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 19, 20 and 24 May 1988 under the chairmanship of Mr. Roberto Ago, former Chairman of the Governing Body.

2. The members of the Committee of Venezuelan and New Zealand nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Venezuela (Cases Nos. 1408 and 1412) and New Zealand (Case No. 1385).

3. The Committee is currently seized of 55 cases in which the complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting it examined 23 cases in substance, reaching definitive conclusions in eight cases and interim conclusions in 15 cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the various reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

4. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the cases relating to Spain (Case No. 1433), Canada (Cases Nos. 1438 and 1451), Paraguay (Case No. 1446), El Salvador (Case No. 1441), Nicaragua (Case No. 1442), Denmark (Case No. 1443), the Philippines (Case No. 1444), Peru (Cases Nos. 1445 and 1450), St. Lucia (Case No. 1447), Norway (Case No. 1448) and Mali (Case No. 1449) concerning which it is awaiting information or observations from the Governments concerned. All these cases relate to complaints submitted since the last meeting of the Committee.

Subsequent adjournments

5. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the Governments concerned in the cases relating to Haiti (Case No. 1396), Zambia (Case No. 1406), Bahrain (Case No. 1413), Brazil (Case No. 1417), Denmark (Case No. 1421), Fiji (Case No. 1425) and Indonesia (Case No. 1431). As regards Cases Nos. 1420 (United States) and 1439 (United Kingdom), the Governments have indicated that their observations will be sent shortly. The Committee adjourned these cases and requests the Governments of these countries to transmit the information or observations requested.

6. As regards Case No. 1341 (Paraguay), Case No. 1385 (New Zealand), Case No. 1426 (Philippines), Case No. 1428 (India) and Case No. 1432 (Peru), the Committee has received the Governments' observations and intends to examine these cases in substance at its next meeting.

7. As regards Case No. 1397 (Argentina), in a communication of 9 March 1987, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) presented a complaint alleging that the Government had still not repealed Acts Nos. 21307 of 1976 on the fixing of wages and 22105 of 1979 on occupational workers' associations, both adopted by the military authorities when in power. According to the CGT, the numerous restrictions on freedom of association and collective bargaining contained in these Acts are still in force. In communications of 16 February and 28 April 1988, the Government states that the National Congress has approved Acts on collective bargaining and trade union associations. The Committee takes note of this information with interest and observes that it is now for the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to examine the new legislation in the context of its supervision of the application of Conventions ratified by Argentina.

8. As regards Case No. 1403 (Uruguay), at its February 1988 meeting the Committee examined one aspect of the case concerning the determination of essential services and the imposition of minimum services during certain strikes. The Government indicated in a letter of 9 May 1988 that its reply to the other aspects of the case, including numerous allegations of anti-union discrimination, would be sent shortly, in particular the report and resolution adopted by the Investigating Commission set up by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security so as to determine the truth of the allegations of SUA-VESTIMENTA. The Committee notes this information and awaits receipt of the report and resolution referred to.

9. As regards Cases Nos. 1429, 1434 and 1436 (Colombia), the Committee has been informed that, following meetings between the Director-General of the ILO and the Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Colombia in Geneva, it has been decided that a representative of the Director-General will visit Colombia in September 1988 with the aim of obtaining from the Government, workers' and employers' organisations precise and detailed information on the questions raised in the pending cases. Subsequently, in communicationsof 3 and 10 May 1988, the Government supplied certain information relating to Cases Nos. 1434 and 1436. The Committee proposes to examine these cases at its next meeting in November 1988 in the light of this information and the mission report of the representative of the Director-General.

Conference contacts

10. As regards the cases relating to Nicaragua (Cases Nos. 1129 and 1298 and the complaint lodged under article 26 of the ILO Constitution) and to Haiti (Case No. 1396), the Committee authorised its Chairman to contact the representatives of the Governments of Nicaragua and Haiti attending the next session of the International Labour Conference in order to discuss appropriate ways or procedures through which the Committee may pursue its examination of the questions outstanding in these cases.

URGENT APPEAL

11. As regards Case No. 1410 (Liberia), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the presentation of this complaint and despite the seriousness of the allegations involved,the Government has not transmitted the observations or information which had been requested from it. The Committee draws the attention of this Government to the fact that, in accordance 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 on its next meeting on the substance of this case even if the observations requested from the Government have not been received in time. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to transmit its observations as a matter of urgency.

12. 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. 1391 (United Kingdom) and 1430 (Canada/British Columbia).

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

13. As regards Case No. 1054 (Morocco), in a communication dated 21 April 1988, the Government states that a royal decision of 18 February 1988 ordered the reinstatement of all the persons who had been suspended because of their participation in the June 1981 collective work stoppage. The Government adds that the Minister of National Education has been in contact with the competent public sectors so as to normalise the situation of the public servants affected by suspension measures. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

14. As regards Case No. 1174 (Portugal), which the Committee examined in November 1983, the Trades Union International of Food, Tobacco, Hotel and Allied Industries' Workers indicated in a communication dated 30 December 1987 that its affiliate, the Federationof Unions in the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Industries (CGTP-IN) had, since December 1983, presented the Government with an order regulating work in the baking industry which had still not been adopted. In a communication of 12 April 1988, the Government explains that because of the disruption of negotiations in 1983 the complainant Federation had requested it to prepare a decree on the regulation of work. For this purpose the Government had agreed to set up a technical commission. Later, however, in December 1985, it decided not to promulgate the decree on regulation of work because it considered that the decree would infringe the national legislation since under Legislative Decree No. 519-C1/79 of 29 December 1979 (section 36), the publication of a decree on the regulation of work could not take place under certain circumstances. In view of this government decision, a notice of intention to extend the 1985 collective agreement was published; since the complainant Federation expressed its opposition, this extension did not take place. The Government adds that in 1988 the employers' associations of Alto and Bajo Alentejo and the Algarve completed negotiations with, on the one hand, the complainant Federation and, on the other, the rival democratic union for these regions. However, for the Lisbon region a collective agreement was concluded only with the democratic union. The labour commission accordingly considered that the publication of a decree on the regulation of work was not possible since the legal requirements had not been fulfilled, and it considered that the only solution should be for the Government to publish a decree extending the collective agreement that had been signed with that union which had concluded the negotiations. The Committee takes note of this information. It considers that section 36 of Legislative Decree No. 519-C1/79 which authorises the Minister of Labour to promulgate decrees on the regulation of work when (1) there is no workers' or employers' association, (2) one of the parties repeatedly refuses to negotiate and (3) the normal negotiation procedures are impeded by delaying action, is in conformity with the ILO's principles on freedom of association and collective bargaining. In the present case, since the democratic union had concluded a collective agreement with the employers' associations in 1988 for the Lisbon region, the Government could not promulgate a decree on the regulation of work without prejudicing the right of a union - including a minority union - to negotiate on behalf of its own members. The Committee accordingly considers that the fact that no decree was adopted on the regulation of work for the Lisbon region, where a rival union had concluded a collective agreement, did not infringe the principles of free collective bargaining.

15. As regards Case No. 1250 (Belgium), in a communication of 11 February 1988, the Government supplied a copy of the Decision of the Council of State dated 22 December 1987 which rejected the request made by the National Union of Independent Unions (UNSI) for cancellation of the Royal Decree of 1 August 1985 which had extended the mandate of the members of the National Labour Council. The Committee can only express the regret at the Council of State's decision and again requests the Government, as has the Committee of Experts in its March 1988 observation under Convention No. 87, to ensure that measures are taken to adopt, through legislation, objective, pre-established and precise criteria for the determination of access by workers' and employers' organisations to the National Labour Council and to the various public and private sector committees that formulate the collective agreements by which they are compulsorily bound.

16. As regards Case No. 1271 (Honduras), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of any developments in relation to the dispute in the Professional College of Honduran Magistrates (COLPROSUMAH). In a communication of 19 April 1988, the Government repeats its previous comments to the effect that the problems existing in COLPROSUMAH were of an internal, political and ideological nature. It indicates that the current executive committee of this union is in touch with members of the "genuine" committee in an effort to reach agreement. The Government repeats that the majority of those teachers dismissed because of the demonstrations at the root of this complaint have been reinstated. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

17. As regards Case No. 1330 (Guyana), the Government has supplied copies of the decision taken on 28 October 1987 by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Guyana deciding the non-constitutionality and the non-validity of certain sections of the Labour (Amendment) Act, No. 9 of 1984. The Committee takes note of this information and recommends that this decision be brought to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations for further consideration in the context of Conventions Nos. 98 and 151, ratified by Guyana.

18. As regards Case No. 1343 (Colombia), in a communication dated 24 February 1988 the Government states that the third circuit labour court of Bogotá has accepted proof allowing an exception to the time-limits and consequently acquitted the Entrecanales & Tavora and Vianini companies in the proceedings concerning the denial of trade union immunity brought by Mr. Pedro Antonio Rodríguez Rojas and his claim for reinstatement. This judgement was fully confirmed by the Higher Court of the Bogotá judicial district. The Government explains that, according to the Procedural Labour Code, each dismissed worker who enjoys tade union immunity can bring a reinstatement action with a two-month time-limit from the date of the dismissal. In Mr. Rodríguez Rojas' case the time-limit had run out when he had appealed to the Entrecanales & Tavora company. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed on the other outstanding issues in this case.

19. As regards Case No. 1354 (Greece), the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether the expiry of Act No. 1584 of 1985 had led to the cessation of the measures to protect the national economy which had restricted free collective bargaining. In a communication dated 23 March 1988, the Government states that these measures ceased on 31 December 1987 thus allowing workers to negotiate freely their conditions of work and wages. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

20. As regards Case No. 1369 (Honduras), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the trial concerning the violent death of the trade union leader, Cristóbal Pérez Díaz. In a communication dated 19 April 1988 the Government regrets that it has not been able to send information on this matter principally because neither his friends nor any organisation has brought proceedings to expedite the handling of the trial. The Government states that perhaps for jurisdictional reasons the case was transferred to the Third Criminal Court of San Pedro de Sula. The Committee takes note of this information and, taking into account the seriousness of this matter and the time which has transpired, urges the Government to obtain more precise information from the Third Criminal Court on the future proceedings in the trial, and to inform the Committee thereon.

21. As regards Case No. 1376 (Colombia) which the Committee examined at its February 1988 meeting, it had deplored the death or disappearance of a large number of trade unionists and had requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the various trials under way. In a communication dated 24 February 1988, the Government states that the Labour Circuit Court of Pasto had ordered the National Federation of Coffee Growers to reinstate the trade unionist, Marino Leonardo Rivera, who had been dismissed. The Government adds that in the case under way concerning the death of Carlos Betancourt Bedoya, the Higher Judge of Manizales has informed it that the file was returned to the Criminal Investigation Section of the Caldas department for further investigation. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of developments in the matters still outstanding in this case.

22. As regards Case No. 1398 (Honduras) which the Committee examined at its November 1987 meeting (see 253rd Report, paras. 227 to 245) it had requested the Government to keep it informed on the number of dismissed workers who had been reinstated by the new company owning the "El Mochito" mine. In a communication dated 19 April 1988, the Government refers to the standards and provisions of the Labour Code which protect trade union leaders against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee takes note of this information but observes that the Government has not indicated how many dismissed workers have been reinstated in the "El Mochito" mine. It consequently requests the Government to obtain this information from the new owners of the mine.

23. As regards Case No. 1415 (Australia) which the Committee examined at its February 1988 meeting (254th Report, paras. 255 to 287), it requested the Government to inform it of the outcome of the fresh application of the Customs Officers' Association of Australia (COAA) to alter its membership rules. In a communication dated 19 May 1988, the Government sends a copy of the decision of the Industrial Registrar dated 6 April 1988 which disallows the COAA's application on technical grounds. The Committee takes note of this information.

24. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1016 and 1258 (El Salvador), 1157, 1192 and 1353 (Philippines), 1176, 1195, 1215 and 1262 (Guatemala), 1189 (Kenya), 1261 (United Kingdom), 1279 (Portugal), 1282 and 1388 (Morocco), 1346 (India) and 1380 (Malaysia), the Committee again requests these Governments to keep it informed of developments in these various matters. The Committee hopes that these Governments will communicate the information requested at an early date.