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 14, 15 and 21 March 1996, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

2. The members of German and Indian nationalities were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Germany (No. 1820) and India (Nos. 1817 and 1840) respectively.

3. Currently, there are 79 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 20 cases and interim conclusions in 6 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: 1861 (Denmark), 1864 (Paraguay), 1865 (Republic of Korea), 1867 (Argentina), 1868 (Costa Rica), 1869 (Latvia), 1870 (Congo), 1871 (Brazil) and 1872 (Argentina) 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. 1687 (Morocco), No. 1691 (Morocco), No. 1765 (Bulgaria), No. 1805 (Cuba), No. 1815 (Spain), No. 1831 (Bolivia), No. 1834 (Kazakstan), No. 1854 (India), No. 1855 (Peru), No. 1857 (Chad) and No. 1858 (French Polynesia). In the cases of India (No. 1854) and French Polynesia (No. 1858), the Governments stated that they would send their observations soon.

Observations requested from complainants

6. In Case No. 1794 (Peru), the Committee observes that, in spite of the time which has elapsed since it first requested the complainant's comments, it has still not received them. The Committee therefore is compelled to consider this case as closed. In Case No. 1843 (Sudan), the Committee is awaiting additional information from the complainants which has been requested by the Government.

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1737 (Canada), 1761 (Colombia), 1796 (Peru), 1835 (Czech Republic) and 1853 (El Salvador), the Governments have sent partial information on the allegations made. In Cases Nos. 1737 (Canada) and 1835 (Czech Republic) the Governments concerned have stated that they will send the remaining information as soon as the inquiries or trials concerning the matters under consideration have been concluded. The Committee requests all of these Governments 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. 1512, 1539, 1595, 1740, 1778, 1786 (Guatemala), 1649 (Nicaragua), 1719 (Nicaragua), 1819 (China), 1829 (Chile), 1832 (Argentina), 1837 (Argentina), 1851 (Djibouti), 1852 (United Kingdom), 1859 (Canada), 1862 (Bangladesh), 1863 (Guinea) and 1866 (Brazil), 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. 1712 (Morocco), 1787 (Colombia), 1822 (Venezuela), 1827 (Venezuela), 1836 (Colombia) and 1850 (Congo), 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.

Withdrawals of complaints

10. In Case No. 1828 (Venezuela) the Government has transmitted two letters from the Association of Unionized Air Hostesses (ADAS) and from the Trade Union Association of Avensa Pilots (ASPA) in which these organizations state that they are withdrawing the complaint that they had presented in this case (see in this respect the procedural rule concerning the withdrawal of complaints, Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, Annex I, para. 52). The Committee notes, however, that the complaint had been presented jointly with a third organization, the Trade Union Federation of Aeronautic Pilots of Venezuela (FESPAVEN). The Committee requests this latter organization to indicate if it wishes to pursue this case or, on the contrary, to withdraw its complaint.

11. In Case No. 1774 (Australia), the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the complainant in this matter, stated that it wished to formally withdraw its complaint in a communication dated 6 March 1996. The Committee, having no reason to believe that this decision was not taken in full independence, takes note of this withdrawal and considers this case as closed.

Complaint considered as not receivable

12. In a communication from a law firm dated 14 June 1995, the nurses' assemblies of a number of Danish hospitals submitted a complaint against the Government of Denmark alleging the violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, both of which have been ratified by Denmark. In reply to a request from the Office for further details, the law firm stated that the assemblies concerned were permanent bodies but did not provide any evidence to that effect.

13. On this matter, the Committee's rules of procedure provide that "complaints originating from assemblies or gatherings which are not bodies having a permanent existence ... are not receivable" (see Digest, op. cit., Annex I, para. 45).

14. Under these circumstances, and bearing in mind that Danish legislation does not require any particular conditions for the establishment of trade unions or the conferral of legal personality, the Committee considers that the complaint submitted by the aforementioned nurses' assemblies is not receivable.

15. 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 (No. 1695), United Kingdom (No. 1730), Turkey (Nos. 1810 and 1830), Mexico (No. 1844) and Belarus (No. 1849).

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

16. As regards Case No. 1509 (Brazil) concerning the murder of the trade unionist Valdício Barbosa dos Santos, the Committee noted at its November 1995 meeting that the Public Prosecutor had charged Marçal da Rocha and Romualdo Eustáquio Luz Faria with being jointly responsible for the murder in question and requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the legal proceedings in this case (see 300th Report, para. 13). In a communication dated 25 January 1996 the Government states that the whereabouts of Marçal da Rocha are currently unknown, but that the judicial authorities have ruled that he should be placed in preventive detention and have instructed the police authorities to arrest him. The Government also states that the judicial authorities have summoned Romualdo Eustáquio Luz Faria for interrogation. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the legal proceedings in this case.

17. As regards Case No. 1511 (Australia), the Committee requested the Government at its meeting in June 1995 (see 299th Report, para. 12) to keep it informed of developments in relation to the enforcement of the award of damages against the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) and its officers and of the outcome of AFAP's appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Committee requested the Government to persevere with its endeavours to persuade the airlines not to enforce the substantial damages against AFAP and its officers. In a communication dated 5 March 1996, the Government indicates that there have been no developments in relation to the enforcement of the award of damages, nor have there been any developments in relation to the appeal by the AFAP against this award. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments on this matter. The Committee also requested to be kept informed as concerns the section 118A proceedings relating to an application by airlines to have AFAP deprived of the right to represent pilots employed by them. In September 1994 the Senior Deputy President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) decided that AFAP should not have the right to represent the pilots in question. He decided to grant coverage of certain pilots to the Australian International Pilots' Association (AIPA) and that there was merit in considering whether coverage of pilots in all airlines concerned should be given to AIPA. In the light of that decision AIPA lodged an application for coverage of pilots in the airlines concerned. Appeals were lodged against the decisions of the Senior Deputy President which culminated in a decision of the Full Bench of the AIRC of 5 December 1995 refusing leave to appeal. The consequence of this decision is that the decisions of the Senior Deputy President of the AIRC stand and that AIPA's application to have the right to represent pilots in the airlines concerned will now proceed. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed on further developments.

18. As regards Case No. 1514 (India), last examined by the Committee at its November 1995 meeting (see 300th Report, paras. 21-23), the Committee had reiterated its view that teachers should enjoy the same protection as other workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. Secondly, the Committee recalled that cases concerning anti-union discrimination should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be effective. Noting that cases referring to dismissals carried out in 1989 were still pending in the Principal Labour Court in Madras, the Committee requested the Government to provide it with a copy of the decisions to be handed down by this court.

19. In a communication dated 9 February 1996 the Government states that providing protection to teachers under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974, was considered under a comprehensive proposal to amend the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which also included proposals to strengthen grievance mechanisms. However, it was not possible to indicate when the respective legislation, on which tripartite consultations would have to take place, would be passed. As regards the still pending court cases the Government indicates that efforts are being made, through the state government, to get the cases judged soon. The cases were still pending because efforts at settlement were still under way and also because of the failure of the parties to appear before the court on some occasions. In addition evidence was still being recorded.

20. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to advance the reform of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, rapidly so as to grant teachers the same protection as other workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. Considering the extreme slowness of the existing remedies under labour law the Committee invites the Government to improve, as part of the ongoing reform, labour court procedures, together with grievance mechanisms, so that the parties can obtain speedy relief, and to keep it informed of the progress of the reform process. It expresses the firm expectation that all cases which are still pending in connection with the dismissals carried out in 1989 will be judged in the very near future and requests the Government to provide copies in an ILO working language of the judgements to be handed down.

21. As regards Case No. 1517 (India), last examined by the Committee at its November 1993 meeting (see 291st Report, para. 16), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of any progress registered with regard to the adoption of legislative provisions which would lay down objective procedures for determining the representative status of trade unions and of the outcome of the appeal lodged by the management of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning the reimbursement of wages withheld because of a one-day strike. In a communication of 25 October 1995, the Government states that the adoption of legislative provisions for determining the representativeness of trade unions is under consideration. The Government further states that the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL) has been requested to apprise the Government about the outcome of the appeal filed by IDPL concerning the reimbursement of wages withheld on account of a one-day strike. The Committee takes note of this information and asks the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in adopting the said legislation and on the outcome of the appeal.

22. As regards Case No. 1556 (Iraq), the Committee, after noting that the Government had provided information on only a third of the detained Kuwaiti trade unionists in Iraq, had requested the Government to provide it with detailed information on the condition of the remaining imprisoned or missing Kuwaiti trade unionists who had been named by the complainants (see 291st Report, para. 18). The Committee had further requested the Government to provide information on the restoration of confiscated property to Kuwaiti trade unions and employers' organizations, notably within the framework of the compensation fund set up for this purpose under the auspices of the United Nations. In a communication of 23 December 1995, the Government repeats its assertion that there are no Kuwaiti trade unionists nor non-trade unionists detained in Iraq. Moreover, the Government indicates that it has no other developments to report as regards other matters pertaining to this complaint. The Committee takes note of this information. It must nevertheless insist that the Government provide it with information on the condition of the remaining imprisoned or missing Kuwaiti trade unionists who had been named by the complainants and on the restoration of confiscated property to Kuwaiti trade unions and employers' organizations, notably within the framework of the compensation fund set up for this purpose under the auspices of the United Nations.

23. As regards Case No. 1594 (Côte d'Ivoire), at its November 1995 meeting (see 300th Report, paras. 14-17), the Committee had emphasized the importance that it attached to both parties negotiating in good faith and had requested the Government to take the necessary measures so that the workers dismissed for legitimate trade union activities from the research plant of the Forest Development Institute (IDEFOR) at Irho Lamé were reinstated in their posts, and to keep it informed in this regard. In a communication dated 8 February 1996 the Government states that the activities that the "Dignité" Federation organized on 17 January 1995 can no way be described as "legitimate trade union activities" in so far as they involved acts of aggression and brutality against workers in the course of their work, and resulted in 43 of them being injured (three are in a critical condition). The Government asserts that it has shown patience and good faith by encouraging negotiation, but that the Secretary-General of Dignité has been absolutely adamant in his rejection of the concrete and realistic proposals it made: that 167 workers be reinstated between August 1993 and January 1994, 200 workers on 20 August 1994, and 100 workers on 13 October 1994. The Government adds that the Deputy Secretary-General of "Dignité", Mr. Koffi Assienin, acknowledged at a meeting on 27 November 1995 that there had been some uncontrolled incidents because the members of the "Dignité" Federation were young and untrained, and stated that "Dignité" had opted for negotiations in its labour relations. According to the Government, the Secretary-General of the Workers' Trade Union of the Institute of Forests and Department of Oil-Producing Plants (SYNTIF/DPO), Mr. Yapi Adou, who is a member of "Dignité", and several other members of this trade union have asked for the strikers who had been called out to defend their right to retirement to be compensated, for 300 other workers to be reinstated, for the workers imprisoned as a result of the bloody events of 17 January 1995 (Boukari Dabré and Alassane Dabore) to be released, and for the children of the Irho Lamé strikers to be offered schooling facilities. On 14 December 1995, the Government organized a meeting with the management of the enterprise, which agreed to provide schooling facilities for the children and to look into the matter of retirement benefits. As for the rest, since IDEFOR had had to recruit new staff, taking back the former workers would have meant dismissing the new. However, there is a project backed by sponsors to regroup the agronomic research facilities, which means that IDEFOR will undergo a restructuring process. According to the Government, reinstatement of the workers is inconceivable in these conditions. Since they are currently in prison, the legal proceedings will follow their normal course. The Committee notes this information. Nevertheless it notes that the names of Messrs. Dabré and Dabore figure in Case No. 1846 which was examined by the Committee in its present report. The Committee therefore draws the Government's attention to its conclusions in Case No. 1846 in which it expressed its outrage at the death of Mr. Dabré who died in prison. The Committee will follow developments concerning these matters within the framework of this case. As regards the dismissals of the Irho Lamé workers, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the implications of the restructuring process on the former Irho Lamé workers who wish to return to work, either at Irho Lamé or in other centres belong to IDEFOR.

24. As regards Case No. 1618 (United Kingdom), the Committee at its November 1995 meeting (see 300th Report, para. 32) noted the Government's indications concerning the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgement (EAT) in the case of Harrison v. Kent County Council and the fact that the EAT had decided that this case would have to be remitted for a rehearing by a differently constituted industrial tribunal. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the industrial tribunal's judgement in this case. Furthermore, the Committee urged 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.

25. In a communication dated 16 February 1996, the Government reaffirms its position that the existing legislation already provides adequate protection against discrimination on grounds of trade union membership or activities and moreover that there are extensive procedures to ensure that the legislation is effectively implemented. Consequently, the Government does not believe that there is any need to take further steps at this time, but it will keep the Committee informed should there be any legislative developments in this area. As concerns the Harrison v. Kent County Council case, the Government indicates that its hearing scheduled for 5-6 December 1995 was postponed at the request of the parties on the grounds that they were in negotiation as to a possible settlement.

26. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the developments in the Harrison case. Furthermore, while noting the Government's opinion concerning the adequacy of its legislative protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee must recall that the circumstances giving rise to this case tended to indicate that an express protection in the legislation against blacklisting or other forms of discrimination based on past trade union membership or activities was necessary in order to ensure full protection to workers in this regard. The Committee must therefore once again urge the Government to ensure such protection and to keep it informed of any measures taken.

27. As regards Case No. 1651 (India), last examined by the Committee at its November 1994 meeting (see 295th Report, paras. 548-566), the Committee regrets that the complainant organization, while expanding on the background of the complaint in a communication received on 20 September 1995, does not provide specific answers to its repeated requests for further information. The Government, in a communication dated 12 February 1996, provides information on the proceedings before different courts in relation to the complaint. It shares the Committee's concern at delays in disposing of these cases, while emphasizing that it cannot interfere with their disposal due to the principle of judicial independence. It reports that legislative reform is under way to make proceedings more expeditious. In view of the absence of additional information from the complainant, the Committee does not wish to pursue the examination of the allegations concerned. As regards proceedings under way, while regretting the considerable delays in disposing of the above cases, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of their progress and outcome.

28. As regards Cases Nos. 1682, 1711 and 1716 (Haiti) concerning grave violations of freedom of association by the de facto military authorities in Haiti during the events referred to in the complaints, the Committee notes the Government's communication of 28 December 1995. In this communication the constitutional Government of the Republic of Haiti states that it has noted the 300th Report of the Committee approved by the Governing Body in November 1995 (paras. 156-180). The Government confirms the alleged violent deaths and arrests of trade unionists, and the alleged violations of freedom of opinion and the freedom of assembly and to hold demonstrations. Regarding the dismissal of trade unionists, the Government adds that investigations will be carried out in order to shed light on the facts. It explains that these extremely serious cases of violation of trade union rights took place under the de facto military regime between October 1991 and September 1994, when public freedoms were totally denied and human rights were systematically violated. It adds that with the return of constitutional order in October 1994 it took immediate steps to correct the situation, inter alia by setting up the Justice and Truth Commission and dissolving the army. The Government therefore formally guarantees that such violations of freedom of association will not reoccur. The Committee welcomes this information. It encourages the Government to pursue its efforts in ensuring that freedom of association is respected and reminds the Government that the advisory services of the ILO are at its disposal if it wishes to obtain any assistance in this matter.

29. As regards Case No. 1688 (Sudan), last examined at its meeting in March 1994 (see 292nd Report, paras. 411-443), the Committee, expressing its concern that Drs. Muhamadani and Salah had been detained without being charged or sentenced, urged the Government to ensure that custody is limited to 72 hours and designed solely to facilitate the course of a judicial investigation. It also requested the Government urgently to take the necessary measures to ensure that trade union leaders and members are not detained and sentenced for performing trade union functions or for engaging in trade union activities to defend the interests of their constituents and to allow the provisions of the National Security Act to be amended to ensure that detained trade unionists, like any other person, enjoy due process before the law and are entitled to the proper administration of justice.

30. In a communication of 23 October 1995, the Government indicated that, according to the law on criminal procedure, a defendant may be detained, subject to investigation, even if this period exceeds 72 hours, as long as there is a criminal charge against him or her. The Government adds that there is no law granting it the right to detain or prosecute any trade unionist for undertaking trade union activities, provided that the legal procedures are followed. Finally, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Public Prosecutor have been informed in order to take the necessary legal measures concerning human rights and civil and political rights and to allow the provisions of the National Security Act to be amended as recommended by the Committee.

31. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government and requests it once again to take measures to amend the National Security Act and to keep it informed in this respect.

32. As regards Cases Nos. 1693, 1754 and 1757 (El Salvador), at its meeting in March-April 1995 the Committee made the following recommendations in connection with the allegations that were still pending (see 297th Report, para. 189):

- With regard to the alleged assassinations (Heriberto Galicia Sánchez, an official of the SINA, and Pedro Constanza, a member of the same trade union) and attempts to cause bodily harm (four members of the SINA), the Committee condemns these crimes and calls on the Government to take the necessary steps to initiate procedures as rapidly as possible to clarify the facts, determine responsibilities and punish the guilty parties, and to keep it informed of the outcome of those procedures.

- The Committee once again requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceeding against the workers who are currently free but were detained on 19 August 1992 as a result of a march of striking workers at the ARCO enterprise.

- With regard to the numerous allegations of anti-union dismissals in ARCO Ingenieros S.A. de C.V., the La Central Distillery S.A. de C.V., Mandarín Internacional S.A. de C.V. and Crédito Immobiliario S.A., the Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that no worker should be dismissed for union membership or activities, and requests the Government to conduct an investigation, as rapidly as possible, into whether the dismissals in the said enterprises were on account of the workers' union membership or activities and, if so, to take the necessary measures to enable these workers to secure reinstatement in their posts and to ensure the application of legal sanctions against the above-mentioned enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this investigation and the reinstatement of any workers.

- With regard to the alleged anti-union interference against the SINA with a view to the creation of a parallel trade union in the INAZUCAR and CORSAIN enterprises, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the public authorities and employers should refrain from promoting the creation of trade union organizations dominated by them. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to conduct an immediate investigation into the allegations and, should they prove founded, to take legal action against those responsible for the interference. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

33. In its communication dated 1 November 1995, the Government describes in detail the steps taken by the judicial authority in the trial relating to the murder of Pedro Constanza, a member of the SINA trade union, and states that, as it did not prove possible to identify anyone involved, the file has been closed. Regarding the alleged murder of Heriberto Galicia Sánchez, the Government states that there are no court proceedings connected with this case. The Committee notes this information and calls on the Government to take steps to initiate a judicial inquiry into the alleged murder of Heriberto Sánchez. It emphasizes in this regard that "the absence of judgements against the guilty parties creates, in practice, a situation of impunity, which reinforces the climate of violence and insecurity, and which is extremely damaging to the exercise of trade union rights". (See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 55.)

34. The Government states that the workers at the ARCO enterprise who had been arrested for assaulting agents of the forces of order on 19 August 1992 - on which the Government gives details - were brought before the judicial authority and released after having been held for the legal period of 72 hours; in the absence of grounds for their arrest, the file was closed. As to the alleged anti-union interference with a view to the creation of a parallel trade union in the INAZUCAR and CORSAIN enterprises, the Government states that the so-called parallel union (Union of Workers of the Sugar Cane and Derivatives Processing Industry) was set up by 225 workers who had previously left the National Sugar Industry Trade Union (SINA); the new union decided unanimously at its ordinary general meeting to become an enterprise-level union under a new name (Union of Workers of the Chaumico-Inazúcar Sugar Mill). The Committee notes this information.

35. Regarding the alleged anti-union dismissals, the Committee regrets that the Government has not sent the information it had requested on these dismissals, which took place in 1993. The Committee observes that since that time the Labour Code has been amended to reinforce protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee trusts that it will in future be possible to prevent effectively the commission of acts of anti-trade union discrimination and emphasizes the principle that no worker should be dismissed on grounds of union membership or of legitimate trade union activities.

36. As regards Case No. 1706 (Peru), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the steps taken so that competent authorities could initiate an investigation into the dismissal of trade union leaders for judiciary staff (see 294th Report, para. 334, and 300th Report, para. 31). In a communication dated 11 December 1995, the Government states that the Higher Court of Justice of Callao and the Higher Court of Justice of Puno agreed that Germán Flores and Vicente P. Huanacune should be relieved of their duties. The Government also states once again that they were not relieved of their duties because they were trade union leaders. The Committee takes note of this information.

37. As regards Case No. 1723 (Argentina) relating to trade unionists who were former employees of banking institutions and who were dismissed for political reasons or for participation in trade union activities between 1 January 1959 and 12 December 1983, and the non-observance of Act No. 23523 which protects the said employees, the Committee noted at its November 1995 meeting that the Government had held a meeting with high-level representatives of the Ministry of Labour and workers' and employers' representatives with a view to reaching a negotiated settlement (see 300th Report, para. 12). The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard. In a communication dated 26 February 1996 the Government states that, bearing in mind the Committee's recommendations and in accordance with the undertaking entered into by the Ministry of Labour in the course of tripartite meetings, a series of inspections was conducted on the basis of a list of banking institutions submitted by the trade union; reports were drawn up and five banks were fined (from 2,000 to 2 million pesos, which is the same amount in US dollars). The Committee notes this information and once again expresses the hope that the parties will be able to reach an agreement in the very near future.

38. As regards Case No. 1730 (United Kingdom), last examined by the Committee at its June 1994 meeting (see 294th Report, paras. 162-203), the Committee observed that the section 13 amendment of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act of 1993 (TURER) considerably limited a tribunal's margin of appreciation in examining whether a given employer's action prevents or deters a worker from being or becoming a member of a trade union and thus practically compels a tribunal to reject a victimization complaint. The Committee invited the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to reconsider this amendment and referred the legislative aspects of the case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

39. In a communication dated 12 October 1995, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) draws the Committee's attention to the House of Lords' judgement in March 1995 reversing the Court of Appeal's ruling in the Wilson v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. and Palmer v. Associated British Ports cases which were the subject of the complaint in Case No. 1730. The majority of their Lordships concluded that the term "action" in "action short of dismissal" did not include an omission such as the withholding of a wage increase offered only to employees agreeing to sign individual contracts. Some consideration was also given to the meaning of trade union "membership" to be protected against acts of discrimination. Some of their Lordships concluded that the protection of trade union membership against discrimination did not include protection for making use of the essential services of the union and thus found that there was no evidence showing that the purpose for withholding the wage increase was to deter the applicant from remaining a member of the union. The TUC alleges that this judgement and the new Act, which was introduced to make clear that any protection against victimization of trade unionists had been removed, is an invitation to employers to discriminate against employees by reason of their trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities. The TUC adds that Mr. Dave Wilson, who was one of the first victims of his employer's decision to deny a pay increase to employees who refused to accept individual contracts, was dismissed from his job by Associated Newspapers because of his trade union activities. Finally, the TUC states that, while it has requested the Government to amend the Act, the Government has refused to even discuss the issues.

40. In a communication dated 8 November 1995, the Government refers the Committee to its report concerning the application of Convention No. 98. In this report, the Government states that section 13 of the TURER was not introduced as an attack on trade union membership rights, but rather was intended to ensure that there was no fetter on the ability of employers to change their negotiating arrangement and to make clear that the right not to be discriminated against on trade union membership grounds did not include or imply a right to have one's terms and conditions negotiated by collective bargaining. The Government also referred to the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision of February 1995 in the case of Harrison v. Kent County Council which found that an individual refused employment because of his or her trade union activities may be considered to have been unlawfully refused employment because of his or her trade union membership. Finally, the Government stresses that individuals remain protected in law against refusal of employment, dismissal and action short of dismissal on trade union membership grounds and disputes the view that offering incentives to encourage workers to change to contracts whose terms and conditions are not negotiated collectively removes much of the interest of being a union member.

41. The Committee takes due note of this information and of the latest developments in judicial interpretation. The House of Lords' judgement in the Wilson and Palmer cases reinforces the Committee's view that the legislative protection to be afforded to workers against acts of anti-union discrimination in their employment is insufficient. The Committee, therefore, once again invites the Government to consult the social partners with a view to amending the legislation so as to ensure effective protection of workers from any action taken by the employer, or omission to act, which would result in penalizing workers for attempting to regulate their terms and conditions of employment through collective bargaining.

42. As regards Case No. 1732 (Dominican Republic), the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal action taken in connection with the dismissed union leaders and members of Woo-Chang and Bonaham Apparel, Hotel Hamaca Beach Resort, Attwoods Dominicana S.A. and Big Bond Apparel; in addition, the Committee had requested the Government to re-examine the situation of the trade union leaders dismissed by Westinghouse and to keep it informed of developments (see 295th Report, para. 359). In a communication dated 8 January 1996 the Government states that the judicial authority has revoked the dismissal of the union leaders of the Hotel Hamaca Beach Resort and that the cases involving Woo-Chang and Bonaham Apparel and Big Bond Apparel have been satisfactorily resolved (in the two latter cases with the signing of collective agreements). The Committee notes this information with interest and requests the Government to make sure that the union leaders are reinstated in their jobs. The Committee regrets that, in the Westinghouse case, the dismissal of the union leaders were authorized by the judicial authority.

43. In Cases Nos. 1733, 1735, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1758, 1779, 1800, 1801 and 1802 (Canada), the Government states, in a communication dated 1 March 1996, that according to its usual practice, information on the effects given will be included in its next report on the application of Convention No. 87. The Committee takes note of this information and expresses the hope that the information that will be furnished will be favourable to the recommendations and the requests that have been formulated by the Committee, including the proposal that had been formulated for an advisory mission.

44. As regards Case No. 1734 (Guatemala), at its November 1994 meeting the Committee had requested the Government to send it the text of the court decision in respect of the dismissals at the "Atlantida" S.A. food and beverage enterprise in 1992 (eight union leaders and the rest of the workers who established the trade union), and to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings initiated against the Camisas Modernas S.A. (CAMOSA) in-bond enterprise for an alleged campaign of harassment and exclusion against the founding members of the enterprise's trade union (see 295th Report, paras. 375-388). In a communication dated 15 February 1996, the Government repeats its earlier statement that the dismissals at the food and beverage enterprise were authorized by the labour tribunal judge after he had found evidence of serious misconduct. As to Camisas Modernas S.A. (CAMOSA), the Government, without giving great detail, refers to a number of court cases currently being brought against the enterprise for infringement of labour legislation. The Committee emphasizes that the allegations date back to 1992 and 1993, and it therefore regrets that the Government's observations do not contain the information requested (the text of the court decision in respect of the dismissals at the "Atlantida" S.A. food and beverage enterprise), or else refer only to excessive delays in the administration of justice (dismissals at the Camosa enterprise). The Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that "cases concerning anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98 should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 749). The Committee calls on the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that in future alleged acts of discrimination are investigated rapidly and impartially and that the guilty parties are punished.

45. As regards Case No. 1742 (Hungary), last examined at its meeting in November 1995 (see 300th Report, para. 19), the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether any steps had been taken to secure employment for Mr. Galambos with the legal successor employer of his previous employer whose company was being liquidated and to keep it informed of the progress made in the legislative revision. In a communication dated 26 February 1996, the Government indicates that the Labour Code was modified with effect on 1 July 1995 and the Code of Civil Procedure was amended with effect on 30 August 1995 which, among other things, aims at speeding up court procedures. As concerns Mr. Galambos, the Government indicates that while the Labour Court found that his claim was justified because the delegation to another workplace did not comply with the formal and contextual requirements, it should be noted that the court did not deal with the eventual violation of trade union rights and the plaintiff has not filed any such action in court. Finally, the Government states the concepts of the Act on Labour Supervision were completed and discussed in October and December 1995 by the Wages and Labour Committee of the National Conciliation Council and were discussed by the Government in December 1995. Discussions will again take place in this regard in the plenary session of the National Conciliation Council to be held on 1 March 1996 and it is expected that it will be approved by Parliament in May 1996. The Committee takes note of this information with interest.

46. As regards Case No. 1744 (Argentina), at its November 1995 meeting (see 300th Report, paras. 91-100), when it examined the alleged failure to transfer the trade union dues deducted by the provincial authorities to the Association of Schoolteachers of the Province of La Rioja, the Committee requested the Government, if those allegations were true, to take the necessary steps immediately to ensure that the Government of the Province of La Rioja transferred the dues deducted from the trade union members immediately to the trade union organization in question. In a communication dated 12 February 1996, the Government states that the complainant organization's allegation is inexact, since the union dues are regularly transferred in so far as the administration of the budget so permits, but that the Province of La Rioja is currently in the process of reorganizing its income and expenditure. While noting this information, the Committee reminds the Government that failure to transfer union dues to trade unions may constitute serious interference in trade union affairs. That being so, and since the Government does not exclude the possibility of there being budgetary difficulties, the Committee requests the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that, even if the Government of the Province of La Rioja is faced with budget difficulties, the union dues are transferred to the trade union organizations.

47. As regards Case No. 1751 (Dominican Republic), at its November 1995 meeting (see 300th Report, para. 18) the Committee had requested the Government to take measures to guarantee that the United Agricultural and Industrial Trade Union of the Cristóbal Colón sugar plantation (whose registration had been recognized by the administrative authorities, then revoked by the judicial authorities) would be able to function freely and carry out its activities. In a communication dated 8 January 1996 the Government states that it is for the founders of the trade union to initiate the appropriate judicial proceedings. The Government adds, however, that the Secretary of State for Labour has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the Cristóbal Colón sugar mill immediately guarantees that its workers can join any trade union that they set up. The Committee notes this information.

48. As regards Case No. 1755 (Turkey) and the alleged dismissal of pilots and other workers in the aeronautical sector and the adoption of other measures against them (a ban on flying), the Committee had asked the Government at its November 1994 meeting (see 295th Report, paras. 333-346) to take the necessary measures to encourage the parties to come to an agreement so that all the trade unionists and workers who had been dismissed were reinstated in their posts, and to keep it informed of the outcome of the corresponding judicial proceedings. In a communication dated 27 November 1995 the Government states that the Labour Tribunal of Bakirkoy handed down its judgement in the case concerning Captain Bilisli on 13 July 1995 and rejected the latter's demand for 2 million Turkish pounds in compensation for his dismissal for engaging in trade union activities. Captain Bilisli is entitled to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeals. As to Mr. Sayilir, the tribunal acceded to his request that he be reinstated in his job, on the grounds that he was a representative of the workers of the Turkish Airlines company with the Turkish Aviation Workers' Union (HAVA-IS). The Committee notes this additional information with interest. It requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the outcome of the various judicial proceedings currently under way.

49. As regards Case No. 1762 (Czech Republic), the Committee, at its meeting in March 1995 (see 297th Report, paras. 272-284), suggested to the Government that it not maintain the provisions of the draft Act on the public service which are not in conformity with freedom of association principles, particularly as concerns the prohibition on the right to organize for public servants and the definition of public servants whose right to strike may be restricted. In a communication dated 2 November 1995, the Government indicates that the contents of the draft law continues to be the subject of extensive discussions of a professional, technical and political nature. As the Government has not yet discussed the Bill, the Bill has not yet been submitted to Parliament and its respective committees. In fact, discussions are now taking place among the political parties as to whether to submit the draft, in its present version, to the Parliament at all during its present election period. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to consult the organizations of workers which are directly concerned and to continue to keep it informed of any further developments with respect to the draft Act on the public service.

50. As regards Case No. 1764 (Nicaragua), the Committee had requested the Government at its November 1994 meeting (295th Report, paras. 450-462) to conduct an investigation into the real reasons for the dismissal of trade union leaders and members of the Trade Union of Workers of "El Redentor" Extra Supermarkets and into the reasons for the withdrawal of various trade union leaders from their membership in the union and, if the investigation concluded that these dismissals were of an anti-trade union nature, to impose the penalties provided for by the legislation, to reinstate the dismissed workers in their jobs and to permit the trade union (which was dissolved for not having the legal minimum number of members) to be reconstituted. In a communication dated 31 January 1996, the Government states that the circumstances of the case have completely changed, since the supermarkets involved have closed down and, after negotiations, have come under a new administration headed by Costa Rican investors who have another chain of supermarkets known as "Comercial la Unión". In the light of this information and of the new circumstances referred to by the Government and considering that the dismissals date back to 1993, the Committee will not pursue the matter of the reinstatement of the dismissed workers any further. That said, the Committee emphasizes the importance of immediately initiating an independent investigation into the truth of allegations of anti-trade union discrimination and, when necessary, of taking rapid and effective steps to protect the workers involved. The Committee also draws the Government's attention to the fact that proprietorial changes should not "directly or indirectly threaten unionized workers and their organizations" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 715). Finally, since the Government has not indicated whether it has permitted the trade union to be reconstituted, the Committee calls on the Government to take steps to guarantee the right of the workers in the new supermarket to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

51. As concerns Case No. 1769 (Russian Federation), at its November 1995 meeting (see 300th Report, para. 33), the Committee had noted further allegations from the complainant organization, the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions, that its members had been victims of acts of intimidation, that, on 17 March 1995, Mr. V.I. Basmanov was arrested and that, 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. It also noted the Government's indication that an investigation had been carried out in this regard and, although the persons involved in the attack had not been identified, criminal proceedings had been instituted to find them. The Committee expressed the hope that the judicial proceedings under way would enable the authorities to identify and punish the guilty parties and requested the Government to verify whether Mr. Basmanov was detained and, if so, to indicate the charges brought against him and, if he was being detained on trade union grounds, to take the necessary steps to ensure his immediate release.

52. In a communication dated 26 October 1995, the Government recalls that Mr. Klebanov was awarded an old-age pension at his last place of permanent residence in the town of Makeyevka in the Ukraine where he has also been granted housing, facts which were confirmed by the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions in their complaint. The Government asserts that Mr. Klebanov has misled the Russian official bodies and the Committee and expresses the hope that the Committee will now decide that the case calls for no further examination. In a subsequent communication dated 3 November 1995, the Government indicates that on 5 August 1995 Mr. Klebanov reported to the militia that he had been robbed by Ms. Shchumilkina in the apartment of Mr. Sakhno, her common-law husband. According to the Government, Ms. Shchumilkina had authorized Mr. Klebanov and Ms. Sevryoukova to stay in the apartment of the late Mr. Sakhno in June 1995. As a result of a hostile relationship which soon developed between them, Ms. Shchumilkina expelled Mr. Klebanov and Ms. Sevryoukova from the apartment and she then left for an unknown address (she is a resident of Kazakstan). Officers of the Mosfilmovski-Ramenski Department of Internal Affairs, accompanied by employees of the District Housing Administration and Mr. Klebanov, went to the apartment and unlocked the door. The documents and valuables belonging to the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions were still there and when it was suggested to Mr. Klebanov that he take them, he refused to do so. The door was then locked and sealed and the documents and valuables belonging to the Central Committee are still in the apartment. Mr. Klebanov and Ms. Sevryoukova's assertion that they had been robbed having been thus refuted, the Mosfilmovski-Ramenski Department of Internal Affairs decided not to institute criminal proceedings against Ms. Shchumilkina. Finally, in a communication of 9 December 1995, the Government requested more detailed information from the complainant on the place, date and circumstances of the alleged arrests, as well as any reasons the complainant might think were given for the arrests.

53. The Committee takes note of the detailed information provided by the Government concerning the allegations that Mr. Klebanov had been robbed. As concerns the arrests of members of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions, the Committee is still awaiting further information from the complainant in response to the Government's request. Finally, the Committee would recall its previous outstanding recommendations in which it requested the Government 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 the members of their organization; 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, reinstate the dismissed trade union official in her job and cancel the administrative sanctions; hold an inquiry to elucidate the reasons for the arrests and detention 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 (see 295th Report, para. 481). The Government is requested to continue to keep the Committee informed of the measures taken and any developments which have occurred in relation to the above-mentioned matters.

54. As regards Case No. 1780 (Costa Rica), at its November 1995 meeting the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures rapidly to enable the workers who had been dismissed by the SARET Group of Costa Rica S.A. in the free trade zone of Alajuela for exercising legitimate trade union activities (in this case the constitution of a trade union) to be reinstated in their jobs, and to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect (see 300th Report, paras. 130-143). In a communication dated 22 January 1996, the Government states that, on the Committee's recommendation, the Ministry of Labour embarked on a process of administrative conciliation and mediation, and that the employers' representatives have reiterated their respect for trade union rights but have said that at the moment, given the difficult economic situation, it is not possible to reinstate the dismissed workers, especially as the employer is already finding it very difficult to keep the current workers on. The Government adds that the dismissed workers can take the matter to court. While noting this information, the Committee regrets that the administrative conciliation and mediation have not made it possible to reinstate the dismissed workers in their jobs, and emphasizes the importance of workers who are the victims of anti-union discrimination having adequate means to remedy the situation.

55. As regards Case No. 1782 (Portugal), examined in June 1995 (see 299th Report, paras. 285-328), the Committee had invited the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the court appeals filed by the complainant trade unions concerning the minimum services imposed during the strikes in various sectors. In a communication dated 17 October 1995 the Government communicates a copy of the decision handed down by the Supreme Administrative Tribunal concerning the request submitted by the Union of Telecommunication and Postal Workers with respect to the strike at the Portuguese Radio Marconi company from 8 to 14 March 1993. The tribunal ruled that the ministerial order fixing the minimum service to be maintained during the strike did not call for any censure on its part. The tribunal considered that the minimum services were designed to meet the "essential social needs" referred to in the law and that the Minister did not go beyond legal bounds in so far as the requisition order concerned only 10 per cent of the workers in the enterprise and met the criteria of necessity, suitability and proportionality. According to the tribunal this did not have the effect of undermining the exercise of the right to strike. The Government also states that it will communicate the other court rulings as they are handed down. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to continue providing it with information on the outcome of the other proceedings currently under way.

56. As regards Case No. 1784 (Peru), at its March-April 1995 meeting (see 297th Report, para. 315) the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed on the necessary measures adopted to enable the trade union leaders and members who were dismissed because of their legitimate trade union activities to secure reinstatement in their jobs, and on the outcome of the enterprise's appeal against the court order to reinstate Victoria Castro Muñoz. In a communication dated 24 January 1996 the Government states that, according to records dated 1 August 1995, the Lima Higher Court of Justice's order has been implemented and Victoria Castro Muñoz has been reinstated in her job. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction. However, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken to permit the trade union leaders and members who had been dismissed because of their legitimate trade union activities to secure reinstatement in their jobs.

57. As regards Case No. 1785 (Poland), last examined at its November 1995 meeting (see 301st Report, paras. 1-39), the Committee called upon the Government to ensure that the draft amendments to the Act of 25 October 1990 rapidly came into force so that trade union organizations were provided with a complete and definitive legal framework within which the restitution of trade union property, confiscated during martial law, could be effected with the full participation of the organizations concerned. It expressed its firm expectation that these amendments would be expeditiously applied and that they would, in effect, regulate the problem of redistribution of the former Central Council of Trade Unions (CRZZ) assets. Pending the entry into force of these amendments, the Committee urged the Government to take immediate and appropriate measures, including the imposition of sanctions if necessary, to ensure that the same protection afforded to the assets and property of the former CRZZ under the Trade Union Act of 1991 be extended to the assets of Solidarnosc which were confiscated during the martial law period.

58. In a communication dated 4 January 1996, the Government indicated that the approved text of the draft Act, amending the Act of 25 October 1990 in the light of the Constitutional Tribunal decision concerning the incompatibility of certain of its provisions with the Constitution, has been submitted to the Legislative Committee of the Sejm (Parliament). According to the Government, this draft Act provides for the taking over by the State Treasury of a substantial part of the trade unions' and social organizations' liabilities in respect of assets restitution and will thus mean quicker and more effective retrieval of assets for NSZZ Solidarnosc and will allow for meeting liabilities of trade union organizations in this respect. New regulations will also cover already existing decisions of the Social Commission for Revindication. The draft Act also takes into account additional proposals to the Act submitted by the Government, NSZZ Solidarnosc and the Social Commission for Revindication which aim at improving revindication proceedings and proposals advantageous for NSZZ Solidarnosc. The Government emphasized that representatives of NSZZ Solidarnosc and the Polish Trade Unions Alliance (OPZZ) participated in the drafting of the amendments. Furthermore, OPZZ and NSZZ Solidarnosc have also been consulted on a draft agreement concerning the division of assets of the former CRZZ and have agreed that these assets shall be divided equally between them.

59. The Committee notes this information with interest. It trusts that the draft amendments will come into force shortly and requests the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in their adoption as well as any developments concerning their practical application. As concerns the redistribution of the property and assets of the former CRZZ, the Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government according to which the OPZZ and NSZZ Solidarnosc have agreed that the assets be divided equally between them. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that this agreement is implemented in the very near future and requests the Government to provide a copy of the agreement in question and to keep it informed of any progress in this situation. The Government is also requested to indicate the measures taken to ensure that, pending the entry into force of the amendments to the 1990 Act, the same protection that is afforded to the assets and property of the former CRZZ under the Trade Union Act of 1991 is extended to the assets of Solidarnosc which were confiscated during the martial law period.

60. As regards Case No. 1788 (Romania), examined by the Committee in its 297th Report approved by the Governing Body in March-April 1995 (paras. 316-366), the Committee had recommended that the Government take steps to have legislation on trade unions and labour disputes amended to bring it into conformity with the principles of freedom of association, and had asked it to provide it with a copy of the Bills on collective agreements and on the resolution of collective disputes that were being drafted. The Committee had also requested the Government to try and obtain the lifting of all the measures taken against the trade union officials following their participation in strikes during a labour dispute in the railway sector in 1993. In a communication dated 2 November 1995 the Government states that the Bills to amend the laws on trade unions and the settlement of collective labour disputes have been drafted by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and transmitted to the most representative workers' and employers' organizations, including the National Trade Union Bloc (BNS) which is one of the complainants in this case, for their comments. The Government states that so far there has been no response. It adds that the Collective Labour Agreements Act has been approved by the Senate and is currently before the Chamber of Deputies and that it will send the ILO a copy as soon as it is adopted. The Government further states that two of the persons referred to by name in the complaint, Roméo Aldea and Ovidiu Gheorghean, have been re-employed, that the family of trade union member Dorel But (who died of a heart attack during the collective dispute) has received a survivors' pension from the National Railway Company of Romania (SNCFR) and the sum of 1.8 million lei in financial aid, and that the three other persons referred to, Ioan Vlad, Nicolae Vlad and Francisc Ungureanu, have lodged appeals against their dismissal on disciplinary grounds. The court of first instance of Sector 1 of Bucharest accepted the appeal lodged by Ioan Vlad and rejected those of the two others, but the latter have now lodged an appeal with the tribunal of the municipality of Bucharest. As for the SNCFR, the request concerning the reinstatement of the three persons concerned will be discussed as soon as the judicial rulings are confirmed. The Government adds that no penal charges have been brought against the persons concerned. The Committee notes this information. It requests the Government once again to send it a copy of the Bills on trade unions, on the settlement of labour disputes and on collective agreements currently being drafted or adopted, so that it can examine whether they conform to the principles of freedom of association. It also asks the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals lodged by the three trade unionists who had participated in the railway strike in 1993 and who have apparently not yet been reinstated in their jobs and, specifically, to inform it whether their dismissal has been revoked.

61. As regards Case No. 1790 (Paraguay), at its November 1995 meeting the Committee had condemned the search of the headquarters of the Federation of Production, Industry and Commerce of Paraguay (FEPRINCO) and the confiscation of documents and materials, both of which violate the fundamental rights of employers' organizations, and had requested the Government to return the documents and materials to FEPRINCO immediately and to conduct an inquiry in order to clarify the circumstances surrounding these actions and, where appropriate, to punish those responsible; the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed in this connection (see 300th Report, para. 297). In a communication dated 23 October 1995 the Government states that the search of the FEPRINCO headquarters was ordered by the courts on 6 May 1994 at the request of the chairman of the Joint Committee of Inquiry of the National Parliament, and that magnetic tapes, records of meetings and diskettes had been seized. FEPRINCO made a number of judicial appeals against this action (based, according to this organization, on an alleged plot to boycott a strike) on the grounds that it was illegal, that there was no indication of the offenses that were being investigated, that it was based on an anonymous denunciation, that the legal procedure was not followed and that objects and possessions (and not only documents) had been seized. The Court of Appeals (Second Criminal Court) revoked the search warrant on 22 November 1994. The Committee notes this information and insists that the documents and materials seized be returned to FEPRINCO, if they have not already been returned.

62. As regards Case No.1804 (Peru), the Committee had requested the Government to take measures to grant the Secretary of International Affairs of the Single Trade Union of Teaching Personnel of Peru (SUTEP), Nicolás Olmedo Auris Melgar, the trade union leave of absence that his organization had requested (see 300th Report, paras. 313-325). In a communication dated 4 January 1996 the Government states that the person concerned must be able to show that the office of Secretary of International Affairs represents one of the four educational levels referred to in the last paragraph of section 80(a) of the regulations made under the Act pertaining to the teaching profession. This being so, the Committee invites SUTEP to comply with this formality. However, the Committee emphasizes that, when legislation recognizes the right of a specific number of union leaders to trade union leave, it would seem only reasonable that the beneficiaries should be chosen by the trade union organizations themselves.

63. As regards Case No. 1808 (Costa Rica), at its May-June 1995 meeting the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal lodged with the Constitutional Court to the effect that the restructuring of the Centre for Customs Documentation and Information was for anti-trade union motives. The Committee had also requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings concerning the alleged refusal of Ministry of Finance authorities to sign an agreement on freedom of association (see 299th Report, paras. 361-382). In communications dated 17 and 22 January 1996 the Government states that the restructuring of the customs took place after all the workers had been consulted and offered alternative posts, without any anti-union discrimination and irrespective of their membership or otherwise of a trade union organization (for example, the Secretary-General of the Association of Customs Officials - the complainant organization - was kept in the same post as before and was offered the necessary facilities to pursue his trade union activities). The restructuring was due to the need to modernize and improve the customs system. The Government adds that the Constitutional Court has turned down an application for protection (amparo) and a petition lodged by the complainant organization and has declared another petition irreceivable; a third petition is currently before the Constitutional Court. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of this third petition before the Constitutional Court. Regarding the outcome of the ongoing court case concerning the alleged refusal of Ministry of Finance authorities to sign an agreement on freedom of association, the Government states that the appeal was dismissed by the Constitutional Court, which considered in particular in its ruling that the Association had not fully taken into account the observations of the Legal Affairs Department of the Ministry of Labour and recommended that the Ministry negotiate the terms of the agreement with the parties concerned. The Committee notes this information and trusts that the parties to the dispute will be able to conclude the agreement in the near future. Finally, the Government states that it is sending observations on new communications from the complainant organization, which do not, however, add anything substantial to the issues that are still pending.

64. As regards Case No. 1813 (Peru), the Committee made the following recommendations with respect to the deaths, assault and arrests that occurred on the occasion of a visit of trade unionists to the Callao Development Corporation (CORDECALLAO): Deeply regretting the deaths of trade unionists Alipio Chauca de la Cruz and Juan Marcos Donayre Cisneros and the serious injuries sustained by several workers, the Committee insists that the judicial investigation under way fully ascertain the facts, determine responsibilities and punish the guilty parties. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial investigation in question. The Committee trusts that the judicial proceedings will be concluded rapidly and that the detained workers (Félix Castillo Pérez, Eli Pando Malpartida, Antonio Yupanqui Oré, José Palacios Huamanchuco, Felipe Gutiérrez Cárdenas and Julio Camacho Díaz), will be immediately released in the event that they have been detained for exercising legitimate trade union activities (see 299th Report, paras. 383-397).

65. In a communication dated 23 October 1995 the Government refers in detail to the formalities and procedures followed and states that the six persons under arrest have been released after being charged by the Sixth Penal Court of Callao. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings. The Committee also requests the Government to inform it of developments in the judicial investigation into the death of trade unionists Alipio Chauca de la Cruz and Juan Marcos Donayre Cisneros and into the injuries sustained by other workers from shots fired by the CORDECALLAO security guards.

66. As concerns Case No. 1844 (Mexico), the Committed requested the Government at its November 1995 meeting (see 300th Report, para. 244) to adopt the measures necessary so that, both in legislation and in practice, public service workers may freely establish and join the independent trade union organization of their own choosing and may determine the number of workers necessary to form a union in a state agency and the type of union they wish to form (paragraph (a)). The Committee also requested the Government to eliminate all the legal and practical obstacles so that the complainant organization may acquire legal personality and carry out the trade union activities provided in Convention No. 87 (paragraph (b)). As concerns this last point, in a communication dated 28 February 1996, the Government indicated that the Seventh Collegial Labour Tribunal overruled the judgement handed down by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal which cancelled the registration of the Single Trade Union of Workers of the Secretariat of the Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries because of various violations in the procedures of this cancellation. First, the Seventh Collegial Tribunal held that the proceedings provided for in the law to convoke all workers of the new Secretariat to form a union, after vote, in order to determine which group has the majority of members must be carried out. Secondly, it recognized that the creation of a new union must take place without interference from any authority, and that the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal can only intervene in the event of disputes or challenges. The Committee notes this information with interest and hopes that the principles of freedom of association will be respected in the creation of a new union and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee points out that the legislative aspects of this case have been brought to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

67. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1552 (Malaysia), 1581 (Thailand), 1623 (Bulgaria), 1629 (Republic of Korea), 1640, 1714 and 1724 (Morocco), 1726 (Pakistan), 1752 (Myanmar), 1783 (Paraguay), 1791 (Chad), 1793 (Nigeria), 1799 (Kazakstan), 1803 (Djibouti), 1806 (Canada/Yukon), 1807 (Ukraine), 1811/1816 (Paraguay), 1818 (Zaire) and 1821 (Ethiopia), 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.