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 20, 21 and 25 May 1993, under the chairmanship of Mr. Jean-Jacques Oechslin, former Chairman of the Governing Body.

2. The member of the Committee of Uruguayan nationality was not present during the examination of the case relating to Uruguay (No. 1627).

3. The Committee has been deeply distressed to learn that, in spite of the interventions of the Director-General of the ILO, one of its titular members, Mr. Mugalla, was prevented from attending its current session, since he could not leave the country by order of the Government of Kenya. The Committee trusts that this interdiction will be cancelled forthwith, so that Mr. Mugalla will be able freely to exercise his trade union activities, including at the international level.

4. The Committee is currently seized of 113 cases, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting it examined 32 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 18 cases and interim conclusions in 14 cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

5. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the cases relating to: Cameroon (No. 1699), Nicaragua (No. 1700), Egypt (No. 1701), Guinea (No. 1703), Lebanon (No. 1704), Paraguay (No. 1705), Peru (Nos. 1706 and 1708), Morocco (Nos. 1709, 1712 and 1714), Chile (No. 1710), Haiti (Nos. 1711 and 1716), Kenya (No. 1713) and Canada/Manitoba (No. 1715), 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 governments

6. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the cases relating to Colombia (Nos. 1434/1477, 1620 and 1625), Malaysia (No. 1552), Honduras (No. 1568), Philippines (Nos. 1572 and 1615), Peru (No. 1609), Bulgaria (No. 1623), Malta (No. 1630), Malawi (No. 1638), Morocco (Nos. 1640, 1646, 1687 and 1691), Nicaragua (No. 1649), India (No. 1651), China (No. 1652), Argentina (Nos. 1679 and 1684), Paraguay (No. 1656), Dominican Republic (No. 1658), Haiti (No. 1682), El Salvador (No. 1693) and Pakistan (No. 1696). As regards Case No. 1641 (Denmark), the Committee awaits the Government's observations on the last complementary information submitted by the complainant in its communication of 24 February 1993. In Cases Nos. 1561 (Spain), 1676 (Venezuela), 1694 (Portugal) and 1698 (New Zealand), the respective Governments have announced that they will be sending their observations shortly. As regards Cases Nos. 1512/1539 and 1595 (Guatemala) and 1685 (Venezuela) the respective Governments requested that they be postponed. The Committee adjourns all these cases and asks the Governments concerned to send the information or observations requested.

Observations requested from the complainants

7. With respect to Cases Nos. 1538 and 1554 (Honduras), 1573 (Paraguay) and 1591 (India), the Committee observes that, in spite of the time which has elapsed, it has not yet received observations requested from the complainants; if these observations are not received in time for its next meeting, in November 1993, the Committee will be compelled to consider these cases as closed. In Cases Nos. 1665 and 1667 (Ecuador), the Committee has received additional observations from the Government which have been transmitted to the complainants in order for them to formulate their observations. The Committee requests the complainants concerned to transmit, without delay, the observations and information requested from them.

Partial information received from governments

8. In Cases Nos. 1527 and 1541 (Peru), 1557 (United States) and 1697 (Turkey), 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.

Observations received from governments

9. The Committee intends to examine the substance of Cases Nos. 1588 (Guatemala), 1596 (Uruguay), 1629 (Republic of Korea), 1648/1650 (Peru), 1678 and 1695 (Costa Rica), 1680 (Norway), 1689 (Côte d'Ivoire), 1692 (Germany) and 1707 (Malta) at its next meeting.

10. As regards Case No. 1562 (Colombia), examined by the Committee at its November 1991 meeting (see 279th Report, paras. 507 to 518), the Government was requested to indicate whether Mr. Jorge Herrera (Chairman of the SINDEUNION) had been detained, and to give the reasons for the alleged detention of the following workers: Adelain Jacinta Figueroa, Juan Carlos Barreto, Martin Acuña and Cesar Molina. The Committee notes that the Government states, in its communication of 19 April 1993, that the trade union leader and the workers mentioned are not detained, and that their names do not appear on the detention registers.

11. As regards Case No. 1575 (Zambia), at its November 1992 meeting (see 284th Report, para. 920), the Committee had requested the Government:

- to take its observations into account when drafting the Industrial Relations Bill;

- to confirm that the Salaries and Conditions of Service Commission Act of 1990 had been repealed; and

- to keep it informed of the judgement concerning the constitutionality of the 1990 Industrial Relations Act.

In a communication of 7 May 1993, the Government indicates that the recommendations of the Committee have been extremely helpful for the amendment of the Industrial Relations Act. Following an examination by the tripartite advisory group, a new draft was prepared in March 1993 within Parliament. Efforts were made to take into account all issues raised in the complaint when drafting the Bill, which currently awaits the President's agreement. The Government also confirms that the Salaries and Conditions of Service Commission Act has been repealed through Act No. 25 of 1992 and states that, following the change in Government, the complainants withdrew their action challenging the constitutionality of the 1990 Industrial Relations Act. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the adoption process of the new Industrial Relations Act, and to provide it with said text.

12. Concerning Case No. 1642 (Peru), examined by the Committee at its November 1992 meeting (see 284th Report, paras. 972 to 988), the Government was requested clearly to indicate whether trade union leader Olmedo Auris had disappeared or was free. In a communication of 14 April 1993, the Government states that, following the investigations made concerning the motives of Mr. Olmeda's detention, the latter was freed on 16 April 1992. The Committee notes this information with interest.

URGENT APPEALS

13. As regards Cases Nos. 1653, 1660 and 1662 (Argentina), 1654 (Paraguay), 1659 (El Salvador) and 1675 (Senegal), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the presentation of these complaints or since their last examination, it has not received the Governments' observations. The Committee draws the attention of all these Governments 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.

14. The Committee draws the legislative aspects of Case No. 1590 (Lesotho) to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

15. As regards Case No. 1468 (India), the Committee had requested the Government to inform it of the final outcome of seven different trials concerning serious incidents that took place in 1988, in the State of Tripura, where charges were brought against trade unionists. In a communication of 18 May 1993, the Government states that the seven cases are still pending and that further progress on them will be transmitted in due course. The Committee takes note of this information.

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

16. The Committee examined Cases Nos. 1478/1484 (Peru) at its May 1992 meeting (see 283rd Report, paras. 66 to 75) and requested the Government to keep it informed of the results of the investigations undertaken concerning the disappearance of trade union leader Juan Antonio Alarcón Guzmán, and the violent deaths of and injuries to workers during a protest meeting. In a communication dated 14 April 1993, the Government states that, according to the detention registries, Mr. Alarcón Guzmán was not arrested nor detained; as regards the protesters murdered and injured in February 1990, the Government states that the police forces had to intervene in view of the serious public order disruptions which took place, and that Messrs. Angel H. Blanco Galdós, Roldán Alegría Lozano, Julio Urquía Ramírez, Segundo Pérez Bartra, Luis A. Tuesta La Torre, Santiago Corcuera Loren and other individuals have been denounced as the alleged authors of acts of terrorism. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to indicate whether these workers were tried and, if so, to communicate the text of the judgements issued.

17. As regards Case No. 1479 (India), last examined by the Committee at its May 1992 meeting (see 283rd Report, paras. 76 to 102), the Government was requested to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of the appeal lodged with the Central Administrative Tribunal of Cuttack by the 40 employees of the Heavy Water Plant who suffered pay deductions higher than the amount corresponding to the period of the strike for having refused to discharge their duties. In a communication of 8 March 1993, the Government states that the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application of the 40 employees regarding deduction of wages. The Committee takes note of this information and would like to reiterate its previous recommendation inviting the Government to ensure that workers having organized or participated in apparently lawful industrial action should not be subject to penal or other sanctions.

18. As regards Case No. 1505 (Barbados), last examined by the Committee at its November 1990 meeting (see 275th Report, paras. 152 to 166), the Government was requested to implement the collective agreement negotiated by the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) with the statutory bodies. In a communication of 17 March 1993, the Government repeats its previous observations and states once again that the Parliament is the authority which provides funding for all government operations and recalls that it cannot abdicate its responsibility for securing the best interests of the country. It adds that, whilst subscribing to the principles of freedom of association, it cannot vary its position, as outlined previously. The Committee takes note of this information and can only reiterate its previous recommendations that the requirement of Cabinet approval for negotiated agreements and of conformity with the guidelines unilaterally set for the public sector are not in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

19. The Committee examined Case No. 1602 (Spain) at its May 1992 meeting (see 283rd Report, paras. 191 to 201) and requested the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken concerning the transfer of a share of accumulated trade union assets to the Confederation of Managerial Staff. In a communication of 2 April 1993, the Government indicates that, on 24 July 1992, the Advisory Committee on accumulated trade union assets agreed with the proposal that premises be put at the disposal of the Confederation of Managerial Staff in the city of Palencia. The Committee notes this information with interest.

20. As regards Case No. 1607 (Canada/Newfoundland), last examined by the Committee at its November 1992 meeting (see 284th Report, paras. 549 to 594), the Government was requested to keep the Committee informed of the labour relations situation in the public sector of Newfoundland and, in particular, to indicate whether it had enacted further restraint legislation. In a communication of 27 April 1993, the Government states that the wage restraint legislation examined by the Committee was repealed in December 1992 and that the Government of Newfoundland is currently in the process of negotiating with the various public sector unions and hopes that an agreement will be reached to the satisfaction of all parties. The Committee takes note with interest of this information.

21. The Committee examined Case No. 1622 (Fiji) at its November 1992 meeting and asked the Government to amend the trade union legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see 284th Report, paras. 642 to 705). In a communication of 30 March 1993, the Government sends some information concerning the Committee's recommendations on different provisions contained in the trade union legislation. First, regarding the ban on strike related to disputes on recognition of a trade union, the new requirement to hold secret ballots for solidarity support, the supervision of union secret ballots and the limitation of strike ballots to a six-week validity period, the Government states that it is considering the Committee's recommendations on these aspects. Concerning the precondition laid down in check-off agreements for public service unions, the Government states that the Public Service Commission has restored the check-off to all public service unions without seeking any new agreement with the unions involved. As regards the change in the definition of an industrial association, the Government indicates that under the Trade Unions Act there is no restriction for an association to re-register as a trade union and any group of more than six people may form themselves into a trade union and seek registration. The Committee takes note of the comments and information provided by the Government. Secondly, the Government asks for clarification on certain recommendations of the Committee:

- Concerning the ban on multiple office holding, the Government observes that the restriction is similar to that which had been enacted in the Trade Unions Act in 1964, and asks what the Committee is recommending on this matter. The Committee reaffirms the views expressed in its 284th Report according to which this kind of provision is not compatible with the principles of freedom of association. Accordingly, the Committee is of the opinion that this provision should be repealed.

- Concerning the disqualification from office of those who have been convicted of any crime involving fraud, dishonesty or extortion, the Government would welcome the advice of the Committee on the question of whether its conclusions also apply to the Trade Unions Act. The Committee considers that the disqualification defined in this provision could cover a wide range of conduct not necessarily making it inappropriate for persons convicted of this crime to hold positions of trust such as trade union office. This principle applies irrespective of legislation containing this kind of provision.

- Concerning the views expressed by the Committee according to which the legislation minutely regulates various aspects of union activities, the Government asks for further clarification from the Committee. On this point, the Committee can only repeat that the legislation should be amended so as to leave the necessary autonomy to workers' organizations in electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities and formulating their programmes in accordance with their own internal rules.

The Committee would therefore ask again the Government to amend all those legislative provisions enumerated in its previous recommendations and keep it informed thereto.

22. The Committee made final recommendations concerning Case No. 1663 (Peru) at its February 1993 meeting (see 286th Report, paras. 128 to 141). It then requested the Government to take steps to set up a joint committee in order to negotiate the list of complaints presented by the Unitary Trade Union of Workers in the Ministry of Labour and Social Advancement (SUTMIT). In a communication of 14 April 1993, the Government states that SUTMIT is duly registered in the Registry of Public Servants Unions, but that it did not renew its executive since 1986, thus violating the relevant legislation; SUTMIT cannot argue that it is negotiating a list of complaints since it does not enjoy union representativeness. The Committee takes note of this information.

23. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1444, 1585 and 1610 (Philippines), 1478/1484 (Peru), 1508 (Sudan), 1517 (India), 1549 (Dominican Republic), 1556 (Iraq), 1569 (Panama), 1578 (Venezuela), 1581 (Thailand), 1605 (Canada/New Brunswick), 1606 (Canada/Nova Scotia), 1616 (Canada), 1621 (Sri Lanka), 1624 (Canada/Nova Scotia), 1632 (Greece), 1655 (Nicaragua), 1664 (Ecuador) and 1668 (Cyprus), 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.