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 2, 3 and 9 November 2000, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

2. The members of Chilean, Japanese, Pakistani, Venezuelan and Zimbabwean nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Chile (Case No. 2073), Japan (Case No. 1991), Pakistan (Case No. 2006), Venezuela (Case No. 2058) and Zimbabwe (Case No. 2081).

3. Currently, there are 92 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 24 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 19 cases and interim conclusions in five cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

4. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the examination of the following cases: 2087 (Uruguay), 2088 (Venezuela), 2095 (Argentina), 2096 (Pakistan), 2097 (Colombia), 2099 (Brazil), 2100 (Honduras), 2101 (Nicaragua), 2102 (Bahamas), 2103 (Guatemala), 2104 (Costa Rica), 2105 (Paraguay) and 2106 (Mauritius) 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.

Observations requested from governments

5. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the following cases: 1995 (Cameroon), 2052 (Haiti) and 2083 (Canada/New Brunswick).

Observations requested from governments and/or complainants

6. In Case No. 2077 (El Salvador), the Committee is awaiting information from the complainant. The Committee requests the complainant to send this information without delay, in the absence of which the Committee will be obliged to examine the substance of the cases. In Case No. 2082 (Morocco), the Committee requests the complainant and the Government to provide additional information so that the Committee might examine the case in full knowledge of all the facts.

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1880 (Peru), 2068 (Colombia) and 2094 (Slovakia), the Government has 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 the facts. In Case No. 1951 (Canada (Ontario)), the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the judicial proceedings under way.

Observations received from governments

8. As regards Cases Nos. 1787 (Colombia), 1865 (Republic of Korea), 1948 (Colombia), 1955 (Colombia), 1962 (Colombia), 1965 (Panama), 1973 (Colombia), 1980 (Luxembourg), 1984 (Costa Rica), 2010 (Ecuador), 2012 (Russian Federation), 2013 (Mexico), 2014 (Uruguay), 2015 (Colombia), 2022 (New Zealand), 2036 (Paraguay), 2037 (Argentina), 2046 (Colombia), 2051 (Colombia), 2053 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2055 (Morocco), 2060 (Denmark), 2063 (Paraguay), 2069 (Costa Rica), 2076 (Peru), 2078 (Lithuania), 2080 (Venezuela), 2084 (Costa Rica), 2086 (Paraguay), 2091 (Romania), 2092 (Nicaragua), 2093 (Republic of Korea) and 2098 (Peru), the Committee has received the governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting.

Urgent appeals

9. As regards Cases Nos. 1851 (Djibouti), 1922 (Djibouti), 1986 (Venezuela), 2035 (Haiti) 2042 (Djibouti), 2062 (Argentina), 2065 (Argentina), 2067 (Venezuela) and 2072 (Haiti), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the submission of the complaints 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 or complete their observations or information as a matter of urgency.

Withdrawal of complaints

10. At its meeting in March 2000, the Committee noted that the complainant in Case No. 2039 (Mexico) had expressed its desire to withdraw the complaint and requested the complainant to specify its reasons. In a communication from September 2000, the complainant stated that it made this decision in complete independence and explained that the labour authorities had shown themselves to be fully receptive to the demands presented, finding positive replies to them. There is therefore no longer any reason for the complaint. The Committee takes note of the withdrawal of the complaint for the reasons invoked by the complainant. In Case No. 2061 (New Zealand) the complainant announced the withdrawal of its complaint because of the repeal of the legislation in question.

Follow-up to the mission to Estonia

11. At its June 2000 meeting (see 321st Report, paras. 188-219), in respect of Case No. 2011 (Estonia), the Committee noted with satisfaction that the Central Association of Estonian Trade Unions (EAKL), the complainant organization in this case, had obtained its registration without having to amend its statutes. It nevertheless noted with concern that the 1996 Act on non-profit-making associations continued to impose on workers' and employers' organizations a heavy and detailed procedure for the acquisition of legal personality (notarized acts, fees) and granted officials of the Ministry of Justice discretionary powers to interfere in the drafting of organizations' constitutions, the framework for elections of trade union leaders and in the supervision of the management of workers' and employers' organizations. While reminding the Government that in ratifying Convention No. 87, it had committed itself to guaranteeing to workers' and employers' organizations the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities without interference by the public authorities, the Committee noted with interest that in accordance with commitments made by the Government during the ILO's mission which had visited the country in August 1999, a trade union bill discussed with the representatives of the EAKL had been submitted to Parliament on 29 February 2000. According to the Government, this bill took into consideration all the recommendations made by the mission on the basis of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee expressed the hope that the new Act would contain provisions in conformity with the principles of freedom of association and that it would not keep in force the provisions of the 1996 Act on non-profit-making associations that obstructed the establishment and functioning of trade unions.

12. In a communication dated 18 July 2000, the Central Association of Estonian Trade Unions (EAKL) declared that the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) had adopted the new trade union Act on 16 June, which was promulgated by the President of the Republic on 5 July 2000. The complainant organization considers that the adoption of this Act will resolve the serious problems affecting the registration of trade unions and that its content will not pose any problems of compatibility with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It thanks the ILO for its expertise and cooperation which were essential in the examination of the complaint and in the preparation of the new trade union Act.

13. In a communication of 29 September 2000, the Government sent a copy of the Trade Unions Act adopted by the Parliament on 24 June 2000, which upholds the comments of EAKL.

14. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction and draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this legislation in the framework of the examination of the application of Convention No. 87.

Preliminary contacts mission to Belarus

15. By a communication dated 16 June 2000, the Belarus Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers' Union, the Belarus Agricultural Sector Workers' Union, the Belarus Radio & Electronics Workers' Union and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions transmitted a complaint alleging the violation of trade union rights in Belarus (Case No. 2090). The Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) joined the complaint by a communication dated 6 July 2000. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers (IUF) have associated themselves to the complaint.

16. Given the serious nature of the allegations raised, including the impediments to the right to organize and governmental interference in trade union activity and elections, it was agreed with the Government, after having received the prior approval of the chair of the Committee, to send a representative of the Director-General to carry out a preliminary contacts mission. In accordance with paragraph 65 of the procedure for the examination of complaints, the mandate of such a mission is, inter alia, to transmit to the competent authorities the concern to which the events described in the complaint have given rise, to obtain from the authorities their initial reaction, as well as any additional comments and information and, above all, to ascertain the facts and to seek possible solutions on the spot.

17. The preliminary contacts mission took place from 18-21 October, led by Mr. Kari Tapiola, Executive Director of the Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work Sector, who was accompanied by Ms. Karen Curtis, Senior Legal Officer, Freedom of Association Branch, and Mr. Vitali Savine, Senior Standards Specialist in the ILO Multidisciplinary Team in Moscow.

18. The mission had meetings with the following government officials and their aides: Mr. Kobyakov, First Deputy Prime Minister and Co-Chair of the National Council for Labour and Social Issues; Mr. Zametalin, First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration and Chair of the Commission for Registration (re-registration) of political parties, trade union organizations and other organizations; Mr. Vorontsov, Minister of Justice; Mr. Pavlov, First Deputy Minister of Labour; and Mr. Martynov, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Prime Minister, Mr. Yermoshin, met briefly with the mission on its final day. The mission met with the complainants in this case: the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus and the complainant branch-level affiliates, as well as the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions and the Free Trade Unions. The mission also met with the two employers' confederations: the Byelorussian Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers, named after Prof. M. Kouniavski, and the Byelorussian Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.

19. Noting that the Government has only sent a partial reply concerning this case, the Committee requests it to send all additional information so that the Committee may bear this in mind when it examines the complaint at its meeting in March 2001 in the light of the information and conclusions drawn in the mission report.

Serious and urgent case to which the Committee draws the Governing Body's attention

20. The Committee especially wishes to draw the Governing Body's attention to Case No. 1970 (Guatemala) because of the extreme gravity of the allegations therein.

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

21. 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: Denmark (Case No. 1470), Togo (Case No. 1977), Estonia (Case No. 2011), Cape Verde (Cases Nos. 2023 and 2044) and Ukraine (Case No. 2079).

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

Case No. 1963 (Australia)

22. The Committee examined this case at its March 2000 meeting (320th Report, paras. 143-241), at which time it made a number of recommendations concerning violations of freedom of association arising out of actions in relation to workers in stevedoring operations at various Australian ports. The Committee, inter alia, asked to be kept informed concerning the disciplining of any serving defence force personnel involved in training in Dubai in order to replace dismissed union members.

23. In a communication of 14 September 2000, the Government indicates that the Department of Defence has advised that it has no evidence of the commission of offences under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 by any Australian Defence Force members and is not aware that any form of disciplinary action has taken place or is contemplated. Concerning ongoing matters in the Australian courts relevant to the case, the Government provides information on the status of McKellar and Murray v. CTMS Limited and others, Batten and Grahame v. CTMS Limited and others, and Tanner v. Shergold. In the first action, an application was made by the Commonwealth and others to have the further amended statement of claim struck out, and the Court has reserved its decision. In Batten and Grahame, the Court dismissed the application of the Commonwealth and others to have the statement of claim struck out. Finally, in Tanner v. Shergold, concerning an application under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for access to reports concerning the waterfront reform, the Court found that the decision to issue a conclusive certificate under the Act could be reviewed by the Court. An appeal on this matter was then lodged, and the Court has reserved its decision.

24. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. On the issue of the Dubai training, the Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning any inquiry held to determine whether serving Defence Force personnel were involved in the training, and to provide the Committee with a copy of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. With respect to the court matters, the Committee requests the Government to forward copies of the relevant decisions once they have been rendered.

Case No. 1949 (Bahrain)

25. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in March 2000 when it once again urged the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation, in particular Orders Nos. 9 and 10 of 1981, into line with the principles of freedom of association so that workers' right to organize freely is effectively guaranteed (see 320th Report, paras. 22-24).

26. In a communication dated 21 August 2000, the Government once again states that Labour Law No. 23 of 1976 and Ministerial Orders Nos. 9 and 10 of 1981 guarantee workers' rights and freedoms, through the framework of the General Committee for Bahrain Workers. The Government adds that this type of organization is also in conformity with the economic and social conditions and practices of the country where expatriate workers represent 60 per cent of the total workforce. Finally, the Government states that it is in the process of reviewing the Labour Law in the light of social and economic changes, at both the national and international levels, inspired by Arab and international labour standards taking into account the observations of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association.

27. The Committee notes this information, in particular the Government's review of the Labour Law taking into account the Committee's recommendations. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the technical assistance of the Office is available should the Government so desire. It requests the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken or envisaged to amend the legislation so as to ensure that the right of workers to organize freely is effectively guaranteed.

Case No. 1862 (Bangladesh)

28. At its March 2000 meeting, when it last examined this case (see 320th Report, paras. 25-31) the Committee: (a) urged the Government to bring to a fruitful conclusion the tripartite discussions regarding the amendment of sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance; (b) urged once again the Government to speed up the registration process of the trade union at Saladin Garments Ltd.; and (c) urged once again the Government to register without delay Karmashari trade union at Palmal Knitwear Ltd., to provide it with the court decision in the case of Ms. Kalpana, and to take all necessary measures to ensure adequate redress to all workers victim of acts of anti-union discrimination.

29. In its communication of 7 June 2000, the Government states that consultations are still continuing with employers' and workers' representatives on the amendment of the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance. A hearing took place on 23 May 2000 in the Labour Court concerning the registration of the trade union at Saladin Garment Ltd. As regards the situation at Palmal Knitwear Ltd., the Government has directed that the case concerning the registration of the Karmashari trade union be moved to the High Court Division, where the decision is pending. Ms. Kalpana has withdrawn her allegations against the employer and the matter has been settled out of court; a copy of the decision is attached. The Government further assures that workers get its support against any kind of harassment or dismissal because of trade union membership.

30. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning Ms. Kalpana. Welcoming the assurances given in relation to the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee hopes that this commitment will be applied in practice.

31. As regards the other issues pending, the Committee: (a) urges the Government once again to speed up the discussions regarding the amendment of sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance so that concrete results may be obtained in the very near future, particularly taking into account the lengthy consultations that have already taken place, the reiterated calls by the Committee of Experts and the commitment made in that respect by a Government representative at the 1998 Conference. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect; (b) requests the Government to provide it with the decision of the Labour Court concerning the registration of the trade union at Saladin Garments Ltd., as soon as it is issued; (c) requests the Government to provide it with the decision of the High Court Division concerning the registration of the Karmashari trade union at Palmal Knitwear Ltd., as soon as it is issued.

Case No. 1992 (Brazil)

32. The Committee last examined this case (concerning dismissals following a strike and other anti-union acts) at its meeting in March 2000 (see 320th Report, paras. 286-298). On that occasion, the Committee took note of the communication sent by the Government in September 1999 and requested the Government to inform it of the final outcome of the judicial proceedings concerning the 54 workers of the ECT enterprise who remained dismissed after the strike held in September 1997.

33. In a communication dated 21 June 2000, the Government gives the Committee an account of the current status of each of the proceedings initiated in connection with this case. According to this account, 14 individual court cases are still pending before lower courts; 21 are the subject of appeals; three have yet to be declared admissible, the complaints in question having originally been ruled inadmissible. In ten cases the dismissed workers in question were reinstated; in two cases the disputed dismissals were upheld after being ruled admissible; in one case, the dismissal was confirmed and compensation agreed by the parties; in one case, a worker was reinstated under the terms of a court settlement; and in another case dismissal with compensation was authorized by the court. The last court case was initiated by a worker who is currently on sick leave.

34. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to inform it of the final outcome of all the judicial proceedings in question.

Case No. 1957 (Bulgaria)

35. The Committee last examined this case, which dealt with eviction of trade union premises and confiscation of trade union property, at its June 1999 meeting. On that occasion, it noted the non-conciliatory tenor of a letter from the authorities to the complainant National Syndical Federation ("GMH"), which accused the latter of violations of the law as a result of unspecified "self-governing actions". The Committee urged the Government rapidly to make constructive efforts to ensure that all property confiscated be returned to the complainant, invited GMH to request the allocation of premises pursuant to the State Property Law and requested the Government to accede to that request, and to keep it informed of developments (316th Report, paras. 24-27).

36. In a communication of 30 December 1999, the complainant stated that they would rapidly send their demand to the authorities, as recommended by the Committee. GMH further pointed out that they still could not use the premises, which they had completely fitted with telephone and other communication equipment.

37. In its letter of 25 August 2000, the Government reiterates the information provided in its communication of April 1999, i.e. that the president of GMH did not respond to an invitation, sent on 25 November 1998, to take away the trade union property, and that in view of what the Government considers as an unreasonable lack of cooperation, the District Governor had implemented Decision No. 394 of 1 October 1993.

38. Noting with regret that the Government merely repeats the information already provided more than one year ago (see 316th Report, para. 26), that no progress has been accomplished in this case and that the authorities maintain a non-conciliatory approach, the Committee recalls that the acts impugned in this case constitute serious violations of freedom of association principles. The Committee requests once again the Government to hold as soon as possible constructive discussions with the complainant organization with a view to settling, once and for all, the issues relating to the eviction of GMH from their premises and the confiscation of their trade union property. It invites the Government and the complainant to keep it informed of the results of these talks.

Case No. 1989 (Bulgaria)

39. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in March 2000 when it requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that all those workers dismissed from the Bulgarian State Railways (BSR) for the exercise of legitimate trade union activity be reinstated without further delay in their jobs with full compensation. The Committee further requested the Government to take the necessary measures for an independent inquiry to be undertaken into the alleged harassment of the members of the Trade Union of the Engine Personnel of Bulgaria (TUEPB) by the BSR and to remedy any effects of anti-union discrimination brought to their attention (see 320th Report, paras. 299-329).

40. In a communication dated 25 August 2000, the Government first states that the workers of BSR were not dismissed due to the execution of legitimate trade union activities, as there were not any such activities. The Government adds that there is a three-tiered legal system in Bulgaria and that, after the enforcement of the legal decisions subject to execution, all the necessary acts shall be undertaken to reinstate the dismissed workers. Since it will be necessary to check the dismissed workers' professional qualifications, the BSR has expressed its readiness to discuss with the TUEPB the form of the examination in order to avoid a subjective attitude. Finally, the Government declares its readiness to establish an independent commission to discuss the complaints of the TUEPB in respect of anti-union discrimination at the United Locomotive Depot - Sofia and Locomotive Depot - Plovdiv. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy shall host the first meeting of the Commission.

41. The Committee takes due note of this information, in particular the Government's readiness to reinstate the dismissed workers in accordance with the relevant legal decisions and to establish an independent commission to review the allegations of anti-union discrimination at BSR. Noting that over two years have elapsed since the BSR workers were dismissed following warning strikes, the Committee recalls from its previous conclusions in this case that a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of dismissed trade union leaders constitutes a denial of justice and therefore a denial of trade union rights of the persons concerned (see 320th Report, para. 325). It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in respect of any pending court cases and trusts that the dismissed workers will be reinstated in their jobs in the very near future with full compensation. It also requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the independent commission established to examine allegations of anti-union discrimination.

Case No. 2047 (Bulgaria)

42. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in March 2000 when it requested the Government to undertake a new poll, including PROMYANA and ADS (the Association of Democratic Syndicates), to determine the representativeness of these organizations in accordance with pre-established and objective criteria. It further requested the Government to keep it informed of any developments in the Labour Code concerning limits for the duration of collective agreements (see 320th Report, paras. 330-362).

43. In a communication dated 25 August 2000, the Government states that the Minister of Labour and Social Policy filed an official proposal for counting to PROMYANA and ADS and confirms that they will be invited to join the National Council for Tripartite Cooperation if they comply with the objective criteria. Furthermore, the Government states that the Council of Ministers endorsed and introduced to the National Assembly the following amendment to the Labour Code: "The collective agreement shall be deemed concluded for a term of one year, in so far as it does not provide otherwise, but not more than two years. The parties can arrange shorter term of action of the provisions of the collective agreement."

44. The Committee takes due note of this information. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the counting of PROMYANA and ADS. Further recalling from its previous conclusions that the duration of collective agreements is primarily a matter for the parties involved (see 320th Report, para. 361), it requests the Government to indicate whether the proposed amendment to the Labour Code reflects tripartite agreement in this regard.

Case No. 1975 (Canada/Ontario)

45. During its last examination of this case at its June 2000 meeting, the Committee again urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation concerning community participation activities, in particular to extend to persons involved in such activities the right to organize. The Committee also requested that legislation be amended to ensure that full collective bargaining below the provincial level in the construction industry be adequately provided for, which may be initiated by either the workers' or employers' representatives at any stage of the project (see 321st Report, para. 118).

46. In a communication dated 17 August 2000, the Government reiterates its earlier comments with respect to the legislation concerning community participation activities, to the effect that the legislation does not violate the freedom of association standards and principles. Regarding collective bargaining in the construction industry, the Government states that the framework for project agreements set out in Bill 31 is the Government's response to requests from industry stakeholders to improve competitiveness in the construction industry, and is essentially an adjustment to the provincial collective agreement as agreed upon by labour and management. The Government enumerates the key features of the framework: (i) a project agreement will set the terms and conditions of employment for employees hired to work on the project, and these terms and conditions will apply instead of the province-wide industrial, commercial and institutional agreements; (ii) once the opportunity for a project becomes clear, the owner will initiate the process of negotiating a project agreement if, in its view, it is economically significant; (iii) the project agreement will be agreed upon in a democratic manner: local unions, who will be supplying labour, and owners/managers will negotiate the agreement; if at least 60 per cent of the local unions approve the agreement, it would be binding with respect to all work on the project within the jurisdiction of the local unions who were given notice of the negotiations; (iv) once an agreement is approved by the required majority, a union that did not approve will be able to object if the agreement forced its members to accept disproportionate wage and benefit concessions; the agreement could also be challenged by parties voting against it or those who did not vote if proper procedural requirements were not followed; and (v) strikes and lockouts would not be allowed for the duration of the agreement.

47. The Committee must again express its regret that the Government continues to rely on its assertion that the legislation concerning community participation activities does not violate the standards and principles of freedom of association, despite the fact that this legislation denies the workers concerned an indispensable element of freedom of association, namely, the right to organize. The Committee, therefore, strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation concerning community participation activities, and to extend to persons involved in such activities the right to organize in accordance with the principles of freedom of association in general and the provisions of Convention No. 87 in particular. The Committee again requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

48. With respect to Bill 31, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. While the Government clarifies that negotiations do take place in the determination of the project agreement, it also confirms that it is only the owner who is entitled to initiate such negotiations. The Committee recalls that, according to the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the determination of the bargaining level is essentially a matter to be left to the discretion of the parties. The Committee, therefore, again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation to ensure that collective bargaining in the construction industry, below the provincial level, may be initiated by either the workers' or employers' representatives at any stage of the project. The Committee again requests to be kept informed in this regard.

Cases Nos. 2023 and 2044 (Cape Verde)

49. At its meeting in March 2000, the Committee made the following recommendations concerning the matters that remained pending (see 320th Report, paras. 429 and 455): the Committee requests the Government to take steps to amend the legislation (Act No. 81/III/90) so that organizations of workers may freely enjoy the right to peaceful demonstration without unreasonable restrictions, in particular with regard to time. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect (Case No. 2023). The Committee requests the Government to take measures with a view to amending its legislation so that in the event of disagreement between the parties on the minimum services (activities to be carried out and people responsible for performing them) to be respected during strikes, this difference of opinion is resolved by an independent body. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect (Case No. 2044).

50. In its communication dated 28 August 2000, the Government states that at its suggestion the legislation criticized by the Committee in relation to the timing of demonstrations was amended by Act No. 107/V/99 of 27 April 1999, in accordance with the Committee's recommendation. As regards the question of minimum services, the Government states that in the framework of its programme and of the Major Options of the 1996-2000 Plan it has established an ambitious project of legal regulation that will comply with the Committee's recommendation, as well as address other labour legislation issues that require review or clarification. The Committee notes this information with interest and submits it to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

Case No. 1988 (Comoros)

51. At its meeting of May-June 2000, the Committee had once again requested the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning this case, and in particular the fate of the trade union leaders Abderamane Abdou Saïd, Mad Ali and Mjomba Moussa (see 321st Report, para. 94).

52. In a communication of 25 May 2000, the Government states that these three leaders were released at the same time as their colleagues after having been heard by the judicial authorities. The Government points out that these trade union leaders were never imprisoned, but only held in custody for questioning. Since no charges were brought against them, they were released.

53. The Committee takes note of this information. Recalling that the arrest, even if only briefly, of trade union leaders and trade unionists for exercising legitimate trade union activities constitutes a violation of the principles of freedom of association (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 70), the Committee trusts that the authorities of the Comoros will abstain in future from taking similar measures.

Case No. 1470 (Denmark)

54. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in May-June 1989 when it referred to its previous conclusions that section 10(2) and (3) of the Act of 23 June 1988 to set up a Danish International Ship's Register constitutes interference in the seafarers' right to voluntary collective bargaining and amounts to government interference in the free functioning of organizations in the defence of their members' interests which is not in conformity with the spirit of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Act in this regard (see 265th Report, para. 19).

55. In a communication dated 28 August 2000, the Government first indicates that a two-year agreement was entered into between the social partners in September 1999 confirming the fundamental principle that Danish labour organizations have a right to be represented at negotiations between Danish shipping companies and foreign organizations in order to ensure that the results in respect of living and working conditions are at an internationally acceptable level. Moreover, pursuant to the agreement, a contact committee has been established with the purpose of developing and extending cooperation between the parties. On 25 February 2000, the parties further entered into a framework agreement on the establishment of collective agreements with foreign unions and individual agreements for foreign seafarers from outside the European Union which sets minimum standards to be upheld. In the light of the above, the Government and the main organizations in the industry have discussed the issue of the collective agreement provisions in section 10 of the Danish International Shipping Register Act. Through these discussions, the main organizations have confirmed that a common understanding of the administration of these collective agreement provisions has been achieved through the above mentioned agreements.

56. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction and refers the legislative aspects of this case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

Case No. 1874 (El Salvador)

57. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in June 1997 (see 307th Report, paras. 30-32, approved by the Governing Body at its 269th Session (June 1997)), when it urged the Government: (1) to take the necessary steps so that the legislation guarantees the right to establish trade union organizations in the public sector; (2) to recognize the transformation of the Nursing Personnel Craft Union of El Salvador into an industrial trade union; and (3) to make reparation for the acts of anti-union discrimination committed in the Rosales Hospital (reinstate the trade union officials who were transferred and ensure that no worker is threatened with dismissal if he or she does not resign from the General Industrial Trade Union of Health Workers (SIGESAL)).

58. In a communication dated 22 May 2000, the General Industrial Trade Union of Health Workers (SIGESAL) states that the Government has not carried out the Committee's recommendations.

59. In a communication dated 10 August 2000, the Government: (1) refers to article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic, which guarantees the right of private employees and those in autonomous official institutions the right to associate freely. The Government states further that sections 204 ff. of the Labour Code clearly set out which workers have the right to associate freely to defend their economic, social and professional interests by forming trade unions or professional associations of workers; these do not include the workers of the Rosales National Hospital, since they are directly employed by the central Government and are governed by the Salaries and General Budget Act, and they are therefore not protected by the Labour Code, pursuant to the distinction drawn in section 2 of the Code; the Government would appreciate it if the Committee would offer it ILO technical assistance; (2) points out that the Nursing Personnel Craft Union of El Salvador, as its name indicates, is a craft union; it was established as a union of only nursing personnel, i.e. those caring for patients, and these were accordingly granted legal personality as such; the most recent lists of members of this union included watchmen, metalworkers, plumbers, messengers, secretaries and a few nurses and other persons in different occupations, which led to a degeneration of the union's founding principle and nature and prevented it from complying with section 209 of the Labour Code, which is required in order for it to function in accordance with the law and its own by-laws; this is why its executive board was not authorized to take up office; an appeal was lodged but was rejected on grounds that it was unfounded; and (3) states that it is important to reiterate that the administration of Rosales National Hospital has not taken reprisals against its workers for joining the abovementioned union, but that the transfers were carried out as a result of a study which identified different areas that needed appropriate human resources to carry out their activities in the best possible manner in order to offer a better service to users; moreover it should be explained that the transfers took place in accordance with the second paragraph of section 37 of the Civil Service Act which states as follows: "Officials or employees may be transferred to a similar post even without their consent at the convenience of the public or municipal administration, provided that the transfer is within the same locality."

60. The Committee regrets that despite the time which has elapsed no steps have been taken to comply with the recommendations it formulated in this case at its meeting in June 1997. It reiterates once again that "all public service employees (with the sole possible exception of the armed forces and the police, as indicated in Article 9 of Convention No. 87), should, like workers in the private sector, be able to establish organizations of their own choosing to further and defend the interests of their members" and "protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should cover not only hiring and dismissal, but also any discriminatory measures during employment, in particular transfers, downgrading and other acts that are prejudicial to the worker" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 206 and 695). In these circumstances, the Committee finds itself obliged to repeat its recommendations formulated during its last examination of the case and requests the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken to comply with them.

Case No. 1987 (El Salvador)

61. At its meeting of November 1999, the Committee reiterated its previous recommendations on the need to modify the legislation (the requirement that the trade unions of independent institutions should be works unions, minimum number of 35 workers to establish a works union and the requirement for six months to have passed before applying to establish another trade union even if the previous one did not obtain legal personality) and it requested the Government once again to take steps with a view to reinstating the trade union leaders, Luis Barrios and Gloria Mercedes Gonzáles in their posts (see 318th Report, para. 56).

62. In its communication of 13 September 2000, the Government states that its country's labour policy for 1999-2004 includes the revision and adjustment of legal framework of labour relations, once the consultation process involving revision of the Labour Code has been carried out during a brief period. Furthermore, the Government states that under the law privatizing the national telecommunication administration, legal compensation was paid to Luis Barrios and Gloria Mercedes Gonzáles on 31 December 1997. The Government adds that the aforementioned persons did not belong to any trade union during their period of service but to a private association, and in their final pay slips they noted that the obligations towards them had been met in full. In addition, the parties concerned did not submit any complaint for anti-union practices. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed with regard to the process of reform of the Labour Code and hopes that full account will be taken of its recommendations in that process.

Case No. 2032 (Guatemala)

63. At its meeting in March 2000, the Committee regretted that the Government had adopted the circular of 21 September 1998 (as a result of which the Labour Inspectorate must refrain from intervening in disputes and other matters relating to the public sector) without having consulted the public sector trade unions and requested the Government in future: to take into account the principle according to which the public authorities should consult the most representative organizations in matters of mutual interest, including administrative circulars which affect the interests of such organizations in the public sector and their members (see 320th Report, para. 698).

64. In its communication dated 4 May 2000, the Government states that the circular in question contradicted legislation and Convention No. 87 and as a result the Ministry of Labour and Social Security currently in office declared the circular invalid by way of Ministerial Agreement No. 040-2000 dated 26 January 2000. The Committee notes this information with interest.

Case No. 1890 (India)

65. At its March 2000 meeting, the Committee last examined this case concerning the dismissal of Mr. Laximan Malwankar, President of the Fort Aguada Beach Resort Employees' Union (FABREU), the suspension or transfer of 15 FABREU members following strike action, and refusal to recognize the most representative workers' organization for collective bargaining purposes (see 320th Report, paras. 54-58).

66. In a communication dated 22 September 2000, the Government indicates that out of the three inquiries which were in progress in respect of Shri Ashok Deulkar, Sitaram Ruthod and Shyam Kerkar, the case of Mr. Deulkar was settled since he and the management have arrived at an amicable settlement thereby severing the employer-employee relationship. As regards the cases of five workmen whose inquiries were in progress, two workmen have resigned and settled their dues thereby severing the employer-employee relationship. Thus only three inquiries are still in progress. As regards the adjudication proceedings in respect of the dispute of Mr. Laximan Malwankar, the case was fixed on 12 September 2000 for arguments on preliminary issues. Similarly, the adjudication proceedings in respect of the charter of demands were fixed on 24 September 2000 for arguments on interim relief application. The Government also indicates that the workers of Fort Aguada Beach Resort are covered under the settlement signed by the management and the union, namely Fort Aguada Beach Resort Workers' Association. Out of the 171 workers (including the five workers whose inquiries are pending), all have received the benefit of the settlement, in operation up to 30 June 2000. The association has also served the fresh charter of demands and bilateral negotiations are in progress.

67. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. It recalls that this case related to various acts of harassment and anti-union discrimination carried out against the president of FABREU, Mr. Malwankar, from 1992 to 1994 which culminated in the dismissal of this trade union leader in January 1995 and the suspension or transferral of FABREU members in April 1995 following a strike action in the hotel industry which was declared a public utility service and thus referred to the Industrial Tribunal contrary to the principles of freedom of association since the hotel industry is in no way an essential service in which strikes can be prohibited. The Committee also recalls that an agreement was signed in October 1995 with a newly formed organization called Fort Aguada Beach Resort Workers' Association thus de-recognizing FABREU, the management recognizing the association as the sole bargaining agent in the company. The Committee had concluded from the evidence at its disposal that no doubts existed that FABREU was the most representative at the Fort Aguada Beach Resort and had urged the Government to take appropriate conciliatory measures to obtain the employers' recognition of FABREU for collective bargaining purposes (see 307th Report, paras. 366-375). The Committee once again must deplore the fact that the events to which the various proceedings and inquiries are related occurred in 1995 and earlier. With respect to Mr. Malwankar, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the court proceedings will be expedited and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings, including forwarding copies of the preliminary and final decisions. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of all the other pending issues related to this case, including the results of the adjudication proceedings concerning the charter of demands.

Case No. 1877 (Morocco)

68. At its March 1999 session, the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of the developments in the legal proceedings filed by the workers who had been dismissed or suspended, because of their legitimate trade union activities, by the SOMADIR company in Casablanca and El Jadidale (see 313th Report, para. 38). In a communication of 15 September 2000, the Government indicates that 12 cases have been resolved in favour of the workers, all of whom have received the legal compensation applicable in case of dismissal. The court of the first instance has issued a decision in 11 other cases, and the workers affected have appealed this judgement. Three cases are still pending before the court of the first instance; and the Court of Appeal has issued a decision in 16 cases, which were subsequently overturned by the High Court. While taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of developments in the judicial proceedings concerning this case.

Case No. 1931 (Panama)

69. At its meeting in June 1999, referring to its request that the Government consider amending certain provisions in its legislation which presented problems in terms of conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, the Committee had noted that the Government had begun general consultations with the social partners and had requested it to keep it informed of the outcome of these consultations (see 321st Report, para. 54).

70. In its communication dated 6 September 2000, the Government reports a divergence of views among the social partners concerning the amendment of certain legislative provisions and points out that the Government does not have the necessary majority in Parliament to pass a bill amending the Labour Code. The Government states that in order to carry out legislative reform consultations first had to be held and a consensus achieved among the social partners. Faced with this complex situation, the Government reaffirms its determination to make every effort to enable the representative organizations of employers and workers to reach, through dialogue, the agreement that would make it possible to present draft legislation covering all of the points raised by the Committee on Freedom of Association. To this effect, the Government deems it appropriate to request technical assistance from the San José Multidisciplinary Team, which would help reach a favourable solution to this case, and hopes that once such assistance has been obtained this will open the way to the tripartite consensus necessary to resolve the matter.

71. The Committee notes this information and hopes that such technical assistance will make it possible to register progress in the near future.

Case No.1826 (Philippines)

72. During its previous examination of this case in June 1999 (see 316th Report, paras. 72-74), the Committee had urged the Government to ensure that a certification election demanded by members of the Cebu Mitsumi Employees' Union (CMEU), was conducted immediately in the Cebu Mitsumi enterprise in Danao City, especially in view of the fact that the then newly established CMEU had filed a petition for a certification election in February 1994, which had been signed by almost all rank-and-file workers of the enterprise (see 302nd Report, paras. 405-408).

73. In a communication dated 17 August 2000, the Government states that, on 26 June 2000, the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued the following order concerning the conduct of a certification election at the Cebu Mitsumi enterprise: "Wherefore, this Office hereby orders the conduct of the certification election in one (1) setting starting at 8.00 o'clock in the morning of 14 September 2000 and ending at 5.00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, provided, that if there will be qualified voters in the premises who will manifest their intention to vote, the voting shall be extended beyond 5.00 o'clock in the afternoon until all such voters shall have cast their votes. Canvassing will immediately follow. The Election Officer shall device a system for the orderly and peaceful voting of those who intend to vote after 5.00 o'clock in the afternoon of the election day. The parties are hereby directed to extend their full cooperation and support."

74. The Committee takes note of this information. It trusts that the new certification election will be held with all the assurances of impartiality and non-interference and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome thereof.

Case No. 1914 (Philippines)

75. During its previous examination of this case in June 1999 (see 316th Report, paras. 76-79), the Committee had once again urged the Government to ensure that the 1,500 or so leaders and members of the Telefunken Semiconductors Employees' Union (TSEU) who were dismissed further to their participation in strike action from 14 to 16 September 1995 were reinstated immediately in their jobs under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike with compensation for lost wages and benefits. The Committee had noted that its recommendation was in conformity with the Orders for Reinstatement issued by the Government's Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) (see 308th Report, para. 668), as well as a Supreme Court decision which became final and executory on 6 April 1998. The Committee had further noted that, in the light of this development, the Secretary of Labor and Employment had issued a Writ of Execution on 26 August 1998 directing the immediate reinstatement of the workers in the company's payroll in the event that actual or physical reinstatement was impossible, but that the company's continued refusal to reinstate said workers led to its filing a series of motions aimed at delaying the execution of the said Writ. Finally, the Committee had noted the Government's statement that the Secretary had issued an Order directing the Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC) to compute individual wages of the striking workers reckoned from 27 June 1996 up to the actual date of their reinstatement, that a writ of execution would be issued to satisfy said claims and that the Government would update the Committee on any action taken by the BWC relative to the Order.

76. In a communication dated 17 August 2000, the Government states that the DOLE was furnished with a copy of a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the TSEU with the Supreme Court seeking the: (a) annulment of the Court of Appeal's decision; (b) dismissal of the case for illegal strike; (c) actual and physical reinstatement of all striking officers and members of the union; and (d) payment of back wages to the union officers/members. The Government adds that, acting on the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the union members, the Supreme Court issued a resolution dated 14 June 2000, requiring respondents to file comment on the said petition. Private respondents and the Office of the Solicitor General for Public Respondents filed their motion for extension of time to file comment dated 20 and 19 July 2000, respectively.

77. The Committee takes note of this information. However, it profoundly regrets that over five years have elapsed since the first Order for Reinstatement of around 1,500 TSEU leaders and members was issued (27 October 1995) and that three years have elapsed since the Supreme Court handed down a decision (12 December 1997) ordering the immediate reinstatement, without exception, of all the TSEU workers concerned. In this respect, the Committee once again reminds the Government that it is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and that cases concerning anti-union discrimination should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of trade union leaders and members dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 738 and 749). The Committee therefore urges the Government to guarantee expeditious and effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and insists that it make every effort to ensure that the approximately 1,500 TSEU leaders and members who were dismissed further to their participation in strike action in September 1995 are reinstated immediately in their jobs under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike with compensation for lost jobs and benefits. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

Case No. 1618 (United Kingdom)

78. At its March 2000 meeting, the Committee noted the Government's intention to draft regulations later in the year under the powers granted by the 1999 Employment Relations Act to prohibit the compilation, dissemination and use of lists recording individuals' trade union membership or activities (see 320th Report, paras. 70-72).

79. In a communication dated 15 September 2000, the Government indicated its intention to consult publicly on the regulations to be introduced under this power later this year.

80. The Committee takes due note of this information and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of any further developments.

Case No. 1959 (United Kingdom/Bermuda)

81. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2000 meeting when it requested the Government to keep it informed of any further developments as concerns its commitment to including management persons within the scope of the provisions of the 1998 Trade Union Amendment Act and as concerns any measures taken to provide for further protection against any eventual employer intimidation or interference in respect of the procedures for union certification or de-certification (see 320th Report, paras. 784-801).

82. In a communication dated 15 September 2000, the Government of Bermuda informed the Committee that the 1998 Trade Union Amendment Act has now come into force after consultation with the social partners and following concerns expressed by the unions that certain added protections afforded by the Act were not yet in place due to its non-effective status. At the same time, the Government gave a further undertaking to continue, in consultation with the social partners, to find a workable solution to the question of the inclusion of middle managers within the scope of the Act.

83. The Committee takes due note of this information and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of any further developments.

Case No. 1994 (Senegal)

84. During its last examination of this case at its November 1999 meeting concerning a labour dispute within the National Electricity Company of Senegal (SENELEC), which resulted in the arrest of strikers following a general power cut that took place in July 1998 and the dismissal of many members of the Single Trade Union of Electricity Workers (SUTELEC), the Committee had requested the Government to take measures to redress the situation (see 318th Report, paras. 431-462). In particular, it had requested the Government to keep it informed: (1) of the outcome of the negotiations held between SUTELEC and SENELEC; (2) to provide SENELEC workers with appropriate protection to compensate them for the restrictions placed on the right to strike of workers in the electricity sector; such protection might take the form of adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures; (3) to take measures to ensure that the SUTELEC union members and officials who were dismissed following incidents that took place in July 1998 were offered reinstatement in their posts without loss of pay. At its May-June 2000 meeting, the Committee on Freedom of Association once again requested the Government to keep it informed of the effect given to its recommendations in this case (see 321st Report, para. 94).

85. At the June session of the International Labour Conference, the Minister of Labour of Senegal had a meeting with the Chief of the Freedom of Association Branch of the ILO. He stated that his Government was concerned by the matter and that he himself had met with the trade union officials who had gone on strike and with the head of the enterprise concerned on several occasions. He confirmed that a process of compromise had been initiated and that he was exploring possible solutions; as soon as he had a clear picture of the direction in which the solution to the dispute was moving, he would inform the Committee of the situation.

86. The Committee takes note of this information which emphasizes the developments to be expected within the framework of the transition towards democracy. The Committee reminds the Government of the importance of adopting measures including compensatory guarantees for workers in the electricity sector whose right to strike is limited. It once again requests the Government to obtain the reinstatement in their posts of the SUTELEC union activists and officials who were dismissed following the labour dispute of July 1998. It requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken in this respect.

Case No. 1581 (Thailand)

87. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2000 meeting when it had noted with interest that that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill had been passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives on 16 February 2000 and was awaiting the King's assent. The Committee had trusted that this new legislation would fully restore the right to organize and to bargain collectively to state enterprise employees and had requested the Government to transmit a copy of the SELRA which had been adopted by Parliament. It had further requested the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning the necessary accompanying amendment to the Labour Relations Act (see 320th Report, paras. 82-85).

88. In communications dated 22 May and 23 August 2000, the Government indicates that, on 23 March 2000, the King gave royal assent to and signed the SELRA which entered into force on 8 April 2000. The Government further states that this new legislation, which provides for the right of state enterprise employees to form a labour union and to bargain collectively, will be transmitted to the Office as soon as translation thereof is completed.

89. As regards the required accompanying amendment to the Labour Relations Act which applies to the private sector, the Government points out that, on 1 December 1999, the Cabinet approved the draft amendment to this Act proposed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MOLSW) and forwarded it to the Office of the Council of State for scrutiny. If the State Council approves the said draft amendment, it will be resubmitted to the Cabinet before being sent to Parliament for consideration. Finally, the Government indicates that the key issues to be amended in the Labour Relations Act include the following: encouraging the establishment as well as strength and legitimacy of employer and employee organizations; strengthening bipartism by urging employers and employees to take part in joint consultation and cooperation so as to prevent and resolve labour disputes; encouraging employers and employees to use voluntary arbitration; and expanding the role of organizations of employers and employees in the settlement of labour disputes.

90. The Committee takes due note of this information. It once again trusts that the SELRA restores fully the right to organize and to bargain collectively to state enterprise employees and looks forward to receiving a copy of this Act as soon as translation thereof is completed. Moreover, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning the accompanying amendment to the Labour Relations Act.

Case No. 1977 (Togo)

91. At its meeting in March 2000 (see 320th Report, paras. 86-88), the Committee asked the Government to keep it informed of any new developments in this case, which concerns the failure to issue an acknowledgement for the by-laws of the Force ouvrière togolaise (FOT) since 1995. In a communication dated 27 July 2000, the Government explains that, in the absence of the FOT General Secretary who left Togo two years ago, the organization did not reply to an invitation, made to its Deputy General Secretary in a letter dated 11 November 1999, to file the by-laws once again with the Ministry of the Interior.

92. The Committee notes this information. However, it reminds the Government that in ratifying Convention No. 87, it undertook to guarantee the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization, subject only to the rules of those organizations, and the right of those organizations to establish and join federations, in accordance with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to repeal the legislation under which the Minister of the Interior is empowered to issue or withhold an acknowledgement that the by-laws of trade union organizations have been filed, in recognition of the right of workers to establish a trade union and the right of trade unions to form federations or confederations without prior authorization of the Ministry of the Interior, in order to bring that legislation into conformity with the Convention on these fundamental points. The Committee draws this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

Case No. 2018 (Ukraine)

93. At its June 2000 meeting, the Committee examined this case, which concerned among other things allegations of anti-union harassment, violations of the right to strike, physical threats and judicial proceedings against the president of the union (see 321st Report, paras. 83-90). On that occasion, the Committee: (a) expressed its regret that the Government had not ordered a new inquiry by an independent body on the allegations of pressures on trade union members by management with the aim of forcing them to leave the union, reiterated its request on this aspect of the case, and asked to be kept informed of developments; (b) asked the Government to ensure that the functions carried by the port young workers' association did not encroach on the normal activities of trade union organizations; (c) reminded the Government that ports do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, where strikes might be completely prohibited, and asked to be kept informed of legislative amendments in this regard; and (d) urged the Government to ensure that the criminal proceedings against the president of the complainant trade union be carried out with diligence and requested to be kept informed of developments.

94. In its communication of 16 August 2000, the Government underlines that the National Council on Social Partnership and the National Mediation and Conciliation Service, whose presidents participated in the inquiry on the alleged pressures against trade union members, and which concluded that there were no instances of such pressure, are two independent bodies which are not related to the executive authorities. The Government therefore considers it inappropriate to carry out further inquiries into this matter. Whilst taking note of this information, the Committee recalls that, in order to have an industrial relations system which all social partners - workers and employers alike - can trust, it is of utmost importance that bodies called upon to make decisions which can affect the functioning, if not the very existence of organizations, should not only be independent but also be seen as truly independent by all those concerned.

95. The Government confirms that the activities of the port young workers' association include youth work, and the organization of sports, excursions and leisure for young people. As a social organization, established in accordance with the Act on citizen's associations, it does not assume the functions of trade unions. The Government adds that authorities are prohibited from interfering in the activities of citizens' associations. The Committee takes note of this information. Recalling the guarantees established in this respect by Article 2 of Convention No. 98, the Committee trusts that the Government will take all appropriate measures to ensure that the functions carried out by the port young workers' association do not encroach on the normal activities of trade union organizations, including those related to strike.

96. The Government states that the strike of 7 September 1998 was declared illegal primarily because the trade union had violated the legal provisions on the settlement of labour disputes, and not because of a violation of section 8 of the Act prohibiting strikes in the ports sector. The Government adds that the Ministry of Transport is currently drafting amendments to the Transport Act, including provisions on strikes in that sector, and that it will send additional information once the Supreme Council has made a decision. The Committee takes note of this information. It requests the Government to provide it as soon as possible with the amendments to the Transport Act, and reminds the Government of the possibility of ILO's technical assistance in this regard, preferably before the adoption of said amendments.

97. The Government recalls that detailed information on the criminal proceedings against the trade union leaders was given in its previous communication, and adds that under section 7 of the Act respecting the Public Prosecutor's Office, the authorities are prohibited from giving any instructions to the Public Prosecutor on the outcome of cases before it. The Committee takes note of this information. It recalls that trade union leaders, like anyone else, should benefit from normal judiciary proceedings and that respect for due process of law should not preclude the possibility of a fair and rapid trial. The Committee therefore urges the Government, once again, to ensure that the criminal proceedings against the president of the complainant trade union be carried out with diligence and requests to be kept informed of developments.

Case No. 1952 (Venezuela)

98. In its previous examination of the case in November 1999, the Committee requested the Government to inform it about the discussions that were taking place on the payment of wage arrears to trade union officials and members of SINPROBOM who had been dismissed (and subsequently reinstated) as a result of collective action (see 318th Report, para. 88).

99. In communications dated 6 and 18 October and 22 December 1999, SINPROBOM states that the recognition of the promotions due to the firemen who are trade union officials and members of the abovementioned organization has yet to be resolved as only six promotions have taken place. SINPROBOM understands that the resources are being arranged to repay the wage arrears of its trade union officials but it requests the Committee to remain vigilant and call for information from the Government.

100. In a communication dated 4 May 2000, the Government sent a copy of general orders Nos. 001-00 and 002-00 signed by the commander-in-chief of the Eastern Fire Brigade, concerning the promotions of the firemen belonging to SINPROBOM, including the members of the executive committee of SINPROBOM. The total number of promotions is 124.

101. The Committee notes the Government's information that 124 firemen have been promoted. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that the Government has not sent information relating to the matter of the effective payment of the wage arrears of the firemen corresponding to the period during which they were dismissed and asks it to provide some information in this respect.

Case No. 1993 (Venezuela)

102. In its previous examination of the case in November 1999, the Committee made the following recommendations concerning the pending allegations (see 318th Report, para. 595):

- The Committee requests the Government to endeavour to promote the negotiation of a collective agreement between the Trade Union of Public Employees of the Venezuelan Scientific Research Institute (SEPIVIC) and the Venezuelan Scientific Research Institute (IVIC) and to keep it informed in this regard.

- As regards the allegation concerning the delay in issuing a ruling on the appeal lodged by the SEPIVIC against the administrative decision of September 1998 ordering termination of the bargaining process between the trade union and the IVIC, the Committee deplores the time that has elapsed without a decision being issued by the authorities and trusts that a ruling will be handed down on this appeal in the very near future. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final decision of the administrative authorities in this respect.

- The Committee invites the complainant to furnish comments in respect of the new Regulations under the Organic Labour Act of 20 January 1999 which regulate collective bargaining in the public sector.

103. In a communication dated April 1999, the SEPIVIC indicated that the Ministry of Labour had not yet handed down a ruling on the appeal it had lodged.

104. In a communication dated 4 May 2000, the Government sent a copy of the ruling dated 4 April 2000 in which the Minister of Labour (responsible official) declared the appeal lodged by the trade union SEPIVIC to be valid and urged the parties involved to begin the discussions relating to the draft collective agreement.

105. The Committee takes note of the administrative ruling dated 4 April 2000 which urges the parties to begin the discussions relating to the draft collective agreement and requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of negotiations. The Committee observes that the complainant organization has not provided any comments in respect of the new Regulations under the Organic Labour Act (which regulate collective bargaining in the public sector) despite having been invited to do so, and it will therefore not continue its examination into this matter.

Case No. 1937 (Zimbabwe)

106. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in March 2000 when it once again urged the Government to amend sections 98, 99, 100, 106 and 107 of the Labour Relations Act so as to ensure that compulsory arbitration may only be imposed with respect to essential services and in cases of acute national crisis. Furthermore, the Committee trusted that the final judgement in respect of the workers dismissed from Standard Chartered Bank would be rendered in the near future and that these workers would be promptly reinstated without loss of salary or benefits and requested the Government to transmit a copy of the Supreme Court judgement as soon as it was handed down (see 320th Report, paras. 93-96).

107. In a communication dated 29 August 2000, the Government indicates that the Supreme Court heard the case concerning the workers dismissed from Standard Chartered Bank in July 2000, but that it has not yet rendered its decision. The Government states that it will abide by the ruling and that it will furnish a copy of the Supreme Court's judgement as soon as it is rendered.

108. The Government transmitted the Supreme Court judgement in a communication dated 26 September. The judgement sets aside the Appeals Board and Labour Relations Tribunal judgement which had called for the reinstatement of the Standard Chartered Bank workers. While agreeing that the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee which had dismissed the workers were fatally flawed, the Supreme Court ordered a new Disciplinary Committee to be properly constituted so as to determine the case on its merits, placing the dismissed workers in the position they were in prior to the initial hearing.

109. The Committee notes with deep regret that the 211 workers dismissed from Standard Chartered Bank over three years ago for the exercise of legitimate trade union activity are still caught in an entangled and protracted legal struggle to obtain reinstatement. While noting that these workers are now obliged to await yet a further decision by a disciplinary committee, the Committee must recall that the information made available to it from the initial complaint and the Government's reply clearly indicates that these workers were dismissed for having gone on strike. The Committee must therefore recall that the dismissal of workers because of a legitimate strike constitutes discrimination in employment (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 704).

110. Furthermore, an excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned (see Digest, op. cit., para. 749). The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that these workers are reinstated pending the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee and trusts that the above principles will be borne in mind by the Disciplinary Committee so that all those workers who were dismissed for the exercise of legitimate trade union activity are fully reinstated in their jobs as soon as possible without loss of salary or benefits. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

111. As concerns its other recommendation to amend the provisions of the Labour Relations Act which provide for compulsory arbitration, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government has still not supplied any information on the measures taken or envisaged in this regard. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the relevant sections of the Labour Relations Act in the very near future and once again recalls that ILO technical assistance is available to facilitate a review and revision of the Act should the Government so desire. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken to amend the Labour Relations Act.

112. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1512/1539 (Guatemala), 1769 (Russian Federation), 1785 (Poland), 1796 (Peru), 1813 (Peru), 1843 (Sudan), 1884 (Swaziland), 1895 (Venezuela), 1925 (Colombia), 1938 (Croatia), 1939 (Argentina), 1944 (Peru), 1954 (Côte d'Ivoire), 1967 (Panama), 1972 (Poland), 1978 (Gabon), 1996 (Uganda), 1998 (Bangladesh), 2004 (Peru), 2005 (Central African Republic), 2007 (Bolivia), 2008 (Guatemala), 2009 (Mauritius), 2019 (Swaziland), 2027 (Zimbabwe), 2031 (China) and 2056 (Central African Republic), the Committee requests the governments concerned to keep it informed of any developments relating to these cases. It hopes that these governments will quickly provide the information requested. In addition, the Committee has just received information concerning Cases Nos. 1698 (New Zealand), 1849 (Belarus), 1942 (China/Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), 1964 (Colombia), 1966 (Costa Rica), 1987 (El Salvador), 2024 (Costa Rica), 2030 (Costa Rica) and 2038 (Ukraine) which it will examine at its next meeting.