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 23, 24 and 28 May 1991 under the chairmanship of Mr. Robert Ago, former Chairman of the Governing Body.

2. The members of the Committee of Indian, Panamanian and American nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to India (Cases Nos. 1479, 1514 and 1517), Panama (Case No. 1531) and the United States (Case No. 1543), respectively.

3. The Committee is currently seized of 75 cases in which complaints have been submitted to the Governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting it examined 28 cases in substance, reaching definitive conclusions in 10 cases and interim conclusions in 18 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 Paraguay (Case No. 1573), Morocco (Case No. 1574), Zambia (Case No. 1575), Norway (Case No. 1576), Turkey (Case No. 1577), Venezuela (Case No. 1578), Panama (Case No. 1580) and Thailand (Case No. 1581), concerning which it is awaiting information or observations from the Governments concerned. As regards Case No. 1579 (Peru), the Government indicated that it will provide its observations as soon as possible. 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 Philippines (Case No. 1444), Canada/Quebec (Case No. 1526), the United States (Case No. 1557), Argentina (Cases Nos. 1560 and 1567), Sierra Leone (Case No. 1564), Greece (Case No. 1565), Honduras (Case No. 1568) and Panama (Case No. 1569). As regards Cases Nos. 1523 (United States), 1542 and 1552 (Malaysia), 1553 (United Kingdom/Hong Kong), and 1559 (Australia), the Governments have stated that they will be sending their observations shortly. As regards Case No. 1504 (Dominican Republic), the Committee has again asked the complainant organisation to send as rapidly as possible its comments on the Government's reply.

6. As regards Cases Nos. 997, 999 and 1029 (Turkey), 1500 (China), 1532 (Argentina), 1545 (Poland), 1550 (India), 1556 (Iraq), 1563 (Iceland) and 1566 (Peru), the Committee intends to examine these cases in substance at its next meeting since it has just received the Governments' observations.

7. As regards Cases Nos. 1273, 1441, 1494 and 1524 (El Salvador), the Committee adjourned these cases since the Government's communication of 30 November 1990 - received in the ILO on 5 April 1991 - does not contain sufficiently detailed and up-to-date information to enable a thorough examination of them. Nevertheless, as the Committee, at its February 1991 meeting when it examined Case No. 1542, had requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to the country as soon as possible, it would again repeat this request. It urges the Government to respond favourably so that this mission can take place at the earliest possible time and thus be in a position to examine the serious allegations in all the outstanding cases.

8. As regards Case No. 1561 (Spain), the Committee requests the Government to send it the text of the judgement to be handed down by the legal authorities concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the collective agreement dated 11 April 1990 signed by two unions and the representatives of the municipal council of Alzira.

Contacts during the Conference

9. As regards the cases concerning Paraguay (Cases Nos. 1510 and 1546), the Committee asked its Chairman to contact the representative of the Government of Paraguay attending the 78th Session of the International Labour Conference, next June, in order to clarify certain aspects of these cases and, in particular, that the Government has not replied to the different requests for observations addressed to it.

URGENT APPEALS

10. As regards Cases Nos. 1434, 1477, 1555 and 1562 (Colombia), 1499 (Morocco), 1520 (Haiti), 1551 (Argentina) and 1572 (Philippines) the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the presentation of these complaints, these Governments have not transmitted the observations or information which had been requested. The Committee draws the attention of these Governments to the fact that, in accordance with 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 or information requested from the Governments have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests these Governments to transmit their observations as a matter of urgency.

11. The Committee is extremely worried by the lack of cooperation on the part of certain governments which do not send their observations on the complaints presented against them. The Committee must emphasise that such practices constitute a serious obstacle to its good functioning. It insists on the importance of governments sending rapid replies; it is in fact in their own interest to do so because, in any case, after a certain time has passed, the Committee examines the substance of the cases even if no reply has been received.

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. 1483 (Costa Rica), 1534 (Pakistan), 1549 (Dominican Republic), 1570 (Philippines) and 1571 (Romania).

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

13. As regards Case No. 1428 (India), when the Committee last examined it at its February 1989 meeting (262nd Report, paras. 173 to 202) it requested the Government to supply precise information on the charges brought against the trade union leader Ashit Dutta and against eight plantation workers from the Panery district, as well as to supply copies of the corresponding judicial decisions. In a communication dated 29 April 1991, the Government states that, according to the latest information from the Provincial Government of Assam, the case of Mr. Ashit Dutta is still pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Kokrajhar and the case of the eight plantation workers is before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Mangaldoi. The Government undertakes to send the text of the judgements in both cases upon receipt of them. The Committee takes note of this information and looks forward to receiving rapidly the texts in question.

14. As regards Case No. 1468 (India) concerning legal proceedings under way into the serious incidents between trade unions that took place in 1988 in the State of Tripura, at its February 1991 meeting the Committee took note of certain information and requested the Government to continue supplying information on a series of other incidents involving charges against named unionists and the outcome of complaints brought by named unionists. In a communication dated 29 April 1991, the Government states the following: with regard to the murder of Mr. Haripada Dey, 32 persons - including the two individuals named in the examination of this case - were accused and 26 of them were subsequently arrested and released on bail (in Kailashashar Police Station Case No. 14(1)/88) with arrest warrants outstanding against the remaining six who have absconded; the case is listed for its next hearing before the Chief Magistrate's Court at North Kailashashar on 7 May 1991. As regards the charges of mischief by fire with intent to destroy a house laid against Mr. D. Malla, Police Station Case No. 7(3)/88 is still awaiting trial before the Magistrate's Court at Belonia. Teliamura Police Station Case No. 5(4)/88, lodged by Mr. Sudhangshu Das, is awaiting trial in Khowai Subdivisional Magistrate's Court. Baikhora Police Station Case No. 5(5)/88, lodged this time by Mr. D. Malla alleging that he was shot at, remains before the police as the case records are still with the High Court (where they were requisitioned in connection with a different inquiry), but will most likely lead to charges being laid against three suspects. The complaint brought by Mr. S. Paul (Teliamura Police Station Case No. 5(2)/88) is awaiting trial before the Khowai Subdivisional Magistrate's Court. As for the charges relating to the capture of an office belonging to local union, criminal proceedings were registered, the case investigated and a trial commenced. The Committee takes note of these details and requests the Government to inform it of the final outcome of these seven different trials which, it trusts, will proceed without delay.

15. As regards Case No. 1471 (India) concerning the alleged anti-union dismissals of two airline pilots by the domestic airline Vayudoot, the Committee had requested the Government to send copies of the New Delhi High Court orders on this matter once they were handed down (275th Report, para. 22). In a communication dated 29 April 1991, the Government states that the writ petition filed by one of the pilots is still pending in the Delhi High Court and that the Committee's request for information has been brought to the notice of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to send it the final court decision on this dismissal when it is available.

16. As regards Case No. 1473 (Morocco), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the measures adopted by the management of the National Drinking Water Office (ONAP) so as to respect the trade union rights of its employees and to protect union leaders against measures of anti-union discrimination. In a communication dated 25 March 1991, the Government states that the ONAP management has offered reinstatement to nine workers who had been the subject of disciplinary dismissals (five are in fact back in their posts and four did not accept this offer). The Committee takes note of this information.

17. As regards Case No. 1511 (Australia), which was examined by the Committee at its February 1991 meeting (277th Report, paras. 151-246), by a communication dated 16 April 1991 the Government indicates that it had written to the four airlines which were involved in the dispute which gave rise to the complaint in this case on 28 March 1991 enclosing a copy of the Committee's decision, and expressing its "clear preference" that they should not seek to enforce the damages which had been awarded against the Australian Federation of Air Pilots by the Supreme Court of Victoria early in 1990. The Government had also asked the airlines to keep the Government's stated preference in mind in relation to the appeal proceedings which were still pending before the Supreme Court of Victoria, and to keep it advised of any significant developments in relation to the matter. According to the Government one of the airlines had acknowledged receipt of this letter, but otherwise there was nothing further to report at this juncture. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government, and again asks it to keep it apprised of the matters set out in paragraph 246(c) and (d) of the Committee's 277th Report.

18. As regards Case No. 1513 (Malta), when the Committee last examined this case at its May 1990 meeting, it requested the Government to keep it informed of future developments concerning the union representation conflict in the Customs and Excise Department between the General Workers' Union (GWU) and the Union Haddiema Maghqudin (UHM). In a communication dated 12 March 1991, the Government states that as no new evidence has been brought by the GWU on this matter, its position remains as stated in previous government communications. It adds that it has persevered in its efforts of conciliation and in consultation with both unions is currently seeking acceptance of the holding of a secret ballot to settle the issue. It believes that there is some reason for optimism at this stage of the negotiations. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of any representation ballot which could finally, it trusts, settle this matter.

19. As regards Case No. 1521 (Turkey), the Committee reached definitive conclusions at its May 1990 meeting (see 273rd Report, paras. 19 to 40) and requested the Government to amend the legislative provisions applying to staff in public enterprises and which restrict their trade union rights, as well as their right to bargain collectively and to strike. At its November 1990 meeting, the Committee reiterated its request to that effect (see 275th Report, para. 27) and drew this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts. In a communication dated 8 February 1991, the Government repeats its previous arguments on the exception provided in Article 6 of Convention No. 98 and argues that "national conditions" as mentioned in Article 4 of same Convention, must be taken into account in defining those employees who are "engaged in the administration of the State". The Government reiterates that the legal provisions which consider "civil servants" and to some extent "contract employees" as engaged in the administration of the State are in conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalls once again that the ILO supervisory bodies have always construed narrowly the wording of Article 6, so that only a limited number of state employees can be denied the right to bargain collectively guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee accordingly again requests the Government to amend the provisions of Decree No. 399 so as to ensure that staff in public enterprises enjoy the rights set out in Convention No. 98, ratified by Turkey.

20. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1054 and 1388 (Morocco), 1168 (El Salvador), 1189 (Kenya), 1341, 1435, 1446, 1482 and 1519 (Paraguay), 1353, 1495 and 1529 (Philippines), 1396 (Haiti), 1408, 1485 and 1501 (Venezuela), 1413 (Bahrein), 1417, 1461 and 1509 (Brazil), 1419 (Panama), 1438 (Canada), 1467 (United States), 1493 (Cyprus), 1502 (Peru), 1505 (Barbados) and 1528 (Germany), the Committee again requests these Governments to keep it informed of developments in the various matters. The Committee hopes that these Governments will communicate the information requested at an early date.