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 28 and 29 May and 5 June 1998, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

2. The members of Argentinian, French and Panamanian nationalities were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Argentina (Cases Nos. 1867, 1887 and 1939) France/Guiana (Case No. 1929) and Panama (Cases Nos. 1931 and 1932), respectively.

3. Currently, there are 51 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 19 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in nine cases and interim conclusions in 10 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. 1958 (Denmark), 1959 (United Kingdom/Bermuda), 1961 (Cuba), 1962 (Colombia), 1963 (Australia), 1964 (Colombia), 1966 (Costa Rica), 1967 (Panama), and 1968 (Spain) because it is awaiting information and observations from the governments concerned. All these cases relate to complaints or representations submitted since the last meeting of the Committee. In Case No. 1959 (United Kingdom/Bermuda), the Government stated that information had been requested from the authorities in Bermuda and that a complete reply would be furnished as soon as it was received by the Government. In Case No. 1963 (Australia), the Government announced that its observations will be sent.

Observations requested from governments

5. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the following cases: Nos. 1812 (Venezuela), 1851 (Djibouti), 1865 (Republic of Korea), 1869 (Latvia), 1922 (Djibouti), 1944 (Peru), 1947 (Argentina), 1948 (Colombia), 1951 (Canada/Ontario), 1953 (Argentina) and 1955 (Colombia). In Case No. 1865 (Republic of Korea), the Government announced that its observations will be sent.

Observations requested from complainants

6. In Case No. 1949 (Bahrain), the Committee is awaiting the comments of the complainant organizations. The Committee requests these organizations to send the observations and information requested without delay.

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1835 (Czech Republic), 1927 (Mexico), and 1965 (Panama), the governments have sent partial information on the allegations made. The Committee requests 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. 1787 (Colombia), 1934 (Cambodia), 1942 (China/Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), 1950 (Denmark), 1954 (Côte d'Ivoire) and 1960 (Guatemala), the Committee has very recently received the Government's observations and intends to examine the substance of this case at its next meeting.

Urgent appeals

9. As regards Cases Nos. 1873 (Barbados) and 1956 (Guinea-Bissau), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the submission of the complaint or the last examination of the case, it has not received the observations of the governments concerned. The Committee draws the attention of the governments in question 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, if their observations or information have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests these governments to transmit their observations or information as a matter of urgency.

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

10. 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/Manitoba (Case No. 1928), Canada/Ontario (Case No. 1943), Indonesia (Case No. 1773), Panama (Case No. 1931) and Peru (Case No. 1906).

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

Case No. 1837 (Argentina)

11. At its meeting in March 1997 (see 306th Report, paras. 16-18), the Committee last examined this case concerning acts of violence that occurred during demonstrations and strikes organized in the Provinces of Tierra del Fuego, Corrientes and San Juan, and in particular the death of the worker Víctor Choque, the injuries sustained by unionists Juan Roberto Vera and Alejandro Vásques, and the assault and denial of freedom of which trade union leaders Eloy Camus and Juan González, were victims. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the results of the judicial inquiries under way concerning the detention of Mr. Juan González, the homicide of Víctor Choque (the Government informed the Committee that the judicial authorities had sentenced a police officer to nine years' imprisonment as the person responsible for his death, but that the verdict had been appealed), and the abduction of Mr. Eloy Camus. The Committee had also requested the Government to keep it informed of the judicial inquiries under way concerning the injuries sustained by trade unionists Juan Roberto Vera and Alejandro Vásques, as well as the legal proceedings brought by the police against the trade union leader Juan González.

12. In a communication dated 23 March 1998, the Government sent a copy of the ruling handed down by the judicial authorities of the Province of Tierra del Fuego, upholding the verdict sentencing a police officer to nine years' imprisonment as the person materially and criminally responsible for the homicide of Mr. Víctor Choque. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of the other judicial inquiries mentioned above.

Case No. 1509 (Brazil)

13. The Committee examined this case concerning the murder of the trade unionist Valdicio Barbosa dos Santos at its meeting of November 1997 (see 308th Report, para. 281). On that occasion it noted that the Government had stated that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that Mr. Marçal da Rocha -- who was at large -- was the actual perpetrator of the homicide and that Mr. Romualdo Eustaquio Luz Farias was still in detention and was being tried. In a communication of 9 April 1998, the Government states that: (1) the Public Ministry of the State presented its final allegations and requested the preventive detention of the accused persons; and (2) after an analysis of the documents of the proceedings, the Public Ministry concluded that other persons are involved in the homicide in addition to the accused and therefore ordered a new police investigation of the case. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to inform it of the final outcome of the judicial proceedings under way, and of the new police inquiry to which reference is made.

Cases Nos. 1850 and 1870 (Congo)

14. The Government reports in its communication of 20 March 1998 that the situation of war which has just arisen in the country and the serious disruptions to which it has given rise have not allowed the matters pending before the Committee to be dealt with in the normal manner. The Government hopes to be able to provide information in this connection in the near future. The Committee takes note of this information and expresses the hope that the situation in the country improves and will enable a solution to be found to the matters pending. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 1938 (Croatia)

15. The Committee examined this case, concerning allegations of interference in trade union activities and with trade union assets, at its March 1998 meeting (see 309th Report, paras. 161 to 185). The Committee had, inter alia, requested the Government to extend the period of negotiation regarding the division of immovable assets formerly owned by trade unions, if no agreement was reached within six months (the period set out in the Act on Associations). The Committee had asked to be kept informed in this regard.

16. In a communication dated 13 May 1998, the Government stresses that the property at issue is considerable, comprising more than the property owned by the trade unions before the Second World War. The Government also states that while the trade unions have not reached an agreement with respect to the division of trade union assets, the Government has still not proposed to the Parliament the criteria for such division, in an attempt to permit the trade unions to reach an agreement.

17. The Committee notes that the negotiation period has been extended, and recalls that the extension should be such as to ensure that the parties concerned are given a reasonable opportunity to reach an agreement. The Committee repeats its request that the Government determine the criteria for the division of immovable assets formerly owned by the trade unions in consultation with the trade unions concerned should they be unable to reach an agreement among themselves, and fix a clear and reasonable time frame for the completion of the division of the property once the period of negotiation has passed. The Committee also recalls its request that the Government forward to it a copy of the decision of the Constitutional Court as soon as it is handed down. Finally, the Committee again requests to be kept informed regarding all of the above-noted matters.

Case No. 1908 (Ethiopia)

18. At its meeting in November 1997, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that an independent investigation be carried out immediately into:

(i) the alleged attack against, and subsequent occupation of, the premises of the Federation of Commerce, Technical and Printing Industry Trade Unions (FCTP) on 4 November 1996; and

(ii) the alleged physical assault on Mr. Mulatu Gurmu, the FCTP Treasurer, on the same day, so as to identify and punish the guilty parties.

The Committee further requested the Government to institute an independent judicial inquiry into the allegation that irregular procedures were followed in nominating the new leaders of the FCTP. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to send a copy of the Federal High Court's decision confirming the cancellation of the registration of the former Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions (CETU) by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (see 308th Report, para. 362).

19. As concerns the institution of an independent investigation, the Government indicates in a communication dated 23 February 1998 that it consulted all concerned bodies including the Federation of Commercial Trade and Printing (FCTP) in order to learn the truth of the matter. It adds that it understands that there is no concrete evidence which can justify the allegations in this case. On the contrary, the Government found that the allegations had been a sheer fabrication and disinformation of the former CETU and former FCTP leaders. The Government adds that the newly democratically elected FCTP leadership was perplexed when asked to nominate their representative to the independent investigation body and stated that there were no grounds for any of the allegations. Therefore, the Government indicates that it was unable to institute an independent investigation because all concerned bodies, including the FCTP, refused the proposal adding that, if such a crime had occurred, the victim could have brought the case before the court. Finally, the Government sent the Federal High Court's decision with respect to the cancellation of the registration of the former CETU.

20. The Committee notes this information. The Committee must recall, however, that it has already requested the Government on two occasions to carry out an independent investigation into the attack and occupation of the FCTP enterprises and the physical assault of the FCTP treasurer, Mr. Gurmu (see 306th Report, para. 458, and 308th Report, para. 359). The Committee deeply regrets the Government's decision not to undertake such an investigation on the basis of the views expressed by the new FCTP leadership which are precisely what gave rise to the original complaints made in this case by the former leadership. The Committee requested the Government to institute an independent investigation precisely so that it might carry out full inquiries and establish the true facts of the case. The Committee would therefore once again urge the Government immediately to undertake an independent investigation into these matters. Furthermore, as concerns the new leadership of the FCTP, in its previous conclusions the Committee indicated that serious doubts appeared to surround the regularity of the procedures followed leading to the nomination of the new FCTP leaders and recalled the principle that, in cases where the results of trade union elections are challenged, such questions should be referred to the judicial authorities in order to guarantee an impartial and objective procedure which should also be expeditious. The Committee deeply regrets that the complaint raised by the former FCTP leadership in this regard has not been referred to the judicial authorities for an impartial determination. Moreover, the Committee considers that the absence of any independent review and impartial resolution to this question is likely to perpetuate the doubts about the legitimacy of the present leadership in a manner unfavourable to all parties concerned. The Committee therefore urges the Government, in the interests of all parties concerned, to institute an independent judicial inquiry into the allegation of the existence of irregular procedures for the nomination of the new leaders of the FCTP and to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard.

21. The Committee also notes the Federal High Court's decision confirming the cancellation of the registration of the former CETU. It notes from the judgement that the reasons given by the Ministry of Labour for the cancellation were that the Confederation was exercising its power beyond its jurisdiction, that it failed to work towards its objectives of, among others, strengthening the unity of the federations and that it did not rectify the matter when the Ministry advised them to do so. It appears from the judgement that six out of the nine member federations requested the Ministry to dissolve the Confederation because it was creating dissension among its members. A number of other broad allegations were made in the briefs before the Court against the former CETU. The judgement indicates that there is a procedure in the CETU constitution for dissolving the Confederation but this procedure was not used. Instead the Ministry was requested to cancel the registration of the CETU under the powers vested to it in section 120 of the Labour Proclamation. The relevant sub-section of section 120 provides broad authority to the Minister to cancel the registration of an organization where the organization is found to have engaged in activities which are prohibited under this Proclamation or performed acts which are contrary to its purposes and constitution and it is not willing to cease or remedy or eliminate them. The High Court judgement appears only to verify whether the Minister indeed had the power to dissolve the Confederation but does not actually review the allegations made against it which appear only generally in the judgement. Noting that the legislation on this point is contrary to freedom of association principles, the Committee requests the Government to amend it with a view to ensuring the full respect of these principles.

22. From the evidence available, this matter clearly appears to be related to internal dissensions within the CETU. Generally speaking, the Committee is not competent to make recommendations on internal dissensions, so long as the Government does not intervene in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal functioning of an organization (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 963). In this case, however, cancellation of the former CETU by the administrative authority would appear to constitute intervention in the normal functioning of the organization, particularly given the existence of procedures for dissolution in the Confederation's constitution. Furthermore, the Committee would recall that, in cases of dissolution, judges should be able to deal with the substance of a case to enable them to decide whether or not the provisions pursuant to which the administrative measures in question were taken constitute a violation of the rights accorded to occupational organizations by Convention No. 87. In effect, if the administrative authority has a discretionary right to register or cancel the registration of a trade union, the existence of a procedure of appeal to the courts does not appear to be a sufficient guarantee if the judges hearing such an appeal can only ensure that the legislation has been correctly applied (see Digest, op. cit., para. 683). In the light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to undertake an independent investigation to verify the allegations made against the former CETU and to determine whether the administrative decision to cancel the organization did not constitute unjustifiable interference in trade union affairs contrary to the principles of freedom of association and, if so, to take the necessary measures to ensure the reinstatement of the former CETU executive. The Government is requested to keep the Committee informed in this regard.

Case No. 1876 (Guatemala)

23. At its March 1998 meeting, the Committee asked the Government to keep it informed of developments in the procedure against the Mariposa S.A. bottling enterprise relating to acts of anti-union discrimination and requested the Government to take measures for the reinstatement of those dismissed in their jobs if it were confirmed that they had been dismissed for their trade union activities (see 309th Report, para. 261(c)).

24. In a communication dated 23 March 1998, the Government sent a copy of the judgements of first and second instance relating to this matter. The latter judgement confirms the lower court's decision to fine the enterprise "for having contravened the laws of labour and social welfare by not reinstating in their jobs" two workers who had been dismissed without legal cause.

25. The Committee notes this information but observes that in the facts outlined in the judgement no mention is made of the persons concerned being trade unionists or that they had been subjected to anti-union measures. Given this situation, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this question.

26. Nevertheless, the Committee regrets that no observations were provided on the other pending questions relating to this case, and it therefore repeats the recommendations it formulated in this connection at its March 1998 meeting (see 309th Report, paras. 261(b), (c) and (d)).

(b) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the inquiries into the rape of trade unionist Vilma Cristina González and into the detention of the trade unionists Eswin Rocael Ruiz Zacarías, Edwin Tulio Enríquez García and Belarmino González de León.

(c) As regards the allegations relating to acts of discrimination (International Textile Corporation enterprise, El Salto farm, and Las Delicias farm) the Committee once again stresses the importance of remedying all acts of anti-union discrimination and asks the Government to keep it informed of the progress of these procedures. The Committee requests the Government to take measures for the reinstatement of those dismissed in their jobs if it is confirmed that they were dismissed for their trade union activities.

(d) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of the legal proceedings currently under way relating to the dismissal of trade unionists Juan José Morales Moscoso and Everildo Revolorio Torres and to take measures for the reinstatement of those dismissed in their posts if it is confirmed that they were dismissed for their trade union activities.

Case No. 1877 (Morocco)

27. At its session in June 1997, having examined the allegations concerning the anti-union measures taken by the management of SOMADIR factories in Casablanca and El Jadidale against workers, and in particular against union leaders and staff representatives, between 1994 and 1996, the Committee formulated the following recommendations (see 307th Report, paragraph 404):

(b) Recalling that under Convention No. 98 workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the workers who were dismissed or suspended due to their legitimate trade union activities, namely Messrs. Mohammed Horane, Mohammed Karim, Bouchaib Adrif, Abdelkébir Kaboul, Mohammed Fahmi, Allal Louinate, Meziane Azzay, Abdelilah Marhoum, Brahim Achrait, Rachid Anaddam, Mustapha Bouachamia, Mohammed Boukhima, Bouchaib Moundir, Hassan Raoui, Abderrahim Oussamam, Rachid Labed, El Mustapha Achoute, Abderrassoul Ghazza, Najib Boudriga, Abdellah El Hassi, Mohammed Mifdal, Jamal Bella, Ahmed Nouamane and Saad Taha be immediately reinstated in their jobs, if they so wish. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures so that the SOMADIR enterprise does not have recourse to anti-union measures and requests the Government to keep it informed in this connection.

(c) Noting that the dispute between the workers and the management of the SOMADIR enterprise was submitted to the Consultative Council for the Promotion of Social Dialogue, the Committee requests the Government to forward to it a copy of the decision as soon as it is handed down.

28. In a communication of 27 March 1998, the Government states that, as regards the collective dispute between the management and staff of SOMADIR, following the normal resumption of activities within the company from 11 July onwards, the parties to the dispute had started negotiations under the terms of an agreement providing for the reinstatement of 33 employees, including four staff representatives, and the payment of compensation to other dismissed workers in accordance with national legislation in force. However, the dismissed workers, believing that their rights were infringed, rejected the agreement and chose instead to settle their dispute with the company by judicial means. The parties have accordingly initiated legal action challenging the dismissals before the competent judicial bodies, which to date have given no ruling on the matter. The text of any such rulings will be communicated to the ILO as soon as possible.

29. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments with regard to the judicial action taken in this matter.

Case No. 1894 (Mauritania)

30. At its November 1997 meeting, the Committee urged the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania (CLTM) and the Mauritanian Transport Workers' Federation (FTM) obtained legal recognition in the very near future so that they might defend and promote the interests of their members (see 308th Report, paras. 526-540).

31. Since then, the complainants indicated in a communication dated 8 March 1998 that the secretary-general and the workers' education officer of the CLTM, Messrs. Samory Ould Beye and Sid' Amed Ould Salek, had been arrested on 5 February 1998 at 2 p.m., and had since been held under house arrest.

32. At its meeting in March 1998, the Committee insisted that the Government take steps to ensure that both complainant organizations obtain legal recognition in the very near future and that the Government send its observations concerning the alleged arrest of their trade union leaders.

33. In a communication dated 5 May 1998, the Government states that, after analysing the by-laws of the Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania (CLTM), and pursuant to section 9 of book III of the Labour Code, the Public Prosecutor of the Republic certified that the by-laws were legal. The Government adds that the Confederation has thus legally existed since 30 April 1998. In a communication of 11 May 1998, the Government states also that the trade union leaders referred to in the complaint have all been released and are entitled to full freedom of movement.

34. The Committee notes this information with interest. It nonetheless requests the Government to do everything possible to permit the other complainant organization, the Transport Workers' Federation (FTM), to obtain legal recognition as quickly as possible, as Article 2 of Convention No. 87 stipulates that workers shall have the right, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this regard.

Case No. 1907 (Mexico)

35. At its meeting in June 1997, the Committee had left pending the question regarding the reinstatement of workers who had participated in a strike in the transport sector in 1996. The Committee thus formulated the following recommendations (see 307th Report of the Committee, para. 417):

The Committee urges the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that the workers of Autotransportes Tres Estrella de Oro SA de CV and Corsarios del Bajío SA de CV who took part in the strike and who did not return to work in a 24-hour deadline are reinstated in their jobs. If the Government is unable to abide by this recommendation, the Committee requests it to keep it informed of the legal difficulties which prevent it from reinstating the workers in their jobs.

36. In its communications of 17 November 1997 and 10 March 1998, the Government states that to date it has not been possible to reinstate the workers since the enterprises had obtained amparo (enforcement of their constitutional rights) by means of a review. The Government explains that this course of action is the final resort against actions which a party may consider to be in violation of constitutional safeguards. However, the Government states that many of the strikers appealed to the National Trade Union of Transport and Allied Workers to resume work in various enterprises of the group.

37. The Committee takes note of this information but regrets that not all the strikers have been reinstated in their jobs. However, given that the judicial authority has ruled in favour of the enterprises and the allegations date from 1996, it does not appear to be possible to enforce the reinstatement of those workers who remain out of work under existing legislation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take steps to bring the parties concerned together with a view to achieving the reinstatement in their posts of as many of the dismissed workers as possible.

Case No. 1796 (Peru)

38. At its meeting of November 1997, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the decision handed down by the Judiciary Branch concerning the dismissal of trade union officers Leonardo Cruzalegui, Delfín Quispe Saavedra, Dionisio Mejía Ramos (of the Iron and Steel Enterprise of Peru) and Iván Vildoso (Electrolima Enterprise, SA) (see 308th Report, para. 58). As regards Mr. Vildoso, the complainant sent additional information according to which the Supreme Court revoked the decision handed down by the lower court thereby excluding his reinstatement in his job. Consequently, this trade union leader has presented a final appeal.

39. In its communication of 16 February 1998, the Government provides detailed information on the progress of the various appeals lodged by the officials in question. According to the information from the Government, the legal proceedings taken by Mr. Leonardo Cruzalegui have concluded and confirmed that the request for an annulment of the dismissal was without foundation, in view of the fact that the dismissal was due to a retrenchment, noted by the labour inspector, and took place during the course of a privatization scheme. As regards the other three trade union officials, no final ruling has yet been handed down due to the successive appeals which have been lodged.

40. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings concerning the trade union leaders Delfín Quispe Saavedra, Dionisio Mejía Ramos and Iván Arias Vildoso.

Case No. 1813 (Peru)

41. At its meeting of November 1997, the Committee awaited further information on two cases involving legal proceedings on which it had requested to be kept informed of the outcome: (1) proceedings against several workers charged with the offence of disturbing the peace (Félix Castillo Pérez, Elí Pando Malpartida, Antonio Yupanqui Oré, José Palacios Huamanchuco, Felipe Gutiérrez Cárdenas and Julio Camacho Díaz); and (2) charges concerning the death of two trade unionists (Alipio Chueca de la Cruz and Juán Marcos Donayre Cisneros) (see 308th Report, paras. 59 and 60).

42. In its communication of 17 February 1998, the Government states that as regards the workers charged with the offence of disturbing the peace following incidents which occurred in the offices of the Corporation for the Development of El Callao (CORDECALLAO), the judicial authorities have closed the case on the ground of the extinction of the right of criminal action due to the statute of limitations. The Committee takes note of this information.

43. As regards the proceedings concerning the death of the trade unionists Alipio Chueca de la Cruz and Juán Marco Donayre Cisneros as a result of the shots fired by CORDECALLAO security staff, the Government states that three persons have been charged with the offence of causing grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the trade unionists and with the illegal possession of firearms. The Government adds that the proceedings have not been concluded and that it will keep the Committee informed in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of these proceedings.

Case No. 1878 (Peru)

44. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee requested the Government to provide its comments regarding certain observations of the complainant organization (the Single Trade Union of Technicians and Specialized Auxiliaries of the Peruvian Social Security Institute -- SUTAEIPSS) formulated in its communication of 12 September 1997 (see 308th Report, para. 64). Subsequently, that organization sent new communications dated 10 November 1997, 24 and 30 January and 14 February 1998 (in the last of these, the complainant requested the Committee to confine itself to giving an opinion on matters relating to collective bargaining).

45. SUTAEIPSS indicates that its 1997 claims have not been settled and the Government has awarded a 16 per cent pay rise to workers at the Peruvian Social Security Institute; this pay rise was implemented as a result of the Union's struggle. However, the Institute has not set up the joint committee and has chosen to grant the pay increase separately from the 1997 claims. The Union adds that it has transmitted its list of claims for 1998 to the Institute and it is to be expected that the situation of 1997 will be repeated. The complainant hopes that public servants will be guaranteed the right to engage in collective bargaining as part of the current reform of the Act concerning collective labour relations. The complainant also notes that there has been an improvement in relations between the Union and the Institute and that other issues have been resolved.

46. In its communications of 29 December 1997 and 10 March 1998, the Government states that the delay in the collective negotiations was caused by the complainant. According to the Government, it was these negotiations that resulted in the 16 per cent pay rise for workers at the Institute. Furthermore, national legislation guarantees the rights set out in Conventions Nos. 87 and 151.

47. The Committee takes note of the complainant's allegations and the Government's statements. It notes with interest that the dialogue and talks between SUTAEIPSS and the Peruvian Social Security Institute made implementation of the 16 per cent pay rise possible and that the Union emphasizes the improvement that has taken place in its relations with the Institute. However, the Committee notes that the talks between the parties appear to have arisen informally, that the complainant's concern at the moment is the establishment of the joint committee and to ensure that current reforms to the Act concerning collective labour relations create a legal framework in which collective bargaining between the parties can take place satisfactorily. Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to examine the reasons for which the joint committee has still not been set up and to take measures to promote collective bargaining for 1998 at the Institute.

Case No. 1926 (Peru)

48. The Committee examined this case at its November 1997 meeting (see 308th Report, paras. 610-634), when it requested the Government to: (i) take the necessary steps to recognize the SUTREL (Unified Trade Union of Electricity Workers of Lima and Callao) trade union sector's right to represent its members and bargain collectively on conditions of employment, at least on behalf of its own members; (ii) carry out an inquiry into the allegation of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) concerning the anti-union nature of the dismissal of officers of several trade union organizations; (iii) ensure that, where it is necessary to implement the process of collective termination of employment for objective reasons, negotiations are held between the enterprises concerned and the trade union organizations; and (iv) take the appropriate measures to guarantee the full application of the Convention as regards the allegations of the CGTP concerning threats of dismissal received by trade union officers.

49. In a communication of 7 May 1998, the Government states that the administrative labour authority declared invalid the claims submitted by the SUTREL trade union section at the Luz del Sur Servicios S.A. enterprise, as they concerned a branch trade union which represented workers of various allied enterprises, and that a membership of at least 100 members was required in order for the union to be established and to exist. The Government further adds that a collective agreement was already signed in January 1997 between that enterprise and the majority of its workers. In this respect, the Committee first would recall that the requirement of a minimum membership of 100 workers in order to establish a branch trade union has been criticized by the Committee of Experts, which considers the number excessive. Furthermore, the Committee once again recalls that direct negotiation between the enterprise and its workers, circumventing representative organizations when they exist, can in some cases be detrimental to the principle under which collective bargaining between employers and workers' organizations should be encouraged and fostered. It thus once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to recognize the SUTREL trade union sector's right to represent its members and to bargain collectively on conditions of employment, at least on behalf of its own members.

50. As regards the allegations of the CGTP concerning the anti-trade union dismissal of the officers of several trade union organizations, the Committee notes that the Government has committed itself to conducting an investigation into this matter and will inform the Committee as soon as possible of its findings. The Committee thus awaits the findings of the investigation.

51. As regards the Committee's request that negotiations be held between the enterprises concerned and the trade union organizations where it is necessary to implement the process of collective termination of employment for objective reasons, the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement that section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 003-97-TR stipulates that in such cases the enterprise is obliged to negotiate concerning the conditions of termination of employment contracts or other steps to avoid or limit termination of employment. The Government adds that it would be difficult for the employer to use the process of collective termination for anti-union purposes, as the administrative labour authority takes part in the negotiations along with the trade union.

52. As regards the allegations of the CGTP concerning threats of dismissal of trade union officials, the Committee takes note of the Government's statement that the existence of such threats could not be proved, and that no reports thereof have been submitted to the competent national bodies.

Case No. 1785 (Poland)

53. In November 1997, the Committee had requested 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 (see 308th Report, para. 71).

54. In a communication dated 9 March 1998, the Government states that trade union organizations made 481 applications by 31 January 1998 in accordance with procedures defined by new provisions.

55. By 31 January 1998 the Social Revindication Commission issued pronouncements obligating the State Treasury to pay in cash or to compensate through non-monetary measures defined by acts the total amount of 57,540,505.78 PLN. Obligations of the State Treasury towards organizational units of the NSZZ "Solidarno c" amount to 56,098,873.06 PLN. The remaining sum of money of 218,661.34 PLN is compensation for overpayments to trade unions obligated by virtue of former pronouncements to return the assets.

56. Cash compensations -- together with calculated statutory interests for delay -- will be, beginning from September 1998, made by voivods representing the State Treasury from the resources of target reserves of the State, allocated to them by the Minister of Finance.

57. The Government adds that realization of non-cash compensations will be carried out after the issuance by the Cabinet of an appropriate executive regulation, provided for in section 3(2), paragraph 3, of the amended Revindication Act. Works related to preparation of this regulation are being carried out.

58. It is beyond doubt that the question of non-monetary obligations of the State Treasury should be regulated in the best possible way through legislative provisions. Therefore the new Government is going to present in the Parliament, without an unreasonable delay, a draft amendment of section 3(2), paragraph 1, of the Revindication Act, as well as simultaneously preparing an executive Cabinet regulation, adjusted to the changes projected.

59. The Government states that the Minister of Labour and Social Policy issued a regulation of 27 June 1997 defining the list of immovables of the former Trade Union Association which are the property of the NSZZ "Solidarno c" and the OPZZ. On the strength of this regulation the NSZZ "Solidarno c" was assigned one immovable and the OPZZ -- three immovables. The Minister of Labour and Social Policy issued another regulation on 26 August 1997, according to which the NSZZ "Solidarno c" was assigned another three immovables, and the OPZZ another six immovables.

60. The Minister of Labour and Social Policy also made a settlement following the division of the immovables of the former Trade Union Association to the effect that the OPZZ was obligated to return to the NSZZ "Solidarno c", as a settlement, an amount of 331 PLN, because the total monetary value of the immovables listed in both ordinances, as assigned to the OPZZ, is higher than the total sum of monetary value of the immovables assigned to the NSZZ "Solidarno c", while section 45 of the Trade Union Act stipulates that the immovables be divided in equal parts between the OPZZ and the NSZZ "Solidarno c".

61. The NSZZ "Solidarno c" expressed a critical attitude towards both the above-mentioned regulations of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy, of 27 June 1997 and of 26 August 1997, as well as the decision of 5 September 1997 concerning the settlement following the division of immovables of the former Trade Union Association.

62. The NSZZ "Solidarno c" raised objections towards both regulations as being legally incorrect, as there was no basis for issuing them.

63. Consequently, the NSZZ "Solidarno c" questioned also the decision of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy of 5 September 1997 concerning the settlement following division, since the real value of the immovables, adopted in this decision -- identical with the value stated in the regulations -- should be subject to another evaluation. In examining these objectives, the Supreme Chamber of Control stated that there was no need to conduct another pricing of the above listed immovables. However, the Chamber has not directly addressed the doubt, raised by the NSZZ "Solidarno c", whether the Stock-Taking Commission took into account all the immovables which according to the Act should be subject to division. Neither did the Chamber address the objection that the Commission had not prepared a final listing of the catalogued buildings. However, the protocol of examination of the Supreme Chamber of Control presented -- as a subject of examination -- critical remarks, doubts and objections concerning the respective stages of work of the Stock-Taking Commission.

64. Due to the legal complexity of the question of the division of assets of the former Trade Union Association, the Government states that the Minister of Labour and Social Policy is not ready to express his opinion now. It will inform the Committee when the Minister of Labour and Social Policy takes a final decision.

65. The Committee notes with interest that decisions concerning cash compensation to trade union organizations will be beginning from September 1998 and that some assignations of immovables to NSZZ "Solidarno c" and OPZZ have been made. The Committee notes the complexity of the question of divisions of assets of the former Trade Union Association as well as the objections of NSZZ "Solidarno c" concerning various decisions and regulations of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy and the work of the Stock-Taking Commission. The Committee expresses the hope that these issues will be resolved in the near future and asks the Government to keep it informed of any progress.

Case No. 1895 (Venezuela)

66. During its November 1997 meeting (see 308th Report, paras. 672 to 684), the Committee examined allegations concerning the arbitrary detention of Mr. José Ramón Pacheco, President of the Single Grass-Roots Union of Workers of the Department of Education (SUBATRA). The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the results of the criminal proceedings against the trade union officer in question for suspected falsification of documents. In a communication of 24 February 1998, the Government informed the Committee that the judicial authorities have decided to release Mr. José Ramón Pacheco while the investigation continues concerning the crime of falsification of documents which he is alleged to have committed. The Committee takes due note of this information, and requests the Government to keep it informed regarding the results of the judicial proceedings against the trade union officer, Mr. José Ramón Pacheco.

67. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1512/1539 (Guatemala), 1581 (Thailand), 1719 (Nicaragua), 1809 (Kenya), 1819 (China), 1824 (El Salvador), 1826 (Philippines), 1834 (Kazakhstan), 1843 (Sudan), 1863 (Guinea), 1883 (Kenya), 1886 (Uruguay), 1890 (India), 1891 (Romania), 1895 (Venezuela), 1900 (Canada/Ontario), 1903 (Pakistan), 1912 (United Kingdom/Isle of Man), 1916 (Colombia), 1918 (Croatia), 1920 (Lebanon), 1921 (Niger), 1925 (Colombia), 1936 (Guatemala), and 1945 (Chile), 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. In addition, the Committee has recently received information concerning Cases Nos. 1594 (Côte d'Ivoire), 1618 (United Kingdom), 1698 (New Zealand), 1849 (Belarus), 1852 (United Kingdom), 1854 (India), 1862 (Bangladesh), 1864 (Paraguay), 1913 (Panama), 1937 (Zimbabwe) and 1940 (Mauritius) which it will examine at its next meeting. In Case No. 1912 (United Kingdom/Isle of Man), the Government states that a reply will be furnished as soon as the Isle of Man authorities send it.