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 29 and 30 May and 6 June 1997, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

2. The members of Argentinian, Indian, Mexican and Zimbabwean nationalities were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Argentina (Cases Nos. 1872, 1887 and 1889), India (Case No. 1890), Mexico (Case No. 1907) and Zimbabwe (Case No. 1909), respectively.

3. Currently, there are 67 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 29 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 17 cases and interim conclusions in 12 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 examination of the following cases: Nos. 1922 (Djibouti), 1924 (Argentina), 1925 (Colombia), 1926 (Peru), 1927 (Mexico) and 1928 (Canada/Manitoba), 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: Nos. 1787 (Colombia), 1805 (Cuba), 1843 (Sudan), 1867 (Argentina), 1884 (Swaziland), 1906 (Peru), 1908 (Ethiopia), 1911 (Ecuador), 1915 (Ecuador) and 1916 (Colombia). In Case No. 1852 (United Kingdom), for which the Committee has already received observations, the new Government indicated that it intended to present its own observations.

Observations requested from governments and complainants

6. In Case No. 1913 (Panama), the Committee decided to ask for additional information from the complainant and the Government in order to reach a decision in full knowledge of all the facts.

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1835 (Czech Republic), 1880 (Peru), 1912 (United Kingdom/Isle of Man) and 1914 (Philippines), the Governments have sent partial information on the allegations made. 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. 1773 (Indonesia), 1897 (Japan), 1917 (Comoros), 1920 (Lebanon) and 1923 (Croatia), the Committee has very recently received the Governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting. In Case No. 1812 (Venezuela) for which it received the Government's observations, the Committee decided to ask the complainant to provide additional information so that it could make a decision on the receivability of the complaint.

Urgent appeals

9. As regards Cases Nos. 1869 (Latvia), 1888 (Ethiopia), 1892 (Guatemala), 1894 (Mauritania), 1895 (Venezuela), 1900 (Canada/Ontario), 1902 (Venezuela), 1919 (Spain) and 1921 (Niger), 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' complete observations. The Committee draws the attention of all these Governments to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of these cases, even if the remaining 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 a complaint

10. In Case No. 1881 (Argentina), the complainant - the Banking Association - has sent a communication dated 24 April 1997 requesting the withdrawal of its complaint since the issue which had led to the complaint has been resolved. The Committee takes note of this information with interest. Having no reason to doubt that the decision of the complainant was taken in full independence, the Committee decides to close the case.

Irreceivable case

11. In respect of a representation concerning the violation of trade union rights in Denmark, transmitted by a law firm on behalf of the Association of SiD at Ri-bus in Esbjerg, the Association of Dustmen in Arhus, the Joined Association at Gate Gourmet, the Association of Scaffolders in Arhus, the Joined Pedagogic Associations of Tarnby and Dragor, the Association of Workers of the Danish Socialist People's Party, the National Association of Workers of the Danish Socialist People's Party and the Association of Brewers at the Ceres Breweries in Arhus, the Committee has concluded that none of the complainants fully meets the criteria of a national workers' organization directly interested in the matter and therefore considers that according to its procedure, it cannot examine the substance of this communication.

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

12. 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: Argentina (Cases Nos. 1872 and 1899), Guatemala (Case No. 1898) and Morocco (Case No. 1877).

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

Case No. 1870 (Congo)

13. The Committee examined this case at its November 1996 meeting. The Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken to reinstate the trade unionists dismissed after strikes in protest against the lack of consultation of trade union organizations in the privatization process of a number of enterprises in the public sector and against the policy of structural adjustment, and to free the trade unionists imprisoned or sentenced for strike action - more specifically Mr. Tchicaya and Mr. Mampuya - as well as trade unionists from postal and telecommunications workers' unions affiliated to the Confederation of Free and Autonomous Trade Unions of Congo (COSYLAC), i.e. Mr. Lessita Otangui, Secretary-General of the Postal and Telecommunications Workers' Federation (FESYPOSTEL), Mr. Oba René Blanchard, President of the Postal and Telecommunications Workers' Trade Union (SYLIPOSTEL), Mr. Odzongo Médard from FESYPOSTEL, and Mr. Bouya Bernard from the Telecommunications Trade Union (SYNATEL), sentenced on 14 February 1996 to four months' imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 CFA francs (see 305th Report, paras. 134 to 147).

14. In a communication dated 14 November 1996, the Government states that, concerning the strike of January 1996, it agreed to the request from the workers' organizations and organized meetings under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister in order to explain developments in the privatization process to the representatives of the grass-roots trade unions. Following these meetings, the decision was taken to increase the number of trade union representatives on the privatization committee. In spite of this concession, the grass-roots trade unions, in disagreement with their trade union federations, demanded that the privatization committee be dissolved. As the Government had raised an objection to this claim, which was not included in the agenda of the negotiations, it was surprised by the strike subsequently called in all the major enterprises due for privatization. Inasmuch as an agreement had been reached on the basic claim of the trade unions, the Government felt that this strike - which was not approved by the trade union federations - was unfounded and it declared it illegal. This did not prevent the dismissed workers from all being reinstated in their respective enterprises.

15. Concerning the arrest and sentencing of trade unionists, the Government states that the trade unionists arrested and imprisoned had been duly prosecuted. Four trade unionists (Mr. Lessita Otangui, Mr. Oba René Blanchard, Mr. Odzongo Médard and Mr. Bouya Bernard) had been found guilty of infringing the freedom to work and sentenced to four month's imprisonment by the Second Criminal Court of the Brazzaville High Court. However, the trade unionists in question had obtained a reduction in their sentences and been released. Furthermore, a number of trade unionists were ordered to appear before the 32nd Magistrate's Court of the High Court for having destroyed state furniture and property. These trade unionists were released on bail while awaiting final judgement which should be handed down in the near future.

16. The Committee takes note of this information. It notes with interest that, according to the Government, the trade unionists dismissed for strike action have been reinstated in their jobs and that the four trade union leaders sentenced to four months' imprisonment for infringing the right to work obtained a reduction in their sentences and were released following the publication of a Presidential Decree of 20 May 1996 after having served two months of their sentence. The Committee nevertheless notes with concern that, according to the Government itself, legal proceedings are still under way against a number of trade unionists and a judgement is to be handed down. The Committee has expressed the opinion that penal sanctions should only be imposed regarding strikes, where there are violations of strike prohibitions which are themselves in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. All penalties in respect of illegitimate actions linked to strikes should be proportionate to the offence or fault committed and the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of all the judgements handed down in this case.

Case No. 1818 (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

17. The Committee examined this case at its November 1995 meeting (see 300th Report, paras. 350 to 370). It had requested the Government to provide information on the condition of trade union members arrested during a labour dispute in the civil service in March 1995; to carry out an independent and impartial inquiry concerning the ill-treatment and torture allegedly meted out to a number of trade unionists who were duly named; to allow trade unionists dismissed on account of their trade union activities to be reinstated in their posts and to refrain from hampering the formation of trade union organizations.

18. In a communication dated 5 March 1997, the Government denies the arbitrary nature of the trade unionists' arrests. It points out that the arrests made on 24 March 1995 were preventive measures designed to guarantee public law and order. The Government explains that on 10 March 1995, a group of state officials had undermined public safety by carrying out violent demonstrations and that the authorities had taken preventive measures to safeguard the peace and held a number of demonstrators in custody. The competent judicial authorities, to which the matter had been referred, had supervised the conditions under which those concerned were held in custody. Nevertheless, the Government had intervened to request that custody be ended and that the trade unionists be immediately released. Concerning the trade unionists dismissed on account of their trade union activities, the Government states that it will order an inquiry to examine the facts and restore social justice. Furthermore, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare maintains that it has never refused the registration of a trade union whose scope is covered by the provisions of section 1 of the Labour Code.

19. The Committee takes note of this information. Recalling that no person should be subjected to anti-union discrimination on account of his or her legitimate trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures actually taken to guarantee the reinstatement of the trade unionists suspended or dismissed for having taken part in a strike. Furthermore, the Committee once again urges the Government to order immediately an independent and impartial inquiry concerning the ill-treatment allegedly meted out to a number of trade unionists in prison, especially with respect to the lashes of the whip given to Mr. Edouard Ngandu Mupidwa, a member of the Democratic Labour Confederation (CDT), at Ligwala in March 1995, and the alleged torture of Mrs. Muadi Kazongo, Mr. Odeon Mbaku and Mr. Mananua. It requests it to communicate the findings of the inquiry and the measures taken, including compensation for damages suffered in the event of the allegations of ill-treatment against these trade unionists being acknowledged.

Case No. 1833 (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

20. The Committee examined this case at its March 1996 meeting (See 302nd Report, paras. 535 to 554). The Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of developments on the situation of the trade unionists of the General Tax Directorate (DGC) arrested after a dispute with the Director-General of this public service, and specifically to indicate whether legal proceedings had been brought against them and what had been the outcome. The Committee had also requested the Government to submit its observations as soon as possible on the refusal of the DGC to undertake negotiations with the staff.

21. In a communication dated 5 March 1997, the Government explains that the staff of the DGC have the trade union status of public officials and that, on account of the prevailing conditions, trade union elections in the public service have not yet been organized. The Government assures that this situation will be resolved in the near future but that in the present context, it raises the problem of the representation of staff in most of the public sector services. According to the Government, the temporary trade union committee, which had been set up at the DGC, had not been established in accordance with the spirit of trade union pluralism which prevails in the country. Consequently, the responsible authority, i.e. the Ministry of Finance, had not recognized the existence of the said committee and requested the Director-General of the DGC to make inquiries with the Ministry of Public Service about the procedures his organization should take to have a duly elected trade union delegation. Thereupon, the members of the temporary trade union committee called upon the workers in the DGC to take collective strike action without complying with the procedure. A strike was therefore held on 17 April 1995, which paralysed the essential service of the DGC and disrupted public law and order. Consequently, two members of the staff of DGC, responsible for the occurrences, were sentenced on 7 August 1995 by the Court of First Instance of Gombe in Kinshasa to two months' imprisonment. After having served their sentences, those concerned started working again at the DGC. The Government gives its assurance that, to avoid such violations recurring in the future, experts from the Ministry of Labour will organize study days with the services concerned on the principles of freedom of association.

22. The Committee notes this information. Considering that no one should be deprived of their freedom or be subject to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike (see para. 604 of the Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996), the Committee regrets that the trade unionists instigating the strike were sentenced. Furthermore, expressing the hope that trade union elections will be held without delay, the Committee firmly hopes that collective bargaining with the representative trade union organizations will resume in the near future in the public tax service with a view to settle the employment conditions of these public employees. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the negotiations in this sector.

Cases Nos. 1594 and 1846 (Côte d'Ivoire)

23. At its March 1997 meeting, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure: (1) that the workers dismissed at Irho Lame due to a labour dispute dating from May 1993 be reinstated as soon as possible; (2) that Messrs Hassan Daboré and Diebre Boukary, who were in preventive detention further to a collective labour dispute dating from January 1995, be released immediately; and (3) that the social elections at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan be held as soon as possible and to keep it informed in this regard.

24. In a communication dated 5 May 1997, the Government states with regard to the first point that it has never refused the reinstatement of the dismissed workers and that it has tried to reconcile the parties through concrete proposals despite the intransigency of the Trade Union Federation Dignité. It once again reiterates that the management after having hired new workers went ahead with the restructuring which regrouped together agronomic research units. If the dismissed workers consider that their rights have been impaired they can appeal to the courts to have these rights restored. On the second point, the Government adds that Messrs Diebre Boukary and Hassan Daboré were released provisionally on 13 March 1997 given that they no longer constituted a threat for the enterprise. The Government provides a copy of the release orders. According to these, the victims declared unanimously during the course of the inquiry that Mr. Hassan Daboré had not taken part in the acts for which he was accused. As for Mr. Diebre Boukary, it appears that his detention is no longer necessary now that the truth has been ascertained. Finally on the last point, the Government indicates that the social elections at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan have not yet taken place due to a disagreement between the different trade unions on 24 April 1997. Some of these trade unions wanted the elections to take place immediately and the others asked for them to be delayed since they wished for a dockers' collective agreement to be drawn up before. The Government states that a reconciliation meeting took place on 28 April 1997 before the competent authorities and that a deadline has been given to the trade unions to agree on a date for the elections before 5 June 1997.

25. The Committee notes with interest that the trade unionists Messrs Hassan Daboré and Diebre Boukary were released in March 1997. It observes, however, that no charge had been made against Mr. Hassan Daboré and that according to the investigating magistrate himself Mr. Diebre Boukary's detention was no longer necessary now that the truth had been ascertained. Noting with deep concern that although these two trade unionists were released, they had been held for more than two years' detention without trial, the Committee recalls that the continued detention of trade unionists without bringing them to trial may constitute a serious impediment to the exercise of trade union rights and that justice delayed is justice denied. Concerning the reinstatement of the workers dismissed at Irho Lame in 1993, the Committee reiterates its previous request to the Government to indicate if the workers who considered that their rights had been impaired appealed to the courts in order to have these rights restored, and to keep it informed in this regard. Finally, the Committee recalls that the request to hold social elections at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan dates from 1993. Consequently, it urges the Government to ensure that these elections are held immediately and to keep it informed of the outcome thereof.

Case No. 1725 (Denmark)

26. When it last examined this case at its March 1994 meeting (see 292nd Report, paras. 197 to 229), the Committee had considered that certain aspects of Danish legislation and national practice were not completely in conformity with the principle of free bargaining of collective agreements with a view to regulating the terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, as recognized in Article 4 of Convention No. 98. The Committee had reached this conclusion particularly in respect of section 12 of the Conciliation in Industrial Disputes Act which allowed the public conciliator to link various draft settlements of all occupational fields in a single draft settlement covering, inter alia, collective agreements for which the parties themselves could not agree to a renewal. The Committee had therefore invited the Government and the social partners to re-examine the legislation and practice in this regard.

27. In a communication dated 11 March 1996, the complainant (the Danish Union of Journalists) submitted a representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. The Governing Body, which declared the representation receivable, referred it to the Committee for examination in the context of the follow-up of Case No. 1725 since it raised the same issues as those raised in this case.

28. In a communication dated 14 April 1997, the Government indicates that it has amended the Conciliation in Industrial Disputes Act on the basis of the Committee's recommendations. In this respect, the Government refers to section 12(3) of the Act which now stipulates as follows: "A conciliation proposal may only be combined with other conciliation proposals if the negotiation possibilities within the field concerned are considered to have been exhausted. The Public conciliator decides whether this condition has been fulfilled." The Government adds that the Act has been further amended to relax the requirements as to the qualified majority needed to reject a conciliation proposal. The Government maintains, however, that the rule concerning the combination of proposals is a necessary element in the Danish industrial relations system, due, inter alia, to the fact that workers are organized into various trade unions at the enterprise level according to the nature of their work.

29. The Committee notes that section 12 of the Conciliation in Industrial Disputes Act as amended provides that, in the future, conciliation proposals from various occupational fields may be combined only if the Public conciliator is of the view that negotiation possibilities have been exhausted. The Committee notes, however, that under this system it will still be possible for an overall draft settlement to cover, inter alia, collective agreements involving an entire sector of activity even if the organization representing most of the workers in this sector rejects the overall draft settlement. The Committee would therefore recall, as it has done previously, that the extension of an agreement to an entire sector of activity - in this case, journalism - contrary to the views of the organization representing most of the workers in a category covered by the extended agreement is liable to limit the right of free collective bargaining of that majority organization.

Case No. 1874 (El Salvador)

30. The Committee examined this case at its November 1996 meeting (see 305th Report, paras. 254 to 272, approved by the Governing Body at its 267th Session (November 1996)) when it presented the following recommendations on the matters still outstanding (see 305th Report, para. 272):

- The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the legislation so that public officials, including hospital staff, might enjoy the rights of establishing organizations and freely belonging to these organizations. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the principles of freedom of association and to keep it informed on any measures it adopts in this respect and reminds it that the ILO's technical assistance is at its disposal.

- The Committee urges the Government to take steps to recognize the transformation of the Nursing Personnel Craft Union of El Salvador into an industrial trade union and to register immediately once again the board of management that was elected. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

- Stressing that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment and that no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, the Committee urges the Government to take steps to reinstate in their original posts the trade union officials who were transferred from the Rosales Hospital and ensure that no worker is threatened with dismissal if he or she does not resign from the General Industrial Trade Union of Health Workers (SIGESAL). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

31. In its communications dated 21 April and 12 May 1997 the Government states that the workers at the Rosales Hospital are directly employed by the central Government and are governed by the Salaries and General Budget Act. Consequently, they are not protected by the Labour Code. The Government adds that the members of the Nursing Personnel Craft Union of El Salvador are supposed to be workers who look after sick people but that the latest membership lists consisted of other workers (watchmen, metalworkers, plumbers, etc.) and only a few nurses. Since this is a violation of section 209 of the Labour Code, the executive board was not authorized to take up office. The appeal against this decision was denied on 14 August 1996. The executive board may be elected once a meeting is held of people who meet the requirements of the law and of the union's statutes. As regards the transfer of union officials, the Government repeats its position that this is not a reprisal for joining the aforementioned union but in keeping with the requirements of the service and that the transfers were ordered pursuant to section 37 of the Civil Service Act which states that officials or employees may be transferred to a similar post even without their consent at the convenience of the public or municipal administration, provided that the transfer is within the same locality.

32. The Committee notes the Government's observations which by and large reiterate its earlier statements. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not complied with its recommendations, stresses that the allegations relate to highly important issues such as the right to establish trade union organizations in the public sector and the right not to be subjected to anti-union discrimination, and finds itself obliged to repeat its previous recommendations. The Committee therefore urges the Government: (1) to take the necessary steps so that the legislation guarantees the right to establish trade union organizations in the public sector; (2) to recognize the transformation of the Nursing Personnel Craft Union of El Salvador into an industrial trade union; (3) to make reparation for the acts of anti-union discrimination committed in the Rosales Hospital.

Case No. 1793 (Nigeria)

33. During its examination of this case in June 1996, the Committee had urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Kokori, General Secretary of NUPENG, was released immediately, that Decrees Nos. 9 and 10, dissolving the Executive Council of the NLC, NUPENG and PENGASSAN, were repealed immediately and to allow independently elected officials to exercise their trade union functions once again (see 304th Report, para. 13). In view of the absence of the Government's response for the Committee's report of November 1996, the Governing Body had decided to address an urgent appeal to the Government of Nigeria, inviting it to reply as soon as possible to all the requests made since November 1995 with a view to authorizing an ILO mission to examine issues dealt with in the various complaints and to visit detained trade union leaders without hindrance, thus allowing the mission to present its report to the Committee as soon as possible. A communication in this regard had been sent to the Government on 26 November 1996 and then a reminder had been addressed to it on 5 February 1997.

34. In February 1997, the Committee took note of several new decrees and texts which appeared to indicate an expansive and systematic approach to diminishing trade union rights in Nigeria. Noting with ever-increasing concern the persistent deterioration of trade union rights in Nigeria, the Committee had reiterated, in the strongest terms, the Governing Body's appeal to the Government to accept an ILO mission at the earliest possible date to examine the outstanding matters of this case.

35. The Committee must once again note with deep regret that in spite of the assurances given during the last session of the Governing Body, the Government has not for the moment given any written reply to the requests of the Committee and the Governing Body or to the communications addressed by the Office on 1 April and 16 May 1997. The Committee notes, however, that the Ministry of Labour has indicated to the ILO office in Lagos that it is willing to receive a mission but that this would not be possible during the period preceding the International Labour Conference. In these conditions, the Committee strongly reiterates its request for a mission to examine issues raised in the case and in particular to visit detained trade union leaders. It urges the Government to respond positively to this request without any further delay.

Case No. 1698 (New Zealand)

36. During its last examination of this case at its meeting in November 1996, the Committee requested the Government to continue to keep it informed of any other relevant judgements rendered concerning the implementation of the Employment Contracts Act as well as of any developments in the discussions held with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) and the New Zealand Employers' Federation (NZEF) in this regard. The Committee also reaffirmed its previous recommendations and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to implement them. (See 305th Report, para. 50.)

37. In a communication dated 26 February 1997, the Government indicates that there have been no further significant cases relating to freedom of association since its last communication, but that it will continue to keep the Committee informed of any further developments in the case-law as they occur. The Government also states that the new coalition Government has agreed to include proposals to introduce a concept of "fair bargaining" into the Employment Contracts Act (ECA), perhaps through the incorporation of recent court decisions relating to issues such as the obligation to respect the choice of bargaining agent and not undermine the bargaining process by bypassing the agent, thus consolidating the principles established in the Capital Coast Health and subsequent related cases. All interested groups, including employer and employee organizations, will be invited to make submissions as part of the usual process of considering draft legislation. As concerns the recommendation that workers and their organizations should be able to call for industrial action in support of multi-employer collective employment contracts, the Government reiterates that there are no plans to remove the prohibition on such action set out in section 63(e) of the ECA since it considers that this provision provides a balance between employees' right to strike and employers' rights not to have to face strike action and incur losses due to the actions of other employers over which they have no control or to be bound into arrangements with competing businesses.

38. The Committee notes this information, particularly as concerns the coalition agreement to introduce the concept of "fair bargaining" into the ECA and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard. As concerns the Committee's recommendation with respect to industrial action in support of multi-employer collective employment contracts (295th Report, para. 261(c)), the Committee once again recalls that the determination of the bargaining level is a matter to be left to the discretion of the parties and that legislation should not constitute an obstacle to collective bargaining at the industry level, whereas section 63(e) of the ECA essentially removes the means of pressure that may be applied for the determination of that level. It therefore reiterates its previous conclusions in this case that workers and their organizations should be able to call for industrial action in support of multi-employer contracts. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in the future to amend section 63(e) in this respect.

Case No. 1903 (Pakistan)

39. During its last examination of this case in March 1997 (see 306th Report, paras. 477-495), the Committee requested the Government to confirm that no charges had been maintained against trade unionists and workers who were detained and subsequently released following a demonstration at the Pak China Fertilizer Plant. The Government was also urged to revoke its decision to suspend the activities of the Pak China Fertilizer Limited Employees' Union, to register it once again and to guarantee that its trade union activities could be carried out normally.

40. In its communication dated 29 April 1997, the Government advised the Committee that the decision to suspend the activities of the Pak China Fertilizer Limited Employees' Union had been revoked by the Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) on appeal. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Unions reinstated the Union on 5 April 1997. Regarding the outstanding charges against workers of the Pak China Fertilizer Ltd. the Government states that with the exception of the President of the Union, Mr. Hakam Khan, and the General Secretary of the Union, Mr. Manzoor Hussain, whose services were terminated due to misconduct, there are no outstanding charges. The Government also notes that an appeal of the decision to dismiss for misconduct is presently before the local labour court.

41. The Committee takes due note of this information and requests the Government to forward to it a copy of the decision of the NIRC. Regarding the dismissal of Messrs Hakam Khan and Manzoor Hussain, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the status of the labour court proceedings and any further appeal on this matter, and to forward to it a copy of the judgement as soon as it is rendered.

Case No. 1813 (Peru)

42. The Committee last examined this case concerning the death, assault and arrest of trade unionists at its March 1996 meeting (see 302nd Report, paras. 64 and 65). At that time, after noting that the detained workers (Felix Castillo Pérez, Elí Pando Malpartida, Antonio Yupanqui Oré, José Palacios Huamanchuco, Felipe Gutiérrez Cárdenas and Julio Camacho Díaz) had been released but after being charged the Committee asked the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings. The Committee also requested 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.

43. In a communication dated 26 March 1997, the Government states that Felix Castillo Pérez, Elí Pando Malpartida, Antonio Yupanqui Oré, José Palacios Huamanchuco, Felipe Gutiérrez Cárdenas and Julio Camacho Díaz are charged with the offence of disturbing the peace and that the proceedings are currently at the allegations stage. The Government also states that, in the judicial investigation into the death of Alipio Chauca de la Cruz and Juan Marcos Donayre Cisneros, three people have been charged with causing grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the trade unionists, with endangering law and order and with illegal possession of firearms. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these judicial proceedings.

44. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1509 (Brazil), 1581 (Thailand), 1618 (United Kingdom), 1623 (Bulgaria), 1687 (Morocco), 1691 (Morocco), 1712 (Morocco), 1719 (Nicaragua), 1726 (Pakistan), 1761 (Colombia), 1796 (Peru), 1891 (China), 1825 (Morocco), 1826 (Philippines), 1834 (Kazakstan), 1837 (Argentina), 1847 (Guatemala), 1849 (Belarus), 1854 (India), 1857 (Chad), 1858 (France/Polynesia), 1885 (Belarus), 1891 (Romania) and 1896 (Colombia), 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. Furthermore, the Committee has just received information relating to Cases Nos. 1777 (Argentina), 1785 (Poland), 1809 and 1883 (Kenya), 1824 (El Salvador), 1856 (Uruguay), as well as 1862 (Bangladesh), which it will examine at its next meeting.