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 15, 16 and 20 February 1990 under the chairmanship of Mr. Roberto Ago, former Chairman of the Governing Body.

2. The members of the Committee of Indian and Venezuelan nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to India (Cases Nos. 1468 and 1471) and Venezuela (Cases Nos. 1485 and 1501), respectively.

3. The Committee is currently seized of 61 cases in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting it examined 24 cases in substance, reaching definitive conclusions in 10 cases and interim conclusions in 14 cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

4. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the cases relating to Bolivia (Case No. 1516), India (Case No. 1517), the United Kingdom (Case No. 1518), Paraguay (Case No. 1519), Haiti (Case No. 1520) and Turkey (Case No. 1521), 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 El Salvador (Cases Nos. 1273 and 1506), Nepal (Case No. 1337), Paraguay (Cases Nos. 1341, 1435 and 1446, Cyprus (Case No. 1493), Morocco (Case No. 1499) and Peru (Case No. 1502). In addition, as regards Cases Nos. 1425 (Fiji) and 1426 and 1444 (Philippines), the Governments have stated that they will be sending their observations soon. In Cases Nos. 1491 (Trinidad and Tobago) and 1511 (Australia) the Governments concerned have sent their observations but the complainants have meanwhile sent additional information which has been transmitted to the respective Governments for their observations. The Committee adjourns these cases and requests the governments of these countries to transmit the information or observations requested.

6. As regards Cases Nos. 1483 (Costa Rica) and 1505 (Barbados), the Committee has received the Governments' observations. The Committee intends to examine these cases in substance at its next meeting.

7. As regards Case No. 1413 (Bahrain), the Government communicated by letter dated 26 July 1989 a copy of the judgement requested by the Committee, as well as certain comments on the case of Mr. Al Kassab. In a communication received on 29 January 1990 the complainant organisation also forwarded its comments on this judgement. Therefore, the Committee cannot but postpone the examination of this case until its next meeting, and requests the Government rapidly to send its observations on the new information and comments submitted by the complainant organisation.

8. As regards Cases Nos. 1419 and 1476 (Panama), the previous Government had sent its observations in a communication dated 26 October 1989. In a communication of 7 February 1990, the new Government recently sent certain observations concerning these cases and stated that it would send new information; it added that, because of the destruction of certain public offices during the fall of the previous regime, it has not been possible to obtain all the information requested. The Committee hopes to receive this information shortly.

9. As for Cases Nos. 1441/1491 (El Salvador), when the Committee last examined them at its meeting in November 1989 it had received further observations from the Government and new allegations from the complainant. The allegations were transmitted to the Government for its comments. Since the Committee has not received these further comments from the Government, it adjourns its examination of these cases and requests the Government to send its detailed observations on them as a matter of urgency.

10. As regards Cases Nos. 1455, 1456, 1496 and 1515 (Argentina), at its meeting in November 1989 the Committee noted the Government's proposal that a direct contacts mission visit the country to examine the issues raised in these cases. Therefore the Committee proposes to examine them at its forthcoming May meeting in the light of the information obtained by the mission which is to take place soon.

11. As regards Cases Nos. 1479 and 1514 (India), the Government sent replies in relation to these cases on 18 October 1989 and 15 January 1990 respectively. These replies were only partial due to the fact that the Government was waiting for further information from the state governments concerned. Accordingly, by a letter of 29 January 1990, the Government asked that consideration of these cases be deferred to enable it to provide full responses to all of the allegations raised by the complainants. The Committee takes note of these communications and decides to adjourn its examination of these cases to await the Government's full reply.

Direct contacts

12. As regards Case No. 1492 (Romania), the Committee, when it most recently examined this case at its November 1989 meeting, requested the Government to send additional observations on the various allegations pending in this case. In a communication dated 9 February 1990, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) refers to the recent changes in Romania and considers that, despite the fact that it would appear that certain previously detained persons have been released, the Committee should nevertheless seek further clarifications on the present trade union situation. It requests the Committee to consider the possibility of sending a direct contacts mission to Romania at the earliest opportunity in order to examine any outstanding issues relating to the complaint, as well as to explore the potential areas where ILO assistance might be envisaged in the trade union field. The Committee takes note of this information from the ICFTU and directs the Director-General of the ILO to undertake the appropriate consultations with the Government so that a direct contacts mission to Romania may take place shortly, and to inform the Committee in this connection.

Withdrawal of complaints

13. As regards Case No. 1489 (Cyprus), the Democratic Labour Federation of Cyprus (DEOK), in two communications dated 12 and 20 February 1989, lodged a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in Cyprus. The Government forwarded its observations in a communication dated 26 October 1989 in which it stated, inter alia, that the measures affecting DEOK's members had been reconsidered and that the final outcome was clearly accepted by DEOK. In a communication dated 18 January 1990, DEOK states that it does not intend to pursue the case further before the Committee. The Committee takes note of this information and accordingly decides that the case does not call for further examination.

14. As regards Case No. 1507 (Turkey), the complainant organisation, the International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees (FIET) officially withdrew this case by letter dated 29 January 1990, on the ground that the union which had initiated the complaint (BANKS) merged as of 21 October 1989 with another union (BASISEN), which in turn asked FIET to request such withdrawal. The Committee takes note of this official request and considers that this case does not call for further examination.

URGENT APPEALS

15. As regards Cases Nos. 1503 (Peru), 1510 (Paraguay) and 1512 (Guatemala), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the presentation of these complaints and the seriousness of the allegations in them, the Governments have not transmitted the observations or information which had been requested from them. As regards Case No. 1512 (Guatemala), by a communication dated 13 February 1990 the Government asks for additional time in which to present its observations. The Committee draws the attention of the 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 on the substance of these cases at its next meeting even if the observations requested from the Governments have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests the Governments to transmit its observations as a matter of urgency.

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

16. As regards Case No. 1054 (Morocco), the Committee had requested the Government's observations on the allegations contained in a communication dated 15 November 1988 of the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) according to which all workers apart from those employed in the education and public health sectors (i.e. those engaged in agriculture, urban transport, local collectives and water and electricity distribution companies) who had been dismissed due to the 1981 strike, had still not been reinstated in their posts. In a communication dated 2 February 1990, the Government limits itself to repeating that by a royal decision of 18 February 1988, all those who had been suspended or dismissed have been readmitted and that it considered the case closed. The Committee takes note of this most recent communication from the Government and again requests it to transmit as soon as possible the text of the decision referred to, as well as its observations on the CDT's further allegations.

17. As regards Case No. 1189 (Kenya), the Committee, at its meeting in February 1989, had urged the Government to send a detailed report on the measures that it was going to adopt to re-establish the right to form trade unions of public servants and on the situation concerning the assets which had been confiscated from the Kenya Civil Servants' Welfare Association. In a communication dated 10 January 1990, the Government states that consultations between the Ministry of Labour and the competent national authorities are at an advanced stage and that it will very soon be informing the Committee of the progress made in this matter. While taking note of the Government's communication, the Committee can only reiterate its request for detailed information on the matters still pending in this case.

18. As regards Case No. 1250 (Belgium), the Independent Union of Railway Workers (SIC/OVS), in a communication of 13 April 1989, claimed that the Government had not followed up on the Committee's recommendations concerning protection of the activities of a minority organisation and alleged that the Belgian National Railways Company (SNCB) was continuing to deny it the right to act as a trade union organisation in the name of its affiliates and, in particular, was threatening to dismiss the national president of the SIC if he continued the unauthorised distribution of union pamphlets. According to the SIC, the SNCB believed that the pamphlets might incite inter-union rivalries and debate harmful to the running of the enterprise and the good will prevailing among its staff. In a communication of 12 January 1990, the Government transmits the opinions of two unions which are representative in the SNCB and affected by this affair, namely the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions of Belgium (CSCB) and the General Federation of Labour of Belgium (FGTB). The CSCB explains that following the Committee's recommendations of November 1987 (see 253rd Report, para. 21), the SNCB issued an internal order according to which the SIC/OVS - although not an acknowledged or recognised trade union - was granted the possibility of presenting complaints and making individual requests to chiefs of branches so as: to be able to act in its members' interests; to help its members (if they so ask) in administrative inquiries; to assist staff members in presenting requests or in making oral presentations before their superiors in disciplinary matters; and in defending staff members before the Appeal Council. The CSCB adds that SIC/OVS delegates were granted time off so as to carry out these various activities in accordance with the usual arrangements in force. As regards more particularly the complainant's recent allegations, the CSCB states that this concerns an individual situation by virtue of a disciplinary decision which apparently has not been contested before Belgian courts. The FGTB states that the publications distributed by the SIC/OVS were drafted in an unacceptable manner as they tried to discredit the officers of the representative unions and their organisations; they also contained an appeal to FGTB members to leave that union. In conclusion, the FGTB believes that the SNCB treats all the unions equally, whether recognised or not, and that it has in the past had occasion to ask the SNCB management to revise information it had distributed since it was not in conformity with the established standards. The Committee takes note of this information and trusts that the principles of freedom of association will be respected both as regards representative unions and minority unions.

19. As regards Case No. 1346 (India), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals introduced by a number of medical representatives dismissed from the Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. for having participated in an illegal strike in 1983, and to transmit a copy of the judgement when handed down. In a communication of 29 January 1990, the Government transmits a copy of the relevant judgement of the Bombay Labour Court according to which the company is ordered to reinstate 16 medical representatives in their original posts at the original level of pay with continuity in service as from their date of dismissal without any back wages. According to the judgement, the company was entitled to terminate the services of seven probationary medical representatives because of their unsatisfactory performance and because they had not approached and satisfied the management as regards improving their performance. The Committee takes note of this information.

20. As regards Case No. 1385 (New Zealand), the Committee last examined this case at its meeting in May 1989 and requested the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken to re-examine the union registration system established under the 1987 Labour Relations Act. In a communication dated 12 December 1989, the New Zealand Employers' Federation expressed its concern at the Government's attitude to the recommendations of the Committee showing an apparent non-implementation of these recommendations. This communication was transmitted to the Government for its comments. The Committee notes that no reply from the Government has so far been received and asks it once again to re-examine all the legislative aspects of this case so as to bring the 1987 Act into conformity with Convention No. 87 and to inform the Committee accordingly.

21. As regards Case No. 1408 (Venezuela), in a communication dated 19 January 1990, the Government repeats the information supplied earlier, namely that the request of the Autonomous Union of Workers of the Central Bank of Venezuela is being processed in the normal manner by the Supreme Administrative Court and thus any government action concerning the granting of legal personality to this union is impossible. The Committee takes note of the Government's communication and awaits information on developments in this matter once the Supreme Administrative Court has handed down its judgement.

22. As regards Case No. 1437 (United States) last examined in substance in May 1988 (see 256th Report, paras. 214-237, as well as 259th Report, para. 24) the Government had informed the Committee that certain unfair labour practice charges filed by the complainant against the multinational enterprise BASF for actions at its Geismar, Louisiana plant had been dismissed by the NLRB Regional Director and that the subcontracting issue was before the Division of Advice. The Committee hoped that there would be a rapid conclusion of the matter. In a communication dated 2 February 1990, the Government states that on 6 February 1989, the Division of Advice concluded that the allegations referred for review should be dismissed and that consequently the NLRB Regional Director dismissed the allegations relating to subcontracting, a dismissal which was affirmed on 3 April 1989 by the Office of Appeals. The Government adds that decisions of the Office of Appeals are final and are not subject to judicial review. (Copies of all the decisions are provided by the Government.) It stresses that on 18 December 1989, the complainant's affiliate ratified a new three-year contract with BASF at Geismar, Louisiana, ending the five-and-a-half year dispute. The new agreement specifically provides that maintenance workers whose jobs had been permanently subcontracted during the lock-out shall be rehired. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

23. As regards Case No. 1487 (Brazil), the Committee last examined it at its May 1989 meeting and requested the Government to indicate whether the Workers' Central Organisation (CUT) had been duly registered and to keep it informed of any developments in this area. In a communication dated 16 November 1989, the Government states that the 1988 Constitution removed the necessity of registration or recognition for unions and definitively removed from the Ministry of Labour the possibility of intervening in the granting of legal personality to a trade union. The Government adds that while the new law is being adopted which will determine which is the competent body for registration of unions, all those unions which have been created since the adoption of the Constitution have been registered on the Register of Titles and Documents in accordance with the Act on Public Registers. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

24. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1168 (El Salvador), 1353 (Philippines), 1369 (Honduras), 1376 (Colombia), 1388 and 1473 (Morocco), 1396 (Haiti), 1417, 1461 and 1481 (Brazil), 1428 (India), 1438 (Canada), 1449 (Mali) 1467 (United States), and 1482 (Paraguay), 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.