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 6, 7 and 14 November 1997, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

2. The members of Japanese and Mexican nationalities were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Japan (Case No. 1897) and Mexico (Case No. 1927), respectively.

3. Currently, there are 59 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 27 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 18 cases and interim conclusions in 9 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. 1929 (France/Guiana), 1930 (China), 1931 (Panama), 1932 (Panama), 1933 (Denmark), 1935 (Nigeria), 1936 (Guatemala), 1939 (Argentina), 1940 (Mauritius), 1941 (Chile) and 1942 (China/Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong)) because it is awaiting information and observations from the governments concerned. In Cases Nos. 1929 (France/Guiana), 1931 (Panama) and 1933 (Denmark), the governments have announced that their observations will be sent shortly. 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. 1812 (Venezuela), 1852 (United Kingdom), 1867 (Argentina), 1873 (Barbados), 1884 (Swaziland) and 1928 (Canada/Manitoba). In Case No. 1852 (United Kingdom), the Government indicated that it was not yet in a position to provide additional information, but that it would communicate a full and detailed reply following a public consultation on the problems linked to the labour legislation. In Case No. 1867 (Argentina), the Government has stated that it will be forwarding its observations shortly. In Case No. 1873 (Barbados), the Government requested additional time for providing its reply. In Case No. 1912 (United Kingdom/Isle of Man), for which the Committee has already received information sent by the Government in two different communications, the Committee requested the Office to ask the Government for additional specific information.

Observations requested from complainants

6. In Cases Nos. 1828 (Venezuela) and 1913 (Panama), the Committee is still awaiting the comments of the complainants. The Committee requests these organizations to send the observations and information requested without delay.

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1787 (Colombia), 1835 (Czech Republic), 1916 (Colombia) and 1925 (Colombia), 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. 1865 (Republic of Korea), 1887 (Argentina), 1924 (Argentina), 1937 (Zimbabwe) and 1938 (Croatia), the Committee has very recently received the governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting.

Urgent appeal

9. As regards Case No. 1843 (Sudan), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the last examination of this case, it has not received the Government's observations. The Committee draws the attention of the Government of Sudan 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 this case, if its observations or information have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to transmit its observations or information as a matter of urgency.

Missions

10. In Cases Nos. 1851 and 1922 (Djibouti), in a communication dated 30 August 1997, the Government thanked the ILO for its availability and expressed its desire that the direct contacts mission take place at the beginning of next year.

11. In Case No. 1865 (Republic of Korea), the Government indicated, in its communication dated 15 October 1997, that it agrees in principle to a visit from a high-level tripartite mission. The second half of 1997, however, is not appropriate for such a visit due to the internal situation. The Government has the intention of continuing its consultations with the Office so that the mission can take place during the first half of next year.

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: Canada (Ontario) (Case No. 1900), Croatia (Case No. 1923), Indonesia (Case No. 1773), Niger (Case No. 1921) and Venezuela (Case No. 1902).

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

Case No. 1777 (Argentina)

13. When examining this case with regard to the refusal to register the Congress of Workers as a trade union at its meeting of March 1997, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to carry out the immediate registration of the CTA (Congress of Argentine Workers) as a union (see 306th Report, para. 15). In its communication dated 29 May 1997, the Government indicates that under resolution No. 325, dated 27 May 1997, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security granted union registration under its new name to the Central of Argentine Workers (CTA). The Committee notes with satisfaction the Government's statement in this connection.

Case No. 1899 (Argentina)

14. The Committee examined this case at its June 1997 meeting (see 307th Report, paras. 70-87, approved by the Governing Body at its 269th Session (June 1997)), when it requested the Government to take the necessary steps to repeal resolution No. 203/96, issued by the Education Council of Río Negro Province, allowing workers to be hired during a teachers' strike; and to ensure that the government of Río Negro Province pay without delay to the UNTER trade union organization the union dues paid by its members which have been withheld since February 1996 and to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

15. In a communication dated 1 October 1997, the Government states that the Río Negro Provincial Education Council repealed resolution No. 203/96, which had been criticized by the Committee, by resolution No. 1304/97. As regards the delay in paying UNTER the union dues paid by its members which had been withheld since February 1996, the Government states further that the original debt when the new authorities of Río Negro Province took office in December 1995 amounted to $637,647.16, that payment had been delayed about four months, and that the debt currently owed could be broken down as follows: (1) $196,207.82 in dues paid for 1996, to be settled by the General Treasury; and (2) $56,107.70 in dues corresponding to SAC, for the first half of 1997 (the only debt owed for the current year).

16. The Committee notes with satisfaction the repeal of resolution No. 203/96 of the Education Council of Río Negro Province. As regards the withholding of trade union dues paid by UNTER members, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government and in particular the fact that it recognizes the existence of a debt to UNTER amounting to 252,315.52 pesos (equal to the same amount in United States dollars). In this respect, recalling that non-payment of trade union dues can result in serious financial difficulties for trade union organizations, the Committee again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the government of Río Negro Province pay without delay to the UNTER trade union organization the union dues paid by its members, according to a reasonable timetable drawn up in consultation with this trade union organization.

Case No. 1862 (Bangladesh)

17. The Committee examined the substance of this case at its May 1996 and March 1997 meetings (see 304th Report, paras. 57-96; 306th Report, paras. 70-120). When it last examined this case, the Committee requested the Government to:

- amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), so that workers can establish and join organizations of their own choosing without any restrictions;

- take appropriate steps to ensure that the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers' Union (BIGU) is granted registration as a trade union organization;

- institute an independent judicial inquiry in order to resolve contradictions in the evidence provided so far in this case by BIGU and Palmal management and keep it informed of the outcome of this inquiry in respect of the following allegations: (i) blacklisting of workers and trade unionists; (ii) intimidation, beating and resignation of Mr. M. Rahman and Mr. N. Ahmed; (iii) termination of employment of eight BIGU members; (iv) discrediting of 11 BIGU members; (v) forced resignation of two women workers; (vi) attack on BIGU trade union premises and the assault on BIGU trade unionists on 21 November 1995; keep it informed of the outcome of the cases pending in the labour courts which were filed by six of the eight BIGU members whose employment was terminated and to take measures to reinstate the workers concerned, if their dismissals are proved discriminatory;

- take the necessary steps to clarify Ms. Kalpana's employment situation, to ensure that she can continue to work in her post at Palmal, if she so wishes, and to make sure that she is not discriminated against because of her trade union activities;

- keep it informed of the outcome of IRO Cases Nos. 48/95, 50/95, 51/95, 54/95, 55/95 and 74/95, which have been filed by various BIGU activists and members and which are still pending in labour courts;

- take appropriate steps to ensure that the newly formed union at Saladin Garments Ltd. is granted registration;

- open a genuinely independent judicial inquiry into the allegations of violations of trade union rights of Saladin Garments Ltd. and to keep it informed of the results of this inquiry, particularly in respect of: (i) the torture of Mr. Chand Mia, a worker at Saladin Garments Ltd. by Messrs. Nannu, Jainal and Monir on 8 and 9 April 1996; (ii) severe harassment and intimidation of union President, Ms. Asma, and other union members, including through the issuing of death threats and misconduct letters; (iii) the forced resignation of union General Secretary, Ms. Shuli, and another woman union member.

18. In a communication of 9 July 1997, the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers' Union Federation (BIGUF) informs the Committee that on 2 July 1997, BIGUF was officially registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Ministry of Labour and Manpower, and notes that BIGUF includes affiliated local unions in the Dhaka and Chittagong regions. The Committee notes this information with interest.

19. In a communication of 17 May 1997, the Government states that a thorough inquiry was held into the matters raised by the complainants. Regarding the findings of the inquiry into the alleged attempts to discredit 11 BIGU members at the Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd., the Government states that there was no person named Mr. Hasan Ali in the packing section, that Messrs. Nurul Islam and Shahidul Islam voluntarily resigned and are now working in other factories, and Mr. Mohosin Reza also resigned voluntarily. The Government states further that the allegations that Mr. Shamin Reza Pinu, General Manager of the Palmal Group of Companies, threatened BIGU members with transfer, has not been proved.

20. While noting the information provided by the Government, the Committee requests further information regarding the nature of the inquiries and details regarding the findings. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided any information regarding the outcome of the inquiry into the other allegations raised and requests it to do so without delay.

21. In a communication dated 26 October 1997, the Government asserts that pursuant to section 3 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, workers and employers have been granted the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization. While there are no formalities or requirements to form an association, the Government notes that certain requirements must be met where an association desires to be registered as a trade union. On this point, the Committee reiterates that the membership requirement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments concerned in order for a union to be registered, and permitting dissolution if membership falls below that level (sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) respectively) are not consistent with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee again urges the Government to amend its legislation in this regard.

22. Regarding the granting of registration to the newly formed union at Saladin Garments Ltd., the Government in its communications of 26 October states that the proposed trade union applied for registration and the application was rejected by the Registrar. The trade union then appealed this decision, and the case is still pending in the Labour Court. Noting this information, the Committee repeats its recommendation that the Government take the necessary steps to ensure that the union is granted registration so as to enable it to exercise legitimate trade union activities, and requests the Government to keep the Committee informed in this regard.

23. Finally, on the issue of the need to open a genuinely independent judicial inquiry into the allegations of violations of trade union rights concerning Saladin Garments Ltd., the Government in its communication of 26 October states that all the complainants are working in their respective fields peacefully and one of the complainants, Mr. Chand Mia, has stated in writing that he did not make any allegation that he was tortured. The Committee requests further information regarding the nature of the inquiries and the findings. The Committee also requests the Government to provide the information requested in the other recommendations presented by the Committee.

Case No. 1849 (Belarus)

24. During its last examination of this case at its meeting in March 1997, the Committee once again requested the Government to: repeal Order No. 158 of 28 March 1995 to the extent it includes organizations and enterprises not providing essential services as defined by the Committee; implement fully the decision of the Constitutional Court which declared certain articles of Decree No. 336 to be unconstitutional; take the necessary measures, without delay, to ensure the reinstatement in their jobs of all workers dismissed in connection with the strikes in Minsk and Gomyel in August 1995; immediately set up an independent commission of inquiry to clarify all the facts relating to this case and to keep it informed of the conclusions reached by the Procurator of the Republic and the commission of inquiry in this regard (see 306th Report, paras. 19-25).

25. The Committee notes with interest that an ILO advisory mission undertaken by Ms. Karen Curtis, Senior Legal Officer of the Freedom of Association Branch, took place from 6-10 October 1997 at the request of the Government to estimate the present situation with respect to essential services and to provide the necessary assistance in this regard. The Committee notes that meetings were held in this regard with officials from the Ministry of Labour, as well as representatives from the workers' and employers' organizations. In a communication to the Office dated 15 October 1997, the Government indicated that the list of enterprises where work stoppages could endanger the life and health of the population was being discussed by all the ministries concerned. The consolidated comments on this matter are to be examined by the National Soviet on labour relations at the end of October - early November 1997. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will be in a position in the very near future to take the necessary measures to amend Order No. 158 so as to ensure that strikes are only prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term. It requests the Government to keep it informed on the progress made in this regard.

26. As concerns sections 1-3 of the Presidential Decree No. 336 which suspend the activities of the Free Trade Unions of Belarus, the Committee notes with regret that, from the information given to the mission by the Free Trade Unions of Belarus, a Presidential Order No. 259 dated 29 December 1995, issued subsequent to the Constitutional Court judgement rendering these sections unconstitutional, provides:

To provide the political and economic stability, protect rights and freedoms of citizens of the Republic of Belarus, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus as well as state bodies shall, until amendments and alterations are introduced into corresponding legislative acts of the Republic of Belarus, ensure that provisions of the following Decrees of the President of the Republic of Belarus are implemented unequivocally:

... - No. 336, dated August 21, 1995 on certain measures to ensure stability and order in the Republic of Belarus.

27. The Committee must therefore once again refer to its previous conclusions concerning Presidential Decree No. 336 (see 302nd Report, para. 221) and call upon the Government to take immediate steps to revoke those articles of the Decree which interfere with the free exercise of trade union rights, namely articles 1, 2 and 3, and to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed on the progress made with respect to its recommendations on the remaining points.

Case No. 1509 (Brazil)

28. At its November 1996 meeting, the Committee examined this case concerning the murder of trade unionist Valdicio Barbosa dos Santos (see 305th Report, para. 13). On that occasion it noted that the Government had stated that Mr. Marçal da Rocha, accused of having committed the homicide, was still at large and that the police were trying to arrest him. It also noted that the judicial authorities had summoned the defence lawyer of Mr. Romualdo Eustaquio Luz Faria, accused of being jointly responsible for the homicide, to file his defence pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Code of Penal Procedure. In a communication dated 10 October 1997, the Government states that upon the request of the Public Prosecutor and the defendants' representatives, a further test was performed on the weapon seized from Mr. Romualdo Eustaquio Luz Faria, which confirmed it as the weapon used to fire the shots that caused the death of the trade unionist. The Government declares that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that Mr. Marçal da Rocha, who is still at large and is being sought by the authorities throughout the country, was the actual perpetrator of the homicide. It also states that Mr. Romualdo Eustaquio Luz Faria is still in detention and is being tried. The Committee notes this information.

Case No. 1819 (China)

29. At its meeting in June 1996, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that the three seafarers - Hua Chun Gui, Zhang Ai Zhao and Gao Ziao Hui - are compensated for economic losses incurred during their nearly two-and-a-half years' detention and that the money, seamen's documentation and qualifications confiscated from them at the time of their initial arrest are restored to them. It also requested the Government to keep the Committee informed of the measures taken in this regard (see 304th Report, para. 158).

30. In its communication of 15 June 1997, the Government indicates that, after having made inquiries at the Tianjin local People's Court, it appears that no progress has yet been made in respect of this case.

31. The Committee notes this information with regret. The Committee recalls that this case concerns arrests and detention in violation of trade union rights which took place in 1992 and that, three seafarers suffered important economic and other losses from having been detained for over a two-year period. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in giving effect to its recommendations, in particular as concerns the compensation of the three detained seafarers.

Case No. 1594 (Côte d'Ivoire)

32. At its June 1997 meeting (see 307th Report, paras. 23-25), the Committee had requested the Government to indicate if the workers dismissed at Irho-Lame in 1993 had appealed to the courts in order to have their rights restored. The Committee had also requested the Government to ensure that the social elections at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan, requested since 1993 by the dockers' members of a trade union affiliated to the Trade Union Federation Dignité, be held immediately and to keep it informed of the outcome thereof.

33. In a communication dated 15 October 1997, the Government indicates that the Trade Union Federation Dignité, during a meeting which took place on 22 May 1997 at the office of the Minister of Employment, Civil Service and Social Planning, confirmed that the workers dismissed at Irho-Lame had not yet appealed to the courts in order to have their rights restored. The Government also points out that at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan, all recognized trade unions have assessed that it would be more feasible to prepare a collective agreement for the dockers before considering social elections. A draft agreement is being discussed between the trade unions affiliated to the Trade Union Federation Dignité and those affiliated to the General Union of Workers of Côte d'Ivoire.

34. The Committee takes note of this information with interest and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed concerning the pending questions related to the adoption of a collective agreement for the dockers as well as the result of the social elections in the Autonomous Port of Abidjan.

Case No. 1824 (El Salvador)

35. The Committee examined this case at its meeting of November 1996 (see 305th Report, paras. 33-35) when it noted that the Government had not provided the information requested in March 1996 concerning the following recommendations:

- The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to carry out an independent inquiry to look into the allegations concerning the death of the trade unionist, Mrs. Julia Esperanza Quintanilla (according to the complaint organization the management of the enterprise refused the trade unionist the possibility of seeking medical assistance), and in the event that these facts are confirmed, to bring appropriate action before the courts in order to determine responsibilities and punish the guilty. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

- As regards the alleged arrests (by the security staff in the enterprise) of a member of the trade union executive, two workers of the Sanobang Wool Apparel El Salvador S.A. enterprise and Mr. Elisio Castro Pérez, secretary general of the trade union of the textile factory, Mandarín International, as well as the physical attacks on the trade union official of the same trade union, Mrs. Marta Rivas (both events allegedly occurred on 15 May 1995), the Committee requests the Government to take steps to carry out an inquiry into these allegations and, if it is ascertained that the trade unionists in question were unlawfully deprived of their freedom - even for a short period of time - and that Mrs. Rivas was physically attacked by the security guards of Mandarín International, to bring appropriate action before the courts so that the guilty should be duly punished. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

- Concerning the allegations relating to the anti-union dismissals of 18 workers in the Gabo S.A. Enterprise, an executive member of the trade union and two workers of the Sanobang Wool Apparel El Salvador S.A. enterprise, and 150 trade union members in the Mandarín International Enterprise, the Committee requests the Government to take steps immediately to carry out an inquiry in the enterprises in question and, in the event of noting that alleged dismissals were based on the fact that those concerned were trade union officials or trade unionists or that they had carried out lawful trade union activities, to take steps to ensure that the dismissed workers might be immediately reinstated in their jobs.

- The Committee requests the Government to carry out as a matter of priority an inquiry concerning the threats made against trade unionists in two enterprises noted in the allegations in the free zones and to ensure that effective protection is provided for the workers in these enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

36. The Committee also noted that in November 1996 the Government stated that the trade union official, Mr. Huezo, was detained on charges of aggression against a national police officer as well as for the illegal occupation of the workplace, resistance to public authorities and abusive use of the right to strike and to work. In addition, there was a further charge against this trade unionist for false testimony, sequestration, murder threats, illegal detention, defamation and damages and interest, based on allegations filed in November 1994. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings under way against Mr. Huezo.

37. In a communication of June 1997, the Government sent a large volume of documentation on the different stages of the legal proceedings on the illegal occupation of the workplace, resistance to public authorities and abusive use of the right to strike and to work against the trade union official Mr. Huezo.

38. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed as to the final outcome of the proceedings as well as on the other charge against this official concerning false testimony, sequestration, murder threats, illegal detention, defamation and damages and interest. Finally, the Government urges the Committee to provide the information requested regarding the other allegations.

Case No. 1823 (Guatemala)

39. At its meeting of June 1997, the Committee made the following recommendations on the pending allegations (see 307th Report, para. 301):

(a) Profoundly deploring the Government's continuing negative attitude to its recommendations in this case, the Committee once again urges the Government to immediately grant legal personality to the Trade Union of Workers of the General Labour Inspectorate (STIGT). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures it may take in this regard.

(b) The Committee requests the Government to investigate why Ms. Malbina Dioderet Barrera, a member of the STIGT, renounced legal protection against her dismissal, and if it is found that her dismissal was the result of anti-union pressure it requests that measures be taken to reinstate her in her position. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

(c) As regards the change in functions of 18 inspectors who were founding members of the Trade Union, the Committee requests the Government once again, in consultation with the 18 inspectors, to revoke the change in their functions. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

40. In its communications of 10 June and 10 September 1997, the Government states that the members of the STIGT joined the General Trade Union of Employees of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance (in a letter of 10 June 1997, members of the General Labour Inspectorate request the Committee to close the case since an agreement has been reached). The Government also encloses a letter dated 11 August 1997 in which Ms. Malbina Dioderet states that her withdrawal was not motivated by anti-trade union pressure. As regards the change in functions of 18 inspectors, the current General Labour Inspectorate adopted a decision to reinstate them in their previous positions.

41. The Committee notes with satisfaction this information.

Case No. 1809 (Kenya)

42. The Committee examined this case at its March 1996 meeting (see 302nd Report, paras. 355-385). It had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to enable university professors and lecturers to form and join organizations of their own choosing including through the registration of UASU, to transmit a copy of the High Court's judgement concerning the appeal of a decision to refuse trade union registration, to keep it informed on the fate of university professors and lecturers dismissed for carrying out legitimate trade union activity and who had not yet been reinstated and finally, to keep it informed as to whether the charges made against Dr. Adar in violation of his fundamental right to free speech had been dropped.

43. In a communication dated 12 May 1997, the Government states that all academic staff in Kenya are employed under individual contracts of employment with the university authorities. According to the Government, the question of refusal to register their trade union is, pursuant to the Trade Unions Act, a matter for the High Court to decide. The Government mentions that the appeal of the Universities Academic Staff Union officials against the decision of the High Court of 1994 to dismiss the case is still pending in Court. The Government declares that it will take no action until the Court has ruled on the matter.

44. The Committee takes note of this information. Recalling that legal proceedings concerning the appeal of a decision to refuse trade union registration should be concluded expeditiously as justice delayed is justice denied, the Committee firmly hopes that the High Court's decision in this matter will be rendered in the very near future and once again requests the Government to transmit a copy of the decision as soon as it is handed down. Furthermore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that those university professors and lecturers dismissed for carrying out legitimate trade union activities and who have not yet returned to their jobs are immediately reinstated. Finally, regretting that it has received no information regarding the situation of Dr. Adar, the Committee reiterates that it expects that any charges made against him in violation of his fundamental right of free speech will be withdrawn and urges the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1883 (Kenya)

45. The Committee examined this case at its November 1996 meeting (see 305th Report, paras. 383-396). It had requested the Government to keep it informed of the High Court's decision in the matter of the restoration of registration to Kenya Wildlife and Allied Workers' Union, and to provide it with a copy thereof.

46. In a communication dated 13 May 1997, the Government states that the matter concerning the deregistration of Kenya Wildlife and Allied Workers' Union is still in the High Court and has not been determined yet.

47. The Committee takes note of this information. The Committee expects that the decision of the High Court in this matter will be rendered in the near future and once again requests the Government to transmit a copy of the decision as soon as it is handed down.

Case No. 1719 (Nicaragua)

48. The Committee examined this case at its June 1996 meeting (see 304th Report, paras. 395-416), at which it appealed to the Government, with a view to encouraging a return to harmonious industrial relations, to endeavour to facilitate the reinstatement in their jobs of the UNE union leaders and members dismissed in the customs sector. In addition, with regard to the judicial appeals lodged by the workers dismissed from the San Pablo plantation and Amerrisque abattoir and the expulsion of the Secretary-General of ANDEN from the National Council of Education, the Committee firmly expected that the judicial authorities would hand down their decision as soon as possible.

49. In a communication of May 1997, the National Union of Employees (UNE) states that the Government neither recognizes nor is willing to accept the Committee's recommendation concerning the reinstatement in their jobs of the trade union leaders and members of the UNE dismissed in the customs sector.

50. In a communication dated 22 July 1997, the Government states in this respect that, according to the record of the administrative proceedings in the Ministry of Labour, the customs workers launched a strike in 1993 because the trade union leaders refused to negotiate with the General Directorate of Customs on the list of demands under the collective agreement and that the trade union leadership should assume its responsibility to its members, especially when the employer's side was willing to bargain. All of this was noted during an inspection at the scene, with the result that the employer consented to resume bargaining and the workers called off the strike. The workers (the trade union) were informed of this but did not respond. The General Labour Inspectorate subsequently decided, at the employer's request, to declare the strike illegal for failing to comply with the provisions of section 224 of the Labour Code. An appeal was lodged against this decision with the General Director of Labour, who, after reviewing the record, upheld the decision handed down by the General Labour Inspector, and as a consequence an official communication was issued to the executive authorities requesting them to safeguard the public order, since violent acts disrupting the public order and violations of the Penal Code had been committed. The administration of the General Directorate of Customs then requested the Departmental Labour Inspectorate to authorize it to dismiss ten trade union leaders in the customs sector for purloining documents and tampering with their contents, signatures and stamps. The proceedings were duly carried out and it was ascertained in addition that six of the ten trade union leaders no longer had legal capacity, as it had expired, so that the request for authorization to dismiss nine of the ten workers was granted. It should be pointed out that the violations of labour law committed by these trade union leaders were as follows: lack of integrity and immoral conduct at work, which was also confirmed on the grounds that had been verified and noted by the Ministry of Labour (absence of legal capacity). By Decision No. 44 dated 2 June 1994 (a duly certified copy of which was attached), the Supreme Court of Justice turned down the appeal for amparo (protection under constitutional provisions) lodged by the trade union leaders in the customs sector, finding that the Constitution recognizes the right to strike on the understanding that it is regulated by section 222 and other provisions of the Labour Code. However, a specific procedure has been laid down for the exercise of the right to strike, which must take place in conformity with the law. The Government adds that acts had been committed giving rise to unusual situations, for example the electricity had been cut off, home-made bombs had been set off, the circuit breakers of the lighting system had been sabotaged, customs officials' vehicles damaged and physical attacks had been perpetrated. The dangerous acts and abuses committed during the customs workers' strike were against the interests of society and the Government itself, and despite this harmonious labour relations had been restored with most of the workers, facilitating their return to work. The evidence which prompted the Ministry of Labour to authorize the dismissal of the trade union leaders, i.e. nine out of ten of the dismissals requested by the employer, was entirely clear. There had been no serious risk of abuse or serious prejudice to freedom of association, since no mass dismissals had taken place, the only requests for termination of the contract of employment by the employer on record being those mentioned above. Harmonious labour relations prevailed in the country's customs sector, since the strike was not really motivated by social demands and it was made clear that the trade union organization had been recognized by the representatives of the General Directorate of Customs. Negotiations of the collective agreement were currently under way and the Secretary-General of the trade union had stated that there was labour stability and good employer/employee relations.

51. In addition, in a communication of 6 October 1997, the Government states that: (1) regarding the pending legal proceedings relating to the dismissals at the San Pablo plantation, the workers' legal adviser presenting the case indicated that the matter has been abandoned since those involved decided to work in Costa Rica and discontinued the proceedings; and (2) regarding the legal proceedings concerning the dismissal of the workers at the Amerrisque abattoir, in conformity with the judicial decision, the employer made a settlement payment to 111 workers, who expressly renounced all rights to take further legal action. As a result, the employer cancelled the salary and gave them their compensatory payment.

52. The Committee notes the information communicated by the Government regarding the dismissal of the trade union leaders and members of the UNE, in particular its statement to the effect that there are now harmonious industrial relations in the customs sector. The Committee observes that a total of nine dismissals took place and considers that since they date back to 1993, reinstatement does not appear to be feasible. As regards the judicial appeals lodged by the workers dismissed from the San Pablo plantation and Amerrisque abattoir, the Committee notes the information submitted by the Government. Finally, regarding the legal proceeding with respect to the expulsion of the Secretary-General of ANDEN from the National Council of Education, as the Government has not communicated any information concerning the outcome of the proceedings, the Committee firmly expects that the judicial authorities will hand down their decision as soon as possible.

Case No. 1793 (Nigeria)

53. During its examination of this case in June 1997 (see 307th Report, paras. 33-35), the Committee strongly reiterated its request for a mission to examine the issues raised and, in particular, to visit detained trade union leaders and urged the Government to respond positively to this request without any further delay. On 18 June 1997, the Government proposed the month of September to the Office as a period when the mission might be received and the Office, in a communication dated 4 July 1997, suggested that the mission take place from 8 to 17 September and requested the Government to confirm these dates as soon as possible so that the necessary organizational arrangements could be made.

54. In a communication dated 5 September, and received in the Office on 8 September, the Government indicated that the dates proposed were not suitable and that a letter would follow. In a letter dated 10 September 1997, the Director-General expressed his grave concern at the continual postponement of this mission and called upon the Government as a matter of urgency to propose the earliest dates in which the mission could be received. No further communication has been received from the Government.

55. Noting this information, the Committee cannot but deeply deplore the fact that, for nearly three years, the Government has consistently evaded responding to the urgent calls for a mission and, when finally agreeing to a month when such a mission could be carried out, the Government waited until the eve of the mission to indicate that the period was not suitable. The behaviour of the Government gives rise to serious doubts concerning its good faith in dealing with the Committee. The Committee would also point out that a new complaint has been submitted against the Government of Nigeria alleging the adoption of further anti-union decrees and detention of unionists (Case No. 1935). In these circumstances, the Committee reiterates in the strongest possible terms the calls which have been made to the Government.

Case No. 1796 (Peru)

56. At its meeting in March 1997, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals lodged with the Supreme Court by certain trade union officers dismissed by the Iron and Steel Enterprise of Peru; to keep it informed of developments concerning a draft amendment to the Industrial Relations Act which would lift the prohibition denying the right to belong to organizations of their own choosing to workers during their probationary period; to keep it informed of the final decision handed down by the higher court concerning the dismissal of trade union officer Mr. Iván Arias Vildoso; and to establish an independent inquiry into the dismissals of trade union officers and members in the National Railway Enterprise of Peru (ENAFER), and to keep it informed in this regard (see 306th Report, para. 508).

57. In a communication dated 30 July 1997, the Government informs the Committee that (i) of the five former trade union officers of the Iron and Steel Enterprise of Peru who had lodged appeals, two had withdrawn their appeals and received their social benefits. Concerning the three others, the Government will inform the Committee of the decision handed down by the court; (ii) as regards developments concerning the draft amendment to the Industrial Relations Act, it has been analysed and discussed by the Committee on Labour and Social Security of the Congress of the Republic, and the Committee's recommendation has been taken into account by removing the provision requiring that a worker not be undergoing a probationary period in order to be able to join a trade union; (iii) as regards the final decision of the higher court concerning the dismissal of trade union officer Mr. Iván Arias Vildoso, it has not yet been handed down; (iv) as regards the inquiry into the dismissals of trade union officers and members in the ENAFER enterprise, inspections carried out show that the enterprise was in the process of reducing staff in accordance with Legislative Decree No. 26120, since ENAFER comes within the scope of the privatization process for which provision is made in this legislation.

58. The Committee notes the information communicated by the Government and requests it to keep it informed of the decision handed down by the judiciary branch concerning the remaining three trade union officers dismissed by the Iron and Steel Enterprise of Peru, and of the final decision handed down by the higher court concerning the dismissal of trade union officer Mr. Iván Arias Vildoso. As regards developments concerning the draft amendment to the Industrial Relations Act, the Committee notes with interest that the Committee on Labour and Social Security of the Congress of the Republic has removed from the bill the provision requiring that a worker not be undergoing a probationary period in order to be able to join a trade union, and draws this aspect to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. Lastly, as regards the dismissals of trade union officers and members in the ENAFER enterprise, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that in future the application of such staff reduction programmes is not used to carry out acts of anti-union discrimination.

Case No. 1813 (Peru)

59. This case concerning the death, physical assault and arrest of trade unionists was last examined by the Committee in June 1997 (see 307th Report, paras. 42 and 43). On that occasion, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government according to which judicial proceedings had been instigated against the workers arrested (Félix Castillo Pérez, Elí Pando Malpartida, Antonio Yupanqui Oré, José Palacios Huamanchuco, Felipe Gutierrez Cárdenas and Julio Camacho Diáz) for disturbing the peace, and against the three persons charged with the murder of the trade unionists Alipio Chauca de la Cruz and Juán Marcos Donazre Cisneros. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these judicial proceedings.

60. In a communication of 18 September 1997, the Government states that no final ruling has yet been given in these proceedings and expresses its willingness to keep the Committee informed on the matter. The Committee awaits further information from the Government.

Case No. 1878 (Peru)

61. In relation to the allegation made by the Single Trade Union of Workers of the Peruvian Broadcasting Company (SUTRACPR), the Committee in its meeting of June 1997 had requested the Government to carry out an investigation into the allegedly anti-union nature of the programme for the mass reclassification of 218 workers into positions of trust and as managerial staff, and to keep it informed in this respect (see 307th Report, para. 454).

62. In a communication dated 18 September 1997, the Government states that it is not within its competence to carry out an investigation as requested by the Committee, since there are already adequate legal mechanisms with which aggrieved workers may seek redress before the appropriate court and contest any reclassification which contravenes the law. The Government states that section 61 of the Regulations under the Law on Productivity and Competitiveness stipulates that reclassification by the employer can be contested and the workers concerned can submit an application to the judicial authority to suspend such reclassification within 30 days of the application being submitted.

63. While noting the legal mechanisms available to workers for defending their rights, the Committee notes with regret once again that the Government has not provided any new information to clarify the allegedly anti-union nature of the programme for the mass reclassification of 218 workers into positions of trust and as managerial staff, especially bearing in mind that, as pointed out by the complainant, all the workers reclassified as employees in positions of trust or as management staff are trade unionists, and include all the union's leaders, a fact which was not denied by the Government. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the Government, in ratifying Convention No. 98, has undertaken to apply Article 1 according to which "Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment" and once again requests the Government to take any necessary measures to ensure that in future such staff reclassification programmes are not used to carry out acts of anti-union discrimination.

64. Finally, the Committee notes that in a communication dated 12 September 1997, the Single Trade Union of Technicians and Specialized Auxiliaries of the Peruvian Social Security Institute (SUTAEIPSS) made certain comments on the partial application by the Government of the recommendations formulated by the Committee at its March 1997 meeting relating to this case (see 306th Report, para. 540(a) and (b)). The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Case No. 1826 (Philippines)

65. During its last examination of this case in November 1996 (see 305th Report, paras. 54-56), the Committee had urged the Government to establish an independent investigation into the conduct of the April 1996 certification election at Cebu Mitsumi Inc. in Danao City, and to take the necessary measures to ensure that a new certification election was held if the complainant's allegations of interference by the management of Cebu Mitsumi in the election proceedings of April 1996 proved to be true.

66. In a communication dated 11 September 1997, the Government states that the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment carried out a thorough study of the facts of this case. Further to this review, the Secretary of Labor and Employment issued a resolution on 31 July 1997 declaring the certification elections conducted in Cebu Mitsumi on 24-25 April 1996 as invalid and ordering the conduct of another certification election immediately to determine the true will of the employees. The decision, which is appended to the communication, relies on section 8(f), Rule VI, Book V of the Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Labor Code, which provides that a labour organization can only be certified as a sole and exclusive bargaining agent if it has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters. Further, for a certification election to be considered valid, at least a majority of all eligible voters must have cast their votes. It was found that out of 9,850 eligible voters, only 1,032 cast ballots, thus not constituting a majority of the registered voters. The Government adds that, to date, the resolution has not been implemented as the management of Cebu Mitsumi Inc. has filed a motion for consideration with the concerned regional office. The motion has not yet been transmitted to the Office of the Secretary.

67. While observing that the Government did not establish an independent investigation into the conduct of the April 1996 certification election at Cebu Mitsumi, the Committee notes with interest that the Government's own investigation into the matter resulted in the decision to declare that certification election invalid and to order the conduct of another certification election as soon as possible. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that a new certification election is held immediately at Cebu Mitsumi Inc., especially in view of the fact that the CMEU filed a petition for a certification election nearly four years ago, in February 1994, which was, moreover, signed by almost all rank-and-file workers of Cebu Mitsumi (see 302nd Report, paras. 405 and 408). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Case No. 1785 (Poland)

68. In its 305th Report approved by the Governing Body in November 1996, the Committee once again requested the Government to keep it informed of any progress concerning the restitution of trade union properties confiscated during the period of martial law on an equal footing between the two trade union confederations (see paras. 57-59).

69. In a communication dated 28 May 1997, the Government states that after the adoption of the Act of 10 May 1996 amending the Act concerning restitution of assets, the Social Commission for Revindication took decisions, imposing upon the State Treasury an obligation of cash payment or compensation in other (non-cash) forms determined by the law, in favour of various organizational units of NSZZ "Solidarno c". The trade union organizations filed motions concerning the revision of previous decisions of the Commission. The full realization of compensation in non-cash forms would only be possible after the Council of Ministers had issued an appropriate executory regulation but the finalization of the works on the Council of Ministers' regulation would occur after the Sejm had amended article 3.2, paragraph 1, of the Revindication Act as amended by the Act of 10 May 1996 in order to determine non-cash forms of compensation which would be governed by the mentioned regulation. Such an amendment was necessary, because the forms of compensation, laid down by the Act, did not prove feasible.

70. Article 45 of the Trade Union Act, in its wording formulated by article 6 of the above-mentioned Act of 10 May 1996, imposed upon the Minister of Labour and Social Policy an obligation of issuing (after consultation with NSZZ "Solidarno c" and OPZZ), a regulation drawing up lists of real assets (with equipment) of the former trade union association which would become the sole property of NSZZ "Solidarno c" or OPZZ. On 7 March 1997, the Labour Minister created the Inventory Commission composed of two representatives of each: NSZZ "Solidarno c", OPZZ, the Labour Minister, plus a secretary of the Commission. The Inventory Commission was to complete its work by the end of May 1997. At the same time, parliamentary work was in its final stage (the adopted Act had been submitted to the Senate) on the amendment of the Trade Union Act (of 23 May 1991) and some other Acts necessary for effective distribution by the Labour Minister of assets of the former trade union association and transfer of ownership to beneficiaries of such distribution.

71. The Committee takes note of this information. It once again requests the Government to comply with its previous recommendation at an early date concerning the final and equitable redistribution of trade union assets between the two trade union confederations and to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1891 (Romania)

72. The Committee examined this case at its March 1997 meeting (see 306th Report, paras. 556-575) at which time it urged the Government to amend the legislation regarding dispute settlement, in particular the provisions restricting the right to strike. The Committee further recommended that the Government ensure that police intervention, if it is necessary to enforce the execution of court decisions affecting strikers, takes place in full observance of the elementary guarantees applicable in any system that respects basic civil liberties.

73. In a communication dated 4 September 1997, the Government states that a new law on the settlement of labour disputes is in the process of being drafted in consultation with the social partners. During the discussions on this subject which took place in the tripartite consultative commission established by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the representative of the Ministry acknowledged the willingness of the Government to repeal section 30 of Act No. 15, 1991 respecting the settlement of labour disputes which authorizes the Supreme Court of Justice to suspend a strike for up to 90 days. The Committee notes this information with interest and requests the Government to forward to it a copy of the new law once it is adopted.

74. The Government further acknowledges the importance it attaches to ensuring that all police action takes place pursuant to powers established by law and with full respect for fundamental rights and civil liberties. It states in addition that a human rights committee has been set up by the Ministry of the Interior to investigate violations involving the police. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to indicate whether the human rights committee has been charged with investigating the particular allegations raised in the case, and to keep it informed regarding the results of such investigations.

Case No. 1618 (United Kingdom)

75. At its meeting in June 1996, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any developments in the Harrison v. Kent County Council case. Furthermore, while noting the Government's indication that existing legislation provided adequate protection against discrimination on grounds of trade union membership or activities and that there were extensive procedures to ensure that the legislation is effectively implemented, the Committee recalled that the circumstances giving rise to this case indicated 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. It therefore urged the Government to give consideration to such explicit protection and to keep it informed of any measures taken (see 304th Report, paras. 18-20).

76. In a communication dated 21 July 1997, the Government indicates that the case of Harrison v. Kent County Council has been settled. Since however the terms of the settlement are confidential and the Government was not a party, the Government has no further details concerning the terms of the settlement.

77. The Committee notes this information. It further notes however that the Government has not provided any information concerning the consideration of incorporating an express protection in the legislation against blacklisting. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to give consideration to such explicit protection and to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Case No. 1581 (Thailand)

78. At its meeting in November 1996, the Committee once again requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in adopting the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill and expressed its hope that the Bill, in its final form, would be in full conformity with freedom of association principles (see 305th Report, paras. 61-63).

79. In its communication of 26 September 1997, the Government indicates that, following the dissolution of the House of Representatives in September 1996, the Bill was resubmitted to the newly elected House on 18 December 1996. The Bill was approved in its final reading in the House on 19 February 1997 and passed its first reading in the Senate on 20 February and passed the Scrutinizing Committee of the Senate on 13 May. According to the Government, the Bill is now awaiting its second and final reading in the Senate.

80. The Committee takes note of this information. Once again it trusts that the Bill will be adopted in the near future and that, in its final form, it will be in conformity with freedom of association principles. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard and to provide a copy of the Bill as soon as it has been adopted.

Case No. 1856 (Uruguay)

81. At its meeting of March 1996, the Committee made the following recommendation: "Regarding the dismissal allegedly on financial grounds of 39 workers four days after the end of the dispute in the Perses S.A. Enterprise, the Committee requests the Government to conduct an inquiry into the reasons for the dismissals and, should it find that they were ordered on anti-union grounds, to take steps to have the persons concerned reinstated in their jobs. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on this subject" (see 302nd Report, para. 439). During its previous examination of the case in November 1996, the Committee noted the Government's statements that the General Inspectorate for Labour and Social Security was carrying out an investigation into the allegations made (see 305th Report, paras. 64 and 65).

82. In a communication dated 5 March 1997, the Government states that the investigation is at the preliminary stage, i.e. the evidence presented by the parties concerned, consisting mainly of eyewitness accounts, is being collected and processed and that therefore no final conclusions have yet been reached on the matter. The Government adds that when the administrative procedure under way reaches its final stage, the Committee will be informed of the outcome.

83. The Committee takes note of this information and since the inquiry has already taken one year it hopes that the administrative authority will expedite the process and asks the Government to take steps to this end. The Committee awaits the final outcome of the inquiry.

84. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1623 (Bulgaria), 1726 (Pakistan), 1761 (Colombia), 1818 and 1833 (Democratic Republic of the Congo), 1834 (Kazakstan), 1850 (Congo), 1857 (Chad), 1858 (France/Polynesia), 1863 (Guinea), 1864 (Paraguay), 1870 (Congo), 1877 (Morocco), 1886 (Uruguay), 1896 (Colombia), 1903 (Pakistan), 1905 (Democratic Republic of the Congo), 1907 (Mexico) and 1918 (Croatia), 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. Moreover, the Committee has just received information concerning Case No. 1698 (New Zealand) and Case No. 1910 (Democratic Republic of the Congo) which it will examine at its next meeting. The Government of India indicated that it would send information concerning Cases Nos. 1854 and 1890 soon.