Government adds that, while the case is sub judice, it would not be appropriate for it to comment or draw conclusions which might prejudice the Court's decision in this very complex issue. The Committee, while noting this information, would recall that its competence to examine allegations is not subject to the exhaustion of national procedures. In the circumstances, however, since the Court decision could provide additional, useful information, the Committee proposes to suspend its examination of the case for a reasonable time to await this decision. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the procedural developments in the case.

8. As regards Cases Nos. 1176, 1195, 1215 and 1262 (Guatemala), the Committee has taken note of the observations transmitted by the Government in its communication of 17 September 1986. These observations, however, being insufficient in detail, the Committee requests the Government to transmit as soon as possible more substantial information on the matters of issue.

9. As regards Cases Nos. 1275, 1341 and 1368 (Paraguay), the Government has transmitted certain information in connection with the first two cases in a communication dated 6 October 1986. The Committee requests the Government to send further detailed observations concerning the matters involved in the three cases to which the Government has not yet replied.

10. As regards Case No. 1340 (Morocco) in respect of which the Committee had requested the Government to communicate the text of the judgements handed down concerning the 11 persons who had been sentenced in connection with the strike which took place at the Al-Hamman mine in June 1985, the Government states in its communication of 17 October 1986 that the workers of the said mine were tried for disturbing public order and for impeding the freedom to work of other workers. They were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. In addition, they were dismissed by their employer for committing these serious offences which had been punished by the criminal courts, although the employer granted to them a special indemnity on their dismissal. The Committee notes this information and again requests the Government to transmit a copy of the judgements that were handed down against these striking workers in order to permit it to reach a conclusion on this matter in full knowledge of the facts.

11. Case No. 1373 (Belgium) concerns a complaint submitted in July 1986 by the Belgian Federation of Automobile and Cycle Industries (FEBIAC) which states that it has not been recognised by the competent authority as an organisation representing the employers for the purpose of being represented in the Joint Committee for Garages, whereas it claims to comprise all importers of cars and transport vehicles and motorcycles and to be the sole employers' organisation for these importers. The Committee notes that the Government, in a communication dated 22 October 1986, explains that this employers' organisation has presented an appeal to the Council of State requesting the annulment of the administrative decision that it is not considered as being representative for the garage sector. The Government adds that it would like the Committee to be able to be seized of the decision of the Council of State before it reaches conclusions on the complaint of the FEBIAC. It accordingly requests that the case be adjourned. The Committee would recall that its competence to examine allegations is not subject to the exhaustion of national procedures. In the present circumstances, however, since the Committee considers that the decision to be taken by the Council of State could provide additional and relevant information, it decides to suspend its examination of the case for a reasonable period to await this decision. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, if possible, when the decision of the Council of State is likely to be handed down.

URGENT APPEALS

12. The Committee notes that in spite of the time which has elapsed since the last examination of Case No. 1219 (Liberia) (November 1985), the observations and information requested of the Government have not yet been received. The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that, in conformity with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of the Committee's 127th Report approved by the Governing Body, it will present a report at its next meeting on the substance of this case even if the Government's observations have not been received at that date. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to transmit its observations as a matter of urgency.

13. The Committee draws the legislative aspects of the following cases to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: Cases Nos. 997/999/1029 (Turkey), 1326 (Bangladesh), 1330 (Guyana), 1332 (Pakistan), 1339 (Dominican Republic) and 1353 (Philippines).

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and of the Governing Body

14. As regards Case No. 1016 (El Salvador), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the result of the trial concerning the deaths of Rodolfo Viera, Mark Pearlman and Michael Hammer. In a communication of 10 September 1986 the Government indicates that the procedure has been suspended to await the appointment of the judge who will deal with the case. The judge of the criminal court who had been nominated stated that he could not accept the nomination since he had acted as attorney-general in the same matter. The Government adds that the criminal court accordingly reached no decision on the receivability or irreceivability of the appeal presented by the accused. The Committee takes note of this information and hopes that the trial will be brought to a speedy conclusion. It requests the Government to continue to supply information on further developments in the procedure. The Committee also observes that it had examined this case jointly with Cases Nos. 953, 973 and 1233 concerning which it requested that the Government communicate the result of any inquiry that might be carried out concerning the deaths of Tomás Rosales (Case No. 953), José Santos Tiznado and Pedro González and also concerning the disappearance of the trade union leader, Rafael Hernández Olivo (Case No. 973).

15. As regards Case No. 1040 (Central African Republic), the Committee had reached definitive conclusions in its 241st Report (paras. 49-84) approved by the Governing Body at its 231st Session in November 1985. It had requested the Government to keep it informed about the assets of the former General Union of Central African Workers, both immovable and liquid assets, and to state the reasons why the Court of Bangui, which had been dealing with the question of the devolution of the assets of the UGTC since 1982, had not yet reached its decision in the matter. In a communication of 7 August 1986 the Government refers to a statement made by the Minister of Labour to the Committee on the Application of Standards of the 72nd Session of the International Labour Conference (June 1986). On that occasion the Minister stated that the former UGTC had not possessed any assets of its own except office equipment. Its premises, which were presently not in use and which awaited a new trade union, belong to the Central African State which had been good enough to place these at the disposal of the Union. Funds deposited in the bank were withdrawn in 1981 by the former leaders of the UGCT who had made personal use of them. In addition, the Government indicates in its communication that the Committee will be kept informed of further developments in particlar as regards the decision of the Court of Bangui. The Committee takes note of this information. It also notes with interest that the Minister of Labour agreed before the Conference Committee that a direct contacts mission be sent to the Central African Republic in order to examine the questions raised in the comments formulated by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations concerning Convention No. 87.

16. With regard to Cases Nos. 1157 and 1192 (Philippines), the Committee notes that the Government, in a communication dated 22 September 1986 (which also contained information concerning Case No. 1353, dealt with separately elsewhere in this report), provided copies of the court orders in criminal cases dismissing the charges against Mr. Crispin Beltran, Mr. Bonifacio Tupaz and their co-accused. It points out that no request has so far been received, under the law, for the restoration of property held in custody in connection with criminal proceedings, and states that investigations by the Presidential Committee on Human Rights (PCHR) are still in progress concerning allegations that Antonio Santa Ana and Jemeliana Paguio are missing, but that the PCHR had disclosed that it had received no reports concerning the disappearance of Felix Ocido, while Ricardo Nolasco had not disappeared, as reported earlier. The Government states that further information on these cases can be obtained directly from the PCHR. The Government also points out that Mr. Tupaz, in a speech in his capacity as the Workers' delegate of the Philippines to the 72nd Session of the International Labour Conference, stated that he withdrew complaints filed against the Philippine Government and that the Chairman of the KMU had also, in a letter to the Director-General, excluded the present administration in the Philippines from liability in respect of Cases Nos. 1192 and 1353 and in respect of a previous Case (No. 1323) on which the Committee reached final conclusions in its 241st Report (adopted by the Governing Body at its 231st Session in November 1985). The communication from the KMU notes a number of improvements which have occurred since the change of government in the Philippines, but while excluding any liability on the part of the present Government, requests that further investigations be undertaken of the complaints submitted in Cases Nos. 1192 and 1323. The Committee considers that the dismissal of the charges against the two trade union leaders involved in Cases Nos. 1157 and 1192 makes further examinaton of that aspect of these cases unnecessary. With regard to other outstanding aspects of these cases, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments regarding the restoration of trade union property and to supply information concerning the allegations relating to the attack on trade union premises. With regard to the allegations relating to the arrests, torture and unexplained disappearance of trade unionists, it notes with interest the information which has been provided concerning Felix Ocido and Ricardo Nolasco, but requests the Government to transmit information on the other individuals concerned, and in particular, those whose circumstances are still the subject of continuing investigation.

17. As regards the case concerning Canada/British Columbia, (Case No. 1235), in which the Committee reached conclusions in May 1984, the Committee notes that the Government, in a communication of 14 May 1986, states that the intent of section 2(5) of the Employment Standards Amendment Act is to allow the Director of Employment Standards to make standards under the Act applicable to those employees who are no longer actively represented by their union. The Government adds that this authority does not affect the power of the Labour Relations Board under the Labour Code. In addition, section 2(5) has not been used and the matter is not a contentious one within the province. The Committee takes note of this information.

18. With regard to Case No. 1264 (Barbados), the Committee was informed by the National Union of Public Workers, in a communication dated 2 October 1986, that agreement has been reached between it and the Board of Directors of the Barbados National Bank concerning the grant of recognition to the union in respect of the bank's staff. This involves acceptance of the union as the bargaining agent, provided it represents 50 per cent plus one of the employees, in respect of all employees below the level of managing director and general manager (who are, however, permitted to join the union). A meeting concerning recognition was to be convened by the union with the permission of the bank on the latter's premises on 15 October. The agreement to recognise the union as bargaining agent is confirmed by the Government in a communication dated 29 October 1986. The Committee notes these developments with satisfaction and, in particular, the resolution of the dispute which dates back to 1980 in a manner which will ensure the guarantees contained in Article 4 of Convention No. 98.

19. As regards Case No. 1279 (Portugal), the Committee had reached the conclusion at its meeting in February 1985 (see 238th Report, paras. 119-140) that social workers in manufacturing establishments of the armed forces should have the right to form, without previous authorisation, organisations of their own choice in conformity with the provisions of Convention No. 87, ratified by Portugal. It had requested the Government to take the necessary steps to enable the union covering these workers to be properly registered and to exercise its activities normally and legally. In a communication dated 18 April 1986 the Government had pointed out that it was awaiting the result of an appeal that had been submitted to the Supreme Administrative Tribunal. Subsequently, in a communication of 11 July 1986, the Government pointed out that the Supreme Administrative Tribunal will probably hand down its final judgement in this matter before the end of this year. The Committee takes note of this information and looks forward to receiving the text of this decision once this has been handed down.

20. As regards Case No. 1326 (Bangladesh) concerning which the Committee reached definitive conclusions at its meeting in February 1986 (243rd Report, paras. 149-158) the Government, in a communication dated 26 October 1986, transmits a number of comments on the Committee's conclusions and, in particular, states that those persons who had been detained in March 1985 were released without any court proceedings being instituted against them. The Committee notes this information with interest. The remaining comments refer to the legislative aspects of the case and will be referred to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

21. As regards Case No. 1329 (Canada/British Columbia), the Committee at its meeting in February 1986 (see 243rd Report, paras. 159 to 190), recommended the Government to take steps to restore free collective bargaining in the public sector and, in particular, remove the requirement that, under the compensation stabilisation programme, compensation plans must be submitted for approval to a government-appointed commissioner. In a communication of 14 May 1986, the Government sends a copy of certain enacted amendments to the Compensation Stabilisation Act which the Committee notes, do not address the concerns expressed by it. In addition, the Government states that there are no plans to amend the legislation in the manner suggested by the Committee. The Committee would again emphasise the importance of the principle of free collective bargaining and would urge the Government to take appropriate steps, at an early date, to remove the requirement of prior approval of agreed compensation plans.

22. In a communication dated 9 July 1986, the Government of Malta stated that there appeared to have been a misunderstanding on the part of the Committee in arriving at the recommendation contained in paragraph 209(e) of its 244th Report in May 1986 regarding Case No. 1349, in which regret had been expressed at the Government's rejection of a previous call by the Committee to respect the principles concerning the avoidance of a climate of violence involving attacks on trade unionists. The Government states that it had no option but to reject the call as it was in fact an accusation. It adds that it is common knowledge that the union of teachers had involved itself in a political issue, and that some hotheads had unfortunately committed some acts of violence, which had, inter alia, involved the vandalisation of schools, but that the incidents had been relatively minor, involving no injuries to people, and had been blown out of all proportion for political reasons. The Government had not accused trade unionists of being responsible for damage to government property, and the union could not blame the Goverment for the damage that had been done to its premises. The Government states once again that it had taken all possible measures to bring the culprits to book, without success, and to ensure that such incidents would not be repeated; particular attention had been given to the protection of trade union officials and property. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the whole procedure set up in the ILO for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact. If the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognise the importance for their own reputation of formulating, so as to allow detailed examination, detailed replies to the allegations brought against them, and the Committee has always stressed that replies from governments against whom complaints are made should not be limited to general observations (See 1st Report of the Committee, para. 31; Digest of Principles and Decisions, 3rd edition, para. 59). It notes the reply of the Government concerning Case No. 1349, in particular, that relating to the attention which is being given to the protection of trade union officials and property.

23. As regards Case No. 1350 (Canada/British Columbia), when the Committee last examined this case at its meeting in February 1986 (see 243rd Report, paras. 293 to 311), it requested the Government to transmit a copy of the judgement in the case concerning the School Act. In its communication of 14 May 1986, the Government states that the case was scheduled to be heard in September 1986 and that a copy of the decision would be transmitted when this was available. The Committee requests the Government to send a copy of this decision as soon as possible.

24. As regards Case No. 1354 (Greece), the Committee reached definitive conclusions at its meeting in February 1986. The Committee had, however, requested the Government to keep it informed of the results of the Congress of the CGTG (see 243rd Report, paras. 312-343). In a communication of 30 May 1986 the Government points out that the 23rd Congress took place on 4, 5 and 6 April 1986 and that, according to its Credentials Committee, 609 representatives of trade union organisations should have been present. However, since the trade union ESAK-S did not participate in the first meeting, only 380 representatives belonging to PASKE, SSEK, DAKE and AEM were present. Subsequently, during the Congress, 90 of those belonging to the last three unions mentioned above withdrew and the Congress completed its work with the participation of 290 representatives who elected, in a regular manner, the new administration of the CGTG in the presence of a large number of observers and international trade union organisations of various tendencies. The Government adds that the Congress decided to convene another statutory and organisational congress, provided all tendencies in the trade union movement participated. In a later communication of 17 June 1986 the Presidents of the Federations of Banking Employees, Accountants and Officials of Private Schools, as well as the Secretary-General of the Federation of Factory Workers' Unions, again criticised government and judicial interference in trade union matters and complained that the Congress had not taken place in January 1986 as they had requested. They also denounced the manoeuvres of the administration which had been designated by the courts in their organisation. They stated that they had invited the federations and the labour centres to request, in application of the by-laws of the CGTG, that an extraordinary congress be convened and that this should be done as soon as a quarter of the members requested it. They have requested that a commission of inquiry examine Greek Government interference in trade union matters. In a detailed communication dated 27 October 1986, which reached the ILO on 4 November 1986, the Government transmits its observations on the latest comments of the complainants. The Committee proposes to examine these matters at its next meeting in the light of all the information transmitted to it and of any further developments that may take place.

25. As regards Cases Nos. 1258 (El Salvador), 1074 (United States), 1216, 1268 and 1307 (Honduras) and 1296 (Antigua and Barbuda), the Committee again requests these governments to keep it informed of developments in these cases. The Committee hopes that these governments will communicate the information requested at an early date.

26. In addition, the Committee notes with concern that, despite the time which has elapsed since the Governing Body requested certain governments to keep it informed of measures taken to give effect to its recommendations, these governments' replies have not been received. In this respect, the Committee would point out that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, if there is no reply or if the reply given is partly or entirely unsatisfactory, the matter should be followed up periodically through invitations to the Director-General at suitable intervals, according to the nature of each case, to remind the government concerned of the matter and to request it to supply information as to the action taken on the recommendations approved by the Governing Body. The Committee itself will, from time to time, report on the situation.

27. In these circumstances the Committee recalls those requests which it made some time ago and which remain without response. At its May 1985 meeting the Committee requested the Government of Sri Lanka to endeavour to reinstate workers who had been unemployed for more than five years for having participated in a strike which took place in July 1980 and to transmit its observations on certain allegations formulated at a later stage by the Trade Unions International of Public and Allied Employees according to which the Government continued to take reprisals against civil servants who had participated in the strike (Cases Nos. 988 and 1003). At its February 1985 meeting the Committee had requested the Government of Pakistan to keep it informed of any decisions it might take relating to acts of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, downgrading, transfer) concerning which it had requested the Government to submit these cases to the National Commission of Industrial Relations or to the judicial authorities in order to obtain the reinstatement of those workers who had been dismissed for legitimate trade union activities (Case No. 1175). The Commitee had also requested the Govermment of Kenya to keep it informed of measures taken to give effect to the recommendations which it had formulated in Case No. 1189 at its meeting in November 1985, namely the measures taken to permit the establishment of trade unions in the public service and information on the assets that were confiscated following the cancellation of the registration of the Association of Public Servants of Kenya. Similarly, the Committee at its November 1985 meeting, had requested the Government of the Dominican Republic to carry out an impartial inquiry into the nature of the protest demonstration of April 1984 as well as on the deaths and injuries which had occurred on that occasion and to keep it informed of the results of such an inquiry (Cases Nos. 1277 and 1288). Finally, the Committee had requested the Government of Morocco at its November 1985 meeting, to keep it informed of the results of appeals made to the courts by workers who had been dismissed for participation in strikes of 48 and 24 hours in January and February 1984 at the Compteurs Vincent S.A. Company in Mohammedia (Case No. 1282). Not having received the replies and information requested from the governments on these various matters, the Committee requests the Director-General to bring these matters to the attention of the governments concerned and to request them to communicate as a matter of urgency their replies so that the Committee may at its next session examine the situation in each case.