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 5, 6 and 12 November 1998, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

2. Currently, there are 67 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 19 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 11 cases and interim conclusions in eight cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

3. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the examination of the following cases: Nos.1971 (Denmark), 1973 (Colombia), 1974 (Mexico), 1975 (Canada/Ontario), 1976 (Zambia), 1978 (Gabon), 1980 (Luxembourg), 1981 (Turkey), 1983 (Portugal), 1984 (Costa Rica), 1985 (Canada), 1986 (Venezuela), 1988 (Comoros), 1989 (Bulgaria), 1990 (Mexico), 1991 (Japan), 1992 (Brazil) and 1993 (Venezuela) 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. 1974 (Mexico), the Government stated that it would send its observations shortly.

Observations requested from governments

4. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the following cases: Nos. 1773 (Indonesia), 1888 (Ethiopia), 1930 (China), 1931 (Panama), 1949 (Bahrain), 1952 (Venezuela), 1962 (Colombia) and 1964 (Colombia). In Cases Nos. 1930 (China) and 1965 (Panama), the governments stated that they would send their observations shortly.

Observations requested from complainants and governments

5. In Case No. 1929 (France/Guiana) the Committee is awaiting the complainant's comments and the Government's observations. The Committee requests them to send the observations and information requested without delay. In Case No. 1960 (Guatemala), the Committee requests the complainant and the Government to provide more detailed observations and information so that it can examine this case in full knowledge of all the facts.

Partial information received from governments

6. In Cases Nos. 1835 (Czech Republic), 1906 (Peru), 1939 (Argentina), 1953 (Argentina), 1963 (Australia), 1965 (Panama), 1970 (Guatemala), 1972 (Poland) and 1979 (Peru), 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

7. As regards Cases Nos. 1812 (Venezuela), 1880 (Peru), 1927 (Mexico), 1947 (Argentina), 1948 (Colombia), 1959 (United Kingdom/Bermuda), 1967 (Panama), 1977 (Togo), 1982 (Brazil) and 1987 (El Salvador), the Committee has very recently received the Governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting.

Urgent appeals

8. As regards Case No. 1955 (Colombia), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the submission of the complaint, it has not received the complete observations of the Government concerned. The Committee draws the attention of the Government 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 this case even if its complete observations or information have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests this Government to transmit its observations or information as a matter of urgency.

Serious and urgent case which the Committee especially draws to the attention of the Governing Body

9. The Committee again wishes to draw the special attention of the Governing Body to Case No. 1787 (Colombia) due to the extremely serious nature of the outstanding allegations (see 309th Report, para. 9). Furthermore, it notes that the trade union situation prevailing in Colombia was the subject of a complaint made under article 26 of the ILO Constitution by several Worker delegates at the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference and that this complaint is being submitted to the present session of the Governing Body.

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: Argentina (Case No. 1887) and China/Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Case No. 1942).

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

Case No. 1887 (Argentina)

11. In its meeting of June 1998 (see 310th Report, paras. 90-106), when examining allegations relative to restrictions on collective bargaining in virtue of the Decrees issued in December 1996 by the Executive Power (Decrees Nos. 1553, 1554 and 1556), the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning these decrees and the collective agreements adopted pursuant to them. In a communication dated 19 October 1998, the Government indicated that the Decrees in question had been left without effect by virtue of the approval by the National Congress of Act No. 25013 (2 September 1998) on labour reform. The Government adds that this Act establishes a system of collective bargaining which is in harmony with the principles of freedom of association, and was a product of the agreement reached with the workers' representatives, expressed through the General Confederation of Labour (CGT). The Committee takes due note of this information and draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this new legislation.

Case No. 1862 (Bangladesh)

12. The Committee last examined the substance of this case at its November 1997 meeting (see 308th report, paras. 17-23). On this occasion, the Committee requested the Government to:

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

(b) provide it with further information regarding the nature of the inquiries into the trade union situation at Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd and details regarding the findings on: (i) blacklisting of workers and trade unionists; (ii) intimidation, beating and resignation of Messrs. M. Rahman and Mr. N. Ahmed; (iii) termination of employment of eight Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers' Union (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;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) 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;

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

(g) provide it with further information regarding the nature of the inquiries and details concerning the findings on the allegations of violations of trade union rights at Saladin Garments Ltd. and more precisely on: (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.

13. In a communication dated 19 May 1998, the Government states that further inquiries on the trade union situation at Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd are in progress; the Committee will be informed of the outcome of such inquiries in due course. While noting this information, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided specific information on the matters expressly mentioned in point (b) above, despite their seriousness and the time which has elapsed since the Committee first examined the case; it therefore requests the Government to communicate the results of these inquires without delay.

14. As regards the need to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), the Government reiterates that the IRO substantially conforms with the requirements of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Amendments to the IRO which would lead to the suppression of the membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments concerned for a union to be registered would result in a multiplicity of trade unions and jeopardize their effective functioning. The Government concludes that amendments in this regard cannot be insisted upon. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that for many years, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has been asking the Government to review these provisions in order to bring them into conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see observation, Report III, Part 4A. of 1997, p. 151 of the English text). The Committee, like the Committee of Experts, considers that they unduly restrict the right of all workers to organize and urges therefore the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation in this respect.

15. Regarding the granting of registration to the union formed at Saladin Garments Ltd., the Government repeats that the proposed trade union's application was rejected by the Registrar. The trade union appealed this decision and the case is still pending. Noting this information, the Committee reiterates its recommendation that the Government should 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 it informed in this regard.

16. As regards the inquiries into allegations of violations of trade union rights at Saladin Garments Ltd., the Government repeats that all the complainants are working in their respective fields peacefully and that the Director of Labour reached objective and fair conclusions through a neutral and independent inquiry. The Government therefore considers that no judicial inquiry is warranted in this case. The Committee regrets that the Government did not comply with its requests to institute an independent judicial inquiry in this regard and cannot but insist on the importance it attaches to such inquiry with a view to clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts.

17. Finally, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided any information on its other recommendations, i.e. the outcome of the court cases filed by BIGU members and activists (points (c) and (e) mentioned above) and Ms. Kalpana's employment situation (point (c) above).

Case No. 1849 (Belarus)

18. During its last examination of this case at its meeting in November 1997, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken: to amend Order No. 158 of 28 March 1995 to ensure that strikes may only be prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term; to revoke articles 1, 2 and 3 of Presidential Decree No. 336 which interfere with the free exercise of trade union rights; and to ensure the reinstatement in their jobs of all workers dismissed in connection with the strikes in Minsk and Gomyel in August 1995 (see 308th Report, paras. 24-27).

19. In communications dated 15 May and 7 September 1998, the Government indicates that Presidential Decree No. 657 of 29 December 1997 has declared invalid paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 336 which suspended the activities of the Free Trade Union of Belarus, Cell Union of Minsk Subway Workers. The Government further indicates that the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions of Belarus was registered by the Ministry of Justice on 19 December 1997; out of the 40 trade unions registered in the country, eight define themselves in their names as free, independent and democratic. As concerns the Act on the procedure for the settlement of collective labour disputes, the Government indicates that a draft Act concerning amendments and additions to this Act were approved by the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly at the end of June and has been submitted to the President for signature. According to the Government, this draft once adopted will resolve the problems which had arisen under Order No. 158 of 28 March 1995 which established the list of enterprises, the stoppage or interruption of whose activity would endanger the life and health of the population. The Government concluded by thanking the Office for the consultations and technical assistance provided in order to assist it in bringing its legislation into conformity with international labour standards.

20. The Committee notes this information with great interest. In particular, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the Presidential Decree suspending the Free Trade Union of Belarus (FTUB), has been revoked and that the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions of Belarus, an umbrella organization of which the FTUB is a member, has been registered. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether paragraph 2 and, in particular, paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No. 336, which establishes that activities of trade unions taking part in strikes on enterprises listed in Order No. 158 shall be terminated as per legal procedure, remain in force. As concerns the draft amendments to the Act on the procedure for the settlement of collective labour disputes, the Committee notes that the latest version provided to the Office represents a significant step towards recognition of the principle of the right to strike, in particular by proposing to repeal section 16 of the Act which sets forth the list of enterprises and services in which strikes may be restricted and upon which Order No. 158 was based. The Committee trusts that these draft amendments will enter into force in the near future and that they will ensure full conformity with the principles of freedom of association. It requests the Government to transmit the final version of the Act as amended. Finally, given that the Government has not provided any information in respect of the measures taken to reinstate the workers dismissed in connection with the strikes in Minsk and Gomyel in August 1995, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.

Case No. 1509 (Brazil)

21. The Committee examined this case concerning the murder of the trade union leader Valdicio Barbosa dos Santos at its meeting in June 1998 (see 310th Report, para. 13) and requested the Government to keep it informed of the final outcome of the judicial proceedings and of the new inquiry to which reference had been made. In its communication dated 12 October 1998, the Government indicates in relation to the murder of trade union leader Valdicio Barbosa dos Santos that intense research was carried out within the proceedings under way in order to carry out a preventive detention of the accused persons, as well as to pursue the investigations in order to explain the responsibility for the theft of the murder weapon and to determine whether there were other persons involved in the crime. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceeding.

Case No. 1889 (Brazil)

22. The Committee examined this case at its March 1997 meeting (see 306th Report, paras. 152 to 176), when it insisted that the Government take measures to ensure that the fines imposed on the trade unions of the Single Federation of Oil Workers for their participation in strikes in the PETROBRAS enterprise in 1995 are annulled.

23. The Committee notes with satisfaction that in its communication dated 2 September 1998 the Government informs it that Act No. 9689, adopted on 14 July 1998, cancelled the fines imposed by the Supreme Labour Tribunal on the trade unions of the Single Federation of Oil Workers for their participation in strikes in the PETROBRAS enterprise in 1995.

24. However, the Committee once again requests the Government to consult the social partners on the content of Bill No. 1802/96 (which regulates the imposition of fines in the event of strikes deemed to be abusive or illegal) and hopes that the final text will take into account the results of these consultations and the principles set forth in the conclusions contained in the 306th Report of the Committee (paras. 171 to 175).

Case No. 1957 (Bulgaria)

25. At its meeting of June 1998, when it examined allegations relating to eviction from trade union premises occupied by a trade union organization and the confiscation of the union's property, the Committee, considering that the complainant organization had been deprived of the use of premises which it had used from 1992 to 1997, invited the Government to consider the possibility, taking into account the representativeness of the National Syndical Federation (GMH), of granting the complainant premises in the city of Sofia in which it might set up its headquarters, and requested the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to ensure that all the equipment and documents confiscated from the complainant organization were returned to it (See 310th Report, para. 133(a) and (b)).

26. In its communication of 30 June 1998, the Government states that: (1) in order to allow the Ministry of Economics to use the premises occupied by the trade union organization GMH, in accordance with the legal authorization obtained by the Ministry to take over the premises in question, the office equipment and documents belonging to the GMH were moved and the premises where they were stored were sealed to ensure their safe keeping, not to prevent the complainant from using the equipment and documents in question; and (2) the GMH legally occupied the premises in question only during the period 1992-93, their occupation of the premises between 1994 and 1997 having been illegal; the GMH may, through the procedure established by the Cabinet in implementation of the State Property Law, ask for other premises to be allocated to it.

27. The Committee takes note of this information. With regard to the confiscation of material, equipment and documents belonging to the GMH, the Committee notes that the Government does not state whether these have been returned to the complainant. Under these circumstances, the Committee once again draws the Government's attention to the fact that confiscation of trade union property by the authorities without a court order constitutes an infringement of the right of trade unions to own property and undue interference in their activities, contrary to the principles of freedom of association; the Committee requests the Government, if it has not already done so, to take steps without delay to ensure that all the property confiscated from the complainant organization is returned to it. With regard to the possibility of allocating premises to the GMH, the Committee invites the complainant organization to request that premises be allocated to it under the terms of the State Property Law, as the Government has suggested.

Case No. 1928 (Canada/Manitoba)

28. At its June 1998 meeting (see 310th Report, paras 134-184), the Committee examined this case concerning amendments to the Public Schools Act of Manitoba. The Committee urged the Government to take steps to have the amendments that circumscribe the jurisdiction of the interest arbitrators repealed, and to keep it informed in this regard. In a communication of 22 September 1998, the Government informs the Committee that section 129(3) and (4), which were referred to in the complaint, were amended during the committee stage of the legislative process, after consultation with and representations from various stakeholders and the general public. Pursuant to the amendments, "ability to pay" is now one of a number of factors that shall be considered by the arbitrator, rather than being the primary basis of his or her decision. The Government highlights the influence of the consultation process in this regard, and states that the amendments to the Public Schools Act came only after two major public consultations -- one in 1992 and the other in 1996. During the consultations in 1996, the Teacher Collective Bargaining and Compensation Review Committee held 11 public meetings at seven locations around the province. Over 2,000 people attended, 190 people made oral presentations, and 484 written submissions were received. The Committee held a special meeting to hear submissions from the various interested educational associations and stakeholder groups, and the public had the opportunity to make submissions to the legislative committee. Fifty-seven presentations were made to the legislative committee, including by representatives of teachers' associations, school boards and the Manitoba Teachers' Society. Furthermore, the Government states that prior to convening the Teacher Collective Bargaining and Compensation Review Committee, the Government invited the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the Manitoba Association of School Trustees to enter into discussions concerning what changes to the collective bargaining process might be appropriate. The Committee takes note of this information.

29. The Government contends that the amendments pursuant to the Public Schools Amendment Act, 1996, do not deny the right of teachers to bargain collectively or interfere with the independence of the arbitration process. The Government contests in particular the Committee's conclusion that issues such as the selection, appointment, assignment and transfer of teachers and principals, the method for evaluating the performance of teachers and principals, and the scheduling of recesses and the midday break are clearly related to conditions of employment. According to the Government, while it may be possible to so characterize these issues in a traditional workplace, the education system is not such a workplace. It states that these matters are all important areas having pedagogical impact. In addition, the Government states that there is nothing in the legislation restricting the ability of school boards and teachers' associations from negotiating these matters through the collective bargaining process. The Government, repeating what it had said in its earlier reply, notes that the legislation requires school divisions and districts to act reasonably, fairly and in good faith in administering policies relating to matters that have been statutorily excluded from arbitration. The Government states that since a breach of this duty is subject to arbitration, the divisions and districts do not have an absolute right to act unilaterally. The Government concludes that the changes requested by the Committee "are currently not warranted given the experience with the legislation to date".

30. The Committee regrets the Government's decision not to take steps to have the amendments repealed that circumscribe the jurisdiction of the interest arbitrators. The Committee again recalls that the right to bargain freely with employers with respect to conditions of work constitutes an essential element of freedom of association, and trade unions should have the right, through collective bargaining or other lawful means, to seek to improve the living and working conditions of those whom they represent (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 782). The Committee has always been conscious of the need to take into consideration the specificity of the education system when considering the scope of collective bargaining in that sector. Regarding the Government's assertion that the school boards and teachers' association are able to bargain collectively concerning the matters excluded from arbitration, the Committee repeats its earlier conclusion in this case that "where workers' organizations are not permitted to resort to any means of pressure to promote and defend their position in collective bargaining, effective collective bargaining may be inhibited" (see 310th Report, para. 176). The provisions imposing an obligation on the school divisions and districts to act in good faith concerning the excluded subjects, cannot be considered as tantamount to collective bargaining, and it is not the type of compensatory measure considered by the Committee as adequate in the absence of the right to strike. The Committee recalls that compensatory measures should include adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage (see Digest, para. 547). Considering the particular education system in Manitoba, the Committee again urges the Government to take steps to have the amendments to the Public School Act that circumscribe the jurisdiction of the interest arbitrators repealed and to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1941 (Chile)

31. At its meeting of June 1998, when it examined allegations relating to the restitution of trade union assets confiscated during the 1973 coup d'état, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Act on the restitution or compensation of assets confiscated from the trade union organizations could enter into force without delay, and requested the Government to keep it informed of measures taken in this respect (See 310th Report, para. 254). In its communication of 24 July 1998, the Government states that on 25 June 1998, the President of the Republic approved the Bill on the restitution or compensation of assets confiscated or acquired by the State and that the Bill in question was published in the Official Bulletin of Thursday, 23 July 1998 as Law No. 19.568. The Government also states that the Minister of National Property will receive any applications from natural or legal persons who may be affected and that a special office has been established to receive such applications and determine assets for restitution or appropriate compensation for the persons in question. The Government also sends a copy of Law No. 19568. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction.

Case No.1945 (Chile)

32. In a previous examination of the case (see 309th Report, paras. 56-68, adopted by the Governing Body at its March 1998 (271st) Session), certain allegations remained pending with regard to the dismissal of, or legal proceedings instituted against, trade union leaders. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations (see 309th Report, para. 68):

-- With regard to the dismissal, without court authorization, of trade union leaders in Rhona SA (Mr. Araos Herrera) and Brink's (Messrs. Cea Valenzuela, Silva Pérez and Muñoz Llanos) and, given that Chilean legislation requires prior court authorization for the dismissal of trade union leaders and that such authorization was not sought in the present case, the Committee deplores the dismissal of the four trade unionists listed by the complainant and urges the Government immediately to take measures for their reinstatement. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the current legal action.

-- Regarding the clearance of the Senate chambers, the temporary detention of Luis Pereira, Nicolás Soto and Luis Mesina, trade union leaders, and the initiation of criminal action against them on "contempt of authority" charges, the Committee, whilst noting the Government's statement that these facts were provoked by "gross" insults directed at certain senators during the debate on a Bill as well as by disorderly behaviour designed to interrupt the speakers, requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the current action taken against these union leaders.

33. In its communication dated 22 July 1998, the Government states that Mr. Eduardo Araos Herrera and Rhona SA came to a settlement in the case before the Labour Tribunal of Viña del Mar; in accordance with this agreement, the enterprise paid all of the employment benefits which had been the subject of the action (US$30,000) and Mr. Araos Herrera renounced his employment and any other legal action in connection with the employment relationship between the two parties. With regard to the dismissals of the trade union leaders, namely Messrs. Sergio Antonio Cea Valenzuela, Sergio Silva and Jorge Muñoz, the Government forwarded extensive documentation and details regarding the various court decisions rejecting these unionists' complaints and indicates that the ruling handed down by the First Labour Tribunal of Valparaíso, rejecting the evidence regarding their status as workers and trade union leaders, is at present under appeal. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal proceedings.

34. With regard to the detention and prosecution on charges of "contempt of authority" of the leaders of the Confederation of Bank Employees' Trade Unions, Messrs. Luis Pereira Concha, Nicolás Soto Reyes and Luis Mesina Marín, the Government reports that the proceedings have been stayed and, consequently, no sentence has been pronounced. The Committee takes note of this information.

Case No. 1850 (Congo)

35. The Committee examined this case at its June 1996 meeting (see 304th Report, paras. 199 to 220), June 1997 meeting (see 307th Report, paras. 102 to 122) and June 1998 meeting (see 310th Report, para. 14). The Committee had requested the Government, with respect to the breaking up of a trade union meeting at the Pointe Noire labour exchange on 30 September by a detachment of the national police, resulting in many people being wounded, including Mr. Ngakoya, an employee of the national railways, to keep it informed of the findings of the inquiry and of the measures taken to punish those who are responsible for these reprehensible acts. In relation to the expulsion from Pointe Noire of the president of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers of Congo (CSTC) by the Public Prosecutor and the ban on his returning, the Committee asked the Government to annul this decision; on the subject of the expulsion of the CSTC from its premises, the Committee requested the Government to help, as far as possible, the CSTC to obtain new premises; in relation to protest strikes against the non-payment of salaries by the Government, the Committee called on the Government to revoke all anti-union reprisals that may have been directed against the strikers, and in particular dismissals and blacklisting. In addition, the Committee requested the Government to transmit a copy of the Bill relating to the right to strike in the public service before its adoption.

36. In a communication dated 12 October 1998, the Government indicates that the serious administrative and institutional disruptions which occurred in the country following the recent situation of war prevented it from conducting a thorough and objective inquiry into the events which took place more than five years ago concerning the violent breaking up of a trade union meeting at the Pointe Noire labour exchange in September 1993. While taking note of this information as well as the Government's statement that it is committed to the principles of freedom of association and that it will do its utmost to prevent such events in the future, the Committee insists once again on the need for an in-depth and independent inquiry in such circumstances. In addition, concerning the expulsion and the ban on his returning from Pointe Noire of the president of the CSTC, the Government indicates that the president of the CSTC has appealed against the decision of the Public Prosecutor. The Government explains that it did not feel bound by the decision of the Public Prosecutor and that it had authorized the president of the CSTC to return and stay in Pointe Noire and that the president of the CSTC had since resumed his trade union activities there. While noting this information with interest, the Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the decision of the appeal body concerning the recourse against the decision of the Public Prosecutor.

37. Concerning the premises requested by the CSTC, the Government recalls that the recent war destroyed most of the infrastructure in Brazzaville but that it is nevertheless ready to examine any proposition which might be submitted by the CSTC in this respect. Insisting once again on the importance of an adequate protection for trade union assets and that, in this respect, the CSTC should be able to obtain premises for its trade union activities, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.

38. The Committee notes the information from the Government according to which the Bill on the right to strike was shelved following the recent political changes in the country. Finally, the Committee request the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken to revoke all anti-union reprisals (including dismissals and blacklisting) that may have been directed against the strikers who participated in the protest strikes against the non-payment of salaries in 1995.

Case No. 1870 (Congo)

39. The Committee examined this case at its November 1996 meeting (see 305th Report, paras. 134 to 147), June 1997 meeting (see 307th Report, paras. 13 to 16) and June 1998 meeting (see 310th Report, para. 14). Having, amongst other things, requested the Government to send it a copy of all the judgements concerning legal proceedings against a number of trade unionists, the Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its communication of 12 October 1998 stating that the legal proceedings against the trade unionists in the Criminal Court of the Brazzaville High Court and benefiting from parole on bail were acquitted by court decision on 17 September 1998.

Case No. 1594 (Côte d'Ivoire)

40. At its meeting of March 1998, the Committee requested the Government to do all it could to ensure that social elections were held as soon as possible at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan and to make sure that the first-level organizations affiliated to the trade union confederation, Dignité, were able to participate in them (see 309th Report, para. 17). In its communication of 26 May 1998, the Government states that on 14 April 1998 elections for staff delegates took place at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan and attaches to its observations a copy of the election record, according to which the Free Trade Union of Dockers of the Autonomous Ports of Côte d'Ivoire (SYLIDOPACI) affiliated to Dignité participated in the elections. The Committee notes this information with interest.

Case No. 1824 (El Salvador)

41. The Committee examined this case at its meeting of November 1997 (see 308th Report, paras. 35-38) when it noted that the Government had not provided the information requested 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 complainant 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.

-- 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.

42. The Committee, in November 1997, took note of the large volume of documentation sent by the Government 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.

43. In communications of 28 May and 3 July 1998, the Government informed the Committee that Mr. Huezo had been acquitted of the charges of abusive use of the right to strike and to work and resistance.

44. The Committee takes due note of this information. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the other charges against Mr. Huezo 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.

Cases Nos. 1512 and 1539 (Guatemala)

45. At its meetings in November 1997 and March 1998, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made by the Commission on Historical Clarification in connection with the allegations under review concerning the assassination or disappearance of trade unionists (1990-94) (See 308th Report, para. 394(b) and 309th Report, para. 19). In a communication dated 18 September 1998, the Government indicated that a copy of the report of the Commission will be transmitted to the Committee as soon as it has been submitted. The Committee notes this information and continues to await receipt of the report.

Case No. 1876 (Guatemala)

46. In its previous examination of the case in May-June 1998 (see the Committee's 310th Report, paras. 23-26) various allegations concerning detentions, acts of violence and anti-union discrimination against trade unionists remained pending.

Detentions and acts of violence

47. The Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the inquiries into the alleged rape of trade unionist Vilma Cristina González and into the alleged detention of the trade unionists Eswin Rocael Ruiz Zacarías, Edwin Tulio Enríquez García and Belarmino González de León (see 310th Report, para. 26). In a communication dated 4 June 1998 the Government stressed that these persons -- who are going about their business as usual -- were still not collaborating with the authorities which is why no progress had been made in the inquiries. In this respect the Committee indicates that it will only pursue its examination of the allegations if the complainant organization sends additional information concerning the allegations and the lack of collaboration by the persons involved in the inquiries.

Acts of anti-union discrimination

48. The Committee made the following recommendations (see 310th Report, para. 26):

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. 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.

49. In its communication dated 4 June 1998 the Government stated that the legal proceedings relating to the dismissal of the trade unionists Juan José Morales Moscoso and Everildo Revolorio Torres were still under way. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in these procedures.

50. As regards the remaining allegations of anti-union discrimination, the Government stated in its communications of 4 June and 28 July and 18 September 1998 that the International Textile Corporation had now been replaced by another enterprise and that in any event no complaints were reported to the authorities. The Government added that the Las Delicias farm went out of business and paid all its workers 100 per cent severance pay. In respect to the El Salto enterprise, the Government made no specific reference to the allegations of anti-union discrimination and indicated that a draft collective agreement had been submitted and that the request for annulment made by the employer has been considered inadmissible. The Committee recalls the fact that it examined these allegations for the first time in November 1997 (see 308th Report, para. 392) when it stressed the importance of remedying all acts of discrimination. The Committee regrets that in the meantime the authorities have not carried out timely inquiries into these acts, that two of the enterprises (International Textile Corporation and Las Delicias farm) have ceased to exist, and that as a result it is not possible to redress the alleged acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to carry out an inquiry, to reply specifically to the allegations of discrimination in the third enterprise (El Salto farm) and 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. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1936 (Guatemala)

51. This case relates to a collective dispute between the Trade Union of Workers of the National Electrification Institute and the Institute, which occurred when the trade union denounced the collective agreement in April 1997, and that gave rise to legal procedures (relating to the dismissal of four trade union leaders) and criminal proceedings (lodged by the Institute and the trade union respectively). In its previous examination of the case, observing that a new collective agreement had been negotiated and that industrial relations had improved, and given that the parties had expressed their willingness for the legal action taken under the penal law to be entirely withdrawn, the Committee requested the Government -- in view of the current favourable industrial relations climate -- to confirm that all legal procedures and criminal proceedings concerning the complainant trade union and the National Electrification Institute had been withdrawn (see 309th Report, para. 272). In communications dated 4 June and 24 July 1998, the Government states that the Institute withdrew the legal procedures. As regards the criminal proceedings, one of these relates to the theft of an item of movable property belonging to the Institute, and the Government indicates that the complaint lodged with the public prosecutor has not been activated. The other criminal proceeding is an individual action lodged by the administrative manager of the Institute against a group of workers; he has decided not to withdraw it for the moment. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these criminal proceedings.

Case No. 1854 (India)

52. The Committee last examined the substance of this case at its March 1997 meeting (see 306th Report, paras. 426-476). On this occasion, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the criminal proceedings under way against Messrs. Shravan Giri and Tapan Kumar Chaki who confessed to the murder of Ms. Ahilya Devi and the developments regarding the arrest of Messrs. Kumar Mandal, Narsingh Singh, Bhrigu Nath Gupta and Ratan Ghosh who have been implicated in the murder of the trade unionist Ms. Ahilya Devi.

53. In a communication dated 25 May 1998, the Government specifies that Messrs. Kumar Mandal, Bhrigu Nath Gupta and Ratan Ghosh were arrested in 1996; formal charge sheets against these men were filed in courts in 1996 and 1997. On 10 July 1997, Mr. Narsingh Singh surrendered; supplementary charges were filed in court against him. In addition, the Government indicates that Mr. Muna Punjabi, alias Jai Prakash Singh, was arrested in 1996 and formally charged on 25 August 1996. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated against these men.

Case No. 1890 (India)

54. The Committee last examined this case at its March 1998 meeting (see 309th Report, paras. 20-23). On this occasion, the Committee requested the Government to continue to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings concerning the dismissal of Mr. Malwankar, President of the Fort Aguada Beach Resort Employees' Union (FABREU) and, given its conclusions that he was dismissed on account of trade union status and activities, urged the Government to take the necessary steps to have him reinstated in his post if he so desires. The Committee also requested the Government to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the management inquiries on alleged acts of misconduct of 15 FABREU members were dropped and to obtain the employer's recognition of FABREU for collective bargaining purposes.

55. In a communication dated 17 July 1998, the Government indicates that the proceedings concerning the dismissal of Mr. Malwankar and the inquiries of seven FABREU members who are under suspension pending their completion are still in progress. Any governmental intervention at this stage in both cases would not be in conformity with the law and practice. As regards the other eight FABREU members who were transferred by the company to other establishments, the Government has already referred to the Industrial Tribunal the cases of six of them since one has been dismissed and the other has resigned. Finally, the Government specifies that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Trade Union Act, 1926, it has no authority to compel any employer to recognize any trade union.

56. While taking note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings concerning the dismissal of Mr. Malwankar and, since he was dismissed on account of his trade union activities, urges again that Mr. Malwankar be reinstated in his post, if he so desires.

57. As regards the management inquiries which are in progress and concern seven workers, the Committee notes the government information that any intervention at this stage in these procedures would not be in conformity with the law and practice; however, the Committee must recall its previous conclusions that these inquiries constituted anti-union discrimination and requests the Government to ensure that they are dropped.

58. As regards the eight other workers who were transferred to other establishments and also subjected to inquiries, the Committee notes that one of them was dismissed, another resigned and the cases of the other six are pending before the Industrial Tribunal. In this regard, the Committee reiterates its previous conclusions that these inquiries are of an anti-union nature as are measures taken pursuant to them, such as transfer or dismissal. The Committee urges therefore that these workers be reinstated in their initial post, if they so wish, and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the six cases pending before the Industrial Tribunal.

59. Finally, concerning the recognition of FABREU as collective bargaining agent, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government that it has no authority to compel any employer to recognize any trade union; the Committee nevertheless recalls that recognition by an employer of the main unions represented in his undertaking, or the most representative of these unions, is the very basis for any procedure for collective bargaining on conditions of employment in the undertaking (see Digest, op. cit., para. 822) and insists on the importance that the employer recognizes FABREU for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress in this regard.

Case No. 1920 (Lebanon)

60. At its November 1997 meeting, the Committee had requested the Government to specify whether judicial recourse had been taken concerning the contested results of the elections of the trade union leaders of the General Labour Confederation of Lebanon (CGTL) held on 24 April 1997, and to keep it informed of the result. Furthermore, concerning the arrest of the trade union leaders Mr. Abou Rizk and Mr. Yasser Nehmi, and their subsequent prosecution, the Committee had urged the Government to do everything in its power to ensure that the charges brought against them were withdrawn immediately (see 308th Report, para. 525.)

61. In a communication dated 9 January 1998, the Government stated that the court of first instance of Beirut had decided, on the grounds of procedural irregularity, to dismiss the request for the annulment of the elections within the CGTL.

62. In a communication dated 10 September 1998, the Government indicated that on 30 July 1998 new elections were held for the post of President of the General Labour Confederation of Lebanon, in which all the trade union federations participated. These elections were held under the supervision of the Ministry of Labour, which validated the results on 6 August 1998. Mr. Abou Rizk was elected President of the General Labour Confederation of Lebanon and Mr. Yasser Nehmi a member of the Confederation's executive committee. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction.

Case No. 1940 (Mauritius)

63. The Committee examined this case at its March 1998 meeting (see 309th Report, paras. 273-288). It had requested the Government to keep it informed of whether the prosecutions of 11 trade unionists had been carried out and if that was the case, to do everything in its power to ensure that the charges brought against these union leaders be withdrawn immediately.

64. In a communication dated 25 May 1998, the Government indicates that the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to prosecute the 11 trade union leaders. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction.

Case No. 1894 (Mauritania)

65. At its meeting of June 1998, the Committee requested the Government to do everything possible to ensure that the Mauritanian Transport Workers' Federation could obtain legal recognition as soon as possible and to keep it informed of measures adopted in this regard (see 310th Report, paras. 30-34). In its communication of 11 July 1998, the Mauritanian Transport Workers' Federation states that to date it has not been granted recognition. Under these circumstances, the Committee reminds the Government that under Article 2 of Convention No. 87 workers shall have the right, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization, and once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the trade union organization in question can obtain legal recognition.

Case No. 1698 (New Zealand)

66. When it last examined this case at its March 1998 meeting, the Committee again recalled that provisions that prohibit strikes concerning whether a collective employment contract will bind more than one employer, are contrary to the principles of freedom of association on the right to strike. Therefore, the Committee again requested the Government to amend section 63(e) of the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) and to keep it informed of any measures envisaged in this respect. It also requested the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in introducing the concept of "fair bargaining" into the ECA (see 309th Report, paras. 30-32).

67. In a communication dated 28 May 1998, the Government states that no amendments to section 63(e) are being considered. It again reaffirms the view that section 63(e) protects the right of both employers and employees to choose the coverage of employment contracts. The Government states that "employers should not be compelled to be bound into arrangements with other businesses, which may undermine their interests. Once the structure is agreed, strikes and lockouts may be used in support of the negotiation of the content of the contract". On the question of fair bargaining, the Government indicates that it has been considering the issues relating to bargaining, particularly the recognition of the employees' representative. It notes the existence of a coalition agreement covering a wide range of interrelated industrial relations issues and indicates the Government's plan to announce its conclusions on these issues as an integrated policy "within the next few weeks". The Government also supplied information on recent cases concerning the application of the ECA.

68. With respect to section 63(e), the Committee notes with regret that the Government in its response once more repeats the same arguments. The Committee recalls once again that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, para. 475). This right is stated in broad terms, and does not apply merely in relation to the content of collective agreements. The Committee urges the Government to amend section 63(e) and to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee also notes that the Government's conclusions on the issue of recognition of workers' organizations for purposes of collective bargaining were due to be released some months ago. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to forward this information to it, and recalls the importance which it attaches to the right of representative organizations to negotiate.

Case No. 1864 (Paraguay)

69. During its previous examination of the case, the Committee had requested the Government to confirm that there were no charges pending against trade unionists in connection with the strike which took place in the EXPCAR enterprise in October 1995 (see 307th Report, para. 433, adopted by the Governing Body at its June 1997 (269th) Session). In its communication of 28 May 1998, the Government confirms that there are no pending charges against them. The Committee takes note of this information.

Case No. 1891 (Romania)

70. At its March 1998 meeting (see 309th Report, para. 33) the Committee had asked the Government to send information on developments in this case and to communicate as soon as possible a copy of the new law on the settlement of labour disputes in order to bring its legislation into conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

71. In a communication dated 7 September 1998, the Government states that the Bill amending Act No. 15 respecting labour disputes has not yet been approved by Parliament, but that a copy of it will be sent to the ILO as soon as it is published in the Official Gazette. The Government indicates the amendments introduced by the Bill, i.e. that the compulsory arbitration provided for in sections 38 and 43 will be replaced by a conciliation, mediation and arbitration procedure decided at the request of the two parties, that employers may only petition the court to suspend a strike for 30 days (instead of 90 days) if the strike endangers the life or health of persons (section 30) (instead of major interests of the national economy), and that section 13(3), which lays down the requirement of three years' length of service in the enterprise in order to be eligible for trade union office, and sections 32(3) and 36(3), which provide for financial liability of organizers of a strike held without observing the procedures, have not been retained in the Bill. The Government adds that strikes will be prohibited only for (a) prosecutors, judges and military personnel of the Ministries of Defence, the Interior and Justice and the units subordinate to them and (b) employees of the national energy system, operational services of nuclear reactors, units with continuous furnaces, the stoppage of which would carry a risk of explosion, and units filling orders to meet national defence needs. However, it adds that employees referred to under (b) may request mediation by the Economic and Social Council in the event of conflicts of interest. Air, naval and land transport employees may not declare a strike after leaving and before reentering the country, and personnel on board merchant marine vessels flying the Romanian flag may not declare a strike except in conformity with the standards laid down in international conventions ratified by Romania. Lastly, in the health sector, telecommunications, radio and television, transport units and the railways, including railway guards, public transport units and those responsible for sanitation, as well as gas, electricity, heating and water supply, strikes are authorized on condition that their organizers ensure essential services at a third of normal levels of activity at least (the Bill does not retain in the list employees of pharmaceutical units, teachers, those engaged in rolling stock repair and those supplying the population with bread, milk and meat).

72. The Committee notes this information with interest and trusts that the text in question will be adopted shortly. It requests the Government to send a copy of the amendments to Act No. 15 respecting labour disputes once they have been adopted.

Case No. 1618 (United Kingdom)

73. At its March 1998 meeting, the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in providing express legislative protection against blacklisting or other forms of discrimination based on past trade union membership or activities (see 309th Report, paras. 34-36).

74. In its communication of 27 May 1998, the Government informs the Committee of the publication of a consultative White Paper entitled "Fairness at work" which contains a proposal to outlaw both discrimination against trade union members and the blacklisting of trade union activists. The Government indicates its intention to provide in due course full details of its proposed action in this regard.

75. The Committee notes this information with interest and encourages the Government to adopt, as soon as possible, provisions ensuring protection against anti-union discrimination, including blacklisting, based on trade union membership or activities. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the consultation process and the status of the proposals.

Case No. 1852 (United Kingdom)

76. At its March 1998 meeting, the Committee noted with interest the Government's indication that a White Paper on "Fairness at work", with a focus on union recognition, was being prepared, and expressed the hope that any resulting legislation would have as an effect the encouragement of employer recognition of representative workers' organizations. The Committee also called on the Government to take steps to amend section 13 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act so that it ensures workers' organizations adequate protection from acts of interference on the part of the employer and so that it does not result in fact in the discouragement of collective bargaining. It requested to be kept informed concerning these matters (see 309th Report, paras. 308-342). In its communication of 27 May 1998, the Government informs the Committee of the publication of the consultative White Paper entitled "Fairness at work". The Government states that the White Paper covers many of the issues raised by this case and that the Government is "currently considering the full implications of the White Paper's legislative proposals, which will be taken forward in full consultation with the social partners, and will provide a full and up to date response ... as soon as possible".

77. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the consultation process and the status of the proposals. It also requests the Government to provide information arising out of the specific facts of the case, which are not addressed in the White Paper. In particular the Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the ISTC is afforded reasonable access to Co-Steel both for contact with its members and potential members, and requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1912 (United Kingdom/Isle of Man)

78. The Committee had examined this case at its March 1998 meeting (see 309th Report, paras. 343 to 370). It had requested the Government, inter alia, to take the necessary measures to ensure as soon as possible the reinstatement of Mr. Harrison to his former employment and to amend the relevant legislation to ensure protection against dismissal and other prejudicial acts for participating in industrial action.

79. In a communication dated 28 September 1998, the Government indicates that Mr. Harrison did not exercise his right under the MEA's Agreed Internal Disciplinary Procedure to appeal to an independent person if he believed his downgrading to be unjust. The Government also indicates that the MEA continues to offer a range of training and development opportunities which would facilitate promotion, should Mr. Harrison choose to apply for a post at his previous grade. Finally, the Government indicates that the relevant legislation is currently under review.

80. The Committee takes note of this information. It requests the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken or envisaged in order to amend its legislation to ensure protection against dismissal and other prejudicial acts for participating in industrial action.

Case No. 1843 (Sudan)

81. The Committee last examined this case concerning allegations of dismissals, arrest, detention, torture and death of trade unionists, at its March 1998 meeting (see 309th Report, paras. 371-386). The Committee, regretting that the Government had responded only partially to the serious allegations presented, requested the Government to provide it with further information. The Committee also drew the Governing Body's attention to this case due to the seriousness and urgency of the issues raised (see 309th Report, para. 9).

82. In its communication of 15 October 1998, the Government informs the Committee that with respect to the recommendations of the appeal body established for the re-examination of complaints of unfair dismissal, the President issued decrees to the concerned ministries and institutions containing the names of the workers benefiting from the decision of the appeal body. The decree instructs them to take immediate action to reinstate the workers or improve their pensions according to the recommendations of each individual case. The Committee recalls that in its previous report, it expressed its deep regret that the Government had provided only very partial information on the situation of the workers whose names appeared in the appendices of the interim report on this case (see 306th Report, paras. 601-618). The Committee deplores the fact that the Government has again provided only very partial information and insists that the Government provide specific and detailed information on the situation of each of the workers noted in the appendices to the 306th Report. The Committee would also request the Government to forward copies of any written reasons or recommendations of the appeal board, as well as copies of the presidential decrees referred to above.

83. Regarding the allegations of arrest and detention of trade unionists, often accompanied by acts of torture, the Government states that the Ministry of Manpower addressed a letter to the Sudanese Advisory Council for Human Rights in the Ministry of Justice to handle the case involving Messrs. Abdel Moniem Suliman, Abdel Moniem Rahma, Mohamed Babiki and Yousif Hussain. With respect to Messrs. Osman Abdel Gadir and Daoud Suliaman, the Government asserts that they led an illegal strike and had their employment terminated in conformity with the law. Concerning the allegations regarding Mr. Ahmed Ali, the Government states that since the name is an extremely common one, further information is required before it would be possible to investigate the allegations. On the last point, the Committee requests the complainant to forward to the Committee further information so that the person in question can be identified. With respect to Messrs. Osman Abdel Gadir and Daoud Suliaman, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government did not address the specific and very serious allegations of detention and torture. Furthermore, the Committee regrets that with respect to all of the persons named, the Government has not yet opened an inquiry. The Committee again urges the Government to open an inquiry to establish the precise circumstances in which the above-noted persons were detained, tortured or killed, and to take the necessary steps for legal proceedings against those responsible and the redress of the prejudice suffered.

84. The Government, in reply to the Committee's final recommendation concerning the need to review the national legislation as soon as possible due to the many and serious incompatibilities with freedom of association principles, states that a tripartite committee has almost completed reviewing the Trade Union Act, 1992, taking into consideration the observations of the ILO supervisory bodies. The Government states further that on 30 June 1998, the President of the Republic signed the new Constitution of Sudan, article 26(1) of which provides that "citizens shall have the right of association and organization for cultural, social, economic, professional or trade union purposes without restriction, save in accordance with the law". The Committee takes note of this information, and requests the Government to inform it of the results of the tripartite committee's review, to forward copies of any report or recommendations of that committee, and to inform it of the steps to be taken and time frame foreseen for the implementation of any recommendations made.

Case No. 1884 (Swaziland)

85. During its last examination of this case at its meeting in May-June 1998, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Industrial Relations Bill would be adopted in the near future and that, in its final form, it would maintain the changes made in response to the Committee's previous recommendations so as to ensure full respect for the principles of freedom of association. Furthermore, the Committee once again urged the Government to repeal section 12 of the 1973 Decree and to ensure that the 1963 Public Order Act be amended so that it could no longer be used for the purpose of oppressing legitimate and peaceful strike action. Finally, the Committee once again urged the Government to establish independent investigations into the death of the 16 year-old schoolgirl killed by a stray bullet during the January 1996 stay-away, the abduction of Jan Sithole in August 1996 and the dismissal of Jabulani Nxumalo. (See 310th Report, para. 591.)

86. In a communication dated 22 September 1998, the Government indicates that Cabinet passed the Industrial Relations Bill on 5 August 1998 (now Bill No. 13 of 1998) and that, in its present form, it maintains the major changes which had been introduced in response to previous recommendations (a copy of the Bill was provided). This Bill, however, could not be referred to Parliament as the latter was dissolved within the statutory 30 days of the Bill's publication. Other legislative procedures were procured, however, and the Bill has since been referred to the Council of Ministers which began its debate thereon on 15 September. As concerns the 1973 Decree and the 1963 Public Order Act, the Government indicates that the concerns raised by the Committee should be addressed by the Industrial Relations Bill once it becomes law. As concerns the independent investigations requested by the Committee, the Government believes that it has adequate facilities in the Royal Swaziland Police to carry out such investigations and has not yet decided on the establishment of an independent investigation. As concerns Mr. Jabulani Nxumalo, the Government indicates that it had no responsibility for his dismissal nor any legal authority or knowledge of his engagement or dismissal. In addition, Mr. Nxumalo, according to the Government, does not insist on reinstatement with his former employer, with whom he presently has business dealings. According to the Government, he does not appear to desire reinstatement.

87. The Committee takes note of this information. It notes in particular that the Industrial Relations Bill has been passed by Cabinet and is currently being debated in the Council of Ministers. The Committee must once again expresses the firm hope that this Bill will be adopted in the very near future and that, in its final form, it will ensure full respect for the principles of freedom of association and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. As concerns the Government's statement that any difficulties having arisen from section 12 of the 1973 Decree on the rights of organizations and the 1963 Public Order Act will be resolved as soon as the Industrial Relations Bill becomes law, the Committee indeed notes that the 1973 Decree and the 1963 Act, while concerning more generally mass actions which would result in a disturbance of the peace, had been used in the past to suppress strike action which would appear now to be granted by way of right in the Industrial Relations Bill. Furthermore, section 103(1) of the Bill provides that a person holding a public office, or acting or purporting to act on behalf of anyone holding such office, shall not exercise any power conferred by or under any law in such a way as to impede the exercise of rights conferred or recognized by this Act. The Committee expresses the firm hope that, with the passage of this Bill, the 1973 Decree and the 1963 Public Order Act will no longer be used to suppress legitimate trade union activities.

88. Regarding the call to establish an independent investigation into the death of a 16 year-old schoolgirl during a mass stay-away and the abduction of Mr. Sithole, while noting the Government's indication that it considers an investigation by the police to be sufficient, the Committee first notes that it has not been informed of the outcome of any investigations into either of these matters which occurred over two years ago. Secondly, given that the allegations in the original complaint queried the police involvement in these incidents, the Committee considers that an independent inquiry into these matters would be necessary to assure the parties that all elements were considered without any bias and to ensure full confidence in the conclusions drawn. In the light of these considerations, the Committee would once again urge the Government to establish independent investigations into these two matters and to keep it informed of the outcome. Finally, the Committee notes from the Government's reply that, while indicating that Mr. Nxumalo does not desire to be reinstated in his post, it would appear that there has not been an investigation into the reasons for his dismissal. While further noting the Government's indication that it was not involved in the recruitment or in the dismissal of Mr. Nxumalo, the Committee would recall that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the principles of freedom of association are respected throughout its territory. The Committee would recall, in this respect, that it has been alleged that Mr. Nxumalo was dismissed because of his trade union activity, in violation of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee would once again request the Government to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Nxumalo's dismissal and, in the event it is determined that he was dismissed because of his trade union activity, to ensure that he is appropriately compensated, if indeed he does not wish to be reinstated. The Committee requests to be kept informed of the measures taken in this regard.

Case No. 1581 (Thailand)

89. At its March 1998 meeting, the Committee urged that all necessary measures be taken so that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill, in its final form, would be in conformity with the principles of freedom of association (see 309th Report, paras. 37 and 38). In a communication dated 8 June 1998, the Government indicated that the adoption of the Bill was delayed due to the disapproval of the House of Representatives. According to the relevant constitutional requirements, the Government specifies that the House of Representatives may take up the original Bill (the one earlier approved by the House of Representatives last February 1997) or the Bill amended by a joint ad hoc committee, and then vote again on this issue. The Government adds that it has committed itself to reforming the SELRA so as to bring it closer into conformity with international norms, and that it is determined to improve workers' rights, taking into account Thailand's economic, social and development needs and international standards. Finally, the Government declares that the amendments to the SELRA 1991 would restore several international fundamental rights for workers in organizing and collectively bargaining.

90. The Committee has recently been informed that the earlier version of the Bill referred to by the Government was adopted by the House of Representatives in September 1998, but has been challenged before the Constitutional Court. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard and to provide a copy of the Bill which has been passed by the House.

Case No. 1886 (Uruguay)

91. At its meeting in March 1998 the Committee requested the Government to send it, as soon as it is handed down, a copy of the ruling of the Administrative Court relating to the allegations of anti-union discrimination arising from the nomination of only non-union members to executive positions within Lloyds Bank (see 309th Report, para. 43). In a communication dated 14 August 1998, the Government states that the case is being examined by the State Prosecutor for administrative litigation who must give his ruling before the case is presented to the judges of the Administrative Court for examination and the corresponding ruling. The Government also states that it will inform the Committee of the outcome of the proceedings in good time. The Committee takes note of this information. Once again the Committee expresses the hope that these proceedings will be concluded shortly and requests the Government to send it a copy of the ruling as soon as it is handed down.

Case No. 1937 (Zimbabwe)

92. At its meeting of March 1998, when it examined allegations relating to violations of the right to strike and anti-union dismissals, the Committee: (1) urged the Government to amend sections 98, 99, 100, 106 and 107 of the Labour Relations Act as revised in 1996, which grants the labour authorities the power to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration whenever it considers this to be appropriate, so as to ensure that such compulsory arbitration may be imposed only with respect to essential services and in cases of acute national crisis; and (2) requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that those workers who were dismissed for their participation in the Standard Chartered Bank strike of April 1997 are reinstated in their posts under the same terms of employment and with the same benefits as they enjoyed before the strike, and to take the necessary steps to amend section 107(5) of the Labour Relations Act to ensure that workers are not discriminated against in their employment for engaging in legitimate trade union activities. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard (see 309th Report, para. 452(a) and (b)).

93. In its communication of 30 May 1998, the Government states that in December 1997 the High Court rejected the case of the dismissed bank workers and that subsequently the workers in question lodged an appeal against that ruling before the Supreme Court. The Government states that the judicial system and the current proceedings must be respected and that the Government and the trade union organization in question will have to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling, since the doctrine of the separation of powers prevails in Zimbabwe.

94. In a communication dated 13 October 1998, the complainant indicates that the Supreme Court has ruled against the reinstatement of the bank workers and provides a copy of the court judgement.

95. The Committee takes note of this information. It recalls that in its previous examination of this case, it had observed that the mass dismissals of strikers at Standard Chartered Bank were based on a disposal order issued by the labour officer which provided that the employer could take any disciplinary action which he deemed fit against any employee failing to comply with the order. Yet, the compulsory arbitrations imposed by the order, and the order as a whole, have been considered by the Committee to be contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee further notes that neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court considered these matters in their review. Under these circumstances and recalling that the dismissal of workers for participating in a legitimate strike constitutes discrimination in employment, the Committee urges the Government to take all necessary steps, in accordance with the above-noted principles, to ensure that the dismissed workers are reinstated in their posts as soon as possible and to keep it informed in this regard. Lastly, the Committee notes that the Government has not replied in respect of its recommendation to amend the Labour Relations Act and requests the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken or envisaged in this regard.

96. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1809 (Kenya), 1813 (Peru), 1819 (China), 1826 (Philippines), 1834 (Kazakhstan), 1837 (Argentina), 1900 (Canada/Ontario), 1908 (Ethiopia), 1914 (Philippines), 1916 (Colombia), 1921 (Niger), 1925 (Colombia) and 1938 (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. In addition, the Committee has recently received information concerning Cases Nos. 1719 (Nicaragua), 1796 (Peru), 1877 (Morocco), 1883 (Kenya) and 1895 (Venezuela), which it will examine at its next meeting. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to send its complete observations in Case No. 1785 (Poland).