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 7, 8, 9 and 15 March 2002, under the chairmanship of Mr. Maurice Ramond.

2. The Committee learned with deep sadness and emotion the untimely death of Professor Max Rood. Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association since 1995, Professor Rood proved to be an outstanding conciliator, who was able to maintain the Committee's cohesion by allowing it to follow one of its fundamental rules, i.e. the adoption of decisions by consensus. His profound belief in ILO ideals, his unfailing courtesy and his innate diplomatic skills earned him wide respect from the members of the Committee and of the Governing Body. Mindful of the serious loss resulting from his passing, the Committee shares the grief of his family and relatives.

3. The members of Chilean, Japanese and Panamanian nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Chile (Case No. 2141), Japan (Case No. 2114) and Panama (Case No. 2134), respectively.

4. Currently, there are 88 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 33 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 21 cases and interim conclusions in 12 cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

5. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the examination of the following cases: Nos. 2159 (Colombia), 2162 (Peru), 2163 (Nicaragua), 2164 (Morocco), 2166 (Canada/British Columbia), 2168 (Argentina), 2169 (Pakistan), 2170 (Iceland), 2171 (Sweden), 2172 (Chile), 2173 (Canada/British Columbia), 2174 (Uruguay), 2175 (Morocco), 2176 (Japan), 2177 (Japan) and 2178 (Denmark), since it is awaiting information and observations from the governments concerned. All these cases relate to complaints submitted since the last meeting of the Committee.

Observations requested from governments

6. The Committee is still awaiting observation or information from the governments concerned in the following cases: Nos. 2090 (Belarus), 2096 (Pakistan), 2105 (Paraguay), 2130 (Argentina), 2131 (Argentina), 2133 (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), 2140 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2144 (Georgia), 2150 (Chile), 2154 (Venezuela) and 2157 (Argentina).

Partial information received from governments

7. In Cases Nos. 1986 (Venezuela), 2068 (Colombia), 2088 (Venezuela), 2097 (Colombia), 2103 (Guatemala), 2111 (Peru) and 2151 (Colombia), the governments have sent partial information on the allegations made. The Committee requests all these governments to send the remaining information without delay so that it can examine these cases in full knowledge of the facts.

Observations received from governments

8. As regards Cases Nos. 2082 (Morocco), 2087 (Uruguay), 2116 (Indonesia), 2123 (Spain), 2124 (Lebanon), 2128 (Gabon), 2136 (Mexico), 2137 (Uruguay), 2139 (Japan), 2149 (Romania), 2158 (India), 2160 (Venezuela), 2161 (Venezuela), 2164 (Morocco), 2165 (El Salvador) and 2167 (Guatemala), the Committee has received the governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting. In Case No. 2114 (Japan), the Committee asks the Government to send urgently its observations on the latest communication of the complainant so that the Committee may take these into account when it examines the case at its next meeting.

Urgent appeals

9. As regards Cases Nos. 2036 (Paraguay), 2120 (Nepal), 2129 (Chad) and 2143 (Swaziland), the Committee observes that despite the time which has elapsed since the submission of the complaints, it has not received the observations of the governments. 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 a complaint

10. In Case No. 2152 (Mexico), the complainant organization, the National Union of Mining, Metal and Allied Workers of the Mexican Republic, announced in a communication of 31 January 2002 that the matter submitted to the Committee has been settled and that it withdraws its complaint. The Committee therefore decides to close this case.

On-the-spot missions

Case No. 2086 (Paraguay)

11. The Committee notes that the Government has accepted the proposal formulated by the complainants to the effect that a direct contacts mission visit the country in order to gather information and prepare a report so that the Committee can examine this case with all the elements at its disposal. The Committee proposes to examine this case at its next meeting in May 2002.

Cases Nos. 1952, 2067, 2160 and 2161 (Venezuela)

12. The Committee has been informed that the Government has accepted that a direct contacts mission visit the country in the context of the discussion on the application of Convention No. 87 at the Committee on the Application of Standards (June 2001 session of the International Labour Conference). In view of the fact that the mandate of this mission covers mainly legislative aspects, the Committee requests the Government to agree to the extension of the mandate of this mission to all the pending cases. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Contacts of the Chairperson of the Committee during the International Labour Conference

13. Taking into account the discussions which took place on several occasions on cases concerning Canada, the Committee requests its Chairperson to hold consultations with the Government delegation of Canada, during the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2002, to examine the general status of pending cases concerning federal and provincial jurisdictions, and to consider the various possibilities of technical assistance or other measures which, through dialogue, would allow finding ways of solving those difficulties that have been identified.

Serious and/or urgent cases which the Committee draws to the special attention of the Governing Body

14. The Committee considers it necessary to draw the Governing Body's special attention to Case No. 1787 concerning Colombia because of the extreme seriousness and urgency of the matters dealt with therein.

15. The Committee also points out the particular importance it attaches to Case No. 1865 (Republic of Korea) in which the Government is requested to take measures urgently to remedy the difficulties encountered in this case.

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

16. The Committee draws the legislative aspects of the following cases to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: Canada (Case No. 2145), Chile (Case No. 2141), Ecuador (Case No. 2138), Lithuania (Case No. 2078) and Turkey (Case No. 2126).

Procedural questions

17. For the first time since 1979, the Committee had an in-depth discussion of its procedure taking into account the historical antecedents. It thus touched upon a number of subjects and methods in the light of past experience, both in respect of its procedure strictly speaking and in respect of its practice. It made a series of proposals keeping in mind the following objectives:

- to improve the effectiveness and transparency of the procedure;

- to speed up as much as possible the examination of complaints;

- to improve the Committee's working methods;

- to strengthen and improve the follow-up action on its recommendations.

18. The Committee agreed that several aspects of the procedure and its practice have proven to be globally satisfactory and do not call for major changes. This is the case, in particular, for the applicable rules concerning: receivability of complaints; most of the communications with the parties; length of the procedure; hearing of parties; and on-the-spot missions. It was, nevertheless, the Committee's opinion that a greater effort should be made in respect of the use of preliminary missions and of follow-up missions.

19. The Committee expressed its desire that certain improvements be made in the presentation of its reports with the aim of facilitating the examination of cases by the Governing Body.

20. The Committee also considered that greater publicity should be given to its conclusions and recommendations, particularly in the cases that are of a particularly grave nature. It requested that the relevant services of the Office follow up upon the wish thus expressed, including with the use of new communication technology.

21. The Committee spent a great deal of time on a series of questions justifying, in its view, new proposals of a procedural nature and putting them into practice in order better to achieve the abovementioned objectives.

22. As concerns the composition of the Committee, it was recalled that the current rules created an imbalance in respect of the Workers' and Employers' groups, the substitute members of which cannot participate, by right, in the work of the Committee, and thus do not receive the various corresponding indemnities. The problem has worsened over recent years due to the increase in the number of complaints and their increasing complexity. It would therefore recommend that the appropriate remedial measures be put in place rapidly by enabling all of the substitute members to participate by right in the work of the Committee. This decision would imply financial consequences (the payment of a per diem to substitute Worker and Employer members) which, in the opinion of the Committee, should be examined by the Programme, Financial and Administrative Committee and by the Governing Body.

23. As concerns the Government members, the Committee considers that, bearing in mind the rule that its members participate in their personal capacity, it would be desirable for the nominations by the governments of their members be made by name, which would help to ensure a relative continuity on the Government bench.

24. In order to ensure some coherence with the rule that nationals of countries concerned by a complaint do not participate in the discussion of these cases, it is proposed that the documents concerning these cases not be communicated to them.

25. According to an existing rule, the Committee may invite its Chairperson to hold consultations with a governmental delegation during the International Labour Conference, to draw their attention on the seriousness of some problems and to discuss the various means that would allow their resolution. It is proposed to extend this possibility to all sessions of the Governing Body.

26. The Committee also examined the ways to securing, through the intermediary of the Government, information from all the parties affected by the allegations in appropriate cases. The Committee agreed to adopt on a trial basis a procedure which would allow seeking, as the case may be, the comments of all the parties affected, so that the Government may transmit to the Committee the most exhaustive reply possible. The practical application of this new rule of procedure should not result in a delay concerning the recourse to urgent appeals made to governments nor in the examination of cases.

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

Case No. 1992 (Brazil)

27. The Committee last examined this case, concerning dismissals following a strike and other anti-union acts, at its March 2001 meeting (see 324th Report, paras. 21-23). On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to inform it of the final outcome of all the judicial proceedings relating to the 54 workers of the Brazilian Post and Telegraph Enterprise (ECT) who were dismissed after the strike held in September 1997.

28. In a communication dated 10 January 2002, the Government states that another three workers have been reinstated, in addition to the 19 workers who had already been reinstated when the case was last examined.

29. The Committee notes this information with interest and requests the Government to inform it of the final outcome of the remaining judicial proceedings in question.

Case No. 1957 (Bulgaria)

30. The Committee has been called on several occasions to examine this case, which deals with eviction of trade union premises and confiscation of trade union property of the National Syndical Federation (GMH). When it last examined the case (323rd Report, paras. 35-38), the Committee noted with regret that the Government merely reiterated the information provided in earlier communications, that no progress had been accomplished and that the authorities maintained a non-conciliatory approach. The Committee reiterated its request that constructive discussions be held as soon as possible to settle the issues, and requested to be kept informed of developments.

31. In its communication of 10 September 2001, the Government limits itself to stating that it has no additional information to provide in this respect.

32. The Committee recalls that this case, which dates back to March 1998, involves very serious allegations of freedom of association principles, i.e. acts by the authorities which make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a trade union to function normally. The Committee deeply regrets the Government's continued lack of cooperation and the absence of constructive dialogue, in spite of its repeated calls to do so. The Committee requests once again the Government to initiate as soon as possible discussions with the complainant organization, in order to settle the issues of trade union premises and confiscation of trade union property of the GMH. The Committee strongly hopes that the Government will be in a position to provide positive information in the very near future, and requests it to keep it informed of any development in these respects.

Case No. 1951 (Canada/Ontario)

33. The Committee has been called on several occasions to examine this case, which dealt with a piece of legislation (Bill No. 160) that prevented school principals and vice-principals from forming and joining organizations of their own choosing. Other issues raised were proper consultations with unions on changes brought to existing collective bargaining structures and on the consequences of educational policy on the conditions of employment of workers concerned. When it last examined this case at its November 2001 session, the Committee expressed its regret that the Government merely reiterated its previous arguments, and that its position had not evolved since the filing of the case more than four years ago. The Committee reiterated its request that Bill No. 160 be amended and asked the Government to provide follow-up information on its other recommendations concerning consultations with unions (see 326th Report, paras. 31-33).

34. In its communication of 8 January 2002, the Government states that Canadian courts have consistently upheld its position regarding Bill No. 160. The Government adds that it has recently consulted with a variety of stakeholders, including unions, regarding the formulation of policies and development of legislation affecting the education sector, for instance Bills Nos. 80 and 110. Both prior and during any reform initiative unions and other interested parties may express their views by direct communication with the Government and through the legislative process. The Government carefully considers the inputs it then receives.

35. The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the holding of full and frank consultations in situations such as the present one and refers in addition to its comments on this subject in two other cases concerning Ontario elsewhere in this report (Cases Nos. 2119 and 2145). As regards Bill No. 160, the Committee notes the decision (issued on 20 December 2001 by the country's highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court of Canada) in the Dunmore case, where the Court held that the exclusion of agricultural workers from the Labour Relations Act was unconstitutional. In so doing, the Court relied, inter alia, on the "without distinction whatsoever" provision of Article 2 of Convention No. 87, and on the wording of Article 10 of the same Convention, "any organization of workers" (J. Bastarache, para. 27). The Court further referred to Case No. 1900 of the Committee, another complaint concerning Ontario (ibid. para. 41). The Committee requests, once again, the Government to amend its legislation to ensure that school principals and vice-principals of Ontario may form and join organizations of their own choosing, have access to collective bargaining, and enjoy effective protection from anti-union discrimination and employer interference. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

Case No. 1975 (Canada/Ontario)

36. The Committee has been called on several occasions to examine this case, which deals with a piece of legislation (Bill No. 22, an Act to prevent unionization with respect to community participation under the Ontario Works Act) which denies the right to organize to workers involved in community participation activities, and another one (Bill No. 31) which makes it more difficult for construction workers to enforce their right to organize. When it last examined the case (324th Report, paras. 27-29), the Committee expressed its deep regret at the Government's staunch refusal to act on its recommendations, and urged it once again to amend its legislation to ensure that workers involved in community participation activities be granted the right to organize. The Committee further noted that the information provided by the Government in connection with Bill No. 31 did not address the concerns previously raised, and urged it once again in the strongest terms, to amend the impugned legislation so that collective bargaining in the construction industry, below provincial level, may be initiated by either workers' or employers' representatives at any stage of the process. The Committee requested to be kept informed of any development in these respects.

37. In its communication of 13 September 2001, the Government limits itself to stating that there are no updates regarding its response regarding Bill No. 22, maintains that this Bill does not violate freedom of association principles and that, at this time, it has no intention to amend it. The Government is silent on issues relating to Bill No. 31.

38. The Committee, once again, deeply regrets the Government's repeated lack of cooperation, and the absence of constructive dialogue, on this and other cases currently pending before it. The Committee also refers to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Dunmore case, mentioned above in connection with Case No. 1951, where the Court relied, inter alia, on Articles 2 and 10 of Convention No. 87, and referred to Case No. 1900 of the Committee. The Committee therefore requests, once again, the Government to amend Bill No. 22, to ensure that workers involved in community participation activities be granted the right to organize, and Bill No. 31 to ensure that collective bargaining in the construction industry below provincial level may be initiated by either workers' or employers' representatives at any stage of the process. The Committee requested to be kept informed of any development in these respects.

Case No. 2083 (Canada/New Brunswick)

39. The Committee examined this case, which concerns the right of casual workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, and to bargain collectively, at its March 2001 session where it requested the Government to take measures to ensure that these categories of workers enjoyed these rights (324th Report, paras. 235-256) and at its June 2001 session, where it noted that the Government would meet representatives of the complainant organization and requested to be kept informed of developments (325th Report, para. 21).

40. In a communication dated 4 September 2001, the Government of New Brunswick indicated that a meeting was held on 17 May 2001 between government officials and representatives of the complainant organization and that, as a result of that meeting, the Government is currently surveying the legislation and policy of other Canadian jurisdictions on this issue.

41. While taking note of this information, the Committee recalls that casual workers should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, and to bargain collectively, in accordance with freedom of association principles. In view of the time lapsed since the filing of the complaint (April 2000), the Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary legislative measures in the near future, and requests it to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

Case No. 2135 (Chile)

42. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting (see 326th Report, paras. 245-268). On that occasion, the Committee observed that the complainants disputed that resolution No. 71 of 21 July 2000, issued by the Ministry of the Economy, Public Works and Reconstruction, should prohibit the right to strike not only for those workers at the Metropolitan Sanitation Company who were providing an essential service, but also for those who were involved in areas that were clearly separate from the provision of essential services, such as administrative tasks, legal advice, design projects, planning, construction and works inspection, information technology and others. The Committee recalled that water supply services were an essential service where the right to strike might be prohibited with adequate protection to compensate for that limitation (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 544 and 546). However, the Committee noted that the Government stated that further investigation was needed as regards the claim presented by the complainants, in which the different sections or duties that were carried out within the company be defined so that only those workers who were directly linked to the provision of the essential service be deprived of the right to strike and that the investigation should be carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security as soon as possible. The Committee appreciated and encouraged that initiative and hoped that the investigation would be carried out very shortly.

43. In a communication dated 11 January 2002, the Government states that the Labour Services are currently studying how to define the different sections or duties within the Metropolitan Sanitation Company in order to identify the workers who are directly linked to the provision of the essential service, and that it will inform the Committee as soon as the studies are finalized.

44. The Committee notes the Government's statement with interest and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

Case No. 2110 (Cyprus)

45. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2001 Session (see 325th Report, paras. 238-268), on which occasion it made the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee trusts that in future the Government will follow an adequate consultation procedure when it seeks to alter bargaining structures in which it acts directly or indirectly as employer.

(b) The Committee regrets that the Government did not give priority to collective bargaining as a means of determining the employment conditions of its public servants, and that it did not attempt to reach consensus with the complainant before submitting the Bill for the introduction of a National Health Scheme (NHS) to the House of Representatives. The Committee expects that the Government will refrain from taking such measures in the future.

(c) The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the Tripartite Liaison Committee is convened so that serious and meaningful discussions are held between the parties concerned with a view to reaching a solution in respect of the NHS Bill. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments thereof.

46. In its communication dated 25 October 2001, the Government states that it never had the intention of altering existing bargaining structures of the public sector's industrial relations system nor did it ever attempt to derogate the public employees' right of collective bargaining. In dealing with this case, which concerns a matter of national interest affecting the health and welfare of the entire population of the island, the Government found itself in an unpleasant situation where the only opponents to the intended reform of the national health-care system were mainly the public sector's trade unions and especially PASYDY. In fact, the Bill for the reform of the health-care sector was submitted to the House of Representatives after extensive consultations and negotiations with the social partners, who were given every opportunity to express their views and put forward their claims on aspects, which were of direct concern to them.

47. As regards the Committee's second recommendation, the Government stresses that before the enactment of any special legislation which might affect the status or the terms and conditions of employment of the government employees, it will take all the appropriate measures to secure meaningful and in good faith consultations with PASYDY within the established procedures.

48. As regards the Committee's third recommendation, the Government states that the law for the introduction of a National Health Scheme in Cyprus was enacted by the House of Representatives on 19 April 2001 and published in the Official Gazette on 4 May 2001. Before the enactment of the law and specifically on 9 February 2001, the Tripartite Liaison Committee was convened and it discussed the aspects of the National Health Scheme that gave rise to the dispute between PASYDY and the Government. Following the meeting of the Tripartite Liaison Committee and further discussions at the Health Committee of the House of Representatives, section 65 of the Bill was amended and a new section 66 was added. The final text of these sections, as enacted by the House of Representatives, reads as follows:

65. The operation of this Law shall in no manner prejudice: -

(a) the rights of civil servants employed in the medical services, the public health services, the pharmaceutical and other services of the Ministry of Health, who will be serving on the date on which the General Health System will come into full operation;

(b) the interests of casual employees and of all other categories of permanent employees, employed by the abovementioned services.

66. (1) The state hospitals shall continue to be owned by the State and the introduction of the General Health System shall not affect their ownership status.

(2) The State shall have the obligation to make every provision necessary, so that the said hospitals shall be modernized in the areas of organization, management, administration and equipment and to utilize the available resources in the most beneficial and effective way possible.

The Government states that the combined effect of the above two sections provides an adequate safeguard of the terms and conditions of employment of the employees of the state health services. Moreover, given (a) that the General Health Scheme is not expected to come into operation before the next four-five years and (b) that any change in the management of the state hospitals, which might affect the terms and conditions of employment of the employees concerned, will be introduced by special legislation, the Government will give PASYDY every opportunity for consultation within the established framework of collective bargaining. At the moment, the Government is studying various alternatives as to the reform of the management of the state hospitals. In due time, this will be discussed exhaustively with PASYDY.

49. The Committee takes due note of this information.

Case No. 2051 (Colombia)

50. The Committee last examined this case, concerning the creation of cooperatives to the detriment of trade unions and the dismissal of workers who did not accept new employment in the cooperatives, at its March 2001 meeting (see 324th Report, paras. 360-371). On that occasion, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that the administrative investigation under way was concluded rapidly and that it covered not only the allegation that employment in the cooperatives was offered to fixed-term workers of Confecciones Colombia SA under threat of dismissal, but also the other allegations that: (1) the cooperatives are a sham since they are managed by the employers and since the workers work in the same place, with the same bosses and with the same machinery as those still with the enterprise; (2) in February 1999 the company ordered a mass dismissal of cooperative workers; and (3) the creation of the associative labour cooperatives in the enterprise has had disastrous consequences for the workers and their trade unions.

51. In its communication dated 4 June 2001, the Trade Union of Textile Industry Workers (SINTRA IL) maintains that the cooperatives of Confecciones Colombia S.A. were established, managed and manipulated by the enterprise with the aim of undermining the trade unions.

52. In a communication dated 4 September 2001, the Government states that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, through the Office of the Coordinator of Inspection and Surveillance of the Antioquia Territorial Directorate, issued resolution No. 1822 of 1 November 2001 acquitting Confecciones Colombia Everfit-Indulana. It adds that the investigation found that there were four work cooperatives operating in the enterprise (CODESCO, COTEXCON, SERVIEMPRESAS and PARTICIPEMOS), each with a manager and an office on the premises of the enterprise, and that the machinery, owned by the enterprise, was being used by the cooperatives under a loan contract. These cooperatives enjoyed financial, administrative and operational autonomy in the execution of contracts signed with Confecciones Colombia SA. The Government adds that it could not be ascertained whether the members of the cooperatives had been forced or coerced into withdrawing from the enterprise and joining the cooperatives and that it was demonstrated that the enterprise had not unilaterally dismissed any workers within the six-month period. The Government concludes that no appeal has been lodged against the abovementioned resolution.

53. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the complainant and by the Government. In this respect, the Committee notes with regret that the investigation carried out by the Ministry did not take account of all the complainants' allegations in accordance with the recommendation made by the Committee. Thus, the Government has not sent any information on the allegation that the cooperatives are a sham, on the mass dismissal of workers of the cooperatives in 1999 and the consequences of these cooperatives for the workers and their organizations. The Committee urges the Government to take steps without delay to ensure that an investigation is carried out covering these allegations, and that it is concluded rapidly, and to inform it of the outcome.

Cases Nos. 1987 and 2085 (El Salvador)

54. In its previous examination of Case No. 1987, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed with regard to the reform of the Labour Code (requested by the Committee in its 313th Report) with regard to the following points: the excessive formalities for the recognition of a trade union and the acquisition of legal personality that were contrary to the principle of the free establishment of trade union organization (the requirement that the trade unions of independent institutions should be works unions), that made it difficult to set up a trade union (minimum number of 35 workers to establish a works union) or that in any case made it temporarily impossible to establish a trade union (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) (see 326th Report, paras. 76 and 78).

55. In its previous examination of Case No. 2085, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any initiative by FESTSA to obtain legal personality. It also, once again, requested the Government to ensure that national legislation was amended so that it recognized the right of association of workers employed in the service of the State, with the sole possible exception of the armed forces and the police (see 326th Report, para. 81).

56. In a communication dated 7 January 2002, the Government states that the Constitution of the Republic recognizes freedom of association and lists the various rights laid down in the legislation. The Government adds that public employees can meet in associative groups that conform to the civil laws of the country and that do not correspond to the organizational forms and practices of workers' associations but that these groups must conform to the sovereign decisions and requirements of the country as laid down in the reforms to the Constitution of the Republic proclaimed by the Constituent Legislative Assembly in 1983 and to the Labour Code in 1994. These reforms were agreed upon on a tripartite basis at the national forum for consultation, resulting from the peace agreements, and with technical assistance support from the ILO. The Government indicates that the ILO itself refers to the reforms of the Labour Code of 1994 in a document published by the ILO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, which states that regarding collective labour relations in El Salvador, the new law represented a very advanced text in relation to the other texts in force in Latin America in the past ten years. The Government plan, Alliance for Labour, envisages a strategic line towards the adaptation of the legal framework to conform to the requirements of the national and international labour market.

57. The Committee hopes that the adaptation of the legal framework to which the Government refers will take place in the near future and will include all the reforms requested by the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect and points out that some of the points calling for reform, for example the need to guarantee the right of association for public employees, are in fact serious violations of that freedom. Finally, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on any steps that the trade union organization FESTSA may have taken to obtain legal personality and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 1978 (Gabon)

58. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the existence and free functioning of trade union structures of the Gabonese Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CGSL) in the SOCOFI enterprise and the dismissal of trade unionists for exercising their right to strike, at its June 2001 meeting (see 325th Report, paras. 29-33). At that time, it requested the Government to confirm the existence and free functioning of the CGSL trade union in the SOCOFI enterprise. The Committee had further asked the Government to keep it informed of the decision of the Court of Appeal on the legality of the strike launched by the CGSL at the SOCOFI enterprise in 1997.

59. In its communication dated 16 November 2001, the Government sent a copy of the minutes of a meeting that took place in September 2001 at the Directorate-General of Labour between the Director for International Relations, CGSL representatives and the SOCOFI enterprise. The Government states that following this meeting, both partners agreed to the resumption of CGSL trade union structure activities at SOCOFI. However, in view of the current fall in the volume of work at SOCOFI, the CGSL officers decided to suspend their activities until the enterprise experienced an upturn in its operations. Moreover, the Government indicates that the decision on the legality of the strike at the SOCOFI enterprise is still on appeal before the Libreville Labour Court and it will not fail to keep the Committee informed in this regard.

60. The Committee takes note of this information. With regard to the resumption of CGSL activities at SOCOFI, the Committee welcomes the Government's initiative in summoning the parties concerned to a meeting, which enabled this issue to be resolved. As regards the decision concerning the legality of the strike at the SOCOFI enterprise, the Committee can only deplore the fact that more than four years after the strike was launched, the workers who were dismissed for involvement in the strike are still awaiting the Court's decision. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures - if the strike is ruled to have been lawful - to ensure that the workers dismissed for exercising the right to strike are reinstated in their posts without loss of pay or, if this is not possible, that they be compensated. The Committee again asks the Government to notify it of the decision of the Labour Court as soon as the decision is handed down.

Case No. 1970 (Guatemala)

Murders

61. At its November 2001 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations on the issues still pending (see 326th Report, paras. 86 and 90):

- The Committee notes that investigations have begun into the murders of Baldomero de Jesús Ramírez, José Feliciano Vivas and Carlos Solórzano. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed with regard to these matters and to provide new information on the murders of José Alfredo Chacón Ramírez and Ismael Mérida. The Committee also requests the complainant to provide further information on the murder of Cesáreo Chanchavac.

- The Committee notes that the Government did not reply specifically to the allegation of the stabbing of the General-Secretary of the trade union of the Hotel Camino Real and reiterates its request to the Government to indicate whether an investigation has begun into this allegation.

62. In a communication dated 7 January 2002, the Government sent a detailed statement of the action taken by the police and the Public Prosecutor's Office since June 1999, with regard to the murder of Baldomero de Jesús Ramírez. The Government states that, regarding the murders of José Feliciano Vivas, Carlos Solórzano, José Alfredo Chacón Ramírez and Ismael Mérida, the state of the investigation remains essentially the same as that communicated to the Committee for its November 2001 meeting.

63. The Committee notes that the Government's statements on the investigations into these murders do not reveal if those responsible have been identified. At its previous meeting, the Committee noted with grave concern that, according to the report of the direct contacts mission, the Human Rights Procurator stated that violations of freedom of association were very commonplace and that there was a high level of impunity in many labour relations and criminal cases. The Committee reminds the Government that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed. The Committee hopes that the investigations and proceedings currently under way will allow those responsible for the murders to be identified and punished and asks to be kept informed. Finally, the Committee once again requests the complainant to send further information with regard to the murder of Cesáreo Chanchavac.

Dismissals

64. At its November 2001 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations (see 326th Report, para. 95):

The Committee notes that the judicial proceedings relating to dismissals at the Ofelia and La Patria farms (dismissed in August 1995) and the Santa Fe and La Palmera farms are still pending. The Committee requests the Government to provide specific information in this respect, and also to provide information on the dismissals at the El Arco farm (1997) and the alleged impossibility of negotiating a collective agreement at the San Carlos Miramar farm.

65. In a communication dated 7 January 2002, the Government states that the information provided to the Committee for its November 2001 meeting has not changed and that it will keep the Committee informed of developments.

66. The Committee notes this information and emphasizes that as the allegations refer to acts that took place in 1995 and 1997, it is important that the proceedings relating to acts of discrimination should progress rapidly as an excessive delay amounts to a denial of justice. The Committee hopes that the rulings relating to the dismissals are handed down and that the negotiation of a collective agreement at the San Carlos Miramar farm make progress in the near future and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 1854 (India)

67. The Committee last examined this case at its June 1999 meeting (see 316th Report, paras. 3-65). On this occasion the Committee had recalled that this case concerned the murder of Ms. Ahilya Devi, a trade unionist who was allegedly organizing rural workers in the State of Bihar on 23 August 1995 and that the Government had indicated that on the basis of the investigation Ms. Devi was murdered on account of her activities related to smuggling which had led to antagonism with other persons also involved in smuggling. The Committee had requested the Government to supply copies in an ILO working language of the judgement to be handed down in relation to this murder that occurred in 1995 at an early date.

68. In communications dated 29 May and 9 November 2001, the Government states that Case No. 170/95 regarding the murder of Ahilya Devi has been pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kishanganj of the Government of Bihar. The Government indicates that out of the seven accused, one has been declared dead (Mr. Dinesh Mandal) and two are absconding (Mr. Munna Punjabi and Mr. Shravan Giri). The Government indicates that the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued orders on 1 October 2001, following a petition motioned by the Public Prosecutor, to proceed with the hearing of the case in the District Session Court, Purnea, in respect of the accused parties who were present for trial. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it is waiting for an implementation report by the Home Commissioner of the Government of Bihar, who has been requested to execute an earlier court order regarding the attachment of property and the arrest of the two absconding parties.

69. The Committee recalls the seriousness of this case of the murder of a trade unionist and expresses its deep concern regarding the excessive delay in court proceedings which amount to a denial of justice. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused parties present for trial (Mr. Bhirigunath Gupta, Mr. Rattan Ghosh, Mr. Papan Chaki and Mr. Narsingh Singh), and of developments regarding the arrest of the two absconding parties.

Case No. 1991 (Japan)

70. The Committee last examined this case concerning allegations of anti-union discrimination arising out of the privatization of the Japanese National Railways (JNR), at its June 2001 meeting (see 325th Report, paras. 40-43). The Committee had urged all parties concerned to accept the Four Party Agreement, which set out conditions aimed at encouraging negotiations between the Japan Railway companies (JR companies) and the complainants with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution rapidly which would ensure that the workers concerned who were dismissed as a consequence of the privatization were fairly compensated. Noting that KOKURO had finally accepted the Four Party Agreement of 30 May 2000 which offered a real possibility of speedily resolving the issue of non-hiring by the JRs, the Committee had urged all parties concerned to continue serious and meaningful negotiations with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution rapidly which would ensure that the dismissed workers concerned were fairly compensated.

71. In a communication dated 13 September 2001, the KOKURO indicates that little progress has been made in opening the negotiations between the JR companies and the unions despite the fact that KOKURO accepted the framework provided by the Four Party Agreement. The KOKURO explains that it persuaded its members and families to accept it mainly because the Freedom of Association Committee recommended it to do so. The KOKURO expresses its concern that the Four Party Agreement will lose its political value if further delays occur in starting the negotiations. The content of this communication was supported by the International Transport Workers' Federation in a communication of September 2001. In a communication dated 1 February 2002 the KENKORO-TETSUDOHONBU (formerly ZENORO) provides information regarding the non-implementation of the Committee's recommendations.

72. In a communication dated 10 October 2001, the Government explains that it convened the Four Parties' Consultation Committee on 15 March 2001. On that occasion, it was informed that during the national conference of KOKURO's Executive Committee in January 2001, the KOKURO adopted, on the one hand, activity guidelines in which it stated that "the JRs do not bear legal responsibility in the non-hiring cases", and, on the other hand, it claimed that "the Tokyo High Court decisions on this issue were unfair and that it would make every effort to have the Supreme Court hand down a justifiable decision". Moreover, according to the Government, some KOKURO members who are against the Four Party Agreement have formed a new organization and keep organizing activities against the Agreement. In view of the contradicting statements made by KOKURO, the Government explains that the JRs cannot trust KOKURO's statement that "the JRs bear no legal responsibility" as long as KOKURO does not take concrete measures to withdraw the lawsuits immediately. The ruling parties are now asking the KOKURO to consider this point. Finally, the Government states that while all parties concerned, including the KOKURO, are now carrying adjustments among themselves on the basis of the direction of the Agreement, the KOKURO's contradicting stance concerning the JR's legal responsibility explains why much progress has not yet been made on this matter.

73. The Committee takes note of this information. It regrets that since all parties agreed to the Four Party Agreement in May 2000, no real progress has been made since. The Committee observes that, when it last examined the case in June 2001, the Government had already made a reference to the activity guidelines adopted in January 2001 by KOKURO in which KOKURO had recognized that, the JRs bore no legal responsibility. The Committee agrees that if further delays occur in starting the negotiations, the Four Party Agreement could lose its value. Therefore, the Committee once again urges all parties concerned, including the Government, to start, without any further delays, serious and meaningful negotiations with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution rapidly, which would ensure that the dismissed workers concerned are fairly compensated. The Committee once again requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress in this regard. The Committee further requests the Government to reply to the observations of KENKORO-TETSUDOHONBU contained in a communication dated 1 February 2002.

Case No. 2078 (Lithuania)

74. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in November 2001 when it noted with interest that the amendments to the Act on the Settlement of Collective Disputes ensuring participation of workers' and employers' organizations concerned in the determination of minimum services had been prepared and submitted to the social partners for their observations, and that the provisions of this Act had been included in the draft Labour Code which was also being discussed with the social partners (see 326th Report, paras. 99-101).

75. In its communication dated 21 December 2001, the Government indicates that the draft Labour Code, after comprehensive discussions with the social partners, was approved by the Tripartite Board of the Republic of Lithuania as well as by the Government and was submitted to Parliament for adoption. The Labour Code includes provisions concerning the regulation of collective disputes as well as provisions providing for consultation with the parties to a collective dispute for the determination of minimum services during a strike. Once the Labour Code will be in force, the old Law on Regulation of Collective Disputes will no longer be applicable.

76. The Committee takes note of this information with interest and requests the Government to provide it with a copy of the new Labour Code once it has been adopted by Parliament. The Committee draws this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

Case No. 2109 (Morocco)

77. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the dismissals of trade unionists following the establishment of a trade union office and acts of anti-union repression, at its November 2001 session (see 326th Report, paras. 107-109). The Committee had requested the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the ruling handed down by the relevant court - if it confirmed the labour inspectorate's decision that there had been a violation of freedom of association at the Fruit of the Loom company - was fully and effectively applied, and that the eight trade union officers were reinstated in their respective jobs without loss of pay and full compensation. The Committee had also requested the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning the behaviour of the Governor of the town of Salé, who had allegedly made statements against trade unions and acted in an anti-union manner, in particular with regard to trade union members of the Fruit of the Loom company in that town.

78. In a communication of 5 February 2002, the Government indicates that the court has not yet ruled on the two records entered by the Labour Inspectorate. As regards the eight workers who filed proceedings to obtain compensation for their unlawful dismissal, the Government states that the court has found in favour of one worker, ruling that he was entitled to a legal compensation of 3,000 dirhams (approximately US$250); another worker who had not sued the company has been reinstated in his post; and the court has yet to hand down its decision concerning the other six workers.

79. Finally, the Ministry of Employment has requested the relevant department to provide it with information regarding the anti-union behaviour of the Governor of the town of Salé.

80. The Committee takes note of this information. It observes that more than 18 months have elapsed since the dismissal of eight trade union officers, which the Labour Inspectorate declared unlawful. The Committee recalls in this respect that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination, and must ensure that such complaints be examined promptly. Substantive rules that may exist in national legislation are not sufficient if they are not backed up by effective procedures that ensure appropriate protection against such acts. Accordingly, the Committee requests once again the Government to keep it informed of the court ruling concerning the records entered by the Labour Inspectorate, and to provide it with the court decisions handed down in the proceedings filed by the workers to obtain compensation for unlawful dismissal, including the judgement concerning the worker who is said to have received a compensation of 3,000 dirhams. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of measures actually taken concerning the allegations of anti-union behaviour by the Governor of the town of Salé.

Case No. 2009 (Mauritius)

81. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2001 meeting, on which occasion it had called upon the parties to come promptly to an agreement on all the modalities concerning the granting and use of time-off facilities to teachers' unions (see 324th Report, paras. 63-65).

82. In a communication dated 9 January 2002, the Government indicates that, on 1 June 2001, it decided that a committee chaired by the Ministry of Civil Service Affairs and comprising the Ministry of Education and Scientific Research would meet the relevant trade unions in order to reach an agreement on the issue of time-off facilities to teachers' unions. The Committee met with the Government's teachers' unions on 21 June 2001 and again on 7 January 2002. The teachers' unions expressed their appreciation that industrial relations had improved considerably and the Ministry of Education and Scientific Research had also been providing facilities to their members to attend workshops and seminars organized by the unions. It was also suggested that the Ministry could come to an understanding with the teachers' unions to grant time-off facilities for trade union activities in accordance with the Ministry's circular letter dated 7 June 1989 and that the principles laid down in the circular letter dated 8 May 1992, of the Head of the Civil Service, be respected. The Ministry also agreed to discuss the proposals put forward by the teachers' unions at the ministerial level and report back as soon as possible so that another meeting could be fixed for a satisfactory conclusion of the issue.

83. The Committee takes note of this information with interest and asks the Government to keep it informed of further developments in this matter.

Case No. 2106 (Mauritius)

84. The Committee examined this case at its June 2001 meeting (see 325th Report, para. 488) where it made the following recommendations. Noting that tripartite discussions were taking place concerning the pay increase for public servants, the Committee expressed its trust that constructive negotiations, for which the bargaining agent should have full access to information, would be held, taking fully into account the increase decided by the previous Government, and requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these discussions; the Committee also requested to be kept informed of the outcome of judicial proceedings filed against the cancellation of the pay increase. As regards the situation at the Rose Belle Sugar Estate, the Committee recommended that good faith bargaining resume on pending issues, with the bargaining agent being given full information on financial and other data enabling them to assess the situation in full knowledge of the facts, and requested the Government to keep it informed of developments.

85. The Government gave the following information in a communication of 24 August 2001:

- A national tripartite meeting, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance with the participation of various federations and confederations, including the complainants, took place in early May 2001. The unions were fully briefed on the economic situation of the country and, in spite of a difficult budgetary situation, constructive negotiations led to the granting of a 5 per cent salary compensation (higher than the current inflation rate of 4.4 per cent) to public servants in the lowest income group. The Government attaches the scale of salary increments granted, ranging from 2.62 per cent to 5 per cent.

- The Mauritius Labour Congress has been advised in writing that, should they wish to pursue their claim of Rs300 for public officers, this matter should be taken up with the Pay Research Bureau (PRB), as part of the ongoing review exercise of the public sector pay and grading structure. The Government points out that the claim for Rs300 was not one for compensation for loss of purchasing power; rather, that amount represented an interim measure pending the report of the Heeralall Committee, which had been appointed to look only in anomalies arising out of the 1998 PRB report. That report has been published and all its recommendations have been fully implemented.

- The Government has further agreed to pay an end-of-year bonus, representing one month's salary, to workers in both the public and private sectors. This bonus will henceforth become permanent under the End of Year Gratuity Act, which has been enacted by the National Assembly. This represents a major improvement in the conditions of service of both private and public sectors, since this payment will now be automatic, as opposed to the previous situation where it was decided annually whether that bonus would be paid.

- The Government also indicates its intention to hold monthly national tripartite meetings with social partners, to discuss labour-related issues and the socio-economic development of the country.

- Regarding the judicial proceedings mentioned in the complaint, the Government indicates that a notice of "mise en demeure" was indeed served on 4 October 2000 by the Federation of Civil Service Unions, requiring the Government to pay all officers an increase of Rs300, but that no lawsuit has been filed.

- The financial situation at the Rose Belle Sugar Estate is still precarious. Meetings are being held with neighbouring sugar factories with a view to closing it. Under section 24 of the Cane Planters and Millers Arbitration and Control Board Act, an application for closure must be made to the Minister of Agriculture at the latest by 15 October of any preceding crop year. In these circumstances, the Government does not consider it appropriate to enter into negotiations at this point. Once the situation is cleared, which should not take time in view of the statutory limitations, the negotiations will be carried out, taking into account the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee.

86. In a communication dated 12 October 2001, the FCSU states that there has been no development as regards the Rs300 interim pay increase and that the Government has refused all negotiations on this issue. It adds the following information:

- on 25 June 2001, the FCSU requested a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance; on 2 July 2001, the latter replied that a tripartite meeting had already taken place in May, where all issues were discussed, and that no further meeting was warranted; on 18 July, the FCSU replied to the Minister that the Rs300 issue was never raised at that meeting, whose only agenda was to discuss a salary compensation to compensate a rise in the Consumer Price Index (for the 2000-01 financial year); it never received any answer to its request for another meeting;

- the FCSU adds that workers' representatives merely make representations to the PRB and are never made aware of the Government's intentions and proposals as an employer; due to its present set up and mode of functioning, the PRB is not an appropriate forum where the parties could negotiate;

- furthermore, the National Tripartite Committee deals with the private sector, and never had anything to do with pay negotiations in the public sector;

- the FCSU concludes that the Government is disregarding a collective agreement, continues to refuse to pay the Rs300 increase and to hold negotiations, despite the Committee's recommendations, all of which is in violation of freedom of association principles.

87. In its communication of 16 November 2001, the Government reiterates some of the information provided in its communication of 21 August 2001, points out that it followed the Committee's recommendations by discussing the issues within the National Tripartite Commission, and provides the following additional information:

- two meetings were held in May 2001, where the unions were fully briefed on the economic situation; another meeting was held on 19 August 2001 under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, where all trade union federations were convened, to discuss budget implementation; the unions were given full opportunity to present their views, but the President of the FSCU did not attend the meeting;

- the Pay Research Bureau, set up in 1978 with the specific objective of fixing wages and conditions of employment in the public service, has fulfilled exactly that mandate since its creation. The PRB makes recommendations only after having consulted all parties concerned, mainly trade unions. The PRB conducts salary reviews every five years and has already started procedures for the next review, due in 2003. The Ministry of Finance has informed the Mauritius Labour Congress that it may take up the issue of the Rs300 with the PRB as part of that ongoing exercise;

- the Government is concerned about the negative impact of the 11 September events on the Mauritian economy and must exercise still greater caution in the management of the financial situation; it has decided to set up a National Economic and Social Council, which would include trade unions and other social partners to discuss broad economic and social policies and projects; the Bill providing for the establishment of the Council has been discussed with all partners concerned.

88. The Committee notes that, notwithstanding the parties' differing appreciation on the nature and extent of the consultations and discussions which were held, a national tripartite meeting took place, which led to salary increases being granted to public servants on a sliding scale in favour of the lowest-paid category of personnel. The Committee further notes that private and public sector workers alike will henceforth get a statutory yearly bonus, which complements the compensation package. Noting that no judicial proceedings have been filed concerning the claim for Rs300, which claim might be taken up with the PRB as part of the ongoing salary review exercise, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome, if any, of these PRB proceedings. Noting that the Government intends to take into account its previous conclusions and recommendations as regards the situation at the Rose Belle Sugar Estate, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect

Case No. 1880 (Peru)

89. At its March and November 2001 meetings, the Committee made the following recommendations on the remaining issues (see 326th Report, para. 132):

- the Committee requests the Government to carry out an investigation into the dismissal of trade union official, Mr. Barrueta Gomez, and if it is found to be based on anti-union motives, to reinstate him;

- the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final outcome of the proceedings concerning the dismissal of trade union leader Mr. Adrian Grispin.

90. In its communications of 24 January and 7 February 2002, the Government states that it will provide the information concerning Mr. Barrueta Gomez as soon as it will receive it from the judicial authorities. The Government also indicates that, on 23 November 2001, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the petition filed by Mr. Adrian Grispin against his dismissal was irreceivable (thus confirming the decisions of the lower courts).

91. The Committee notes that the Supreme Court of Justice ruled as irreceivable the petition filed by the trade union leader, Mr. Adrian Grispin, to have his dismissal declared null and void. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final court decision concerning the dismissal of trade union official Mr. Barrueta Gomez.

Case No. 2049 (Peru)

92. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in June 2001 (see 325th Report, paras. 510-523). On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to initiate an independent inquiry into the alleged acts of violence committed during the strike held in August 1999 against the workers of ENAFER S.A. and their families with a view to clarifying the effects, determining responsibility and punishing those responsible.

93. In communications dated 25 June, 27 August 2001 and 14 January 2002, the Government undertook to inform the Committee of the facts once it had obtained the information requested and it accepted the responsibility to avoid any excess of duty in acquiring this information, such as occurred during the situation in question. The Government also indicates that it has requested further information from ENAFER S.A. In addition the Government wishes that the complainant in this case (the CGTP) would submit a detailed list of the workers who were allegedly victims of the acts described above.

94. The Committee notes this information, while regretting that more than two years have passed since the alleged acts took place and that the Government still does not have concrete results of the inquiry, and requests that the necessary measures be taken without delay for the inquiry to be carried out and results forthcoming in the very near future.

Case No. 2059 (Peru)

95. The Committee last examined this case, concerning anti-trade union dismissals and practices, at its meeting in June 2001 (see 325th Report, paras. 74-77). On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government: (1) to confirm that Mr. Oliveros Martinez had been reinstated; (2) to carry out, as a matter of urgency, an inquiry into the alleged anti-union discrimination and intimidation perpetrated in the Banco Continental (allegations concerning pressure brought to bear on unionized workers to leave their union, the award of promotions or salary increases virtually exclusively to non-unionized workers, etc.); and (3) to guarantee the right of persons hired under training agreements to organize and to ensure that the employment conditions of these workers are covered by the collective agreements in force in the enterprises where they are employed.

96. In communications of 19 September 2001 and 11 January 2002, the Government indicates that (1) the Banco Continental lodged an appeal for annulment of the ruling against it to reinstate Mr. Oliveros Martinez, with remuneration of back wages, on 12 March 2001, and that this has not yet been dealt with by the Division for Constitutional and Labour Law of the High Court; (2) with regard to the allegations of anti-union discrimination, the Government will continue to prevent any anti-union discrimination and intimidation being perpetrated in the Banco Continental, just as it would prevent this occurring with any other employer, through agreement among the social partners, which is the aim of the National Labour and Promotion Council and by strengthening the supervisory system laid down in the General Law on Labour Inspection and Protection of Workers; and (3) the Banco Continental was asked its criteria for the award of promotions or salary increases to its employees, and to explain the measures it had taken concerning the allegations in this case.

97. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal to annul lodged by the Banco Continental with regard to the ruling on the dismissal of Mr. Oliveros Martinez. The Committee notes that with regard to the allegations of anti-union discrimination and intimidation at the Banco Continental, the Government does not indicate that an inquiry is being carried out but only that it had requested Banco Continental its own version of the facts. The Committee repeats its request that the Government carry out, as a matter of urgency, an inquiry into the alleged anti-union discrimination and intimidation perpetrated in the Banco Continental. With regard to persons hired under training agreements, the Committee notes that the Government does not specifically refer to its previous recommendations and, therefore, repeats its request that the right of these workers to organize be recognized and that they should be covered by the collective agreements in force in the enterprises where they are employed.

Case No. 1826 (Philippines)

98. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the exercise of trade union rights in the Danao Export Processing Zone and more particularly a certification election at Cebu Mitsumi Inc., at its November 2001 session (326th Report, paras. 136-139). On that occasion, the Committee had noted with regret that the certification election, when it finally took place after lengthy delays and several postponements, was marred by a number of irregularities, which led the Government to submit the case to a mediator-arbiter for "appropriate action". The Committee expressed the firm hope that the mediator-arbiter would rapidly issue a decision compatible with freedom of association principles, and requested the Government and the complainant to keep it informed of developments. The Committee further reiterated its request that the Government reconsider the relevant provisions, with a view to establishing a legislative framework allowing for a fair and speedy certification process, and providing adequate protection against acts of interference by employers in such matters. Finally, the Committee requested the Government, once again, to provide its observations concerning the suspension of Mr. Ulalan, president of the Cebu Mitsumi Employees' Union (CMEU).

99. In a communication dated 15 January 2002, the Government indicates that the certification dispute was submitted on 5 October 2001 to a mediator-arbiter, who is supposed to resolve the issue before 31 January 2002. The Government does not give any indication on the other issues.

100. The Committee recalls that this case, which dates back to March 1995, has been examined on no less than seven occasions (302nd Report, paras. 386-414; 305th Report, paras. 54-56; 308th Report, paras. 65-67; 316th Report, paras. 72-75; 323rd Report, paras. 72-74; 325th Report, paras. 78-80; 326th Report, paras. 136-139). In view of the lengthy delays, the Committee strongly hopes that the mediator-arbiter will issue very shortly a decision fully taking into account freedom of association principles; it requests the Government to provide it with a copy of that decision, and to keep it informed of developments. The Committee requests once again the Government to provide information on the suspension of Mr. Ulalan and on steps taken with a view to establishing an appropriate, fair and speedy certification procedure, providing adequate protection against acts of interference by employers in such matters.

Case No. 1914 (Philippines)

101. When it last examined this case at its November 2001 session (see 326th Report, paras. 140-142), which concerns dismissals of trade unionists further to strike action, detention of unionists and acts of violence against strikers, the Committee expressed its profound regret at the inordinately long delays already observed in this matter: six years since the first order for reinstatement (October 1995) of around 1,500 leaders of the Telefunken Semiconductors Employees' Union (TSEU); and four years since the Supreme Court had issued a decision (December 1997) ordering the immediate reinstatement, without exception, of all the TSEU workers concerned. While noting the decision issued by the Supreme Court on 18 December 2000, the Committee urged once again the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that all TSEU workers dismissed for their participation in strike action in September 1995 be immediately reinstated in their jobs under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike, with full compensation for lost jobs and benefits.

102. In its communication of 9 January 2002, the Government states that on 16 January 2001, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) received a copy of a Supreme Court decision dated 18 December 2000, dismissing the petition filed by the Telefunken Semiconductors Employees' Union-FFW and individual union members, Messrs. Danile Madara and Romeo Manayao, and affirming the appealed decision dated 23 December 1999. Aggrieved, the petitioner Union-FFW filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the case be remanded to the DOLE for reception of evidence. On 21 February 2001, the Supreme Court issued another resolution denying with finality the motions filed by petitioners. This prompted the petitioners to file a motion for Leave to Admit the attached second motion for reconsideration. The same was denied by the Supreme Court in a resolution dated 13 August 2001 with a directive that an entry of judgment be issued. On 20 October 2001, the petitioners filed an omnibus motion to vacate the decision with leave of court. As of date, the Department is awaiting the Supreme Court resolution on the omnibus motion or entry of judgment so that it can enforce the decision of the Supreme Court and, ultimately, close the case.

103. The Committee takes due note of this information. It notes however, with deep concern, that six-and-a-half years have elapsed since the anti-trade union dismissals (which took place in September 1995) and insists once again on the fact that justice delayed is justice denied. The Committee recalls that in December 1997, the Supreme Court had issued a decision ordering the immediate reinstatement, without exception, of all TSEU workers who had been dismissed following strike action in September 1995 and therefore urges once again the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that all these workers be immediately reinstated in their jobs under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or, if reinstatement is no longer a feasible solution due to the long period since the dismissal, that they be paid full compensation in this regard.

Case No. 2094 (Slovakia)

104. The Committee examined this case, which concerned amongst other things allegations regarding a legislation which would restrict the right to strike, at its November 2001 session (see 326th Report, paras. 478-493). On that occasion, it requested the Government to take full account of the principles of freedom of association in the drafting of the amendments of Act No. 2/1991, Collection of Laws on Collective Bargaining, and in particular with regard to section 17 of the Act. It also trusted that all the relevant amendments to the said Act would be adopted in the near future.

105. In a communication dated 11 February 2002, the Government indicates that it has taken full account of the principles of freedom of association in drafting the amendments to Act No. 2/1991, Collection of Laws on Collective Bargaining. In particular, the new section 17(8)(c) reads as follows: "The respective trade union shall notify the employer in writing at least three working days prior to the beginning of the strike with a list of the names of the representatives of the respective trade union authorized to represent the participants in the strike." The Government explains that the purpose of this provision is to identify who will represent the participants in the strike and with whom the negotiations will take place concerning questions related to the strike such as a negotiated minimum service in essential services, etc. The Government insists that this provision does not constitute discrimination against trade union representatives and recalls that protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union officials is provided by sections 13, 39, 74, 229 and 235 of the Labour Code (copies are enclosed). Finally, the Government indicates that the amendments to Act No. 2/1991 are reflected in Act No. 209/2001, Collection of Laws, which came into force on 1 January 2002 (copy of the new Act is also attached).

106. The Committee takes due note of this information.

Case No. 1581 (Thailand)

107. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2001 meeting when it expressed the hope that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act (SERLA), which had entered into force on 8 April 2002, and the draft Labour Relations Act would grant fully the right to organize and to bargain collectively to state enterprise employees and private sector employees respectively (see 325th Report, paras. 81-84). The Committee requested the Government to send a translated version of the SERLA which was received on 27 September 2001.

108. The Committee notes the Government's communication of 6 February 2002 concerning Labour Relations Act No. 3, which came into force on 17 November 2001. The Committee notes with interest that the Labour Relations Act grants state enterprise labour federations the right to join a labour confederation of the private sector. With regard to the SERLA, the Committee further notes with interest that it grants employees of state enterprises the right to form and join trade unions and federations, and bargain collectively. The Committee also notes with interest that the state enterprise employees' associations, which were barred from collective bargaining, are now replaced by trade unions.

109. The Committee notes, however, with regret a certain number of restrictions maintained by the SERLA concerning the right to organize. In particular, the Committee expresses its concern over the maintenance of a situation of trade union monopoly in state enterprises and certain measures of interference in trade union affairs. Section 40 of the Act explicitly prescribes a single-trade-union system: "each state enterprise shall have only one trade union", and section 80 provides for an offence, punishable by imprisonment or fine or both, for any person who runs or joins a non-registered trade union. Section 46 of the Act stipulates that, the Registrar shall register the first application for registration that is lodged and fulfils the requirements set out in the Act, on a first-come first-served basis; if there is more than one application with equal representation, the Registrar shall openly arrange a drawing of lots among the applicants and shall register the drawn trade union. The Committee considers that the restriction on the setting up of more than one workers' organization in the enterprise is clearly incompatible with the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, which implies in particular, the effective possibility to create - if workers so choose - more than one workers' organization per enterprise. Furthermore, measures taken against workers because they attempt to constitute an organization of workers outside the official trade union organization would be incompatible with the principle that workers should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 280 and 301). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislations to ensure that trade union pluralism remains possible and that employees remain free to choose to set up unions outside the already registered organization should they so wish.

110. The Committee further observes that under sections 45, 62, 63 and 66, the Registrar has broad discretion to oversee certain internal affairs of the trade union, both when they seek registration and in the exercise of their programmes and activities. Under section 45, the Registrar must be satisfied that the object of an applicant trade union is not against public order or morality, but this concept is not defined under the Act. Such a discretionary power of the Registrar is tantamount to requiring previous authorization of the administrative authorities (see Digest, op. cit., para. 260). The Committee requests the Government to take necessary measures in order to repeal this discretionary power of the Registrar. The Committee notes that section 62 appears to grant overly broad powers to the Registrar concerning access to trade union premises, financial accounts, etc. The Committee recalls in this respect that the control exercised by the public authorities over trade union finances should not normally exceed the obligation to submit periodic reports. The discretionary right of the authorities to carry out inspection and request information at any time entails a danger of interference in the internal administration of trade unions (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 442 and 443). As concerns powers of the Registrar to dissolve a trade union when it appears to him that the activities of the trade union jeopardize national security or economy, or are harmful to the public order or good morality (section 66), the Committee recalls that measures of dissolution by the administrative authority constitute serious infringement of the principles of freedom of association. The dissolution of trade union organizations is a measure which should only occur in extremely serious cases; such dissolutions should only happen following a judicial decision so that the rights of defence are fully guaranteed. The legislation should also provide that the administrative decision does not take effect until the judicial authority has ruled on the appeal made by the trade union organization concerned (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 664, 666 and 682).

111. The Committee also notes with regret that section 33 of the Act imposes a general prohibition of strikes and that penalties for strike action, even a peaceful strike action, are extremely severe: up to one year of imprisonment or a fine; or both for the participation in a strike action; and up to two years of imprisonment or a fine, or both for its instigation. The Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential legitimate means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests. The right to strike may only be restricted or prohibited in the following cases: (1) in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (2) in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population); or (3) in the event of an acute national emergency and for a limited period of time (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 474, 475, 526 and 527). As for the sanctions, the authorities should not resort to imprisonment in connection with the organization of or participation in a peaceful strike; such measures entail serious risks of abuses and are a grave threat to freedom of association (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 601 and 602).

112. The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the SERLA to bring it fully into conformity with the principles of freedom of association on these and other relevant points and to keep it informed of any developments in this respect. The Committee further hopes that draft amendments to the Labour Relations Act, presently under consideration by the Council of State, will fully ensure the right to organize and to bargain collectively to private sector employees. It requests the Government to send a copy of the additional proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act so that it may examine their conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

Case No. 2018 (Ukraine)

113. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting when it requested the Government to reply to the observations submitted by the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine in its communications dated 12 July and 23 August 2001 and to the information provided by the Independent Trade Union of Workers of the Ilyichevsk Maritime Commercial Port (the NPRP) in communications dated 7 August and 19 October 2001 (see 326th Report, paras. 158-164).

114. In its communications, the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine (to which the complainant is affiliated) took issue with the findings of the commission set up to investigate the complainants allegations in respect of anti-union discrimination at the Ilyichevsk Maritime Commercial Port. The Confederation submitted that the commission, despite the existence of documentary proof to the contrary, found that there had been no contraventions of labour or trade union law by the port management. It further alleged that the commission took into account only the port authorities' views and disregarded the trade union's views on the matter. The complainant organization (the NPRP) submitted further information concerning the violation of its collective bargaining rights. The NPRP, in a communication dated 7 August, alleges in particular that the management and the official trade union unilaterally drafted a new collective agreement, while at the same time, a conference of workers was convened by the order of the Director of the port in order to adopt the new draft. In its communication dated 19 October 2001, the NPRP further alleges that refusal by the Director of the port to conclude an agreement on the payment of trade union dues resulted in the freezing of the trade union bank account. Finally, it alleges that new criminal charges were brought against trade union leaders.

115. In a communication dated 9 November 2001, the Government, responding to the complainant's communication dated 7 August 2001, indicated that the matters raised there were examined by the Main Directorate for Labour and Social Protection of the Odessa regional administration, which carried out an on-site visit. Upon verification, it was found that negotiations on the extension of the current collective agreement for a new term had been opened at management's initiative. The presidents of the five trade unions active in the port were informed in advance of the date of the opening of negotiations. The leaders of the Independent Trade Union did not respond to this proposal by management and did not designate representatives for further participation in the meetings of the port trade unions and in negotiations. The Independent Trade Union was allocated three seats on the joint representative body. After a new collective agreement had been drafted, assemblies were held in the different units of the port to discuss the draft collective agreement. The commission set up to prepare the conference of workers included a representative of the Independent Trade Union, but he did not take part in its work. As concerns the information provided by the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine, the Government indicated that due to the absence of evidence confirming the Confederation's allegations, it cannot reply to the communications in question.

116. In communications dated 25 January and 5 February 2002, the Government indicated that in May 2001, the Ilyichevsk transport prosecutor concluded that an agreement between the port administration and the NPRP showed some signs of falsification, and that criminal proceedings in connection with this infringement were initiated against responsible officials of the trade union. The Government also indicated that the administration of the port assures that the question concerning the resumption of trade union dues will be decided after the court's decision on the mentioned criminal proceedings.

117. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the allegations of the violation of collective bargaining rights. Noting that these allegations concern the bringing of new criminal cases against the president of the NPRP, the Committee once again recalls the importance it attaches to the principle that allegations of criminal conduct should not be used to harass trade unionists by reason of their union membership or activities (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 43). It also wishes to recall that trade unions leaders, like anyone else, should benefit from normal judiciary proceedings and that respect for due process of the 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 NPRP carried out with diligence and requests to be kept informed of developments.

Case No. 2014 (Uruguay)

118. The Committee last examined this case, relating to anti-union measures during collective bargaining and disciplinary measures against trade union officials and workers, at its March 2001 meeting (see 324th Report, paras. 912-926). On this occasion, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that the disciplinary measures against the three trade union officials for holding information meetings at Plant No. 3 in Canelones were immediately revoked, that the trade union officials were allowed reasonable access to the workplace and, in their abovementioned capacity, to effectively carry out their mandate unhindered to further and defend the interests of workers, and that the workers of CONAPROLE were allowed freely to express their opinions, without fear of intimidation or risk of reprisal by their employers.

119. In its communication of 23 August 2001, the Government indicates that the complainant organization did not provide the identities of the trade union officials who had been subjected to disciplinary measures for holding information meetings, that the right to hold information meetings in the enterprise is linked to these taking place during rest periods and that Convention No. 98 refers to participation in union activities, with the consent of the employers, within working hours. With regard to those allegations relating to restrictions on the right to reasonable access to the workplace for trade union officials in the plants, the Labour Inspectorate will be carrying out inquiries. Finally, with regard to intimidation of employees who freely express their opinions, the Government indicates that it is unaware of the veracity of the alleged acts and that it will refrain from pronouncing on the situation until the parties have presented their cases.

120. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the inquiry carried out by the Labour Inspectorate into the alleged restrictions on trade union officials in their access to the workplace.

Case No. 1952 (Venezuela)

121. In its last examination of this case in November 2000, the Committee noted that the Government had not sent any information relating to the matter of the effective payment of the wage arrears of the firefighters (officers and members of SINPROBOM of the Eastern Fire Brigade) corresponding to the period during which they were dismissed and requested the Government to provide information in this respect (see 323rd Report, para. 101). These persons had been reinstated in their jobs.

122. In its communications dated 16 and 28 August and 26 September 2001, SINPROBOM alleges that the Government attempted to adopt a decree with the scope and force of law on the exercise of the function of firefighters' brigades (a copy of the draft was transmitted with their communications). This decree aims at eliminating trade union rights by linking this brigade with the defence and security of the nation and provides for the dissolution of firefighters' trade unions within 180 days. Moreover, the complainant alleges that an anti-union campaign has begun with a view towards restricting the rights of the firefighters of the Eastern Fire Brigade, the Fire Brigade of Guacara, San Joaquín and Mariara, and the Municipal Autonomous Fire Brigade Institute of Valencia to join the workers' organization of their own choosing. The complainant further alleges the dismissal of a member of the executive committee of the Fire Brigade Union of Valencia (Emerson Ochoa) brigade in which the employer opposes collective bargaining and in which regular transfers of union officers occur with anti-union motives. The complainant also alleges that the state of Yaracuy maintains a campaign of hostility and disparagement in respect of the Fire Brigade Foundation of this state and, by means of a new law of 22 December 2001, has excluded firefighters from the right to organize and to bargain collectively.

123. In its communication of 15 October 2001, in reply to the Committee's request for information, the Government refers to steps taken for the rehiring of Tomas Arencebia, Juan Bautista Medina, Rubén Gutiérrez, Ignacio Díaz and Plácido Gutiérrez, unjustifiably dismissed from the Eastern Fire Brigade, while they were protected by trade union immunity and should have been untransferrable. The Government also refers to the employer's request to annul the administrative order for reinstatement and payment of loss of wages, as well as the summons given on 14 and 20 August 1997 by the local prefecture, under warning of imprisonment. On these specifics, the Government indicates that the new Venezuelan Constitution provides a new basic labour standard process, with the aim of confirming the reinstatement orders. The Government adds that the Supreme Court rendered a judgement on 2 August 2001 according to which the administrative courts will be responsible for reviewing the abovementioned causes as well as the recourse for judicial protection (amparo) in the case of non-compliance with the reinstatement order, all with the aim of ensuring that the administrative decision for reinstatement does not become illusory. The Government indicates that it will give the necessary follow-up to these matters and keep the Committee informed.

124. As concerns the collective rights of the fire-fighting personnel of the Eastern Fire Brigade, the Government indicates that, on 16 and 28 August 2001, SINPROBOM denounced some government conduct which it considered to be in the context of measures of anti-union discrimination (they refer to the mayors' offices which cover the communities of Eastern Caracas: Chacao, Baruta and Sucre), as well as artificial situations in respect of the supposed deficit which hinders a concession on the benefits requested in the draft collective agreement and attacks from the mayors' offices aimed at weakening trade union association. The Government underlines, on the other hand, that the complainant recognizes the good offices of the Minister of Labour and the Public Defender, while the eastern labour inspectorate recognized trade union rights, protection against anti-union discrimination and collective bargaining.

125. The Government considers the complainant's request to the Committee to condemn the State for violation of Convention No. 87 out of context and disproportionate, given that the State itself, through the Minister of Labour, is trying to ensure that the collective rights violated in this case may be fully exercised.

126. Finally, as concerns the draft decrees with force of law, the Government states that, by means of a highly responsible examination of the concrete national reality, a series of measures and drafts have been put in place aimed at raising the concept of citizen security, the living standard of the population and the protection of the national interest, without forgetting collective labour rights and even envisaging their improvement. In this respect, the Government will ensure that these texts are drafted with special attention to these rights. It reiterates its firm intention to count on the Committee's collaboration and assistance in the aspects concerning freedom of association and their appropriate application.

127. The Committee deplores the fact that, according to the Government's indication, the officers and members of SINPROBOM have not yet obtained the lost wages corresponding to the period when they were dismissed (since 1997). The Committee notes with concern that the employer has appealed against the reinstatement of the trade union officers and the payment of their wages. The Committee insists that the Government ensure that these wages are paid and that the employment relationship of these officers and members affiliated to SINPROBOM continues. It requests the Government to keep it informed of all court judgements in this respect.

128. The Committee notes the Government's statement concerning the draft decrees on the exercise of the function of firefighters' brigades and, more specifically, that it will ensure that the drafts are drawn up in a manner not to restrict freedom of association. The Committee would nevertheless point out with deep concern that the draft transmitted by the complainant provides for the dissolution of the firefighters' trade union and the creation of an association controlled by the employers' representatives. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls its previous recommendation requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee in law and in practice the right of firefighters to organize and to bargain collectively (see 310th Report, Case No. 1952, para. 608). The Committee urges the Government to keep it informed of the evolution of the situation.

129. The Committee further requests the Government to reply in detail to the following allegations:

(a) the anti-union campaign to hinder the right of the firefighters of the Eastern Fire Brigade, the Fire Brigade of Guacara, San Joaquín and Mariara, and the Municipal Autonomous Fire Brigade Institute of Valencia to join the workers' organization of their own free choice;

(b) the dismissal of a member of the executive committee of the union of the Fire Brigade of Valencia (Emerson Ochoa) and the regular transfer of trade union leaders for anti-union motives; and

(c) the campaign of harassment and disparagement in respect of the Fire Brigade of Yaracuy and the promulgation of the Act of December 2001 which excludes firefighters from the right to organize and to bargain collectively.

Case No. 1937 (Zimbabwe)

130. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in November 2001 when it once again recalled the need 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 (see 326th Report, paras. 171-173).

131. In a communication dated 9 January 2002, the Government states that the Labour Amendment Bill is currently before Parliament and that labour and employers had an opportunity to present their positions on its contents in December 2001.

132. The Committee takes due note of the Government's indication and requests it to transmit a copy of the Bill so that the Committee may examine its conformity with freedom of association principles and its previous recommendation concerning the Labour Relations Act.

Case No. 2027 (Zimbabwe)

133. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting in which it once again requested the Government to: (1) establish a thorough and independent inquiry into the assault on Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai and the arson of the ZCTU offices; (2) provide a copy of the high court judgement concerning the case brought by the ZCTU concerning the temporary ban on industrial action issued in November 1998; and (3) to keep it informed on the state of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill of 1999.

134. In a communication dated 9 January 2002, the Government reiterates that the assault case concerning Mr. Tsvangirai was handled through the ordinary courts of law and the alleged assailant was acquitted. Given the competency of the courts to deal with issues of common assault, it is difficult if not impossible to set up an independent inquiry into this matter. Such a precedent would result in everyone calling for the establishment of an independent inquiry if the outcome from the court proceedings is not in his or her favour. As concerns the arson of the ZCTU offices, the Government states that the investigations are still pending with the police. The Government also states that it is not aware of any court judgement concerning a temporary ban on industrial action in November 1998, but that it will liase with both the ZCTU and the High Court in respect of this matter and keep the Committee informed. Finally, the Government states that the Labour Amendment Bill is currently before the Parliament.

135. The Committee takes note of this information. It regrets that the Government maintains its previous position concerning the case of assault against Mr. Tsvangirai. As concerns the precedent complained of by the Government if it were to open an independent investigation into this matter, the Committee considers that the acquittal of the alleged assailant is not a question of a favourable or unfavourable outcome, but is rather an indication that the necessary inquiry has not yet been made to uncover the facts in this case. The Committee would therefore once again urge the Government immediately to take the necessary measures to institute an independent investigation into this matter and to keep it informed of the outcome, as well as the outcome of the investigation into the arson of the ZCTU offices. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in the amendments to the Labour Relations Act and to keep it informed of any further information it may receive concerning the ZCTU case before the High Court.

Case No. 2081 (Zimbabwe)

136. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting (see 326th Report, paras. 177-179) and on that occasion requested the Government to continue to keep it informed of any measures taken to amend section 120(2) of the Labour Relations Act of 1985.

137. In a communication dated 9 January 2002, the Government indicates that the only process which will result in either the amendment of section 120(2) of the Labour Relations Act or its retention is the debate in Parliament of the Labour Amendment Bill. The Bill is currently before Parliament.

138. The Committee trusts that section 120(2) of the Labour Relations Act of 1985 will be amended in line with freedom of association principles, including those enunciated in its conclusions during its first examination of this case (see 323rd Report, paras. 567-570). It requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the Parliamentary debate on the Labour Amendment Bill.

139. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1769 (Russian Federation), 1785 (Poland), 1796 (Peru), 1813 (Peru), 1851 (Djibouti), 1890 (India), 1922 (Djibouti), 1942 (China/Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), 1953 (Argentina), 1963 (Australia), 1973 (Colombia), 1989 (Bulgaria), 1996 (Uganda), 2006 (Pakistan), 2012 (Russian Federation), 2022 (New Zealand), 2031 (China), 2037 (Argentina), 2042 (Djibouti), 2043 (Russian Federation), 2047 (Bulgaria), 2048 (Morocco), 2052 (Haiti), 2053 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2056 (Central African Republic), 2058 (Venezuela), 2065 (Argentina), 2067 (Venezuela), 2072 (Haiti), 2075 (Ukraine), 2089 (Costa Rica), 2091 (Romania), 2100 (Honduras) and 2102 (Bahamas), 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. 1843 (Sudan), 1877 (Morocco), 1925 (Colombia), 1938 (Croatia), 1961 (Cuba), 1965 (Panama), 1972 (Poland), 2076 (Peru) and 2113 (Mauritania), which it will examine at its next meeting.