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 5, 6 and 11 November 1992, under the chairmanship of Mr. Roberto Ago, former Chairman of the Governing Body.

2. The members of the Committee of Indian, American and Australian nationalities were not present during the examination of the cases relating to India (Cases Nos. 1517 and 1591), United States (Cases Nos. 1523 and 1557) and Australia (Case No. 1559).

3. The Committee is currently seized of 111 cases, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting it examined 40 cases in substance, reaching definitive conclusions in 22 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 Morocco (Cases Nos. 1646 and 1671), Côte d'Ivoire (Case No. 1647), Nicaragua (Cases Nos. 1649, 1655 and 1673), India (Case No. 1651), Argentina (Cases Nos. 1653, 1660 and 1662), Paraguay (Case No. 1654), El Salvador (Case No. 1659), Peru (Case No. 1661), Ecuador (Cases Nos. 1664, 1665 and 1667), Guatemala (Case No. 1666), Cyprus (Case No. 1668), Chad (Case No. 1669), Canada (Case No. 1670), Venezuela (Case No. 1672), Denmark (Case No. 1674) and Senegal (Case No. 1675), because it is awaiting information and observations from the governments concerned. All these cases relate to complaints submitted since the last meeting of the Committee.

Observations requested from the governments

5. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the cases relating to Morocco (Case No. 1589), Lesotho (Case No. 1590), Uruguay (Cases Nos. 1596 and 1627), Lebanon (Case No. 1608), Peru (Case No. 1609), Philippines (Case No. 1615), Russian Federation (Case No. 1634), Togo (Case No. 1637), Argentina (Case No. 1639) and the Central African Republic (Case No. 1645). In Cases Nos. 1561 (Spain) and 1600 (Czech and Slovak Republic) the governments have announced that they will be sending their observations shortly. The Committee adjourns all these cases and asks the governments concerned to send the information or observations requested.

Observations requested from the governments and the complainants

6. In Cases Nos. 1551 (Argentina) and 1618 (United Kingdom), the Committee is still awaiting receipt of the comments requested from the complainants. The Committee is still awaiting observations from both the governments and complainants concerning Cases Nos. 1554 (Honduras) and 1573 (Paraguay). In Case No. 1578 (Venezuela), the Committee received certain observations from the Government, but is still awaiting additional information from the complainants. The Committee requests the governments and complainants concerned to transmit urgently the observations and information requested from them.

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1527, 1541 and 1648/1650 (Peru), 1552 (Malaysia), 1568 (Honduras), 1612 (Venezuela) and 1652 (China), the governments have sent certain information on the allegations made. The Committee requests them to send the remaining information without delay so that it can examine these cases in full knowledge of all the facts. In Case No. 1641 (Denmark), the complainant sent further information on the eve of the Committee's meeting; the Government is invited to make its observations on this latest communication.

Observations received from governments

8. The Committee intends to examine the substance of Cases Nos. 1434/1477, 1562, 1620 and 1625 (Colombia), 1621 (Sri Lanka), 1623 (Bulgaria), 1624 (Canada/Nova Scotia), 1629 (Republic of Korea), 1630 (Malta), 1632 (Greece), 1640 (Morocco), 1657 (Portugal), 1658 (Dominican Republic) and 1663 (Peru) at its next meeting.

Withdrawal of a complaint

9. As regards Case No. 1587 (Canada/British Columbia), the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) presented a complaint on behalf of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation (BCTF) and the Canadian Teachers' Federation (CTF), concerning the enactment of the Compensation Fairness Act S.B.C 1991. In a communication of 28 January 1992, the CTF indicated that the BCTF requested the Committee not to proceed with the complaint at that time and to suspend its examination of the case. The Committee therefore suspended its examination of this case pending further information from the complainants and the Government (281st Report, para. 10). In a communication of 16 September 1992, the WCOTP formally withdraws this complaint citing its affiliates' statement that the impugned legislation has been repealed. In a communication of 14 September 1992, the Government states that the above-mentioned Act was repealed on 31 July 1992 by Regulation B.C.Reg. 235/92, a copy of which it supplies. The Committee takes note of this information with satisfaction and decides that this case requires no further examination.

URGENT APPEALS

10. As regards Cases Nos. 1638 (Malawi) and 1643 (Morocco), the Committee observes that despite the time which has elapsed since the presentation of these complaints, it has not received the Governments' observations. As regards Cases Nos. 1273, 1441/1494 and 1524 (El Salvador), the Government has sent some information but the Committee notes that despite the seriousness of the allegations in these cases and its repeated requests to the Government to accept a direct contacts mission, the Government has not, to date, sent full comments or a favourable reply concerning the direct contacts mission. The Committee draws all these Governments' attention to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of the cases at its next meeting even if the information or observations requested from the Governments have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests the Governments to transmit their observations or information 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. 1508 (Sudan) and 1633 (United Kingdom/Isle of Man).

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

12. As regards Cases Nos. 997, 999 and 1029 (Turkey), the Committee, at its May 1992 meeting, noted the information sent by the Government indicating that legislative amendments were being undertaken for the return of the DISK's assets, and amendments were being prepared to Act No. 2821 on Trade Unions and to Act No. 2822 on Collective Bargaining, Strikes and Lock-outs (283rd Report, para. 14). In a communication dated 25 September 1992, the Government states that the draft Bill on the return of DISK's assets has been prepared and is now before the Grand National Assembly. It adds that if this Bill is adopted, the assets will be returned with the accrued interest. As regards the minimum numbers required for representativity for collective bargaining purposes, the Government states that the social partners are maintaining their opposition to repeal of this requirement, as a result of which it does not consider itself to be in a position to propose amendments to the law on this point. The Committee takes note of this information and expresses the hope that the Bill on the DISK's assets will be adopted shortly.

13. As regards Case No. 1271 (Honduras), which involved alleged government interference in the dispute between two rival executive committees within the Professional College for the Advancement of Teaching in Honduras (COLPROSUMAH), the Government was sent a communication dated 10 January 1991 from the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) in which this complainant alleged the continuing interference by the authorities in the normal activities of the Professional Teachers' Union of Honduras (SINPRODOH). In a communication dated 29 May 1992, the Government stated that SINPRODOH had called an extraordinary meeting on 11 January 1991 in order to elect a new executive committee, and that the General Labour Inspectorate has decided to register the new executive committee, thus annulling the validity of the previous executive which had been headed by Mrs. Magdalena Velasquez de Burgos. The Government adds that she lodged an appeal against this annulment before the Administrative Disputes Court which decided that SINPRODOH had not opposed the administrative act in time or form, and thus declared the appeal irreceivable. It is therefore difficult for the Committee, on the basis of the information before it, to determine whether the authorities interfered in the elections of 11 January 1991. In these circumstances, the Committee cannot but recall generally its previous conclusions to the effect that freedom of association implies that workers' and employers' organisations should be able to organise their operations and activities without any intervention by the public authorities.

14. As regards Case No. 1385 (New Zealand), at its meeting in May 1989 the Committee requested the Government to re-examine the registration requirements introduced by the 1987 Labour Act with a view to reducing the very high minimum membership requirement for the registration of unions. In a letter dated 12 May 1992, the Government states that the 1987 Act has been repealed and replaced by the Employment Contracts Act of 1991, which removes all legislative provisions regulating unions including the 1,000 members requirement for registration as a trade union. In a letter dated 2 June 1992, the complainant in this case - the New Zealand Employers' Federation - also advises that the new 1991 legislation repealed the offending registration provisions and that the basis for its complaint has therefore been withdrawn. The Committee takes note of this information with satisfaction.

15. As regards Case No. 1419 (Panama), the Committee had drawn the Government's attention to the need to repeal, as soon as possible, Decree No. 13 which obliged public utilities to offer their services to the public without interruption on pain of sanctions. In an undated communication received on 4 June 1992 the Government states that Decree No. 13 was repealed by Decree No. 1 of 10 January 1992. The Committee takes note of this information with satisfaction.

16. As regards Case No. 1428 (India), the Committee asked the Government to provide precise information on the charges brought against the trade union leader Ashit Dutta and against eight plantation workers from the Panery district in Assam. In a communication of 16 October 1992, the Government states that the two cases are still sub judice. The Committee takes note of this information and repeats its previous request to be kept informed on the outcome of these cases.

17. As regards Case No. 1471 (India), the Committee asked the Government to send a copy of the final decision taken by the New Delhi High Court in the appeal brought by Captain S.C. Sharma against his dismissal from Vayudoot Airlines Company. In communications of 16 October and 4 November 1992, the Government states that the matter is still pending before the New Delhi High Court. The Committee takes note of this information and repeats its request to receive a copy of the judgement once it is handed down.

18. As regards Case No. 1502 (Peru), the Committee had asked the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals for constitutional protection lodged by the public sector electricity undertakings and requesting the unilateral amendment of the collective agreement which provided for automatic wage adjustments. In a communication dated 27 May 1992, the Government states that these appeals were dismissed by the courts. The Committee takes note of this information.

19. As regards Cases Nos. 1531, 1569 and 1580 (Panama), which were last examined by the Committee at its February 1992 meeting (281st Report, paras. 107 to 159), the Government was asked to keep the Committee informed on the effect given to the recommendations made in respect of these three cases. In Case No. 1531 mass dismissals in the public sector were involved and the Committee asked the Government to take measures to hold consultations for the reversal of all dismissals that may have been based on union activities. In an undated communication received on 4 June 1992, the Government states that all trade union leaders arbitrarily dismissed by the former regime have been reinstated and that other unfairly dismissed public servants have been given the right to defend themselves. In Case No. 1569, the Committee asked the Government to take measures for the reinstatement of the trade union leaders and workers who had been dismissed from the Water and Electricity Board (IRHE) and from the National Telecommunications Institute (INTEL) following the collective work stoppage of 5 December 1990 and to keep it informed of the dismissed workers' cases which were still under consideration. The Government states that 144 administrative disputes petitions are still continuing before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court in relation to the dismissals ordered by the General Management of IRHE and INTEL, filed on the basis of Act No. 25 of December 1990. As for the alleged interference of the authorities in union funds, the Government supplies copies of certificates from IRHE and INTEL showing that trade union dues are remitted punctually to the respective unions concerned. Case No. 1580 involved the request for legal personality lodged in September 1972 by the National Union of Panamanian Bank Employees (SINABAN), which had remained up to the date of the examination of this complaint without a reply from the competent authorities. The Government states that in the period 15 February to 15 May 1992 SINABAN had not presented the Ministry of Labour with any request for legal personality. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to continue informing it of developments in these various matters.

20. As regards Case No. 1547 (Canada/British Columbia), the Committee last examined it at its meeting in February 1991 and called for the repeal of section 80 of the University Act which excluded university professors from the application of the labour law. In a communication dated 14 September 1992, the Government states that section 80 has been repealed by the University Amendment Act, 1992 (Bill 23), which was brought into force on 23 July 1992 by Order-in-Council No. 1169. The Committee takes note of this information with satisfaction.

21. As regards Case No. 1550 (India), at the Committee's last examination of it at its November 1991 meeting (see 279th Report, paras. 315 to 329) it asked the Government to verify whether the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Subramanian, Secretary-General of the Fluid Control Research Institute (FCRI) Employees' Association, were anti-union in nature. In a communication of 16 October 1992, the Government states that this trade union leader was charged for misconduct in accordance with Rule 11 of the Civil Servants' Conduct Rules and that the proceeding against him had been initiated in December 1989, whereas the formation of the FCRI Employees' Association was made known to the management of the Institute in March 1990. Therefore, the Government argues, the allegation that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against this person were anti-union in nature is not correct. It adds that the Institute's management has given the assurance that it will not adopt any policy of curbing the legitimate rights of its employees. The Committee takes note of this information.

22. As regards Case No. 1563 (Iceland), the Committee, at its November 1991 meeting (279th Report, paras. 344 to 380), requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal lodged against the Reykjavik Civil Court's decision concerning the constitutionality of Provisory Act No. 89/1990 on wages, which deprived members of the complainant union of the wage increase due under a collective agreement and confirmed in a labour court award. In a letter dated 30 June 1992, one of the complainants (World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession - WCOTP) states that the Government is not respecting the recommendation of the Committee to endeavour to give priority to collective bargaining as a means of determining employment conditions because the State Negotiating Committee (which represents the Government in civil service bargaining) delayed negotiations in late 1991 and, when bargaining did commence, it issued preconditions as to the contents of any future agreement which breached the Committee's recommendation that negotiations take place "in good faith". The constitutionality appeal is likely to be finalised in September or October 1992. In a letter dated 26 August 1992, the Government encloses the comments of the Ministry of Finance, which is responsible for civil servants' wages and terms agreements. The Government explains that when the collective agreement in question expired, the national complainant federation (the Alliance of Graduate Civil Servants - BHMR) indicated a preference for each of its member unions to negotiate separately; bargaining is thus under way with the 23 affiliated unions of the BHMR. The Government states that the State Negotiating Committee has little room to manoeuvre in the next round of negotiations due to various economic factors and it lists the influencing factors for wages revision, such as increased public sector productivity. It encloses a copy of the April 1992 Declaration issued by the Government after discussions with the major social partners, in which the Government gives certain undertakings concerning wages and terms of employment negotiations. It denies that the Government retarded bargaining and explains the delays in commencing negotiations (e.g. following the election of a new Government in April 1991, the new Minister appointed a new State Negotiating Committee whose chairman did meet with BHMR unions as early as August for an initial exchange of views on the forthcoming negotiations; certain unions themselves did not request negotiation meetings until October 1991; faced with contradicting proposals, one BHMR affiliate felt that it was pointless to continue meetings unless the State Negotiating Committee's position changed). At the same time, wages and terms agreements were successfully concluded for nearly all other unions in the country, the BHMR affiliates being the only ones unsettled. The Committee takes note of this information which indicates that, despite strongly held opposing positions, bargaining is taking place towards a new agreement for the BHMR affiliates' members. However, noting with concern the allegations - from both sides - as to a lack of "good faith" in approaching these negotiations, the Committee recalls that satisfactory labour relations depend primarily on the attitudes of the parties towards each other and on their mutual confidence; in this case it thus appeals to both parties to make every effort to come to an agreement so as to avoid an atmosphere of acrimony. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the judicial proceedings contesting the constitutionality of the Provisory Act.

23. As regards Case No. 1571 (Romania), at its November 1991 meeting (see 279th Report, paras. 400 to 422), the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals lodged by the workers whose transfers had not been settled. In a letter of 15 September 1992, the Government submits a copy of Civil Decision No. 527 concerning the appeals of Mrs. Andrei Angela and Mrs. Nedelciu Maria. These persons have kept their previous posts and their interests are covered by a collective agreement for 1992 which was signed by the "Intercontinental" Company and the two unions in the undertaking. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

24. As regards Case No. 1574 (Morocco), at its February 1992 examination of this case (281st Report, paras. 189 to 222), the Committee asked the Government to adopt legislative measures, accompanied by sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, to ensure the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination on the part of employers, and to inform it whether the unionists arrested during the general strike of December 1990 - in particular Mr. Al Alaoui Mohamed Tatna, General Secretary of the General Workers' Union of Morocco (UGTM), and Mr. Abdelkrim Ghallab - had been released. In a communication of 16 October 1992, the Government states that the competent court has rejected the charges brought against Mr. Tatna. It adds that the allegation concerning the detention of Mr. Abdelkrim Ghallab is baseless since that person has never been arrested. As regards specific provisions against acts of anti-union discrimination, the competent authorities have taken account of the observations made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the draft Labour Code which has been submitted to Parliament. The Committee takes note of this information and expresses the hope that draft Labour Code will soon be adopted by Parliament.

25. The Committee examined Cases Nos. 1577, 1582 and 1583 (Turkey) respectively, at its meetings of November 1991, and February and May 1992 (279th Report, Paras. 423-440; 281st Report, paras. 223-236; 283rd Report, paras. 137-146). All these cases concerned legislative restrictions on the right to organise and join unions in the public sector, in particular for teachers and bank employees. In addition, in Case No. 1577, the Union of Education and Science Workers (EGIT-SEN) had alleged the detention of unionists and refusal to publish the union's official magazine. The Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of any measure taken to amend the legislation with a view to lifting all the restrictions on the free exercise of trade union rights in the public sector and to inform it of whether the detained unionists had been released. In a communication dated 25 September 1992, the Government states that after having been debated and unanimously approved by the Grand National Assembly, by the Health and Social Affairs Commission and by the External Affairs Commission, Conventions Nos. 87 and 151 are before the Assembly for ratification. It adds that once these Conventions are ratified, the trade union rights of all teaching and banking staff in the public sector will be guaranteed. The Committee takes note of this information and, while expressing the hope that these Conventions will be ratified shortly by Turkey, repeats its request for information from the Government on whether the detained unionists were released.

26. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1478/1484 (Peru), 1479 and 1514 (India), 1510 and 1546 (Paraguay), 1526 (Canada/Quebec), 1556 (Iraq), 1560/1567 (Argentina), 1564 (Sierra Leone), 1581 (Thailand), 1584 (Greece), 1593 (Central African Republic), 1599 (Gabon) and 1602 (Spain), the Committee requests the Governments concerned to keep it informed of developments in the various matters. The Committee hopes that these Governments will communicate the information requested shortly.