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 30 and 31 May, and 7 June, under the chairmanship of Professor Paul van der Heijden.

2. The members of Japanese, Mexican and Venezuelan nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to Japan (Cases Nos. 2114 and 2139), Mexico (Case No. 2136) and Venezuela (Cases Nos. 2160 and 2161) respectively.

3. Currently, there are 95 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for their observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 23 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 16 cases and interim conclusions in seven cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

4. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the examination of the following cases: Nos. 2179 (Guatemala), 2180 (Canada), 2182 (Canada), 2183 (Japan), 2184 (Zimbabwe), 2185 (Russian Federation), 2186 (China), 2187 (Guyana), 2188 (Bangladesh), 2189 (China), 2191 (Venezuela), 2192 (Togo), 2193 (France), 2194 (Guatemala), 2195 (Philippines), 2196 (Canada), 2197 (South Africa), 2198 (Kazakhstan), 2199 (Russian Federation), 2200 (Turkey), 2201 (Ecuador), 2202 (Venezuela), 2203 (Guatemala), 2204 (Argentina), 2205 (Nicaragua) and 2206 (Nicaragua), 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

5. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the following cases: Nos. 1865 (Republic of Korea), 1962 (Colombia), 2105 (Paraguay), 2127 (Bahamas), 2130 (Argentina), 2132 (Madagascar), 2134 (Panama), 2138 (Ecuador), 2157 (Argentina), 2162 (Peru), 2166 (Canada), 2168 (Argentina), 2170 (Iceland), 2171 (Sweden), 2172 (Chile), 2173 (Canada), 2176 (Japan) and 2177 (Japan).

Partial information received from governments

6. In Cases Nos. 1888 (Ethiopia), 1986 (Venezuela), 2088 (Venezuela), 2096 (Pakistan), 2097 (Colombia), 2103 (Guatemala), 2111 (Peru), 2144 (Georgia), 2153 (Algeria), 2169 (Pakistan) and 2178 (Denmark), 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

7. As regards Cases Nos. 1948 (Colombia), 1955 (Colombia), 2046 (Colombia), 2079 (Ukraine), 2090 (Belarus), 2123 (Spain), 2131 (Argentina), 2150 (Chile), 2151 (Colombia), 2159 (Colombia), 2163 (Nicaragua), 2174 (Uruguay), 2175 (Morocco), 2181 (Thailand) and 2190 (El Salvador), the Committee has received the governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting.

Urgent appeals

8. As regards Cases Nos. 2133 (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), 2140 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and 2154 (Venezuela), 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.

Request for a direct contacts mission

9. At its March 2002 meeting, the Committee had asked the Government of Venezuela to agree to the extension of the mandate of the direct contacts mission requested 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), which was mainly limited to legislative aspects, so that it could cover all cases currently pending before the Committee (Nos. 1986, 2088, 2154, 2160, 2161 and 2191). In a communication dated 11 April 2002, the Government announced its decision not to extend the mandate of the mission. The Committee deplores this decision, which demonstrates a clear lack of cooperation on the part of the Government in the special procedure for the examination of complaints concerning violations of freedom of association. It notes that the mission requested by the Committee on the Application of Standards took place from 6 to 10 May 2002

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

10. The Committee has requested its Chairperson to hold consultations during the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2002 with the Government delegation of Chad, due to its lack of cooperation in respect of the special procedure on the examination of complaints concerning violations of freedom of association, and the Government delegation of Morocco, because of the numerous complaints brought against it involving unsettled collective labour disputes, in order to examine the possibilities of technical assistance or other appropriate measures to overcome these respective difficulties. The Committee further recalls that, at its meeting in March 2002, it had requested its Chairperson to hold consultations with the Government delegation of Canada.

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

11. The Committee once again 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. It also draws the Governing Body's attention to the pending cases concerning Venezuela because of the Government's refusal to extend the mandate of the direct contacts mission to these cases, as well as on the cases concerning Croatia (Case No. 1938) and Cuba (Case No. 1961) in which the governments have not yet given effect to the Committee's recommendations.

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

12. The Committee draws the legislative aspects of the following cases to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: Colombia (Case No. 2068), Japan (Case No. 2114) and Uruguay (Case No. 2087).

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

Case No. 1963 (Australia)

13. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns actions related to the 1998 waterfront dispute affecting workers in stevedoring operations at various Australian ports, at its November 2002 meeting. It requested the Government to continue to provide information on relevant court proceedings (326th Report, paras. 11-12). In a communication dated 3 May 2002, the Government states that the two related suits filed against one of the companies involved (Container Terminal Management Services Ltd.) have been completed, one action (McKellar and Murray v. CMTS) being stayed by reason of the applicant's bankruptcy, and the other one (Batten and Grahame v. CMTS) being concluded by an out-of-court settlement.

14. Recalling that the legislative issues concerning this case are now being dealt with by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the Committee takes note of this information.

Case No. 2083 (Canada/New Brunswick)

15. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the rights of association and collective bargaining of casual workers, at its March 2002 session, and requested to be kept informed of developments (327th Report, paras. 39-41).

16. In a communication dated 16 April 2002, the Government of New Brunswick states that it is continuing its survey of the education and hospital sectors in other Canadian jurisdictions in order to ascertain how they address the situation of casual employees, and that replies have been received from 17 of the 28 jurisdictions surveyed.

17. While taking note of this information, the Committee points out that, irrespective of how other Canadian jurisdictions may address this issue, casual workers should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and to bargain collectively. The Committee expresses, once again, the hope that the Government will take rapidly the necessary legislative measures, and requests it to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

Case No. 2141 (Chile)

18. The Committee examined this case at its March 2002 meeting, and on that occasion:

- expressed the hope that the judicial proceedings initiated in relation to the death of Mr. Luis Lagos and the serious injuries sustained by Mr. Donaldo Zamora during the strike held in the FABISA enterprise will determine those responsible and be concluded rapidly and that, in the event that it is determined that a crime has been committed, the guilty persons will be sanctioned; and

- requested the Government to endeavour to ensure that the agreement to review the situation of the workers who participated in the strike held in the FABISA enterprise between 26 April and 14 June 2001 is respected, that the situation of the workers dismissed after the agreement was reached is reviewed, and if it is found that they were dismissed for exercising their legitimate trade union activities, to take effective measures to ensure that they are reinstated. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken in this respect (see 327th Report, paras. 312-326).

19. In a communication dated 27 March 2002, the Government states that:

(a) the judicial proceedings filed under No. 1086-3 with the 18th Criminal Court of Santiago, against the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident leading to the death of the worker Mr. Luis Lagos and injuring Mr. Donaldo Zamora, are now in the pre-trial investigation stage. The driver faces charges of homicide and causing serious injury and has been released on bail for the payment of a sum of money; and

(b) the FABISA enterprise, employer of the dismissed workers, in spite of the good offices of the Labour Directorate, represented by the Regional Labour Director of the Metropolitan Region, did not fulfil its commitment to review the dismissals of the workers with a view to their reinstatement but, on the contrary, dismissed them for reasons that removed their entitlement to compensation. Legal action concerning possible anti-union practices at the time of the events should have been taken by the persons affected, but they failed to take the issue to the competent judicial authorities. In this respect, it should be noted that, through the reforms introduced by Law No. 19759, the legislation concerning anti-union practices has been amended, giving the Labour Directorate the power to take a more active role when it becomes aware of situations or activities that could be classed as anti-union practices. The law provides an obligation for the Directorate to investigate, ex officio or at the request of an interested party, the facts at its disposal and, if appropriate, to transfer them to the competent judicial authority. It shall also enclose the report of the Inspectorate, which constitutes a significant procedural improvement in comparison with previous legislation. Moreover, it is provided with the power to become a party, if it considers it necessary, in trials pertaining to this issue. The recent legal amendments also establish a new judicial procedure for examining cases concerning anti-union and unfair practices, designed to speed up proceedings, to the benefit of the workers concerned. A significant increase in the fines imposed to sanction anti-union practices, which will consist of sums of between 10 and 150 monthly tax units, will act as a disincentive to discrimination. These labour reforms will have a positive impact on labour relations, discouraging practices that hinder the effective exercise of trade union rights and collective negotiation, and enhancing the protection offered to those concerned.

20. Taking note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings under way concerning the death of Mr. Luis Lagos and the serious injuries sustained by Mr. Donaldo Zamora during the strike held in the FABISA enterprise in May 2001. Moreover, the Committee deeply regrets that the FABISA enterprise has failed to respect the agreement to review the dismissals of 23 workers following the strike. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to carry out an investigation concerning these dismissals and, if it is found that the workers were dismissed for exercising their trade union activities, to take all necessary measures within its power to ensure that they are reinstated. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1925 (Colombia)

21. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting (326th Report, paras. 47-48). It noted on that occasion that a negotiation meeting had been held on 13 February 2001 between AVIANCA and SINTRAVA under the auspices of the Labour Ministry and that, as a result, the complainant organization would submit an agreement proposal to AVIANCA. The Committee requested the Government to continue to keep it informed of progress achieved in the negotiations.

22. In a communication of 25 September 2001, the National Trade Union of AVIANCA workers (SINTRAVA) refers once more to the large numbers of workers dismissed by AVIANCA in 1993 (more than 400) and objects to the judgements of the Supreme Court of Justice, which has not ruled that these workers should be reinstated in their jobs. In a communication of 21 January 2002, the Government states that article 113 of the Political Constitution provides for the separation of powers, which means that the decisions made by judges and superior courts which are the judiciary branch must be recognized and accepted by the other public branches; therefore, the Government cannot interfere in the abovementioned court decisions which emanate from another branch. The Government adds that the workers of AVIANCA have enjoyed all the guarantees of due process and right to an adequate defence; they have used all the recourses they were entitled to in each of the instances, which have been settled in conformity with the law.

23. The Committee notes this information. It requests the Government to keep it informed on the results of the negotiation process undertaken in February 2001 under the auspices of the Labour Ministry.

Case No. 1938 (Croatia)

24. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the division of assets and property owned by trade unions before the Second World War, at its November 2001 meeting (see 326th Report, paras. 70-72). The Committee requested the Government, inter alia, to rapidly determine the criteria for the division of assets and property and to provide it with substantive information on developments in this respect.

25. In a communication dated 25 February 2002, the Government indicates that the New Associations Act (Narodne novine, No. 88/01) entered into force on 1 January 2002. However, the provisions of the act concerning division of assets are not applicable to workers' organizations, which are still governed by article 38 of the old Associations Act.

26. The Government also insists on the fact that a working meeting was held on 5 December 2001 with representatives of namely five trade union confederations and the Ministry of Justice, Public Administration and Local Self-Government. During the meeting, the Government's representatives expressed the opinion that an appropriate act should determine the transfer of all the trade unions' immovable assets. Following the meeting, the Government requested the trade union confederations to submit to the Office for Social Partnership a complementary list of assets and their observations on the principles regarding the criteria for the division of such assets.

27. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. The Committee notes that the trade unions have not yet reached agreements between themselves and regrets that neither negotiations nor agreement have taken place to determine clearly the division of the assets. Furthermore, the Committee notes that no specific time frame has been scheduled for the division and transfer of the assets. The Committee notes with regret that no significant progress has been made to date, more than four years after the filing of the complaint. Recalling that the transmission of trade union assets is an extremely serious issue for the viability and free functioning of trade unions, the Committee urges, once again, the Government to determine the criteria for the division of assets in consultation with the workers' organizations and to fix a specific time frame for completing the division of the property. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 1961 (Cuba)

28. As part of the follow-up to the recommendations in this case, which was presented by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), in a communication dated 8 December 2000 the WCL presented new specific allegations concerning detentions of journalists and members of the Single Council of Cuban Workers (CUTC), obstruction of the functioning and activities of the latter organization (holding of a congress), attacks on freedom of expression, intimidation and threats. The Government replied in general terms to these allegations in a communication dated 16 September 2001. At its November 2001 meeting, the Committee requested the Government to reply specifically to each of the allegations presented by the WCL (see 326th Report, paras. 73-74).

29. The WCL indicates in its communication of 8 December 2000 that, in previous communications to the Committee on Freedom of Association, it has described the restrictions placed by the Government on freedom of association in Cuba, consisting of repeated acts of harassment, detention and blacklisting, and in particular the fact that there are no independent unions in Cuba and no freedom of association outside the official trade union established by the Government. Furthermore, it has repeatedly drawn attention to the systematic harassment and persecution of CUTC leaders, in their legitimate exercise of trade union activities.

30. The WCL adds that the Single Council of Cuban Workers (CUTC) - affiliated to the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) - set the dates for a congress to be held on 20 and 21 October 2000 and began to make the relevant preparations during the first week of August 2000. The Department of State Security (DSE) renewed its harassment of CUTC members, with a view to preventing a second preparatory meeting, due to be held on 8 August, from taking place. Some leaders were detained, while some remained under house arrest and others were intercepted as they reached the meeting place and forced to go back to their homes under threat of arrest. Despite these acts of repression and interference in trade union activities, the CUTC confirmed that its congress would go ahead on 20 and 21 October. For example, in October, Mr. Sixto Rolando Calero (delegate for Camagüey Province) and his wife were detained and their documents confiscated, in a police operation ordered by the chief state security official in Esmeralda District.

31. According to the WCL, the CUTC planned to organize a press conference at 11 a.m. on Friday, 13 October 2000, with a view to giving public notice of its intention to hold a congress. Before it took place, early in the morning of 12 October, state security agents arrested Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos, general secretary of the CUTC, as he was leaving home. He was later released in the evening of the same day. While he was under arrest, security agents attempted to coerce him into abandoning both the plans to hold a press conference on the following day, and the preparations for the congress. On the morning of 13 October, Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos and his colleagues travelled to the place where the press conference was due to be held at 11 a.m. (627 calle San Francisco, between 12 and 13 October, 10 de Octubre District, Havana Province), but found it completely surrounded by state security agents. Once again, Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos was arrested, detained by security agents and taken to Detention Centre No. 10 in the same district. The security forces also confiscated the trade union documents he was carrying with him, as well as a Cuban flag. On the same morning of 13 October, Ms. Gladys Linares Blanco, another leading CUTC official, and her husband, Mr. Humberto Mones Lafita, the owners of the house in which the press conference was due to take place, were arrested. Another of the CUTC leaders detained during this wave of repression was Mr. Carmelo Agustín Días Fernández, who was also a representative of the independent press intending to cover the conference. Numerous journalists from the independent press on their way to attend the press conference were stopped by security agents and forced to turn back. For instance, in Güines, Mr. Pedro Pablo Hernández Mijares and Mr. Víctor Rolando Arroyo (a well-known independent journalist from Pinar del Río) were detained as they travelled to the capital. During their detention, they were beaten and subsequently taken to the western province of Pinar del Río. Eventually, they were released and abandoned at the roadside between Guanajay and Artemisa.

32. On Friday night, all of the CUTC leaders detained at Detention Centre No. 10, in Havana, were released, except for Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos. According to information received by the WCL, Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos was arrested under Order No. 0999-2000 for resisting arrest. However, Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos offered no resistance to the security forces on either of the occasions he was arrested, despite the fact that the arrests constituted clear violations of his most basic human rights. He was singled out simply because he was trying to organize, by peaceful means, a trade union congress, official notice of which had already been given to the authorities.

33. In its communication of 14 September 2001, the Government, with regard to the alleged detention of various persons carrying out trade union activities referred to in the complaint, states that inquiries have shown that none of the persons mentioned in the document are in prison, and that all of them are living comfortably at home, undisturbed by the "security forces", as the WCL alleges. The persons concerned are described by the WCL as "leaders or unionists". Yet the Government points out that this supposed trade union organization has never proven its involvement in any union activity, in any recognized workplace. In the absence of a labour relations framework, it is impossible to describe the persons concerned as union representatives, given that they neither represent nor lead any body of workers in any of the recognized workplaces throughout the country. In Cuba, 98 per cent of the workforce are affiliated to central trade union organizations which group together 19 national sectoral unions. In response to the doubts cast by the WCL on the freedom of workers to establish trade unions of their own choosing, there are 19 national sectoral trade unions in Cuba, all freely established by the workers, which were neither imposed by law, nor introduced by force, pressure, repression or violence from the public authorities.

34. This mass, widespread trade union activity takes place without any interference, repression or coercion. Thus, public freedoms are recognized, protected and exercised in accordance with the law.

35. Article 14 of the Labour Code establishes "the right of workers to meet, discuss and freely express their views on all issues or matters affecting them".

36. Responding to the allegations concerning freedom of expression, the Government states that the aforementioned trade union activity presents a wide range of channels for the exercise of freedom of expression by workers and their legitimate leaders in all trade union, business and administrative structures - channels that are recognized and protected by the Constitution and the Labour Code.

37. The ILO monitoring bodies have repeatedly stated the importance of assessing the practical application of ratified Conventions, therefore it would be inappropriate for the Committee to ignore the reality and practical application of trade union rights in Cuba, by focusing solely on cases derived from the unreliable testimony of individuals who have flouted the law and have no connection with genuine trade union activity in the country.

38. In its communication of 20 February 2002, the Government further states that the persons named in the communication from the WCL have failed to prove their involvement in any trade union activity. In the absence of a labour relations framework, it is impossible to describe the persons concerned as union representatives, given that they neither represent nor lead any body of workers in any of the recognized workplaces throughout the country.

39. The allegation presented by the WCL that trade unions in Cuba were founded by the Government is false; the WCL ignores the fact that, following a long process of unification dating back to the nineteenth century, the Central Organization of Cuban Workers was established in 1938 by the workers themselves, rather than being imposed by law. It was subsequently endorsed by all trade union congresses. There is no climate of violence, pressure or intimidation in Cuba, as is demonstrated by the workers' participation in the aforementioned trade union activities, and by the rate of union membership, which stands at 98 per cent. The arrest of unionists or trade union leaders does not occur. In Cuba 98 per cent of the workforce are members of trade unions of their own choosing. The right to form or to join trade unions freely and without prior authorization is guaranteed by article 13 of the Labour Code. Allegations concerning acts of violence or the existence of blacklists such as those presented by the WCL are totally false; in fact, the persons referred to by the WCL are attempting to use the argument of their supposed union membership in order to flout the law. These individuals do not represent any body of workers, have not been elected in any workplace, and have failed to furnish proof, at any time during the examination of the case by the Committee on Freedom of Association, of their involvement in trade union activities.

40. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, none of the persons referred to in the complaint are in prison. The Committee further notes that the Government contends that the persons concerned have failed to prove their involvement in any trade union activity, questions their status as "leaders or trade unionists", describes the CUTC as a "supposed" trade union organization and asserts that these persons neither represent nor lead any body of workers, and have failed to furnish proof of their involvement in trade union activities. In this regard, the Committee stresses that the CUTC is affiliated to CLAT and WCL, international trade union organizations, that over 400 signatures of Cuban workers are contained in the annexes to the membership application to the WCL (sent by the complainant), and that the annexes also include a communication sent by the CUTC in 1995 to the Register of Inscriptions of the Ministry of Justice, seeking "to be entered in the corresponding register of inscriptions" and subsequently mentioning four workplaces; the Committee also points out that the allegations by the WCL relate to events surrounding the organization of a national congress. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the arrest of unionists or trade union leaders does not occur, and the allegations concerning acts of violence or the existence of blacklists are totally false. The Committee is bound to note nonetheless that the Government has not referred specifically to the detention or arrest of Mr. Sixto Rolando Calero and his wife, Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos (several times), Ms. Gladys Linares Blanco and Mr. Humberto Mones Lafito (her husband), Mr. Carmelo Agustín Díaz Fernández and Mr. Pedro Pablo Hernández Mijares, all of whom, according to the WCL, were trade union members or leaders, detained in the circumstances described by the complainant, or to that of the journalist, Mr. Víctor Rolando Arroyo. The Committee is therefore bound to regret deeply these detentions, as well as the ill-treatment suffered by the persons named by the WCL.

41. Furthermore, the Committee is bound to note that the Government still refuses to recognize the CUTC, in spite of the fact that more than six years have elapsed since it requested official registration, and requests the Government to ensure that the CUTC can operate freely and that the authorities refrain from any interference such as restricting the organization's fundamental rights. The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that "the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing implies, in particular, the effective possibility of forming, in a climate of full security, organizations independent both of those which exist already and of any political party" and that "the detention of trade union leaders or members for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, paras. 273 and 71).

42. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Government failed to reply explicitly to other specific acts allegedly committed by the authorities in order to prevent the national congress of the CUTC from taking place (harassment of CUTC members, threats of arrest, confiscation of documents, pressure to prevent the holding of a press conference, police intimidation through the deployment of state security agents around the site of the press conference). The Committee is therefore bound to deplore these threats and acts of intimidation which, together with the arrests and detentions referred to above, demonstrate that the exercise of trade union rights of organizations independent of the official union structure is extremely difficult, if not impossible. With regard to the alleged restrictions on the freedom of expression, the Committee notes that the Government again makes only general comments. The Committee stresses that "the right to express opinions without previous authorization through the press is one of the essential elements of the rights of occupational organizations" and that "the right of an employers' or workers' organization to express its opinion uncensored through the independent press should in no way differ from the right to express opinions in exclusively occupational or trade union journals" (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 153 and 156).

43. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that, in future, the CUTC can operate freely in a climate free from threats and intimidation, that the freedoms of opinion and expression of workers' organizations independent of the official union structure are guaranteed, and that the confiscated documents are returned to the persons mentioned in the allegations. Given the insufficient information provided by the Government, the Committee requests it to provide full information on all the issues raised in this case.

Cases Nos. 1987 and 2085 (El Salvador)

44. When it last examined this case, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed on the following points: (1) the reform of the Labour Code provisions setting out excessive formalities for recognition of trade unions and acquisition of legal personality, contrary to the principle of free establishment of trade union organizations (requirement that trade unions of independent institutions should be works unions), that make it difficult to set up a trade union (minimum number of 35 workers to establish a works union) or that make it temporarily impossible to establish a trade union (requirement to wait for six months before applying for recognition of a new trade union when a first request is rejected); (2) any initiative taken by the complainant FESTSA to obtain legal personality and; (3) of measures taken to amend the national legislation, so that it would recognize the right of association of state workers, with the sole possible exception of the armed forces and police, in conformity with freedom of association principles (327th Report, paras. 54-57).

45. In a communication of 8 May 2002, the Government states that, as already mentioned in its communication of 7 January 2002 and reflected in the 327th Report of the Committee, the legal framework will be adapted, taking into account the requirements of national and international labour markets. As regards the request on initiatives taken by FESTSA to obtain legal personality, the Government points out that, since its legal personality was refused for the reasons already indicated, FESTSA has not to this day taken any steps in this respect with the Secretariat of Labour and Social Protection.

46. In a communication of 28 May 2002, the General Secretary of the Trade Union Federation of Salvadorian Workers of the Food, Beverage, Restaurants, Hotels and Food Sectors (FESTSABRHA), formerly FESTSA, requested its registration with the Ministry of Labour; this organization regroups five trade unions.

47. The Committee takes note of this information. As regards the reform of the Labour Code provisions concerning the recognition of the trade union rights of state workers, the Committee regrets that the Government merely reiterates its previous comments on this issue. Taking into account the importance of the right to establish and register trade unions for these workers, such prohibition being incompatible with the generally accepted principle that all workers, without distinction, should have the right to establish trade unions of their own choosing (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 215), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation on the points mentioned above, so as to bring it into conformity with freedom of association principles. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of the request of registration presented by FESTSABRHA; it hopes that this federation will be rapidly granted legal personality.

Case No. 1854 (India)

48. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2002 meeting (see 327th Report, paras. 67-69). On that occasion, the Committee recalled the seriousness of this case, i.e. the murder of a trade unionist (Ms. Ahilya Devi) who was organizing rural workers, expressed its deep concern regarding the excessive delays already intervened, and requested to be kept informed of developments. In communications of 16 April and 21 May 2002, the Government states that two of the accused (Messrs. Shri Munna Punjabi, alias Jai Prakash, and Shri Shrawan Giri) have been declared absconders. The Chief Magistrate in charge has issued show-cause notices against the accused's guarantors. The case concerning the other accused (Messrs. Bhirigunath Gupta, Rattan Gosh, Papan Chaki and Narsingh Singh) has been referred to the District Session Court, Purnea, where the trial is likely to begin soon.

49. The Committee takes note of this information. Recalling once again that this very serious case goes back to 1995, the Committee reminds the Government that justice delayed is justice denied and hopes that it will be able to report in the near future on the conclusion of these proceedings. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with the judgement of the court as soon as it is issued, and to keep it informed of developments concerning the arrest of the two absconding parties.

Case No. 1877 (Morocco)

50. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns dismissals of strikers and various acts of anti-union discrimination, at its meeting in March 2001. On that occasion, the Committee had requested the Government to continue to keep it informed of developments in the judicial proceedings filed by workers of the Somadir company in Casablanca and El Jadida (see 324th Report, para. 59).

51. In a communication dated 28 February 2002, the Government states that the competent courts have handed down rulings on all the proceedings filed by the Somadir workers. The Government provides a list of the names of the 25 workers of the company, giving details of the compensation received by each worker. The company has been duly informed of these rulings, which are all enforceable. The Government states that it will forward these rulings to the ILO.

52. The Committee takes due note of this information, and trusts that the Government will supply the court rulings in question without delay.

Case No. 2109 (Morocco)

53. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns dismissals of trade unionists following the creation of a trade union office and acts of anti-union repression, at its meeting of March 2002 (327th Report, paras. 77-80). On this occasion, the Committee noted that more than 18 months had elapsed since the dismissals, held as unlawful by the Labour Inspectorate, of eight trade union officers at the Fruit of the Loom company. Accordingly, the Committee once again requested 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 a worker said to have received compensation of 3,000 dirhams. Finally, the Committee requested 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.

54. In a communication of 6 May 2002, the Government indicates on this last point that, according to an inquiry made by the Ministry of the Interior, local authorities intervened in this dispute as part of the Prefectoral Commission of Investigation and Reconciliation, which resulted in a strengthening of stability and of labour relations. The Government thus concludes that the allegations of anti-union attitude by the Governor of Salé are totally unfounded.

55. The Committee notes this information. It requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of developments on all other pending issues.

Case No. 2113 (Mauritania)

56. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns in particular the arbitrary arrest of trade unionists, at its session in November 2001. On that occasion, the Committee had requested the Government to provide clarification on the alleged arrest of trade union leaders following a fishermen's protest march. In the event that the anti-union nature of those arrests were confirmed, the Committee had requested the Government to ensure that instructions were given to prevent such arrests recurring in the future (see 326th Report, paras. 363-375).

57. In a communication dated 10 January 2002, the Government states that, in the case in question, the fishermen did not apply to the authorities for permission to carry out the march, and the arrest of the trade unionists is therefore not connected with their trade union activities. Nevertheless, investigations are under way, and the law enforcement authorities will be made more aware of trade union rights and the obligation to respect them.

58. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the investigations now under way into the matter.

Case No. 1965 (Panama)

59. At its November 2001 meeting, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of: (a) the investigation into the raid on SUNTRACS headquarters and the alleged ill-treatment suffered by a number of workers of the Aribesa enterprise; and (b) the judicial proceedings initiated by the dismissed workers Mr. Porfirio Beitia, Mr. Francisco López, Mr. Eugenio Rivas, Mr. Julio Trejos and Mr. Darío Ulate, and the fund to compensate those workers who cannot be reinstated (the enterprise is facing a judicial process of forced liquidation) (see 326th Report, paras. 124-126).

60. In its communication of 1 March 2002, the Government sent information and documents, according to which the complaint presented by SUNTRACS to the Procurator-General of the Nation did not refer to the alleged raid on the trade union's headquarters, nor to the alleged ill-treatment inflicted on workers during their detention.

61. The Committee notes this information. The Committee recalls that the Government had requested the Procurator-General of the Nation to carry out investigations into the allegations of a raid on SUNTRACS headquarters and ill-treatment suffered by unionists during their detention, and requests the Government to ensure that this investigation is carried out quickly, and to keep it informed of the results thereof. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the judicial proceedings concerning the dismissal of the five aforementioned workers, and of the fund to compensate the Aribesa workers who cannot be reinstated.

Case No. 2059 (Peru)

62. At its March 2002 meeting, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal lodged by the Banco Continental with regard to the ruling on the dismissal of Mr. Oliveros Martínez.

63. In a communication dated 5 April 2002, the Government indicated that following the ruling of 30 January 2002, the Banco Continental has reinstated Mr. Oliveros Martínez in his previous post.

64. The Committee takes due note of this information.

Case No. 2076 (Peru)

65. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting (see 326th Report, paras. 133-135). On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government: (1) to confirm whether the trade union leaders Mr. Rey Fernández Patiño and Mr. Adriel Vargas Cáritas had in fact been reinstated in their posts with full compensation, as ordered by the courts; and (2) to communicate the final outcome of the proceedings concerning trade union officials Mr. Heraldo Torres Osnayo and Mr. Juan Ayulo Petzoldt.

66. In a communication dated 24 January 2002, the Government states that a letter was sent to the Shogang Hierro Perú S.A. enterprise requesting it to inform it whether trade union leaders Mr. Rey Fernández Patiño and Mr. Adriel Vargas Cáritas had in fact been reinstated in their posts, and that the Committee would be kept informed. As regards the actions for revocation of dismissal filed by Mr. Heraldo Torres Osnayo and Mr. Juan Ayulo Petzoldt against the Compañía Peruana de Radiodifusión S.A. enterprise, information has been requested from the judicial authority concerning their outcome, which will be forwarded to the Committee as soon as it is received.

67. The Committee notes this information, while it regrets that more than two years after the alleged events took place, the Government does not have the information requested of the enterprise, and requests it to ensure without delay that it be provided to the Committee.

Case No. 1972 (Poland)

68. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting, where it expressed once again the hope that the judicial proceedings concerning Mr. Grabowski, chairperson of Sprawiedliwosc, would be concluded soon and requested to be provided with the text of the Act on the Social and Economic Commission as soon as it was adopted (see 326th Report, para. 150).

69. In a communication of 28 February 2002, the Government provides the text of the Act of 6 July 2001 on the Tripartite Commission for Socio-economic Affairs. The Government further indicates that the Appellate Circuit Court has returned the case of Mr. Grabowski for retrial to the District Court for Warsaw-Praga South, where it is now pending. The District Court is examining an expert opinion and has set a date for the hearing on 19 April 2002; a final ruling is not expected at the Court's next session.

70. The Committee takes note of the Act on the Tripartite Commission for Socio-economic Affairs and hopes that it will provide a sound framework for social dialogue. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of judicial developments concerning Mr. Grabowski and to provide a copy of the judgement as soon as it is issued.

Case No. 1843 (Sudan)

71. The Committee examined the substance of this case at its meetings in March 1997, March 1998 and November 1998 (see 306th Report, paras. 601-618, 309th Report, paras. 371-386 and 311th Report, paras. 81-84, respectively). The Committee also drew the Governing Body's attention to this case due to the seriousness and urgency of the issues raised (see 309th Report, para. 9), namely dismissals, arrest, detention, torture and death of trade unionists.

72. When it last examined this case, the Committee had deplored the fact that the Government again provided only very partial information and insisted that the Government provide specific and detailed information on the situation of each of the workers listed in the appendices to the 306th Report, who were allegedly dismissed for carrying out union activities, were prevented from carrying out these activities by the authorities, or were subjected to anti-union measures. The Committee also requested the Government to forward copies of any written reasons or recommendations of the appeal board set up to re-examine the complaints of unfair dismissal (see 320th Report, paras. 76-82).

73. In communications dated 14 January and 20 October 2001, the complainant organization alleged that the abusive dismissals of workers continued in Sudan (3,000 workers from the Bank of Khartoum were wrongfully dismissed in December 2000) and that the new Trade Union Act 2001 was merely an old version of the 1992 Trade Union Act which had been severely criticized by the free trade union organizations as well as by the ILO.

74. In a communication dated 26 February 2002, the Government indicates that concerning the alleged abusive dismissal of 3,000 workers from the Bank of Sudan, the information provided by the complainant organization is not accurate. The Government explains that the Bank of Khartoum, in accordance with a declared policy of the Bank of Sudan, decided to retrench 749 jobs. This was done after lengthy negotiations between the Bank's administration, the concerned trade union and the Workers' Federation. During the negotiations, it was agreed to introduce a programme of voluntary retirement, in which the retired employee was given special benefits plus loans to start a productive business to compensate for the loss of his job. Accordingly, 500 workers applied for the voluntary retirement and were granted the agreed benefits.

75. While taking note of this information, the Committee observes that these elements only reply to the complainant's latest communications and that the Government has not provided any information on the workers listed in the appendices to the 306th Report. The Committee deeply deplores this fact and once again urges the Government to provide specific and detailed information on the situation of each of the said workers who were allegedly dismissed for carrying out union activities, were prevented from carrying out these activities by the authorities, or were subjected to anti-union measures. The Committee also once again requests the Government to forward copies of any written reasons or recommendations of the appeal board set up to re-examine the complaints of unfair dismissal.

76. With respect to the allegations of arrest and detention of trade unionists, often accompanied by acts of torture, the Committee had urged the Government to open an inquiry into the precise circumstances in which Messrs. Abdel Moniem Suliman, Abdel Moniem Rahma, Mohamed Babiki, Yousif Hussain, Osman Abdel Gadir and Daoud Suliaman were detained, tortured or killed. The complainant in a communication of 23 March 2000 states that the detention of active trade unionists continues. Once again, deeply regretting that the Government does not appear to have opened an inquiry as requested, and has to date not addressed the specific and very serious allegations of detention and torture concerning Messrs. Osman Abdel Gadir and Daoud Suliaman, the Committee strongly urges the Government to open an inquiry to establish the precise circumstances in which the above-noted persons were detained, tortured or killed, to take the necessary steps for legal proceedings against those responsible, to punish the guilty parties and for the redress of the prejudice suffered. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

77. Finally, the Government states in its latest communication that the Trade Union Act 1992 was revised by a tripartite committee taking into consideration the observations made by the ILO. The new Trade Union Act 2001 was approved by the National Assembly and under this new Act, new elections took place for the trade unions and the Trade Union Federation in a democratic spirit.

78. While taking note of this information, the Committee observes that none of the ILO's supervisory bodies has received a copy of the new Trade Union Act 2001 and therefore requests the Government to provide the Office with a copy of the said Act in order to examine its conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

Case No. 2018 (Ukraine)

79. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2002 meeting when it requested the Government to ensure that the criminal proceedings against the president of the Independent Trade Union of Workers of the Ilyichevsk Maritime Commercial Port (the NPRP) are carried out with diligence (see 327th Report, paras. 113-117).

80. In a communication dated 5 March 2002, the complainant stated generally that its trade union rights continue being violated and that continual refusal of the port administration to transfer trade union dues deteriorates the financial situation of the NPRP.

81. In communications dated 15 March and 25 April 2002, the Government indicated that the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of Ukraine asked the port management to settle the problem concerning the payment of trade union dues. It also recognized that according to the national legislation and existing collective agreement, the employer is under the obligation to make the necessary transfers and has no right to delay or hamper the process. The Government also indicated that disputes concerning the non-observance by the employer of this obligation are examined by the court.

82. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. While noting the Government's indication that it has requested the port administration to take the necessary measures to resolve the question concerning the transfer of trade union dues to the NPRP's account, the Committee regrets that no information was provided concerning the proceedings instigated against the president of the complainant's organization. It once again recalls that trade union leaders, like anyone lese, 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 are carried out with diligence and requests to be kept informed of developments.

83. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1581 (Thailand), 1618 (United Kingdom), 1769 (Russian Federation), 1785 (Poland), 1796 (Peru), 1813 (Peru), 1851 (Djibouti), 1880 (Peru), 1890 (India), 1900 (Canada), 1922 (Djibouti), 1937 (Zimbabwe), 1942 (China/Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), 1943 (Canada), 1951 (Canada), 1952 (Venezuela), 1957 (Bulgaria), 1970 (Guatemala), 1973 (Colombia), 1975 (Canada), 1978 (Gabon), 1989 (Bulgaria), 1992 (Brazil), 1995 (Cameroon), 1996 (Uganda), 2009 (Mauritius), 2014 (Uruguay), 2017 (Guatemala), 2027 (Zimbabwe), 2031 (China), 2042 (Djibouti), 2043 (Russian Federation), 2047 (Bulgaria), 2048 (Morocco), 2050 (Guatemala), 2051 (Colombia), 2052 (Haiti), 2053 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2067 (Venezuela), 2075 (Ukraine), 2078 (Lithuania), 2081 (Zimbabwe), 2091 (Romania), 2100 (Honduras), 2102 (Bahamas), 2118 (Hungary), 2119 (Canada), 2125 (Thailand), 2126 (Turkey), 2135 (Chile), 2142 (Colombia), 2145 (Canada), 2146 (Yugoslavia), 2147 (Turkey), 2148 (Togo) and 2156 (Brazil), 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. 1826 (Philippines), 1991 (Japan), 2006 (Pakistan), 2084 (Costa Rica), 2098 (Peru), 2104 (Costa Rica), 2106 (Mauritius) and 2115 (Mexico), which it will examine at its next meeting.