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 3, 4, 7 and 10 November 1988 under the chairmanship of Mr. Roberto Ago, former Chairman of the Governing Body.

2. The member of the Committee of New Zealand nationality was not present during the examination of the case relating to New Zealand (Case No. 1385).

3. The Committee is currently seized of 74 cases in which the complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting it examined 33 cases in substance, reaching definitive conclusions in 17 cases and interim conclusions in 16 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 Venezuela (Case No. 1453), Argentina (Cases Nos. 1455 and 1456), Iceland (Case No. 1458), Uruguay (Case No. 1460), Brazil (Case No. 1461), Liberia (Case No. 1463), Honduras (Case No. 1464), Spain (Cases Nos. 1466, 1472 and 1474), Denmark (Case No. 1470), India (Case No. 1471), Morocco (Case No. 1473), Panama (Cases Nos. 1475 and 1476) and Colombia (Case No. 1477) 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 or complainants concerned in the cases relating to El Salvador (Case No. 1168), Czechoslovakia (Case No. 1402), Paraguay (Cases Nos. 1435, 1440 and 1446), Canada (Cases Nos. 1438 and 1451), the United Kingdom (Case No. 1439) and St. Lucia (Case No. 1447). As for Case No. 1412 (Venezuela), the Government has stated that the judicial proceedings are continuing. Likewise, for Case No. 1468 (India) the Government has indicated that it has requested information from the State Government where the incidents alleged in this case occurred and will not fail to transmit the comments as soon as they are received. The Committee again adjourned these cases and requests the Governments of these countries to transmit the information or observations requested.

6. As regards Case No. 1406 (Zambia), Case No. 1419 (Panama), Case No. 1428 (India), Case No. 1445 (Peru), Case No. 1448 (Norway), Case No. 1467 (the United States) and Case No. 1469 (Netherlands), the Committee has received the Governments' observations and intends to examine these cases in substance at its next meeting.

7. As regards Case No. 1396 (Haiti), the Chairman of the Committee met the Haitian Government delegation on 17 June 1988 at the International Labour Conference. During that meeting, it was decided that the direct contacts mission mandated to study the measures adopted to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on the employment of Haitian workers on the sugar plantations in the Dominican Republic, would also discuss with the Haitian Government the issues related to the case pending before the Committee. This mission took place in Haiti from 15 to 19 October 1988. The Committee intends to examine this case at its next session on the basis of information gathered by the mission and any information addressed by the Government to the Committee before February 1989.

8. The Committee examined Case No. 1425 (Fiji) at its February 1988 meeting, at which time it presented an interim report (see 254th Report, paras. 505-523) requesting the Government to send its observations on the allegations set out in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 8 February 1988. A subsequent communication from the ICFTU dated 19 February 1988 was also forwarded to the Government for comment. The Government wrote to the ILO on 27 September 1988 reiterating its earlier view "that all trade union rights under existing law have been fully restored"; attached to this letter was a copy of the recently promulgated Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Decree 1988. The Government's letter does not, however, address the specific allegations set out in the communications from the ICFTU dated 8 and 19 February 1988. The Committee again requests the Government to send its observations on these allegations.

9. As regards Case No. 1462 (Burkina Faso) concerning alleged government interference in trade union activities, the Government sent its observations in a communication dated 13 September 1988. Subsequently, the complainant sent a communication dated 15 September 1988 containing additional information, which was communicated to the Government for its observations. The Committee accordingly adjourns its examination of this case and awaits receipt of the Government's further observations.

URGENT APPEALS

10. As regards Cases Nos. 1417 (Brazil), 1421 (Denmark) and 1444 (Philippines), the Committee observes that, despite the time which had elapsed since the presentation of these complaints, the Governments have not transmitted the observations or information which had been requested from them. The Committee draws the attention of these Governments 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 at its next meeting on thesubstance of these cases even if the observations requested from the Government have not been received in time. The Committee accordingly requests the Governments to transmit their observations as a matter of urgency.

11. 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 and 1029 (Turkey), 1341 (Paraguay), 1431 (Indonesia), 1434 and 1465 (Colombia), 1443 (Denmark), 1450 (Peru) and 1459 (Guatemala).

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

12. As regards Cases Nos. 988 and 1003 (Sri Lanka) further information had been requested from the Government on the final outcome of the High Court proceedings against five trade unionists (which have been pending before various jurisdictions since the unionists were arrested in 1980). In a communication dated 23 May 1988 the Government states that the High Court hearings continued on 12 November 1987, 31 March and 6 May 1988 and a further hearing is scheduled for 5 September 1988. The Government undertakes to communicate further information when the case is heard. The Committee takes note of this information and trusts that the court proceedings will soon be completed.

13. As regards Case No. 1016 (El Salvador), the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether the verdict convicting Messrs. José Dimas Valle and Santiago Gómez González of the murder of the Salvadorian trade unionist Rodolfo Viera and of the two United States trade unionists Mark Pearlman and Mike Hammer was final and confirmed. In a communication dated 1 June 1988 the Government states that the culprits were sentenced by the Fifth Criminal Court of San Salvador to 30 years' imprisonment each and that the verdict of guilty was definitive. However, it points out that under the Amnesty Act of October 1987, in the interests of national reconciliation both the convicted parties benefited from the amnesty and were released on 19 December 1987. The Committee, while taking note of this information, draws the attention of the Government of El Salvador to the principle that a climate of violence such as that surrounding the murder of trade unionists constitutes a serious obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights and that such acts require severe measures to be taken by the authorities.

14. As regards Case No. 1261 (United Kingdom) concerning the right to organise of workers at the General Communications Headquarters(GCHQ) (see 234th Report, paras. 343-371 (May 1984) and 253rd Report, para. 22), the three complainants in the case - the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on 4 October 1988 supported by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions on 5 October 1988, and the Public Services International on 10 October 1988 - have expressed their concern at a government announcement of 29 September 1988 directed at the remaining 18 trade unionists working at GCHQ. According to the complainants, the workers have been warned that they must renounce their union membership by 14 October 1988 or be dismissed with compensation. The ILO immediately informed the Government of these organisations' concern. Subsequently, in communications of 19 October 1988, the ICFTU and TUC state that four union members employed at GCHQ have received immediate dismissal notices. The Office requested the Government to send its observations on this matter and, in a letter of 27 October 1988, the Government did so. It states that its action to implement the government decision of 25 January 1984 - which gave rise to the presentation of Case No. 1261 - has been proceeding since that date and the overwhelming majority of staff at GCHQ have accepted the new conditions of service requiring them not to join or remain in membership of a national trade union or to transfer to posts where membership could be retained. Nearly all the remainder have either transferred voluntarily to suitable posts elsewhere in the civil service where they could retain their union membership, or have opted for voluntary departure with the generous compensation which normally applies in cases of redundancy. As indicated in the announcement of 29 September 1988, only 18 members of a national trade union remained at GCHQ at that date, and the announcement set out the steps which the Government is taking in respect of these. The Government maintains that, since the original announcement of 25 January 1984, every opportunity has been extended to the small group of staff who retained their membership of a national trade union to acccept the terms and conditions of employment for GCHQ staff introduced on 25 January 1984 or to transfer to other employment in the civil service. However, the Government now takes the view that its decision of 25 January 1984 must be fully implemented. The terms of that decision were fully recorded in the documentation which the Committee had before it when it reached its original conclusions and recommendations in Case No. 1261 and the Government's view is that the matters referred to in the complainants' letters of October 1988 raise no new issues for consideration. The Government invites the Committee to conclude accordingly. The Committee regrets that it must recall once again that the ILO supervisory bodies found that the unilateral action taken by the Government to deprive a category of public service workers of their right to belong to a trade union was not in conformity with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), ratified by the United Kingdom. The Committee hopes that the Government will reconsider the matter in the light of the above considerations.

15. As regards Case No. 1282 (Morocco), the Committee had requested the Government to inform it of the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the appeals lodged by the workers and the employer in the Moroccan company Vincent Computers in Mohammedia against the decision handed down by the Court of First Instance in the matter of the dismissal of striking workers in January and February 1984. In a communication dated 30 May 1988, the Government states that the Court of Appeal has stayed its decision on this issue since it is awaiting further information. The Committee regrets the delays in the administration of justice in this case and again requests the Government to indicate whether the dismissed workers have been reinstated in their jobs.

16. As regards Case No. 1340 (Morocco), at its February 1988 meeting the Committee took note of the information provided by the Government in a communication dated 18 November 1987 (see 254th Report, para. 22), according to which the Appeals Court of Rabat had confirmed the sentences handed down by the Court of First Instance against various miner trade unionists dismissed after a strike in the Al Hamman mine. In a subsequent communication dated 30 May 1988, the Government specifies that the dismissals were based on serious misconduct (common law crimes) and were not linked to the simple fact of having organised or participated in a peaceful strike, that is, acts punishable under the law including attacks on public order, unauthorised demonstrations and obstructing the exercise of the right to work. As regards the possible reintegration of the dismissed workers, the Government points out that the administrative authorities have not been empowered to reconsider a decision handed down by the judicial authorities. The Committee takes note of this information.

17. As regards Case No. 1343 (Colombia), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the trial and investigations under way concerning a certain number of dead or disappeared trade unionists. In communications dated 19 July and 14 October 1988, the Government states that proceedings are continuing in the various cases concerning the deaths of Rubén Darío Castaño, Dionisio Hernán Calderón, Javier Sanabria Murcia, Jorge Leonel Roldán Posada, Pedro Antonio Contreras Salcedo, Hernando Jate Bonilla and Miguel Angel Puerta. It also supplies information on the efforts made to investigate the disappearances of Oliverio Hernández Leal, Ignacio Soto Bedoya and José Aldemar Cardona, José Diomedes Cedeño and Héctor Perdomo Soto. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to continue supplying information on developments in the various outstanding matters.

18. As regards Case No. 1354 (Greece), which the Committee examined most recently at its February 1986 meeting, the outstanding issue related to the alleged government interference in trade union activities. In a communication dated 10 June 1988, 47 trade union organisations in dispute with the General Confederation of Labour of Greece (CGTG) presented new allegations concerning government interference in the trade union activities of the CGTG. These allegations were transmitted to the Government, and the Committee requests it to supply its observations on this matter.

19. As regards Case No. 1369 (Honduras), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the trial concerning the death of the trade union leader, Cristóbal Pérez Díaz. In communications dated 17 May and 1 September 1988, the Government transmits a statement from the judge of the 3rd Criminal Court explaining that inquiries to clarify the death of this unionist are at the indictment stage. The Committee takes note of this information and draws the Government's attention to the length of time which has elapsed since the incident occurred (10 May 1986). It urges the Government to try to accelerate the handling of this matter and to inform the Committee thereon.

20. As regards Case No. 1376 (Colombia), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the trials concerning the death or disappearances of unionists which were under way. In communications dated 24 August and 14 October 1988, the Government states that the proceedings concerning the murder of Fernando Bahomán Molina, Luis Francisco Guzmán Rincón, Bernardino García Silva and Jaime de Jesús Blandón are continuing before the competent courts. It also supplies information on inquiries concerningthe disappearance of Gentil Plaza and Gildardo Ortiz, which are continuing. The Government adds that it will inform the Committee of the outcome of the appeal lodged in the trial against the dismissal of Gerardo Guerrero Ibagué as soon as it is known. The Committee takes note of this information.

21. As regards Case No. 1398 (Honduras), the Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government in April 1988 and requested it to indicate how many dismissed workers would be able to be reinstated by the new owners of the "El Mochito" mine. In communications dated 17 May and 1 September 1988, the Government states that, to date, no union has been established in the new mining enterprise called "American Pacific Honduras Inc." since the workers have not decided on one. It adds that this is the case despite the effective application of the provisions which protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Government states that the new company has given contracts to 689 workers, 613 of which are permanent, 76 temporary and 223 were transferred to the "Rosario Resources Corporation". The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

22. As regards Case No. 1408 (Venezuela) which the Committee examined at its May 1988 meeting, it requested the Government to take the necessary measures to speed up the consideration of the question of the granting of legal personality to the Independent Union of Employees of the Central Bank of Venezuela and to keep it informed of the action taken in this regard. In a communication dated 5 October 1988, the Government repeats the information already supplied previously to the effect that, given their status as civil servants, the employees of the Central Bank should request registration as a trade union from the Central Personnel Office and not from the Ministry of Labour. The Government indicates that the delay in the granting of legal personality is due to the appeals made against the decision of the Ministry of Labour to the Administrative Disputes Authority where proceedings are following their normal course. The Committee sees no reason to modify the conclusions and recommendations it had adopted in this case.

23. As regards Case No. 1415 (Australia), the Committee examined this matter at its meeting in February 1988 (254th Report, paras. 253-287) and requested the Government to keep it informed of any changes to the facilities accorded to the complainant consequent upon the outcome of its fresh application for industrial coverage of the customs officers involved in the complaint. At its May 1988 meeting (256th Report, para. 23) the Committee noted that on 6 April 1988 the Deputy Industrial Registrar had disallowed the complainant's most recent attempt to vary its eligibility rule because of technical defects in the application. In a communication dated 31 October 1988 the Government advises that the complainant had recently sought a variation of an award to which it was party in respect of certain workers whom it believed were covered by its existing eligibility rule. The Committee takes note of this further information and asks the Government to keep it informed as to the position in relation to the complainant's attempts to vary its eligibility rule, and to the practical consequences of the decision of the Deputy Industrial Registrar dated 6 April 1988.

24. The Committee examined Case No. 1437 (United States), at its meeting in May 1988 (see 256th Report, paras. 214-237) and requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the unfair labourpractices charges lodged before the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) against the multinational enterprise BASF, based at Geismar, Louisiana. In a communication of 15 September 1988, the Government forwards copies of NLRB correspondence which state that (i) certain aspects of the charges were dismissed by the Regional Director and this dismissal has been appealed against; and (ii) since the issue of subcontracting is very complex and the case is extremely important for the parties and the public, this aspect has been referred to the Division of Advice and both sides have been given opportunities to makeadditional presentations. Notwithstanding these factors, it continues,the NLRB expects to reach a decision in the very near future and will inform the ILO thereon. The Committee takes note of this information and hopes that there will be a rapid conclusion of this matter.

25. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1157, 1192 and 1353 (Philippines), 1195, 1215 and 1262 (Guatemala), 1189 (Kenya), 1258 (El Salvador), 1279 (Portugal), 1346 (India), 1380 (Malaysia) and 1388 (Morocco), 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.