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 16, 17 and 27 March 1995, under the chairmanship of Mr. Jean-Jacques Oechslin, former Chairman of the Governing Body.

2. It is with great emotion and deep sorrow that the Committee has learned of the death of Mr. Roberto Ago, Judge of the International Court of Justice in The Hague and former Chairman of the ILO Governing Body. Chairman of the Freedom of Association Committee without interruption since 1961, Mr. Roberto Ago blessed the Committee with his exceptional talents as an international lawyer and his extraordinary capability as a man of dialogue and as a conciliator. His lively intelligence, his keen sense for diplomacy, his exemplary courtesy and his constant concern for social justice have made a contribution to the Committee's work without compare. The work accomplished by the Committee over these years and, more specifically, the positive influence which it has been able to have on the respect for human rights in general and trade union rights in particular are to a large degree due to the imagination and unlimited energies devoted by Chairman Ago. Each member is fully aware of the enormous loss represented by the disappearance of Chairman Roberto Ago and joins in the pain felt by his family.

3. Currently, there are 96 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, it examined 27 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 19 cases and interim conclusions in eight cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

4. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the cases relating to: Turkey (No. 1810), Paraguay (No. 1811), Peru (No. 1813), Spain (No. 1815), Paraguay (No. 1816), India (No. 1817), Zaire (No. 1818), China (No. 1819), Germany (No. 1820), Ethiopia (No. 1821), Venezuela (No. 1822) and Guatemala (No. 1823), 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

5. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the cases relating to: Nicaragua (No. 1649), Haiti (Nos. 1682/1711/1716), Argentina (No. 1744), Australia (No. 1774), Poland (No. 1785), Paraguay (No. 1790), Chad (No. 1791), Nigeria (No. 1793), Kazakhstan (No. 1799), Peru (No. 1804), Cuba (No. 1805), Canada (No. 1806), Costa Rica (No. 1808) and Kenya (No. 1809). In Cases Nos. 1744 (Argentina) and 1774 (Australia), the Governments stated that they would send their observations soon.

Observations requested from complainants

6. With respect to Case No. 1736 (Argentina), the Committee observes that, in spite of the time which has elapsed since its first request, it has not yet received the observations requested from the complainant. The Committee is therefore compelled to consider this case as closed. In Cases Nos. 1651 (India), 1738 (Canada/Newfoundland) and 1741 (Argentina), the Committee is awaiting the complainants' comments. In Case No. 1789 (Republic of Korea), the Committee requests the complainants to confirm that the trade union reached an agreement with the Daewoo company and has withdrawn its complaints. In Case No. 1794 (Peru), the Committee requests the complainant to furnish additional information to support its complaint. The Committee requests the complainants to transmit, without delay, the observations and information requested.

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1719 (Nicaragua), 1737 (Canada), 1777 (Argentina), 1780 (Costa Rica), 1796 (Peru), and 1812 (Venezuela), 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

8. As regards Cases Nos. 1561 (Spain), 1640, 1646, 1687, 1691 and 1712 (Morocco), 1733, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1800 and 1802 (Canada), 1753 (Burundi), 1768 (Iceland), 1782 (Portugal), 1807 (Ukraine) and 1814 (Ecuador) the Committee has received the Governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting.

Direct contacts mission

9. The Committee has been informed that a direct contacts mission, which was headed by Professor Enrique Marín, was carried out in Guatemala from 13 to 17 February 1995 in order to gather information concerning Cases Nos. 1512, 1539, 1595, 1740, 1778 and 1786. The Committee intends to examine these cases during its next meeting on the basis of the mission report of the Director-General's representative.

Withdrawal of complaint

10. As regards Case No. 1676 (Venezuela), the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, a complainant in this case, stated in a communication of 23 December 1994, that it was formally withdrawing its complaint. The Committee, having no reason to doubt that this decision was taken fully independently, takes note of this withdrawal and considers this case as closed.

Urgent appeals

11. As regards Cases Nos. 1765 (Bulgaria), 1772 (Cameroon), 1783 (Paraguay) and 1803 (Djibouti), 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 the 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of these cases, even if the observations or information 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.

Cases which the Committee especially draws to the attention of the Governing Body

12. The Committee considered that it should especially draw the Governing Body's attention to certain cases due to the seriousness of the issues raised in them. These cases concern the following countries: El Salvador (Cases Nos. 1693, 1754 and 1757), Indonesia (Case No. 1773) and Peru (Cases Nos. 1527, 1541 and 1598).

Procedural decision

13. In a communication of 24 August 1994, Education International transmitted a complaint from the Canadian Teachers' Federation against the Government of Canada (Ontario). The Committee noted that this complaint related to the Social Contract Act adopted in 1993, which the Committee had already examined in March 1994 (see 292nd Report, Case No. 1722). As the case did not contain any new facts, the Committee did not wish to re-examine a matter on whose substance it had already taken a decision.

14. The Committee draws legislative aspects of the following cases to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: 1612 and 1685 (Venezuela), 1767 (Ecuador), 1788 (Romania).

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

15. As concerns Case No. 1417 (Brazil), the Committee requested the Government at its November 1994 meeting (see 295th Report, para. 15) to communicate the text of the sentence handed down by the court of appeal concerning the death of the trade union leader Mauro Pires. By a communication of 9 February 1995, the Government indicated that the Prosecutor-General requested that the appeal of the presumed author of the murder of the trade unionist be rejected but the appeal court has not yet issued its decision in this regard. Furthermore, the Government states that it will communicate in due time all new information concerning this case. The Committee takes note of the Government's observations and requests it to communicate the text of the sentence handed down by the court of appeal.

16. As concerns Case No. 1434/1477 (Colombia), the Committee requested the Government at its June 1994 meeting (see 294th Report, para. 15) to keep it informed of the judicial proceedings under way concerning the murders, disappearances and attacks involving trade union leaders and trade unionists and to keep it informed of any release or of any indictments of trade unionists who had been detained on 22 November 1992, 30 May and 11 June 1993. The Committee also requested the Government to keep it informed of the developments in cases filed by trade union members of SINDEBANCALDAS against the Bank of Caldas both in the criminal and in the labour courts, and of the various allegations concerning Colgate Palmolive and Croydon enterprises and the Cauca Family Compensation Fund. In a communication dated 6 October 1994, the Government indicates that it is undertaking an investigation to determine if the trade union officials of Croydon enterprise had been beaten and threatened because of having taken part in work stoppages. The Government also stated that it has been determined that the workers of the Cauca Family Fund were not dismissed on trade union grounds and that the Colgate Palmolive enterprise arrived at an agreement with the trade union officials who were dismissed. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will keep it informed as soon as possible of the judicial proceedings under way concerning the murders, disappearances, attacks on and detention of trade union officials and trade unionists. The Committee also requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the judicial proceedings against the Caldas Bank and of the investigation just undertaken with respect to the Croydon enterprise.

17. As regards Case No. 1511 (Australia), at its meeting in November 1993, the Committee asked the Government to keep it informed of the progress in the Australian Federation of Air Pilots' (AFAP) appeal against a decision of the Victoria Supreme Court and of the proceedings under section 118A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1988 (see 277th Report, para. 246). In a communication dated 2 November 1994, the Government states that there have been no developments in the enforcement of the Victoria Supreme Court award of damages, nor in relation to the appeal against the award made by the AFAP. It was understood that the delay in hearing the appeal was because the AFAP was awaiting the outcome of the section 118A proceeding in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which handed down its decision on 22 September 1994. The decision concerned two main aspects: the right of representation concerning Qantas domestic pilots (decided in favour of the Australian International Pilots Association) and the right of representation for pilots in four other airlines (pending further submissions). Ansett and the Australian Services Union have appealed the decision concerning this former aspect and requested an adjournment to the current Commission proceedings. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the progress in both the AFAP's appeal against the Victoria Supreme Court decision and the appeal in the section 118A proceedings and the final outcome with respect to both aspects of that case. As concerns the award of damages against AFAP and six of its officers, while noting that no steps have yet been taken to enforce this award, the Committee requests the Government to consider taking steps to persuade the airlines to file a release with the courts in this regard thus ensuring that this aspect of the case be brought to an end without maintaining the threat of substantial sanctions against AFAP and its officers for some time to come.

18. As regards Case No. 1552 (Malaysia), last examined by the Committee at its November 1994 meeting (see 295th Report, paras. 120-131, adopted by the Governing Body at its 261st Session), the Government was requested to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of the High Court's decision on the application for judicial review submitted by the 21 employees of the Harris Solid State Sdn. Bhd. (HSS). In a communication dated 7 February 1995, the Government indicates that the Industrial Court had dismissed the above-mentioned claim because it found that the claimants were offered employment by Harris Advanced Technology (M) Sdn. Bhd., but that they refused to take up the offer. The Court also found that the claim for reinstatement had no merit. The High Court has fixed the hearing of the appeal application for 22 February 1995. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the High Court's decision in this case and to send it a copy of the judgement.

19. As concerns Case No. 1569 (Panama) concerning the dismissal of trade union leaders and workers of the Water and Electricity Board (IRHE) and the National Telecommunications Board (INTEL) on account of a strike in December 1990, the Committee in its June 1994 meeting regretted that the decisions of the Supreme Court stated that the dismissals took place by virtue of Act No. 25 of 1990 and were not illegal; it requested the Government to take measures to obtain the reinstatement of the greatest possible number of dismissed workers and, in particular, the trade union leaders (see 294th Report, para. 16). In a communication dated 1 November 1994, the Government indicates that it intends to give effect to the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association and that it has begun a review of the dismissals at IRHE and INTEL. The Government adds that 30 workers have already been reinstated (among them, 20 trade union leaders of INTEL) and that it is seeking to reinstate, in so far as possible, all of those who lost their employment as a result of Act No. 25. In a communication dated 8 November 1994, the trade union for the Water and Electricity Board indicates that some of the dismissed workers at INTEL had been reinstated, while this was not yet the case for the workers dismissed at IRHE. The Government recently states in a communication of March 1995 that seven dismissed trade union leaders at IRHE have been reinstated, that 15 others are to be reinstated as of 16 March, and that a larger number will be reinstated, as soon as the situation permits. In these circumstances, while noting with satisfaction the decision of the Government to proceed with the reinstatement of the dismissed trade union leaders and workers and the fact that some trade union leaders and workers had already been reinstated, the Committee trusts that the rest of the dismissed union leaders and workers will be reinstated shortly, both at INTEL and IRHE.

20. As regards Case No. 1581 (Thailand), the Committee requested the Government at its March 1994 meeting (see 292nd Report, para. 18) to keep it informed of developments relating to the adoption of the revised State Enterprise Labour Relations Act. In a communication dated February 1995, the Government indicates that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill passed the first reading in the House of Representatives on 28 September 1994 and is under consideration by the Scrutinizing Committee appointed by the House. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in the adoption of this Bill.

21. As concerns Cases Nos. 1594 and 1647 (Côte d'Ivoire), the Committee requested the Government at its November 1994 meeting (see 296th Report, paras. 5-36, approved by the Governing Body at its 261st Session) to keep it informed of the measures taken: to amend its legislation so as to provide that the Act respecting associations does not apply to unions; to ensure that trade union elections take place quickly in order to take account of the new situation ensuing from trade union pluralism; and to ensure that the solutions found for an equitable distribution of trade union dues be applied to all enterprises and administrations. The Committee also requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the negotiations concerning the reinstatement of workers who lost their jobs following labour disputes linked to the recognition of first-level unions affiliated to "Dignité" and to the holding of trade union elections at Irho Lamé and in enterprises which had or have similar problems. The Committee also invited the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken to resolve the labour dispute concerning the dockers affiliated to SYLIDOPACI.

In a communication dated 8 February 1995, the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) indicates that the Committee's recommendations have not been implemented and that the situation has worsened at Irho Lamé. According to the information provided by the WCL, police forces have occupied the workers' village since 17 January 1995 despite the order given by the Minister of Employment and the Public Service on 2 February 1995 to evacuate the site.

In a communication of 17 February 1995, the Government states with respect to the establishment of trade unions that section 5 of the Labour Code currently in force specifies the procedure for the establishment of occupational organizations. It affirms that no ambiguity exists which would require an amendment to the legislation in force. Furthermore, as concerns trade union elections, the Government explains that, under section L-136 of the Labour Code, elections take place every year. The Government states that trade union elections for the "Dignité" federation have been carried out in the COSMIVOIRE enterprise and that elections will also be carried out for the other enterprises at the end of the present mandates of the shop stewards. As concerns the equitable distribution of trade union dues, the Government emphasizes that, since the advent of trade union pluralism, deductions at the source have been purely and simply abolished, except with the express agreement of the workers. It is up to each trade union to make its members known in order to take into account this new situation. With respect to the question of negotiations concerning the reinstatement of dismissed workers, the Government states that, during a meeting held on 13 October 1994, the social partners refused to harmonize their positions. The management of Irho Lamé proposed a plan for the progressive reinstatement of 100 employees which was refused by the General Secretary of the "Dignité" federation who demanded the immediate reinstatement of all the striking workers. The Government adds that, following a press conference organized on 14 January 1995 by the General Secretary of the "Dignité" federation concerning the 296th Report of the Committee, the situation at Irho Lamé considerably deteriorated on Tuesday, 17 January 1995. Indeed, workers who were still on strike attacked workers who had started to work again resulting in several injuries (43); three of the workers who had taken up work were in a critical state. According to the Government, this serious and reprehensible act coupled with the intransigence of the General Secretary of "Dignité" is not going to favour good negotiations. As concerns the letters of apology as a prerequisite to reinstatement, the Government assures that such letters will not be required. With respect to the disputes at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan, the Government strongly recommends that trade union elections be held in order to take into account trade union pluralism. Finally, as concerns the four people taken off the register list for "trade union reasons", the Government indicates that the matters has been placed before the Labour Tribunal, but it also adds that negotiations are under way in order to find a solution. Finally, the Government assures that no dockers have been excluded from registration for trade union affiliation.

The Committee takes note of the detailed information and measures taken by the Government with respect to this case. It must express its concern at the deterioration of the situation in the IRHO LAME enterprise and the apparent unwillingness of the Government to have change made to its legislation in line with what the Committee had recommended. It again requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments concerning these matters, in particular with respect to the holding of trade union elections, as well as the outcome of negotiations in respect of the workers who lost their jobs following labour disputes as soon as possible.

22. As regards Case No. 1618 (United Kingdom), the Committee has requested the Government at its June 1994 meeting (see 294th Report, para. 20) to keep it informed of the decision in the case of Mr. McKevitt who had been blacklisted by the Economic League. In a communication dated 24 August 1994, the Government indicated that, from the information available to it, there was no evidence that Mr. McKevitt had in fact ever instituted legal proceedings. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) stated in a communication dated 13 September 1994 that, since the Economic League had gone into voluntary liquidation, Mr. McKevitt was unable to continue with his case because it had been directed against the League as an organization and not against named individuals. Mr. McKevitt was subsequently listed as an unsecured creditor and asked to supply proof of debt. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the liquidator to judge whether the application of an unsecured creditor is valid only if there are funds available for distribution. In the case of the liquidation of the Economic League there were no funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors and therefore the liquidator was not required to make a judgement about Mr. McKevitt's claim. The TUC adds, however, that leading figures in the Economic League appear to be continuing to offer similar services to employers through a new company. Just days after the liquidation of the Economic League, the League's director of information and research and director-general set up a management consultancy called Caprim, Ltd. The TUC states that, according to a bulletin published by Caprim, this new company offers a labour screening service and "anti-business monitoring service" which targets "the many and varied organizations whose activities threaten a company's freedom of action". In reply to the TUC's comments, the Government states that it does not believe that any new issues of substance in respect of the nature or content of the legislation in this area were raised and reiterates that there is no evidence to suggest that its legislation does not fully satisfy the relevant provisions of Convention No. 98. The Committee takes note of the latest information provided by the Government and the TUC. It recalls its previous recommendations in this case (see 287th Report, para. 267) wherein it stated that all practices involving the blacklisting of trade union officials or members constitute a serious threat to the free exercise of trade union rights and that, in general, governments should take stringent measures to combat such practices. In the light of the concerns raised by the TUC, the Committee once again recalls that even the existence of legislative provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not sufficient if these provisions are not accompanied by effective procedures ensuring their application in practice. The Committee urges the Government to take steps to extend to workers an express protection against blacklisting or other forms of discrimination based on trade union membership or past trade union activity and to keep it informed in this respect.

23. As regards Case No. 1629 (Republic of Korea), at its June 1994 meeting (see 294th Report, paras. 218-274), the Committee requested the Government, inter alia, to release some trade unionists and to withdraw the charges against others, to refrain in the future from having recourse to the Emergency Adjustment Provisions in services that are not essential, to initiate an independent judicial inquiry into the death of KTUC Vice-President Park Chang-Soo and to take action to give effect to the results of the investigation of alleged unfair labour practices engaged in by Hyundai Construction and Engineering Company against the Korean Trade Union Congress (KTUC) or Korean Federation of Construction Trade Unions (KFTUC) members. Furthermore, the Government was requested to take steps to ensure that some legislative provisions were amended in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

In communications dated 13 July, 21 October, 13 September and 25 October 1994, Education International (EI), the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Korean Council of Trade Unions (KCTU) respectively allege that the Government has still not reinstated 369 of the 1,697 dismissed members of the Korean Teachers' and Educational Workers' Unions (Chunkyojo) who were the subject of the initial complaint. Furthermore, they recall that, in order to be reinstated, teachers were required to sign a form declaring their resignation from Chunkyojo and promising not to rejoin.

The Government for its part declared, in a communication dated 21 November 1994, that out of the 1,490 dismissed teachers, 1,427 expressed a wish to leave Chunkyojo and 1,342 had returned to school. Out of the 148 who had not returned according to the Government's figures, 116 had still not expressed the wish to return, five were disqualified by the Personnel Disciplinary Committee due to their criminal record, and 19 who once wanted to return but acted contrary to their pledges were excluded by the Personnel Disciplinary Committee.

The Committee once again recalls its conclusions in this case in which it deplores that the dismissed teachers could only apply for reinstatement after having given up their Chunkyojo membership and considers that such pressure from the Government is a serious violation of freedom of association principles. It again urges the Government to ensure in the future that no person is dismissed or further discriminated against for exercising his or her right to join an organization of his or her own choosing and that teachers have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. As concerns the detained unionists whose release was requested in the Committee's recommendations, while noting with interest that they have been released, the Committee nevertheless notes with regret that the charges against Dan Byung-Ho, Lee Shang-Hyun and Lee Su-Won appear not to have been withdrawn as they are still wanted by the police.

The Government has also indicated that detained unionists Chung Chang-Suk and Lee Kwang-Soo were released on parole in April 1994 and that Chung Moo-Sung was serving a jail sentence due to expire in November 1995.

The Committee takes due note of this information and trusts that Chung Moo-Sung has indeed been released. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee notes with regret that the Government only reiterates its position concerning the death of Park Chang-Soo, declaring that the case was decided by an independent public prosecutor of a state investigative authority and that, without any new evidence, it would be wrong to reopen the matter. The Committee must therefore once again recall that when the loss of life is involved, the setting up of an independent judicial inquiry is a particularly appropriate method of fully ascertaining the facts, determining responsibilities and punishing those responsible. As concerns the recommendation that the Government refrain in the future from having recourse to the Emergency Adjustment Provisions, the Committee notes the Government's indication that in the past three decades emergency adjustment has only been used in two cases. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the legal action taken with respect to the charges of unfair labour practices made against Hyundai Construction, including the investigation of some Hyundai officials found guilty of urging unionists to withdraw from the trade union and turning them over to the public prosecutor and the reinstatement of five dismissed unionists.

As concerns the legislative amendments requested by the Committee, the Government reiterated its intention to amend certain articles of its labour-related laws and announced that it is expected to hold a general meeting of the representatives of the trade union, management, the press and law professionals to discuss the final proposals of the Draft Subcommittee as soon as the deliberations over the diverse individual views have been made through public hearings, seminars, etc. It added, however, that some time would be required to consider dissenting opinions concerning similar cases in other countries given the sharp conflicts over the direction and scope of reform between the trade union and management.

The Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to ensure the amendment of all the legislative provisions referred to in its conclusions and recommendations in accordance with the principles of freedom of association.

24. As regards Case No. 1630 (Malta), last examined by the Committee at its March 1994 meeting (see 292nd Report, para. 22), the Committee had noted that workers at the Malta Drydocks had initiated proceedings because they had suffered discrimination in their working conditions due to their affiliation to the Union Haddiema Maghqudin (UHM), which is in turn affiliated to the complainant, the Confederation of Malta Trade Unions (CMTU). The Committee had further noted that the Employment Commission, to which the workers concerned had referred their case, had decided in favour of two workers and ordered management to pay them. The Committee had nevertheless noted with regret that the Government had not furnished any information on the talks under way with the employer over the question of non-discriminatory apportionment of overtime and had requested it to keep it informed of any further developments thereof. In two communications of 8 July 1994 and 19 January 1995, the CMTU requested to be kept informed of any observations made by the Government on the long-standing problem of discrimination at Malta Drydocks. In a communication of 13 February 1995, the Government indicates that the Employment Commission is an independent tribunal set up by the Constitution to investigate complaints of political discrimination and to provide remedies for redress if complaints are found to be justified. The Government adds that it is not aware of any other complaints similar to the case under review and that should the CMTU learn of other discriminatory cases, it should submit a formal complaint to the Department of Labour which would advise the aggrieved parties to proceed to the Employment Commission once it is established that there are grounds for referral. While noting this information, the Committee once again regrets that the Government has not furnished any information at all on the talks under way with the employer over the question of non-discriminatory apportionment of overtime. It would therefore urge the Government to provide information in this respect as soon as possible.

25. As regards Case No. 1652 (China), in a communication dated 27 February 1995, the Government states that Mr. Yao Guisheng's sentence was reduced by one year and ten months and that Mr. Hu Nianyou, who had been condemned to life imprisonment, was freed in April 1993. Mr. Zhou Nun, who had been condemned to six years' imprisonment, will be freed in May 1995. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

26. As concerns Case No. 1683 (Russian Federation), examined by the Committee at its May 1993 meeting (see 287th Report, paras. 370-391), it was emphasized that the deduction of trade union dues and their transfer to trade unions was a matter which should be dealt with through collective bargaining between the concerned parties, with full respect for freedom of association, and the Government was requested to take the necessary measures to ensure that the decisions taken at the federal and regional levels did not conflict as well as to ensure that the agreements reached between workers and employers regarding the deduction of trade union dues be put into effect. By a communication dated 1 November 1994, the Government states that the Minister of Labour has consulted with the representatives of the administrative authorities, employers and trade unions of the various regions of the Russian Federation, resulting in an agreement that the deductions of trade union dues from workers' wages can be carried out with the express agreement of the workers in writing. Furthermore, the Government indicates that the question concerning the deduction of trade union dues was included in the list of matters to consider in the elaboration and conclusion of collective agreements by branch of activity during 1994 and that from the analysis of these agreements it can be seen that the employers have assumed the obligation to deduct the dues, with the consent of the worker, and to transfer them to the unions. Finally, the Government states that, in concluding collective agreements, the enterprises and the workers' organizations are guided by the contents of collective agreements by branch of activity and that a study of the Tula regions demonstrates that, in the 29 enterprises studied, the transfer of trade union dues was carried out by the enterprise at the request of the workers. The Committee notes this information with interest.

27. As concerns Case No. 1686 (Colombia), last examined by the Committee at its June 1994 meeting (see 294th Report, paras. 275-302), the Government was requested to: (1) carry out judicial inquiries into the murders of trade union officials Gonzalo García and Luis Escobar and to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial inquiries being carried out into the murder of trade union officials Joaquín María Caicedo, Jesus Alirio Guevara Angarita and José Oliverio Molina; (2) inform it of the judicial appeals lodged by the trade union officials dismissed from the Salsamentaria Madrileña Ltd. enterprise (SINTRAMADRILEÑA) and whether in fact a request had been made to the judicial authorities for the cancellation of the legal personality of this union; (3) inform it of the outcome of the judicial proceedings under way against the trade union officials and trade unionists of the TELECOM trade union; and (4) inform it of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings under way against the officials of the ASONALJUDICIAL trade union organization for having participated in a strike. In a communication dated 6 October 1994, the Government states that: (1) according to the Minister of Labour authorities there is no evidence of any request for the cancellation of SINTRAMADRILEÑA; (2) the judicial investigation into the murder of trade union official Joaquín Caicedo is still under way; and (3) the judicial proceedings against the trade union officials and trade unionists of the TELECOM trade union are still under way and those concerned are still free, two of them having travelled outside of the country to carry out trade union activities. Moreover, in a communication dated 26 January 1995, the Government indicates that, with respect to the investigation into the murder of Jesus Guevara Angarita, an order was issued for the arrest of the alleged murderer. While noting this information, the Committee urges the Government to carry out the requested judicial investigations into the murders of the trade union officials (Gonzalo García and Luis Escobar) and to keep it informed of the outcome of these investigations and those which are currently under way (Joaquín María Caicedo, Jesus Alirio Guevara Angarita and José Oliverio Molina). Furthermore, the Committee trusts that the Government will communicate the rest of the information requested as soon as possible.

28. Concerning Cases Nos. 1702 and 1721 (Colombia), the Committee requested the Government at its June 1994 meeting (see 294th Report, para. 25) to keep it informed of the judicial proceedings initiated by the union officials and members of the National Union of State Employees (UTRADEC) dismissed in the department of Cordoba as a result of the restructuring process (Case No. 1702), and to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals lodged by the dismissed Banco Popular workers which were still pending (Case No. 1721) (at this meeting the Committee noted that four appeals had been dismissed in this case). By a communication dated 6 October 1994, the Government indicates in relation to Case No. 1702 that: 105 appeals are still pending; the reinstatement of three workers has been ordered; there are judgements in favour of the workers in 14 appeals and against the workers in four cases. Moreover, as regards Case No. 1721 the Government indicates that the seven appeals presented by the dismissed workers are still pending before the courts. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of all the judicial proceedings that are pending in the two cases.

29. As concerns Case No. 1710 (Chile), examined by the Committee at its November 1993 meeting (see 291st Report, paras. 327-357), the Committee noted with interest that the Bill designed to guarantee the right to organize of employees in the state administration was before the Senate for consideration and requested the Government to ensure that the text would be adopted shortly and that it would be in line with the principles of freedom of association. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that the case relating to the dismissal of the leader of the FENATS (Garciela Cruz Farias) be examined once again and, if it was proved that she was dismissed due to her trade union activities, to ensure that she be reinstated in her post. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard. In a communication dated 24 October 1994, the Government transmits a copy of Act No. 19296 (published in the Diario Oficial of 14 March 1994) which sets forth rules for the establishment of trade union organizations in the state administration and states that this Act bestows upon the organization's directors the powers and facilities to carry out their functions efficiently and rapidly. The Committee takes note of this information with interest. As concerns the dismissal of the trade union official of FENATS, the Government indicates that the Minister of Health examined the situation and concluded that the disciplinary measure of dismissal was applied in conformity with the facts in question and the legislation in force. The Committee takes note of this information.

30. As regards Case No. 1739 (Venezuela), examined by the Committee at its November 1994 meeting (see 295th Report, paras. 389-397), the Government was requested to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of the investigation into the murder of the trade unionist Mr. Muñoz Key and to ensure that this investigation also covered the injuries sustained by his son. In communications dated 23 and 26 January 1995, the Government indicates that it has taken the necessary steps to request information concerning the judicial investigation under way and that this information will be communicated to the Committee in due time. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this investigation.

31. As concerns Case No. 1742 (Hungary), examined by the Committee at its June 1994 meeting (see 294th Report, paras. 477-452), the Government was requested to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings concerning the dismissals of Mr. Mikola (President, Workers' Council, Matravidéki Metal Works), Mr. Kolozsvari (President, Workers' Council, ALUGEP) and Mr. Fehérdi (President, Workers' Council, SOMIX, Ltd.) and of the transfer of Mr. Galambos. The Committee also invited the Government to consider further measures for the protection of trade union officials. Finally, as concerns the allegation that the judicial proceedings were often too long, the Committee stated that it would examine any further information in this regard. In a communication dated 9 November 1994, the Government indicates that the courts judged in favour of Mr. Mikola, Mr. Kolozsvari and Mr. Fehérdi; however, with respect to Mr. Galambos, a new judicial proceeding was under way. The Government also indicates that the revision of the system of administrative penalties is currently in progress and that the draft Bill proposes to impose sanctions from 50,000 up to 3 million forints in the case of employer conduct constituting a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in employment. Finally, with respect to the delay of the administration of justice, the Government indicated that a draft Bill has been prepared which proposes the introduction of the institution of conciliation in the presence of the presiding judge, as well as a prior conciliation procedure carried out by a committee consisting of the top manager of the employer, a member of the works council and another employee. The Committee notes with interest that the courts judged in favour of the judicial appeals made by the dismissed trade union officials. The Committee trusts that, if the courts consider that Mr. Galambos was transferred from his post because of his trade union activities, his reinstatement will be ordered immediately. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the developments in the process of adoption of the draft Bill to which it refers.

32. As concerns Case No. 1746 (Ecuador), examined by the Committee at its June 1994 meeting (see 294th Report, paras. 526-543), the Government was requested: (1) to take the necessary measures for the reinstatement in their jobs of the workers illegally dismissed at the El Prado ranch; (2) to take measures to amend the legislation so as to reduce the minimum number of workers required under the Act (presently 30) in order to establish enterprise unions; (3) to register the trade union ("works council" in the national terminology) of workers in the El Prado ranch; (4) to keep it informed of the effect given to its recommendations. In a communication dated 31 October 1994, the Government states that the Minister of Labour is carrying out negotiations with the aim of reinstating or paying corresponding compensation to the workers dismissed from the El Prado ranch. Furthermore, the Government indicates that only the National Congress can amend the legislation with respect to the reduction of the minimum number required to establish a trade union organization and, in this regard, as concerns the registration of the trade union at the El Prado ranch, the Minister of Labour was obliged to apply the legislation in force. While taking note of this information, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will succeed in reinstating the dismissed workers in their posts. Moreover, while it is in the power of the Congress to amend the legislation in force with respect to the minimum number of workers required to establish a trade union organization, the Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to present a draft amendment of the Act before the Congress in the sense indicated.

33. As regards Case No. 1760 (Sweden), at its June 1994 meeting (see 294th Report, paras. 544-571), the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any amendments made to the 1993 Act amending the Security of Employment Act of 1982 with a view to ensuring that collective agreements concluded prior to the Act's entry into force were not overridden. In a communication dated 4 November 1994, the Government has indicated that a Government Bill (Regeringens proposition 1994/95:76) dated 20 October 1994 and submitted to Parliament on 28 October 1994 proposes amendments to the Security of Employment Act which would repeal the transitional rule accompanying the amendments in question which overrode certain collective agreements. The Committee notes this information with interest and satisfaction and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in adopting this Bill.

34. As regards Case No. 1769 (Russian Federation), last examined by the Committee at its November 1994 meeting (see 295th Report, paras. 463-481) the Government was requested to: take measures to authorize Mr. Klebanov and Ms. Sevryoukova to reside in the city of Moscow or in any other part of the territory of the Russian Federation they wished in order to be able to exercise their functions in defending the interests of their members; re-examine the dismissal of Ms. Strijneva, as well as the sanctions taken against Mr. Anfenoguenov and Ms. Tatsenko, and in the event that the measures taken were found to be of an anti-trade union nature, to reinstate the dismissed trade union official in her workplace and to cancel the administrative sanctions; hold an inquiry to elucidate the reasons for the arrests and detentions of Mr. Anfenoguenov, Ms. Strijneva, Mr. Maslov and Mr. Baboevitch; and carry out an inquiry into the alleged tampering with the complainant organization's correspondence.

In communications dated 30 November 1994 and 6 February 1995, the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions states that the Government has not taken any steps to solve the problems mentioned in the Committee's recommendation. It adds that judicial bodies and the General Prosecutor's Office have now halted all criminal proceedings against the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs that have acted illegally. The Government has suggested that Mr. Klebanov and Ms. Sevryoukova leave Russia. Mr. Klebanov's passport has not been returned and he has been told to request a new passport in Ukraine. Finally, the authorities have refused to provide premises to the Committee of Free Trade Unions.

In a communication dated 24 February 1995, the Government indicates that Mr. Klebanov and Ms. Sevryoukova may stay in Moscow or in any other part of the Russian Federation. While in Moscow, however, they must observe the rules for residence in this city, as established by the Moscow municipal authorities. As concerns the matter of dismissal and administrative sanctions, the Government indicates that, as they were not of an anti-union nature, it was not possible to review these cases. In particular, the Government states that administrative sanctions were taken against Mr. Anfenoguenov for disrupting public order in an inebriated state and that, following the session of a civil case against him, Ms. Strijneva and Ms. Tatsenko disrupted public order and were in contempt of court and were sanctioned for these reasons. A regional prosecutor's office conducted an investigation into the actions of the police related to the detention and initiation of administrative proceedings against these individuals and concluded that the actions were legitimate. As concerns the detention of Mr. Baboevitch, the Government indicates that he was sentenced by the court for disrupting public order, insulting court workers and disobeying a judicial decision. The Government also states that the Ministry of Internal Affairs did not have the basic information necessary for verifying the arrest and detention of Mr. Maslov. Moreover, the Government indicates that the competent authority has conducted an investigation into the allegation that the complainant's correspondence was tampered with and found no evidence had been brought to support the allegation. Finally, in a communication of 1 March 1995, the Government summarizes the claims of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions as follows: the provision of premises to the trade union, a free apartment for Mr. Klebanov and a pension for him due to the persecution to which he was subject in the past. The Government indicates that Mr. Klebanov can lodge a complaint before the courts if he is not satisfied with the decisions taken and that it is easy to find an apartment to rent or for sale in Moscow.

The Committee takes note of this information. It expresses the hope that the current problems can be resolved through continued dialogue between the authorities and the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions.

35. As regards Case No. 1771 (Pakistan), last examined by the Committee at its meeting in November 1994 (see 295th Report, paras. 482-501), the Government was requested to: take measures to establish an impartial inquiry with a view to establishing the true reasons for the dismissals of the trade union leaders at Pakistan Steel and, if proven that the individuals concerned were dismissed by reason of their trade union activities, to ensure that they be reinstated in their posts; take the necessary measures to ensure effectively the right to organize for all workers and, in particular, to strengthen the application of protective provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) so as to prevent the undermining of workers' organizations through artificial promotions; keep the Committee informed of the judgement of the Lahore High Court concerning the right to organize for railway employees.

In a communication dated 21 February 1995, the Government states that no action was ever taken against any worker of Pakistan Steel on account of membership in a registered trade union or for promoting legitimate trade union activities; however, the ex-chairman was very keen to maintain strict discipline. Grievances were received by the present management about the actions taken by the ex-chairman and the management constituted a committee to review all case of dismissal during the period from January 1992 to August 1994. On the recommendations of the committee, a good number of dismissed employees have already been reinstated while some cases are still pending. While taking due note of the Government's indication that the management of Pakistan Steel has established a committee to review the cases of dismissal, the Committee would recall that, in its previous recommendations, the Government was urged to establish an impartial inquiry into the dismissal of these workers. Noting that some cases are still unresolved, the Government is urged once again to establish an impartial inquiry into the dismissals of trade union leaders at Pakistan Steel and, if it is proven that they were dismissed by reason of their trade union activities, to ensure their reinstatement in their posts. As concerns artificial promotions, the Government indicates that promotions at Pakistan Steel were made in the best interest of the employees and for their career development. It affirms that it shall continue to ensure freedom of association for all workers, including those employed for Pakistan Steel. The Committee recalls in this regard its recommendation concerning the need to strengthen the application of the protective provisions in the IRO and to amend the definition of "worker" in order to prevent artificial promotions used to undermine workers' organizations. Finally, the Government states that the case before the Lahore High Court concerning the right to organize for railway employees is still pending and that it will inform the Committee as soon as the Court's judgement has been made. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of: the steps taken to establish an impartial inquiry into the dismissals at Pakistan Steel, as well as the outcome of such inquiry; the measures taken to strengthen and amend existing legislation to ensure effective protection against the undermining of workers' organizations through artificial promotions; and the judgement concerning the right to organize for railway employees before the Lahore High Court.

36. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1568 (Honduras), 1590 (Lesotho), 1623 (Bulgaria), 1656 (Paraguay), 1688 (Sudan), 1697 (Turkey), 1698 (New Zealand), 1699 (Cameroon), 1706 (Peru), 1713 (Kenya), 1722 (Canada/Ontario), 1723 (Argentina), 1727 (Turkey), 1732 (Dominican Republic), 1734 (Guatemala), 1735 (Canada/Ontario), 1751 (Dominican Republic), 1755 (Turkey), 1756 (Indonesia), 1759 (Peru), 1763 (Norway), 1764 (Nicaragua), 1775 (Belize) and 1792 (Kenya), the Committee requests the Governments concerned to keep it informed of any developments relating to these cases. It hopes that these Governments will quickly furnish the information requested.