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 2, 3 and 9 November 1995, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

2. The members of Argentinian and Mexican nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Argentina (Nos. 1741, 1744 and 1777) and Mexico (Case No. 1844), respectively.

3. Currently, there are 92 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, it examined 26 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 22 cases and interim conclusions in 4 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 following cases: 1845 (Peru), 1847 (Guatemala), 1848 (Ecuador), 1849 (Belarus), 1850 (Congo), 1851 (Djibouti), 1852 (United Kingdom), 1853 (El Salvador), 1854 (India), 1855 (Peru), 1856 (Uruguay), 1857 (Chad), 1858 (France/French Polynesia), 1859 (Canada) and 1860 (Dominican Republic), 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 following cases: No. 1651 (India), No. 1685 (Venezuela), No. 1687 (Morocco), No. 1691 (Morocco), No. 1712 (Morocco), No. 1787 (Colombia), No. 1822 (Venezuela), No. 1827 (Venezuela), No. 1828 (Venezuela), No. 1832 (Argentina), No. 1834 (Kazakhstan), No. 1836 (Colombia), No. 1837 (Argentina), No. 1838 (Burkina Faso) and No. 1841 (Burundi). In the cases of Venezuela (Nos. 1685, 1822 and 1827), the Government stated that it would send its observations soon.

Observations requested from complainants

6. In Cases Nos. 1765 (Bulgaria), 1794 (Peru), 1819 (China) and 1843 (Sudan), the Committee is still awaiting the complainants' comments. In Case No. 1815 (Spain), the Committee decided to transmit the Government's reply to the complainant organization for comment. The Committee requests the complainants to transmit, without delay, the observations and information requested.

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1512, 1539, 1595, 1740, 1778, 1786 (Guatemala), 1719 (Nicaragua), 1737 (Canada), 1761 (Colombia), 1796 (Peru), 1810 (Turkey), 1812 (Venezuela), 1830 (Turkey), 1835 (Czech Republic) and 1840 (India), 1842 (El Salvador), the Governments have sent partial 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. 1678, 1695, 1781 (Costa Rica), 1773 (Indonesia), 1774 (Australia), 1820 (Germany), 1829 (Chile), 1846 (Côte d'Ivoire) and 1849 (Belarus), the Committee has received the Governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting.

Urgent appeals

9. As regards Cases Nos. 1809 (Kenya), 1817 (India), 1824 (El Salvador), 1825 (Morocco), 1826 (Philippines) and 1833 (Zaire), 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.

Withdrawal of complaint

10. In Case No. 1789 (Republic of Korea) the complainant, the International Metalworkers' Federation confirms in a communication of 31 August 1995 that an agreement has been reached between the Daewoo Shipbuilding Workers' Union and the company. Consequently, the International Metalworkers' Federation informs the Committee that it is withdrawing its complaint. The Committee takes note of this communication and decides therefore to close the case.

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: Costa Rica (Case No. 1780) and Chad (Case No. 1791).

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

12. As regards Case No. 1723 (Argentina) relating to the dismissal of 34 trade unionists who were former employees of 16 banking institutions and who were dismissed for political reasons or for participation in trade union activities between 1 January 1959 and 12 December 1980, and the non-observance of Act No. 23523 which protects the said employees, this case was examined by the Committee at its November 1994 meeting (see 295th Report, paras. 302-315). At this meeting, the Committee emphasized the importance that it attached to the effective and timely application of Act No. 23523 and requested the Government to hold discussions with the Banking Association and with the relevant employers and employers' organizations, with the aim of determining the exact names and number of former employees who had not been reinstated despite their preferential right to reinstatement. Independently of the available administrative and judicial remedies, the Committee also requested the Government to promote new conciliatory measures and arrangements which could be concluded between the parties. In a communication dated 30 May 1995, the Government indicates that the Department of International Affairs of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has asked the National Directorate of Professional Relations to take the necessary steps to give effect to the Committee's recommendations. The Government further states that on 23 May 1995, a meeting regrouping high-level representatives of the Ministry of Labour, as well as workers' and employers' representatives, took place during which the parties concerned expressed their respective points of view and the Secretary of Labour requested them to exchange information with a view to reaching a negotiated settlement. The Committee takes note of this information and expresses the hope that the parties will reach an agreement as quickly as possible. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.

13. As regards Case No. 1509 (Brazil) concerning the murder of the trade union leader Valdicio Barbosa dos Santos, the Committee had expressed the hope at its June 1995 meeting that a judicial investigation under way would ascertain the facts and punish those responsible, and had requested the Government to keep it informed in this respect (see 299th Report, para. 11). In communications dated 30 August and 19 September 1995, the Government indicates that the Office of the Public Prosecutor has charged Messrs. Marçal da Rocha and Romualdo Eustaquio Luz Fario with murder in this case. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to continue keeping it informed on this case.

14. As regards Case No. 1594 (Côte d'Ivoire), at its March 1995 meeting (see 297th Report, para. 21), the Committee had expressed its concern at the deterioration of the situation in the Irho Lamé enterprise and had once again requested the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning the issue of the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs following labour disputes linked to the recognition of first-level unions affiliated to "Dignité" and, in particular, of the outcome of the negotiations.

15. In communications received at the ILO on 28 March, 21 July and 11 September 1995, the Government indicates that following "the deterioration of the situation at Irho Lamé on 17 January 1995 which resulted in injuries to 43 workers who had started to work again, and concerned about preserving social stability, it ordered the holding of an inquiry which was carried out by the Ministry of Employment and the Public Service". According to the Government, it would appear from information gathered on the spot, from hearings of representatives of SYNTIF/DPO (the trade union affiliated to "Dignité") and from various pieces of evidence (photos of the victims, medical certificates and records of minutes from the police), that, contrary to "Dignité's" allegations, it was workers who were without jobs for two years who had attacked the non-striking workers who had started to work again (the latter included new workers and former dismissed workers who had been reinstated). Furthermore, the Government states that this attack which was premeditated (presence of the media, persons foreign to the enterprise, etc.), was carried out while proposals to reinstate workers were being made to workers by the management of the enterprise as well as by the Ivorian authorities, in conformity with the recommendations of the direct contacts mission. These proposals included: the reinstatement of 167 workers from August 1993 to January 1994; the reinstatement of 200 workers on 20 April 1994 and the reinstatement of 100 workers on 13 October 1994.

16. The Government continues by pointing out that in light of the latest developments, namely flagrant and continuous violations of provisions of the Labour Code by "Dignité", the compromise solution which would have meant the progressive reinstatement of workers can no longer be envisaged and the workers who have been without jobs for two years can no longer be hired on a contractual basis. The Government underlines that the management of IDEFOR considers that it has negotiated in all possible ways in vain, and therefore has decided to terminate the employment contracts of the strikers for having abandoned their posts, and to pay them their wages, leave and end-of-year bonuses. It has, however, decided to initiate judicial expulsion measures so that the premises on which the strikers were housed will be vacated. This decision was confirmed on 9 June 1995 during a meeting with the representatives of the strikers accompanied by two members of "Dignité" in the presence of a bailiff of the court chosen by the strikers. In the Government's view, if the strikers feel they have been wronged, they can go to the courts to have their rights enforced in conformity with the provisions of the Labour Code.

17. The Committee takes note of this information with deep concern. It recalls the importance that it attaches to both parties negotiating in good faith. It once again insists that the Government take the necessary measures immediately so that workers dismissed due to their legitimate trade union activities are reinstated in their posts and to keep it informed in this regard.

18. As regards Case No. 1751 (Dominican Republic), the Committee had requested the Government at its November 1994 meeting (see 295th Report, paras. 360 to 374) to take measures to guarantee that the United Agricultural and Industrial Trade Union of the Cristobál Colón Sugar Plantation (whose registration had been recognized by the administrative authorities then revoked by the judicial authorities) be able to function freely and carry out its activities. In a communication dated 7 August 1995, the Government sends information transmitted by the Cristobál Colón Sugar Plantation according to which the management of the plantation never intervened in the dispute between the trade union previously established at the enterprise and the new union whose registration had been cancelled through judicial channels. This document describes in detail the development of the dispute and the reasons for the dismissals; the legal decision is also included therein. The Committee takes note of this information but must insist once again that the Government take measures to enable the United Agricultural and Industrial Trade Union of the Cristobál Colón Sugar Plantation to function freely and carry out its activities.

19. As concerns Case No. 1742 (Hungary), last examined by the Committee at its meeting in March 1995 (see 297th Report, para. 31), the Government was requested to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings concerning the transfer of Mr. Galambos, as well as of any progress in the adoption of the draft bill revising sanctions and court procedures. In a communication dated 7 June 1995, the Government recalls that the enterprise in which Mr. Galambos was employed, is currently undergoing liquidation. The employer secured placement for virtually all the employees - with the exception of Mr. Galambos - at the legal successor employer. Mr. Galambos was transferred to a different company in a job that he could not possibly carry out. He thus refused the placement and has not worked since 20 October 1993. The Labour Court has determined that the placement of Mr. Galambos was illegal and ordered the employer to pay back wages for the period during which Mr. Galambos has not worked. As concerns the draft legislation, the Government indicates that the framing of legislation on labour supervision is scheduled for the second part of 1995 and the bill on the modification of civil procedures has been submitted to the Parliament. The Committee notes this information with interest. It requests the Government to indicate whether any steps have been taken to secure employment for Mr. Galambos with the legal successor employer and to keep it informed of the progress made in the legislative revision.

20. As regards Case No. 1468 (India), last examined by the Committee at its May 1993 meeting (see 287th Report, para. 15), the Government had been requested to provide information concerning seven different trials concerning serious incidents that took place in 1988, in the State of Tripura, where charges had been brought against trade unionists. In a communication dated 3 October 1995, the Government indicates that in three trials, the prosecution had withdrawn the charges resulting in the closing of these cases. One other trial led to the conviction of four persons who, moreover, had pleaded guilty. (The names of the convicted persons have been provided by the Government.) As regards the three remaining trials, the Government indicates that these cases are still pending in the courts. The Committee takes note of this information.

21. As regards Case No. 1514 (India), last examined by the Committee at its March 1994 meeting (see 292nd Report, para. 15), the Committee had first of all drawn the Government's attention to the principle that teachers should enjoy the same protection as other workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and to take appropriate measures to this effect. The Committee had also expressed its concern at the slowness of the remedies allowing for the reinstatement of workers dismissed for trade union activities and had invited the Government to improve these procedures. Finally, the Committee had requested the Government to provide it with the text of the decision of the Madras Industrial Tribunal dismissing the complaints of 13 employees of the Hindustan Engineering Employees' Trade Union (HEETU).

22. In a communication dated 3 October 1995, the Government states that: (a) while the definition of "workman" in the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 does not make any distinction between teachers and other workmen, the Supreme Court has ruled that teachers cannot be considered as workmen under the terms of this Act; (b) the duration of pendency of cases in courts is generally influenced by the speedy or slow responses of the parties involved in the disputes, and the Government does not interfere in the disposal of cases by independent judicial courts which follow the due process of law; and (c) the industrial disputes raised by the 13 employees against the management of the Hindustan Institute of Engineering Technology are still pending in the Principal Labour Court, Madras.

23. While taking note of this information, the Committee reiterates its view that teachers should enjoy the same protection as other workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. If this protection is not available under the Disputes Act due to an interpretation by a national court, then the Government should have recourse to other appropriate measures to ensure that this protection is afforded, in law and in practice, to this group of employees. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken in this respect. Secondly, while appreciating the Government's reasons for not interfering with the disposal of cases by independent judicial courts, the Committee recalls that cases concerning anti-union discrimination should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can, in practice, be really effective, for justice delayed is justice denied. Noting that these 13 employees had been dismissed in 1989 (see 283rd Report, para. 111), the Committee expresses the firm hope that the cases pending in the Principal Labour Court in Madras will be judged soon. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the decision handed down by the Principal Labour Court in Madras.

24. As regards Case No. 1756 (Indonesia), the Committee had requested the Government at its November 1994 meeting (295th Report, para. 423) to keep it informed on the situation of the arrested trade unionists, Messrs. Amosi Telambanua and Soniman Lafau, as well as the outcome of any inquiry held on the beatings they had been allegedly subjected to. In communications of 26 September and 5 October 1995, the Government states that Mr. Amosi Telambanua was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment by the trial court in Medan in April 1994 for his involvement in the violent labour unrest which took place in this province. Later on, the North Sumatra Appellate Court sentenced him to three years' imprisonment, but in June 1995 the Supreme Court revoked the Appellate Court's verdict and confirmed the Median trial court's decision, namely 15 months' imprisonment, which means that Mr. Telambanua should have been freed on 29 July 1995. The Committee takes note of this information. It deeply regrets that the prison sentence of Mr. Telambanua was confirmed. It once again draws the Government's attention to the fact that measures of detention and conviction taken against workers' representatives for activities linked to the defence of workers' interests represent a real danger for the exercise of trade union rights. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the situation of Mr. Soniman Lafau.

25. As regards Case No. 1552 (Malaysia), at its March 1995 meeting, the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the High Court's decision on the application for judicial review submitted by 21 dismissed workers of Harris Solid-State Sdn-Bhd (see 297th Report, para. 18). In a communication dated 17 August 1995, the Government states that on 8 August 1995, the High Court granted an application for an order to quash an industrial court award which had dismissed the claims for reinstatement and compensation presented by these workers. The High Court also granted an application by the workers that their case be retried in another division of the Industrial Court. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the Industrial Court's decision and to send it a copy of the judgement once it has been handed down.

26. As regards Case No. 1698 (New Zealand), the Committee requested the Government at its meeting in November 1994 (295th Report, para. 261) to keep it informed of the results of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Medical Laboratory Workers' Union Inc. et al. v. Capital Coast Health Ltd., and of other judicial proceedings of significance. In a communication dated 1 June 1995, the Government indicated that the results of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal in the Capital Coast Health case were not yet available. The Government also indicated that, following the issue of the Committee's report, it had invited the NZCTU (New Zealand Council of Trade Unions) and the NZEF (New Zealand Employers' Federation) to forward their responses to this report, as a basis for further discussions, which would also take place when the outcome of the Capital Coast Health case would be available. The Government also provided information on a number of relevant court decisions, revolving around the following themes: (a) recognition of authorized representatives; (b) mutual obligations of trust and confidence in negotiations; (c) use of lock-outs in negotiations; (d) ratification procedures; (e) harsh and oppressive contracts and behaviour; and (f) rights of access for authorized representatives.

27. As regards the recognition of authorized representatives for bargaining the Employment Court has continued to apply in a number of recent decisions the approach taken to section 12 of the Employment Contracts Act in the Capital Coast Health decision of the Employment Court (now under appeal). Section 12 gives employees the right to authorize an organization or person to represent them in negotiations and requires employers to recognize these representatives. In Caledonian Cleaners and Caterers (1992) Ltd. v. Hetariki of November 1994 it was recognized that section 12 could not only be enforced through the specific remedies available for it, but, in appropriate cases, the personal grievance provisions (e.g. for protection against unjustifiable dismissal) could provide protection for employees to uphold their rights to be represented by the organization of their choice. In NZ Dairy Workers Union Inc. v. Hautapu Whey Transport Ltd. of September 1994, the Employment Court emphasized that employees are free to choose their representative and that others, including unions themselves, should not restrict this choice. The approach taken by the Court would also apply to any comparable action by an employer or any other person or organization. Comments by the Court made in Ivamy and Ors v. NZ Fire Service Commission of February 1995 indicate an approach to the interpretation of section 12 which emphasizes the obligations of employers to respect the authority of an appointed representative, to the extent that an accidental impact on employees may arguably constitute a breach of section 12. The Employment Court, in Flight Attendants and Related Services (NZ) Association Inc. v. Air NZ Ltd. of March 1995, granted an interim injunction in favour of the union which understood that the employer intended to approach employees directly in small groups.

28. The importance of observing the implied term of mutual obligations of trust and confidence during negotiations as well as during the ongoing employment relationship was highlighted in the Capital Coast Health decision and these obligations have continued to be referred to by the Employment Court in its decisions, for example in the Tasman Pulp and Paper Company Ltd. decision of February 1995. Three recent decisions by the Employment Court have examined the use of lock-outs in negotiations for collective contracts. According to the Government these decisions demonstrate that employees and their representatives are able to seek and obtain speedy remedies when they believe that bargaining behaviour by an employer is unlawful. They also provide an indication of the issues which are being raised in this context and the approach the Employment Court is developing in such cases: under the Employment Contracts Act, lock-outs and strikes in relation to certain issues where statutory dispute resolution procedures are available, such as freedom of association and personal grievances, are unlawful. In Burgess v. Command Pacific (NZ) Ltd. of October 1994 the Court concluded that even if the lock-out was not found to be unlawful on these grounds, in order to be lawful it would still need to relate to negotiations for a collective employment contract. In Davson and Ors v. Tasman Pulp and Paper Company Ltd. of April 1995, the lock-out was also found to be arguably unlawful because it related to a personal grievance.

29. As regards the obligations of employers and employees in the ratification process the Employment Court has now confirmed that employers are bound by the agreed settlement, pending ratification of the settlement by the employees (NZ Engineering Union Ltd., Communication and Energy Workers' Union and Ors v. Shell Todd Oil Services Ltd. of December 1994). As regards protection in bargaining in the case of harsh and oppressive contracts and behaviour (section 57 of the Employment Contracts Act), the Government provides details on Craig and Ors v. R and P Fraser Pty. Ltd. and Waikato Beef Packers Ltd. of April 1995. In this case, employment contracts which deprived employees of redundancy compensation due to them by their former employer were found to violate section 57. Compensation was ordered to restore the plaintiffs to the position they would have been in had their contracts been honoured when their employment with their former employer terminated. The Court concluded that even threats to do something lawful can amount to pressure which the law does not regard as legitimate. The Court of Appeal has now confirmed the rights of access provided by the Employment Contracts Act for authorized representatives, for the purpose of discussing matters relating to employment contract negotiations. In Foodstuffs (Auckland) Ltd. v. National Distribution Union (Inc.) of March 1995, the Court concluded that employees were entitled to be paid during the exercise of the rights of access and that this entitlement could not be contracted away. In a communication of 16 October 1995, the Government states that the Court of Appeal has now examined the Capital Coast Health case but has not yet handed down its decision. Discussions with employers' and workers' organizations will take place once the Court has delivered its decision. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government concerning the latest court judgements. It requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the Capital Coast Health case so that it can examine the impact of this jurisprudence. It also requests the Government to provide information on the discussions to be held with NZCTU and NZEF.

30. As regards 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, at its March 1995 meeting the Committee noted 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 of them had already been reinstated (297th Report, para. 19). In a communication of 18 September 1995, the Government states that it has proceeded to recruit 11 other workers who had been dismissed from the Water and Electricity Board (IRHE) and that other such recruitments will continue to take place in 1996. The Committee once again takes note of this information with satisfaction and expresses the hope that this process of reinstatement will culminate satisfactorily.

31. As regards Case No. 1706 (Peru), examined in June 1994 (see 294th Report, paras. 320 to 334), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the steps taken so that competent authorities could initiate an investigation into the dismissals of the nine trade union leaders for judiciary staff referred to in the allegations, and if anti-trade union motives were confirmed, to ensure that they were reinstated in their posts. In a communication dated 12 October 1995, the Government stated that both the High Court of ICA and that of Catamarca, respectively, confirmed that José Luis Puppi Aguada and Teresa del Pilar Quevedo Rojas were relieved of their functions as a result of an appraisal of their performance, in strict application of Decree-Laws Nos. 25446 and 25812. The Committee takes note of this information and regrets that the Government has only investigated the situation of two of the nine trade union leaders who have been dismissed. It therefore requests the Government to investigate without delay the dismissals of the remaining seven and, if anti-trade union motives are confirmed, to reinstate them in their posts and to keep the Committee informed in this respect.

32. As regards Case No. 1618 (United Kingdom), the Committee, at its March 1995 meeting, had urged 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 (see 297th Report, para. 22). In a communication dated 2 June 1995, the Government states that it remains convinced that there is no evidence to suggest that its legislation does not meet the requirements of the ILO Conventions relevant to this case and considers, consequently, that further legislation in this area is unnecessary. With regard to the existence of effective remedies against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Government indicates that a complaint can be lodged to an industrial tribunal which, if it finds in the applicant's favour, can award substantial compensation, including compensation for injury to feelings. Finally, the Government points out that, in a judgement delivered on 24 February 1995, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found, in the case of Mr. C. Harrison and Kent County Council, that the industrial tribunal had erred in law by adopting an unduly restrictive approach as to the proper construction of section 137 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that an individual refused employment because of his trade union activities may be considered to have been unlawfully refused employment because of his trade union membership. The Government considers that this case-law now makes it clear that effective remedies do exist against all acts of anti-union discrimination. While noting this information, the Committee also notes that the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the case would have to be remitted for a rehearing by a differently constituted industrial tribunal. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the industrial tribunal's decision and to send it a copy of the judgement once delivered. Finally, the Committee once again urges the Government to take steps to extend to workers an express protection against blacklisting or other forms of discrimination based on past trade union membership or activities and to keep it informed in this respect.

33. 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. Then in March 1995, (see 297th Report, para. 34), the Committee had expressed the hope that the problems pending in this case could be resolved through continued dialogue between the authorities and the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions (see 297th Report, para. 34). In communications dated 14 and 26 April 1995, the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions reaffirms that the Government still has not taken any measures to comply with the Committee's recommendations and that trade union rights are systematically violated in Russia. The complainant organization states that its members are allegedly victims of acts of intimidation and repression. More specifically, on 17 March 1995, one of its members, Mr. V.I. Basmanov, was allegedly arrested without grounds, while on 22 April 1995 Mr. E.M. Murashkin and Mr. V.A. Klebanov were attacked and robbed at the local market of the village of Lobnya in the Moscow region. Despite repeated calls for help, neither the police nor the hospital services intervened during this incident. A complaint was lodged at the Public Prosecutor's Office in this regard. In a communication dated 28 August 1995, the Government states that an investigation was carried out with respect to the incidents which occurred at the Lobnya marketplace. The persons who had beaten and robbed Mr. E.M. Murashkin and Mr. V.A. Klebanov have still not been identified but criminal proceedings have been instituted in order to find the criminals. The officers of the Lobnya Department of Internal Affairs who had failed to take the necessary steps to elucidate this matter have been subjected to disciplinary penalties by the authorities. The Committee takes note of this information and expresses the hope that the judicial proceedings under way will enable the authorities to identify and punish the guilty parties. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to verify if Mr. Basmanov was detained and, if so, on what charges, and to take the necessary steps to ensure that he is released immediately if he has been detained on anti-union grounds. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard and on any developments concerning the above-mentioned matters. Furthermore, the Committee notes that a new communication was received from the Government during its meeting. The Committee will examine this communication at its next meeting.

34. As regards Case No. 1581 (Thailand), the Committee had requested the Government at its March 1995 meeting (see 297th Report, para. 20) to keep it informed of any progress made in the adoption of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill. In a communication dated 14 September 1995, the Government states that since Parliament was dissolved on 19 May 1995, all the pending bills to be considered were suspended until the holding of the general elections. The new Parliament assumed its functions in July 1995 and the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare once again submitted the Bill to the Cabinet which approved it on 15 August 1995. The Bill was then introduced into the House of Representatives and passed the first reading on 23 August 1995. The Committee takes note of this information. It asks the Government to furnish a copy of this Bill to the Office so that the Committee may assess its contents in the light of freedom of association principles. The Committee further requests the Government to keep it informed of developments relating to the procedure concerning the adoption of this Bill in Parliament.

35. As regards Case No. 1727 (Turkey), examined by the Committee at its November 1994 meeting (see 295th Report, paras. 316 to 332), it noted that a Bill was being considered to guarantee the trade union rights of public employees. In a communication dated 3 July 1995, the Government states in this respect that the Parliamentary Commission, while debating this Bill, held that it was not compatible with the Constitution as such and that this constitutional issue should be settled before resuming any debate on the Bill. The Government states that subsequently, constitutional amendments were adopted and the draft amendment which aims to secure the trade union rights of public employees is presently pending debate before Parliament. The Committee takes note of this information and expresses the hope that the Bill in question will be adopted in the near future and that it will be in full conformity with ILO Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151. The Committee reminds the Government that the Office remains at its disposal to provide any technical assistance that the Government considers to be necessary in this area. Finally, the Committee regrets that the Government has not furnished the other information requested in paragraph 332(b) of the 295th Report concerning the functioning without hindrance of the branches and local offices of EGITIM-IS, the withdrawal of legal or administrative proceedings undertaken against trade unionists and the annulment of acts of anti-union discrimination and requests it to do so as soon as possible.

36. As concerns Case No. 1807 (Ukraine), examined by the Committee at its June 1995 meeting, the Government was requested to continue its efforts to fully implement the provisions of the Agreement on Wage Rates and Social Guarantees in the mining industry and to consider machinery which would enable the parties voluntarily to take account of economic and social policy considerations and the protection of the general interest (see 299th Report, para. 360). In a communication dated 28 September 1995, the Government indicated, with respect to the machinery facilitating consultation and negotiation, that the legislation presently in force provides procedures aimed at resolving social and labour matters at all levels, including national, sectoral, regional and at the enterprise level. This machinery has been established to foster agreements by consultation with, and bargaining between, representatives of the parties who thus have an opportunity to observe a policy of understanding and preservation of common interests. In this context, an important place is reserved for the State as guarantor of the law and social justice in relations between workers and employers. The Government adds that the Social Partnership Bill is being prepared and encompasses all aspects of a procedure guaranteeing the involvement of all parties when issues of common interest are examined. As concerns the implementation of the Agreement on Wage Rates and Social Guarantees in the mining industry, the Government reaffirms that the non-payment of wages is mainly due to the financial crisis which the country faces and, in particular, the economic decline in the mining industry. The Government adds that, along with the national bank, it is trying to find solutions enabling payment of the wages and concludes by stating that the participation of all the parties concerned will permit a stabilization of the coalmining industry and the prompt payment of wages and other amounts due. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to continue its efforts to ensure the payment of wages and social benefits so that the Agreement on Wage Rates and Social Guarantees can be fully implemented. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the Social Partnership Bill and to keep it informed of any developments concerning the creation of a system of effective and stable industrial relations and concerning the machinery for consultation of workers' and employers' organizations in the process of restructuring the various sectors of the economy. The Committee reminds the Government that the assistance of the International Labour Office is available in these areas if it so wishes.

37. As regards Case No. 1739 (Venezuela) concerning the murder of the trade unionist, Mr. Muñoz Key, the Committee had requested the Government at its March 1995 meeting to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial investigation under way (see 297th Report, para. 30). In a communication of 27 September 1995, the Government states that it has issued an order to arrest Mr. Maikel Emilio Diáz Salcedo for being the presumed direct accomplice in the murder in question. The Committee takes note of this information.

38. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1511 (Australia), 1556 (Iraq), 1568 (Honduras), 1623 (Bulgaria), 1628 (Cuba), 1629 (Republic of Korea), 1640/1646 (Morocco), 1699 (Cameroon), 1714 (Morocco), 1724 (Morocco), 1730 (United Kingdom), 1732 (Dominican Republic), 1733 (Canada/Quebec), 1734 (Guatemala), 1735 (Canada/Ontario), 1747/1748/1749/1750 (Canada/Quebec), 1752 (Myanmar), 1758 (Canada), 1764 (Nicaragua), 1775 (Belize), 1779/1801 (Canada/Prince Edward Island), 1792 (Kenya), 1800 (Canada), 1802 (Canada/Nova Scotia), 1803 (Djibouti), and 1808 (Costa Rica), 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.