Freedom of movement

122. Forced exile of trade union leaders and unionists constitutes a serious infringement of human rights and trade union rights since it weakens the trade union movement as a whole when it is deprived of its leaders.

(See 230th Report, Case No. 1170, para. 21; and 239th Report, Case No. 1297, para. 167.)

123. The imposition of sanctions, such as restricted movement, house arrest or banishment for trade union reasons constitutes a violation of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee has considered it unacceptable that sanctions of this nature should be imposed by administrative action.

(See the Digest of 1985, para. 138; and 217th Report, Case No. 1096, para. 298.)

124. As regards the exile, banishment or the placing under house arrest of trade unionists, the Committee, while recognizing that this procedure may be occasioned by a crisis in a country, has drawn attention to the appropriateness of this procedure being accompanied by all the safeguards necessary to ensure that it shall not be utilized for the purpose of impairing the free exercise of trade union rights.

(See the Digest of 1985, para. 133.)

125. The exile of trade unionists, which is in violation of human rights, is particularly grave since it deprives the persons concerned of the possibility of working in their country and of maintaining contacts with their families. It is also a violation of freedom of association since it undermines the trade union organizations by depriving them of their leaders.

(See the Digest of 1985, para. 134.)

126. The granting of freedom to a trade unionist on condition that he leave the country is not compatible with the free exercise of trade union rights.

(See the Digest of 1985, para. 136.)

127. The expulsion of trade union leaders from their country for activities connected with the exercise of their functions is not only contrary to human rights but is, furthermore, an interference in the activities of the organization to which they belong.

(See the Digest of 1985, para. 135.)

128. The restriction of a person's movements to a limited area, accompanied by the prohibition of entry into the area in which his trade union operates and in which he normally carries on his trade union functions, is inconsistent with the normal enjoyment of the right of association and with the exercise of the right to carry on trade union activities and functions.

(See the Digest of 1985, para. 137.)

129. Legislation which permits the Minister at his discretion to impose restrictions on the movement of trade union leaders for a 90-day period, which can be renewed, without trial or without even being charged, is incompatible with the right to perform trade union activities or functions and the right to a fair trial at the earliest possible moment.

(See the Digest of 1985, para. 107.)

Cross references
Case reference:0319852391297 Report=239 Case=1297 * Chile
Not in ILOLEX: Report=217 Case=1096 para 298 * Chile
Not in ILOLEX: Report=230 Case=1170 para 21 * Chile