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 6, 7 and 21 March 2003, under the chairmanship of Professor Paul van der Heijden.

2. The members of Salvadorean, French, Guatemalan, Indian, Mexican, Pakistani and Swedish nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to El Salvador (Case No. 2208), France (Case No. 2193), Guatemala (Cases Nos. 2103, 2179, 2194, 2203 and 2230), India (Case No. 2158), Mexico (Case No. 2207), Pakistan (Case No. 2229) and Sweden (Case No. 2171), respectively.

3. Currently, there are 99 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for their observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 41 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 30 cases and interim conclusions in 11 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. 2233 (France), 2234 (Mexico), 2235 (Peru), 2237 (Colombia), 2238 (Zimbabwe), 2239 (Colombia), 2240 (Argentina), 2241 (Guatemala), 2242 (Pakistan), 2243 (Morocco), 2244 (Russian Federation), 2245 (Chile), 2246 (Russian Federation) and 2247 (Mexico), 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. 2087 (Uruguay), 2164 (Morocco), 2172 (Chile), 2174 (Uruguay), 2216 (Russian Federation), 2218 (Chile), 2219 (Argentina), 2221 (Argentina), 2222 (Cambodia), 2223 (Argentina), 2224 (Argentina), 2225 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and 2227 (United States).

Partial information received from governments

6. In Cases Nos. 2068 (Colombia), 2096 (Pakistan), 2097 (Colombia), 2138 (Ecuador), 2153 (Algeria), 2154 (Venezuela), 2177 (Japan), 2183 (Japan), 2187 (Guyana), 2201 (Ecuador), 2204 (Argentina), 2211 (Peru) and 2215 (Chile), 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. 1865 (Republic of Korea), 2162 (Peru), 2209 (Uruguay), 2213 (Colombia), 2214 (El Salvador), 2217 (Chile), 2220 (Kenya), 2226 (Colombia), 2228 (India), 2231 (Costa Rica), 2232 (Chile) and 2236 (Indonesia), 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. 2127 (Bahamas), 2132 (Madagascar), 2169 (Pakistan), 2185 (Russian Federation) and 2199 (Russian Federation), 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.

Questions of receivability

9. In communications dated 7 and 21 May 2002, the Mandate Trade Union, representing the Irish staff employed in the administrative support section of the South African Embassy in Dublin, submitted a complaint against the Government of South Africa for failure to ensure the respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in its Embassy in Ireland. These communications were transmitted to the Government of South Africa in accordance with the complaints procedure, which subsequently replied in a communication dated 8 October 2002 stating that the relationship between an embassy as employer and its locally recruited personnel is governed by the law of the country in which the embassy is situated and emphasizing that neither the South African Constitution, nor the statute law, has application to the employment by an embassy of locally recruited personnel. In light of the contradictory understandings between the complainant and the Government of South Africa in respect of the country whose jurisdiction would be applicable in this case, the Committee would invite the Government of Ireland to indicate whether Irish law indeed governs the employment relationship between locally recruited personnel and the South African Embassy.

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

10. The Committee considers it necessary to draw the Governing Body's special attention to Cases Nos. 1787 (Colombia), 2189 (China), 2090 (Belarus) and 2203 (Guatemala) because of the extreme seriousness and urgency of the matters dealt with therein. Furthermore, the Committee wishes to draw the special attention of the Governing Body to the extremely serious and urgent situation in Venezuela, which has been shown by the continuing progression of complaints brought before the Committee concerning repeated violations of freedom of association for both the workers' and employers' organizations. In this respect, the Committee would refer to its examination in the present report of Cases Nos. 2058, 2067, 2088, 2160, 2161 and 2191.

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

11. 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: Hungary (Case No. 2118), Canada (Cases Nos. 2166, 2173, 2180, 2196) and Pakistan (Case No. 2229).

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

Case No. 2131 (Argentina)

12. At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee urged the Government to undertake an investigation and requested to be kept informed about the alleged non-renewal of the contracts of 58 cabin crew employees in reprisal for the refusal by one of the complainant organizations, the Asociación Argentina de Aeronavegantes (AAA), to accept a framework agreement. The Committee also asked the Government, if it was found that this non-renewal was linked to the exercise of trade union rights, to draw the necessary conclusions with a view to the possible renewal of those contracts (see 329th Report, para. 184).

13. In its communication of 6 January 2003, the Government states that the situation has returned to normal, and this has been confirmed by the complainant organization (the AAA).

14. The Committee notes this information with interest.

Case No. 2157 (Argentina)

15. At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations (see 329th Report, paragraph 193):

Regretting that the Government has not sent its observations, the Committee requests it to take measures to conduct an investigation into the allegations concerning the failure to deduct trade union dues from AMP members and the denial of trade union leave to AMP officials and, if these allegations and their anti-union nature prove to be true, to take the necessary measures to restore the deduction of trade union dues and guarantee the enjoyment of trade union leave.

16. In its communication of 28 November 2002, the Government states that these problems have been resolved. Specifically, trade union leave has been regularized, and Resolution No. 392/02 of March 2002 ordered the deduction of trade union dues.

17. The Committee notes this information with interest.

Case No. 1992 (Brazil)

18. At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee had noted with interest the judicial decisions reinstating in their posts four additional officials of the Brazilian Post and Telegraph Enterprise, who had been dismissed following the strike of September 1997, and requested the Government to inform it of the final outcome of the remaining judicial proceedings (see 329th Report, paras. 13-15). The total number of workers dismissed was 54 and the Government has regularly provided information on the judgements of reinstatement.

19. In its communication of 17 January 2003, the Government provides a table giving the status of proceedings concerning the 54 dismissed workers. According to this table, the court has ordered the reinstatement of 28 workers and confirmed the dismissal in a few cases; the remaining cases have not been finally decided yet.

20. The Committee notes this information and, considering that these dismissals occurred in September 1997, hopes that the pending proceedings will be concluded without delay. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

Case No. 2047 (Bulgaria)

21. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in November 2002. On that occasion, it requested the Government to keep it informed of developments regarding the new legislation which would regulate the criteria for representativeness of workers' and employers' organizations at the national level (see 329th Report, paras. 25-27).

22. In a communication dated 8 January 2003, the Government states that the new amendments to the Labour Code concerning, in particular, the criteria and the order of establishing representativeness of workers' organizations entered into force on 2 January 2003. The Government also indicates that on the basis of the amendments, a regulation on determination of the presence of criteria for representativeness is being elaborated. It further states that after the adoption of the regulation by the Council of Ministers, an invitation will be addressed to the parties concerned in order to conduct a poll.

23. The Committee takes due note of this information. The Committee notes that the amendments to the Labour Code do not change the criteria for establishing representative status, which has been previously considered by the Committee to be in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee hopes that the relevant regulation will be rapidly adopted so that a poll to determine the representativeness of PROMYANA and the Association of Democratic Syndicates (ADS) can take place in the near future. It asks the Government to provide it with a copy of the regulation in question as soon as it has been adopted.

Case No. 1900 (Canada/Ontario)

24. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the rights of association of agricultural and domestic workers, and certain specified professionals (architects, dentists, land surveyors, lawyers and doctors) at its June 1999 meeting. The Committee recalled the necessity for all workers, without distinction whatsoever, to be able to organize freely, and to exercise fully all related rights and enjoy the necessary protection elaborated within the purview of freedom of association principles and drew the legislative aspects of this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (316th Report, paras. 28-30).

25. In a communication dated 2 February 2002, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) refers to the decision issued in December 2001 by the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that the exclusion of agricultural workers from the right of freedom of association was unconstitutional, and gave the Government 18 months to remedy the situation. The CLC wrote to the Minister of Labour in December 2001, requesting that the exclusion of agricultural workers be repealed. No action was taken and no consultations were undertaken with organized labour.

26. In a communication of 3 October 2002, the Government states that, while the Supreme Court decision in Dunmore mandates the extension of some legislative protections to agricultural workers to ensure they have the right to form associations, it does not require their inclusion in a full statutory bargaining regime. The Government adds that this decision concerns only agricultural workers, and that it does not plan any legislative amendments as regards the other categories of workers concerned in this case; it reiterates that there are legitimate reasons for the exclusion of certain workers from the general statutory bargaining regime since laws enacted with industrial settings in mind are not always suitable for non-industrial workplaces. The Government is concerned about the possible implications of family farm unionization and argues that Ontario's harvests and food supply must not be vulnerable to disruptions caused by strikes and lockouts.

27. The Committee notes this information. As regards agricultural workers, the Committee further notes that the Government of Ontario introduced Bill No. 187 in October 2002 (Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002) which gives agricultural employees the right to form or join an employees' association; it appears however that this legislation does not give agricultural workers the right to establish and join trade unions and to bargain collectively. As regards the other categories of workers concerned in the present complaint, the Committee notes with regret the Government's stated intention to maintain the status quo. Recalling once again that all workers, with the sole possible exception of armed forces and police, should have the right to organize, the Committee strongly urges the Government to amend its legislation so that all the categories of workers fully enjoy this right and to keep it informed of developments.

Case No. 1943 (Canada/Ontario)

28. When it last examined this case, which concerns government interference in the impartiality of the process of arbitration, the Committee noted that the Ontario Court of Appeal had ruled in November 2000 that "abandoning the established practice of selecting chairpersons from the roster and the unilateral adoption by the Minister of a practice of personally selecting retired judges to replace them ... gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and gives the appearance of interference with the institutional independence and the institutional impartiality of the boards of arbitration" (324th Report, paras. 24-26).

29. In a communication dated 2 April 2002, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) mentions that the Government has appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. According to the CLC, this indicates that, rather than reverting to the prior appointment system or entering into consultation process with unions and employers, the Government continues to take steps to establish and implement a system that does not have the confidence of the parties. This continuing intention has been confirmed by two legislative measures taken following the decision of the Court of Appeal. Firstly, section 20(5) of the Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001, provides that the Minister may appoint a person not recognized as mutually acceptable to both trade unions and employers; in addition, the legislation specifically empowers the Minister to depart from past practice concerning the appointment of chairs of arbitration boards and to do so without notice or consultation with social partners. Secondly, similar provisions were included in back-to-work legislation involving education workers. The Back to School Act (Toronto and Windsor), 2001, named designated individuals to act as interest arbitrators; if they did not agree, the Minister could appoint a replacement without previous experience as arbitrator, who was not recognized as mutually acceptable to both trade unions and employers; and the legislation specifically empowers the Minister to depart from past practice concerning the appointment of chairs of arbitration boards and to do so without notice or consultation with employers and trade unions. For the CLC, these legislative measures continue to impair the confidence of the parties in the independence and impartiality of the arbitration process, and demonstrate the Government's continued unwillingness to establish such procedures, in consultation with workers' and employers' organizations.

30. In its communication of 3 October 2002, the Government states that it has yet to appoint arbitrators under the Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act. It would prefer that the parties choose their own arbitrator but the wide discretion given to the Minister to appoint an arbitrator allows the Government to assist quickly the parties in resolving labour disputes. As regards the Back to School Act (Toronto and Windsor), 2001, the Government intervened to legislate education support staff back to work. The mediation-arbitration process was fair and open, and the individuals designated in the Act were well-respected mediators and arbitrators. In Toronto, the parties were able to reach agreement without arbitration; in Windsor, the dispute was resolved by arbitration. The Government requests the Committee to defer its examination of the case until the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a decision.

31. The Committee notes this information. Stressing once again that chairpersons of arbitration boards should not only be strictly impartial but should also be seen to be so, the Committee strongly urges the Government to take legislative measures to ensure that these principles are respected in the designation of arbitration boards and chairs, in order to gain and maintain the confidence of both sides in the system. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments and to provide it with a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada once it is issued.

Case No. 1951 (Canada/Ontario)

32. 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 March 2002 session, the Committee called the attention of the Government on the implications of the Supreme Court decision in the Dunmore case and requested it, once again, to amend Bill No. 160 (see 327th Report, paras. 33-35).

33. In its communication of 3 October 2002, the Government briefly states that it maintains its position, which Canadian courts have consistently upheld, and that no legislative amendments are planned or envisaged in this respect.

34. The Committee notes with regret that no progress whatsoever could be achieved in this matter. It recalls that, while it may be appropriate to provide, for example, that school principals and vice-principals should not be included in the same bargaining units as teachers, they should nevertheless have the right to 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 strongly urges the Government, once again, to amend Bill No. 160 along these lines and to keep it informed of developments.

Case No. 1975 (Canada/Ontario)

35. When it last examined this case, which deals with provisions which deny the right to organize to workers involved in community participation activities (Bill No. 22) and a piece of legislation which makes it more difficult for construction workers to enforce their right to organize (Bill No. 31) the Committee reiterated its deep regret at the Government's repeated lack of cooperation, urged it once again to amend these legislative provisions and requested to be kept informed of developments (327th Report, paras. 36-38).

36. In a communication dated 2 February 2002, the complainant organization mentions that it wrote to the Minister of Labour, pointing out that the exclusion of workers in the Workfare programme was inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunmore, and that the impugned provisions of Bill No. 22 should be repealed.

37. In its communication of 3 October 2002, the Government maintains its position regarding Bill No. 22 and states that no amendments are planned or envisioned. As regards Bill No. 31, the Government indicates that the project agreement framework has been modified to provide greater flexibility and stability in the construction industry: project owners and trade unions can agree to apply project agreements to multiple and future projects, and trade unions are entitled to challenge the addition of new projects under certain conditions.

38. Noting the information provided by the Government in connection with Bill No. 31, the Committee recalls that either workers' or employers' representatives in the construction industry should be entitled to initiate collective bargaining below provincial level at any stage of the process. As regards Bill No. 22, the Committee deeply regrets the Government's repeated lack of cooperation and the absence of constructive dialogue, and strongly urges it, once again, to amend this legislation, to ensure that workers involved in community participation activities be granted the right to organize. The Committee requests to be kept informed of developments in connection with Bill No. 22.

Case No. 2083 (Canada/New Brunswick)

39. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the rights of association and collective bargaining of casual workers, at its June 2002 session (328th Report, paras. 15-17). It expressed once again the hope that the Government would take rapidly the necessary legislative measures to ensure that these categories of workers enjoyed these rights and requested to be kept informed of developments.

40. In a communication dated 16 September 2002, the Government of New Brunswick states that this is a complex issue, which requires obtaining advice from a number of departments with shared responsibility over government workers, e.g. the Department of Training and Employment Development, the Department of Finance and the Office of Human resources. The Government had also undertaken a survey of other Canadian jurisdictions, including the Federal Government, to examine how this question is dealt with, and was awaiting the results of a federal report addressing the rights of such workers in the Federal public service. Having now obtained both these documents, the Government currently examines them and the implications they may have on the provincial legislation.

41. The Committee takes note of this information. Trusting that the Government will conclude the examination of the survey and the report in the near future, the Committee recalls once again that casual workers should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and bargain collectively. The Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will take rapidly the necessary legislative measures and requests to be kept informed of developments in this respect.

Case No. 2119 (Canada/Ontario)

42. The Committee examined this case on the merits at its March 2002 meeting (327th Report, paras. 214-259). The Committee requested the Government to amend its legislation so that free collective bargaining could take place on the consequences of educational policy decisions on the conditions of employment of teachers. The Committee also requested the complainant and the Government to provide more information on the modifications brought to the established standard teaching time, under the Education Accountability Act (EAA).

43. In its communication of 3 October 2002, the Government states that, while the amount of instruction time is a matter of educational policy, the parties are entitled to bargain collectively on the consequences of that policy decision on conditions of employment, e.g. salary and benefits, leaves of absence, teacher-pupils ratio, class size (within certain limits), paid leave for union activities, etc. Furthermore, in the Stability and Excellence in Education Act, 2001 (SEAA) the Government provided greater flexibility to the parties by broadening the definition of what may be included as instructional time. Within these parameters, school boards and unions can still negotiate teachers' workloads. A series of consultations were held with teachers' unions prior to the introduction of the SEAA, which reflects these consultations.

44. As regards teaching time modifications, the EAA did not force teachers to perform "extra" instructional time. However, the Government modified the way instruction time is measured to ensure that the same standard was applied uniformly across the province: whereas the standard time had previously been expressed in the form of time (four hours and ten minutes per day, for a total of 1,250 minutes per week) the standard was restated as an average of 6.67 eligible programmes per year. So, while the manner in which the established standard was measured has been changed, the Government is not asking teachers to do anything more than meet the established standard. The complainants did not provide information in this respect.

45. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government as regards the possibility of collective bargaining on the consequences of educational policy decisions for teachers, including the allocation of instruction time, and on the modifications brought to the established standard teaching time by the EAA.

Case No. 2145 (Canada/Ontario)

46. The Committee examined this case on the merits at its March 2002 meeting (327th Report, paras. 260-311). The Committee urged once again the Government to take measures: to ensure that teachers in Ontario are entitled to exercise the right to strike; to avoid having recourse to back-to-work legislation; to ensure that recourse to arbitration for the settlement of disputes concerning teachers in Ontario be voluntary and that such arbitration, once freely chosen by the parties, be truly independent and in line with freedom of association principles.

47. In its communication of 3 October 2002, the Government states that there have been no new developments in this matter. Negotiation by the parties is the most desirable means of resolving disputes and the Government acts as neutral facilitator through its mediation and conciliation services. As a general rule, it lets the collective bargaining process run its course, but it is sometimes necessary to legislatively terminate a dispute to safeguard public interest concerns. According to the Government, recourse to back-to-work legislation was necessary in the circumstances that prevailed in this case; it was limited to that specific round of negotiations and the teachers' general right to strike has not been affected. The mediation-arbitration process included in the legislation was fair and open; the parties mutually agreed to the appointment of the mediator-arbitrator and, with his assistance, entered into letters of agreement that formed the basis of a new collective agreement.

48. The Committee notes this information. While taking note of the Government's arguments that this back-to-work legislation was necessary in the circumstances, that it was limited to this specific round of negotiations (Hamilton Wentworth School Board in November 2000) and that the teachers' general right to strike has not been affected, the Committee must recall the concern it expressed in view of the repeated recourse to such legislation in Ontario and its long-term negative effects on the labour relations climate (see 327th Report, para. 303). The Committee recalls that workers in non-essential services, which is the case of teachers, should have the right to strike, not only in legislation, but should also be able to exercise it in practice when needed to support their bargaining demands. It requests the Government, once again, to avoid having recourse in future to back-to-work legislation in situations that do not endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee further recalls its previous comments that the disputes settlement process should be voluntary and independent.

Case No. 1973 (Colombia)

49. At its meeting of November 2001, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to carry out without delay an inquiry on the application of an agreement containing better pay and working conditions than those provided for in the collective agreement of managerial and confidential employees and of technical staff, on condition that they do not join or that they leave either of the two first-level trade union organizations existing in the ECOPETROL company (see 326th Report, paras. 49-50).

50. In a communication of 13 January 2003, the Government indicates that the Territorial Directorate of Labour and Social Security, Bogotá and Dinamarca, launched a labour administrative inquiry against ECOPETROL on the basis of the complaint filed by ADECO for violation of the right to organize, non-payment of pay increases, payment of trade union dues and implementation of staff allowance scales, all of which were contained in Agreement 01 of 1977, which provided pay and working conditions more favourable than the collective agreement. This inquiry is still pending. The Government indicates that, as regards the implementation of Agreement 01 of 1977, it is impossible to grant privileges to any given trade union organization as long as there exists a collective agreement covering all workers.

51. The Committee deplores that the inquiry on facts which date back to more than two years has not been completed yet. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the hope that this inquiry will be concluded soon and requests the Government to keep it informed of its final result.

Case No. 2051 (Colombia)

52. At its March 2002 meeting, the Committee urged the Government to carry out an investigation on the following allegations: (1) the offer of employment in cooperatives, under threat of dismissal, to the workers of Confecciones de Colombia Ltd. having a fixed-term contract; (2) whether these cooperatives were bona fide ones, since they were managed by the employers, the workers worked on the same premises, with the same bosses and the same machinery as the workers still with the enterprise; (3) whether the company did order a mass dismissal of cooperative workers in February 1999; and (4) whether the creation of the labour cooperatives has had disastrous consequences for the workers and their trade unions (see 327th Report, paras. 50-53).

53. In its communication of 30 May 2002, the Medellin local of the Trade Union of Textile Industry Workers (SINTRA IL-Medellin) reiterates its previous allegations and adds that, not only the labour cooperatives operate on the company premises with the same bosses and managers, but also that the roster of employees and the payroll are managed by the Health and Safety Department of the company.

54. In its communication of 13 January 2003, considering that there are no new allegations, the Government reiterates the comments made in its communication of 4 September 2001, where it had indicated that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, through the Coordination of Inspection and Prevention Services of the Antioquia Territorial Directorate, had issued resolution No. 1822 of 1 November 2001, which dismissed the proceedings against Confecciones Colombia Everfit-Indulana. The Government adds that the inquiry showed that there existed within the enterprise four labour cooperatives (CODESCO, COTEXCON, SERVIEMPRESAS and PARTICIPEMOS) each with a manager and an office on the company premises, and that the machinery which belongs to the company is at the disposal of the cooperatives under a leasing contract. These cooperatives have their financial, administrative and operational autonomy in the execution of the contracts made with Confecciones Colombia. The Government adds that it was not possible to ascertain whether the workers had been obliged to leave the company and to become members of the labour cooperatives, and that it has been proved that the company has not unilaterally dismissed any employee during the last six months. The Government concludes by stating that the abovementioned resolution has not been appealed.

55. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the complainant organization and the Government. It notes with regret that the latter has not undertaken a new exhaustive inquiry to determine: whether these cooperatives were bona fide ones (taking into account the new allegations of 30 May 2002); whether there were mass dismissals of workers in 1999, and; the negative consequences for the workers and their trade unions. The Committee urges once more the Government to carry out without delay, and finalize rapidly, an inquiry on these allegations, and to keep it informed of its result.

Case No. 2142 (Colombia)

56. The Committee examined this case which concerns the refusal of registration of an enterprise trade union and anti-union dismissals at its March 2002 meeting (see 327th Report, paras. 439-446). The Committee then made the following recommendations: (1) as regards the fact that the trade union of Inca Metal S.A. was unable to obtain legal personality as a trade union, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the trade union is granted legal personality as soon as it complies with the requirements laid down in law (in particular to have a minimum membership of 25 workers); and (2) as regards the dismissal of 22 workers from the enterprise in 1999, the Committee requests the Government to recommend to Inca Metal S.A., should it anticipate hiring new workers, to make every effort to rehire as many as possible of the 22 workers who were dismissed for economic and restructuring reasons.

57. In a communication dated 13 January 2003, the Government indicates that: (1) as regards the registration of SINTRAINCAMETAL, the Antioquia Territorial Directorate has received no registration request to date; and (2) it cannot interfere into the company's hiring procedures as regards the 22 workers dismissed in August 1999 for economic and restructuring reasons.

58. The Committee notes this information. It requests the Government to ensure that SINTRAINCAMETAL be registered without delay, if it fulfils the legal requirements in this respect. The Committee takes note of the Government's observations concerning the dismissal of 22 workers from Inca Metal S.A. due to a process of economic restructuring. It notes, however, that based on the allegations submitted by the complainant in the previous examination of the case (see 327th Report, para. 441), these workers were the founders of the former enterprise trade union and had refused the collective agreement of 1998. In addition, after these dismissals, the company hired more than 200 workers. The Committee recalls the principle contained in Recommendation No. 143 on the protection and facilities to be afforded to workers' representatives in cases of staff reductions, which mentions among the specific measures to be taken "that recognition of a priority should be given to workers' representatives with regard to their retention in employment in case of reduction of the workforce" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, 4th edition, para. 960). In these circumstances, the Committee requests once more that the Government recommend to Inca Metal S.A., should it anticipate hiring new workers, to make every effort to rehire as many as possible of the 22 dismissed workers.

Case No. 1961 (Cuba)

59. At its June 2002 meeting, the Committee made the following conclusions and recommendations on the issues that were still pending (see 328th Report, paras. 28-43):

- 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 highlighted (after having noted that the Government had declared that none of the persons mentioned in the complaint were detained) that the Government had 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 her husband, Mr. Humberto Mones Lafita, 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 (the organization of a trade union congress), or to that of the journalist, Mr. Víctor Rolando Arroyo;

- 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);

- given the insufficient information provided by the Government, the Committee requests it to provide full information on all the issues raised in this case.

60. In its communication of 24 December 2002, the Government reiterates its previous statements and indicates that, in relation to a request made by a so-called organization named the Single Council of Cuban Workers (CUTC) before the Ministry of Justice, the latter considered that the trial brief did not meet the requirements established by the Associations Act No. 54 of 1985, and shelved the request, with the explanation that this Act does not provide for the creation of trade unions; furthermore, trade unions do not require prior authorization. As regards the alleged arrests of four citizens who claim to be trade union officials, it was proven that the only one of them remaining in detention in October 2000 (and later released), at the disposal of the courts, was Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez, for criminal activities completely unrelated to trade union activities.

61. The Government adds that the unity of the Cuban trade union movement is one of the greatest achievements of Cuban workers. Trade union activity is conducted on a daily basis in workplaces, and in all of its decision-making bodies, with the participation of representatives elected by the workers themselves, without interference, arrests, pressure, threats or intimidation, contrary to the WCL's allegations.

62. Recent investigations have proven, yet again, that no workplace in the country has any trade union organization corresponding to the name CUTC. It was only possible to access information distributed under this name through foreign broadcasts and Internet services.

63. One of the representatives and promoters of the so-called CUTC abroad is Mr. René Laureano Díaz González (who is not mentioned in the complaint), who has been proven responsible for terrorist activities against the Cuban people, amongst others, a dynamite attack against the Tallapiedra Thermoelectric Power Station in the City of Havana. Mr. Laureano devised plans to introduce counterfeit money into Cuba and has been behind acts of sabotage against the Cuban electricity sector which were carried out by members recruited within the country.

64. The persons mentioned in the complaint are not known amongst Cuban workers, and neither could they be, simply because they are not involved in any form of employment. These people have not been elected by any body of workers, and they do not represent anyone.

65. The Government then provides the following information on the persons mentioned in the complaint:

- Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos. Unemployed since 2000. Calls himself the "general secretary" of the non-existent CUTC. This individual enjoys freedom of movement and action, despite the fraudulent nature of his public opinions and statements. He has close and periodic links with agents in Havana defending the interests of a foreign State.

- Ms. Gladys María Magdalena Linares Blanco. Sixty years of age (five years over the retirement age for women). Unemployed. Has close links with, and receives financing from, Mr. Enrique Blanco, who is a representative in Puerto Rico of the well-known terrorist organization, Independent and Democratic Cuba, for conducting counter-revolutionary activities. Ms. Gladys Linares Blanco, after blatantly and publicly stealing received money, had to be kept away from "trade union business", following instructions given by agents in Havana defending the interests of a foreign State. The same occurred with Mr. Humberto Mones Lafita.

- Mr. Carmelo Agustín Díaz Fernández. Sixty-five years of age (five years over the statutory retirement age for men). He voluntarily terminated his employment in 2000 and calls himself a trade union press reporter. In reality, he carries out activities directed by agents in Havana defending the interests of a foreign State, which pays for the false information invented by this man.

- Mr. Víctor Rolando Arroyo Carmona. Unemployed since 2000, when he voluntarily left the Provincial Directorate of Physical Planning of Pinar del Río, where he worked as a designer. He has close links with the terrorist organization, the Cuban American National Foundation. He is described as a "thief" by his fellow counter-revolutionaries because on repeated occasions he has stolen money sent from abroad for his own personal use. In September 2001, he was accused of abusing minors after beating his wife's son on two occasions, causing after-effects, and threatening another child who was present at the time. On 14 February 2002, the chief of agents in Havana defending the interests of a foreign State visited him at his home and rewarded his criminal activities with additional funding and 40 radio receivers with their respective chargers, four batteries, a ground antenna and earphones. Naturally, she also informed him of new activities for consolidating the "virtual trade unionism" that this foreign State is trying to create.

- Mr. Sixto Rolando Calero Ramos. Unemployed for health reasons since 1997, when he presented a medical certificate. He was paid his salary in full for the next two years. In 1998, he began to receive 50 per cent of his usual salary and will continue to do so until November 2002, when he will have to submit a new medical expertise in accordance with labour legislation. He had previously been dismissed from the Ministry of Education, where he worked as a teacher, following criminal acts of a sexual nature against students from the school where he worked. His wife, Ms. Faustina de la Caridad Feijoo Rodríguez, was dismissed from her workplace for stealing and illegally selling construction clothing and materials.

- Mr. Pedro Pablo Hernández Mijares. He is not in Cuba. He left the country in February 2002 heading for the United States.

66. The Government points out that trade unionist status should not be given to a list of names before checking whether they really represent a body of workers, or at least not before checking that the labour relationship required for the exercise of legitimate trade union activity exist.

67. As part of the various activities being promoted by a foreign State against the Cuban revolution, organizations from this country are being used which are established to create fictitious organizations and imaginary leaders of the opposition, with a view to establishing links with organizations in Europe and North America.

68. It has been discovered that the agents in Havana defending the interests of a foreign State have provided more than $300,000 to promote internal tension within our country and generate an artificial climate of alleged violations of trade union rights.

69. It is obvious that the phoney trade unionists mentioned in the communication have turned the development of phantom and virtual "trade unionism" into a lucrative business. These persons are not conducting any trade union work and do not have the support of any body of workers from this country.

70. As regards the alleged refusal by the authorities to recognize the CUTC, the Committee notes the statements made by the Government and the fact that it completely puts into question the CUTC's representational nature and the election of so-called officials by any body of workers, at the same time as highlighting the counter-revolutionary characteristics of these persons. However, the Committee reminds the Government that during its previous examination of the case it observed that the CUTC was affiliated to CLAT and WCL, which are international trade union organizations, that the annexes to the membership application to the WCL (sent by the complainant) contained more than 400 signatures of Cuban workers, 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 (see 328th Report, para. 40).

71. The Committee observes that at its December 2002 meeting, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations made an observation on the application of Convention No. 87, in which it points out the following:

1. With regard to trade union monopoly, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, these issues are being examined as part of the Labour Code revision process.

Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention. Regarding the need to delete from the Labour Code of 1985 the reference to the Confederation of Workers, the Committee again emphasizes that trade union pluralism must remain possible in all cases. Accordingly, the law must not institutionalize a de facto monopoly. Even where at some point all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should still remain free to set up unions outside the established structure, should they so wish (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 96).

Article 3 of the Convention. With regard to the need to amend Legislative Decree No. 67 of 2983, which confers on the Confederation of Workers the monopoly to represent the country's workers on government bodies, the Committee urges the Government to amend this provision in order to ensure trade union pluralism, for instance by replacing the reference to the "Confederation of Workers" by the term "most representative organization".

The Committee again expresses the firm hope that the draft revision of the Labour Code will be adopted in the very near future and will take account of the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send the Office a copy of the draft revision.

2. Regarding the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case 1961 (see 328th Report, June 2002), in which the Government was asked to ensure the recognition of the Single Council of Cuban Workers (CUTC) and to allow the latter full freedom to carry out its legitimate trade union activities without any threats, intimidation or pressure, the Committee notes that the Government reiterates its observations submitted in the framework of Case No. 1961 to the effect that the above organization has not been shown to carry on any union activities and that, consequently, the persons concerned cannot be assigned any union representational duties being neither leaders nor representatives of any group of workers in any entity in the country. The Committee reiterates that the freedom, de facto and de jure, to establish organizations is the foremost among trade union rights and is the essential prerequisite without which the other guarantees enunciated in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 would remain a dead letter (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 44). The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure that all workers enjoy this right both in law and in practice.

72. The Committee shares the opinion of the Committee of Experts and requests the Government to take measures so that national legislation and practice are brought into line with Convention No. 87.

73. As regards the alleged arrests of CUTC trade unionists (who were later released), the Committee notes that, according to the Government, Mr. Pedro Pablo Alvarez was detained and put at the disposal of the courts on the grounds of criminal activities and later released. The Committee observes that the Government has not explained the nature of the criminal activities carried out by this person. Neither has it indicated the charges for which the seven other unionists (who were later released) were arrested in relation to the allegations made in the complaint (in its reply, the Government refers to other circumstances and events).

74. The Committee requests the Government in the future to respect the principle according to which "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, para. 71).

75. Lastly, as regards the allegations concerning the harassment of CUTC members, threats of arrest, the confiscation of documents, pressure to prevent a press conference from taking place, and police intimidation at the site of this press conference, the Committee observes that the Government has not specifically referred to these allegations. In this regard, the Committee is therefore bound to deplore these threats and acts of intimidation which, together with the other problems observed in the present case, demonstrate that the exercise of trade union rights of organizations independent of the official union structure, is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, the Committee highlights that "the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade union rights" 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). The Committee requests the Government to ensure that these principles are respected.

Cases Nos. 1987, 2085 and 2190 (El Salvador)

76. At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations in Cases Nos. 1987 and 2085 (see 329th Report, para. 44):

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation on the following points in order to bring it into conformity with freedom of association principles: 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 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 (requirement to wait for six months before applying for recognition of a new trade union when a first request is rejected), and 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. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

77. At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations in Case No. 2190 (see 329th Report, para. 492):

- The Committee strongly urges the Government as a matter of urgency to ensure that the national legislation of El Salvador is amended so that it recognizes 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.

- The Committee expects that the trade union ATRAMEC will be recognized as soon as possible, as it was established since 24 March 2000.

- The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation on the points mentioned in its conclusions, so as to bring it into conformity with the principles of freedom of association. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

- The Committee draws the Government's attention to the availability of the technical assistance of the Office in this respect should it so desire.

78. In its communication of 27 January 2003, the Government reiterates the contents of its previous communications in Cases Nos. 1987, 2085 and 2190, where it had mentioned that its legislation had been amended in 1994 with the ILO's technical assistance and that it contained several improvements (which the Government elaborates upon) as regards trade union rights, which have been recognized by the Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean. The Constitution and the Labour Code (which, according to the Regional Office, contains numerous improvements) recognize freedom of association rights for workers and employers in the private sector and for the workers of autonomous official institutions, and give state workers the right to establish associations; these are the result of sovereign decisions, in conformity with society expectations. The governmental plan called "New Alliance" elaborates a strategy linking the legal framework to the requirements of the national and international labour markets. Finally, as the Constitution and the Labour Code give freedom of association rights only to private sector workers and employers and to workers of autonomous official institutions, it is not legally possible to grant legal personality to the self-proclaimed Trade Union of Workers of the Ministry of Education (ATRAMEC).

79. The Committee notes this information and regrets that the Government's position did not change as regards both the necessity to amend the legislation to bring it into full conformity with freedom of association principles, and the legal recognition of ATRAMEC. The Committee emphasizes that the fact that the legislation amended in 1994 contains improvements does not mean that there is no problem left to solve. Accordingly, the Committee reiterates its previous recommendations and requests the Government to re-examine its position as regards both the trade union legislation and ATRAMEC. The Committee recalls once again to the Government that it may avail itself of the ILO's technical assistance.

Case No. 2165 (El Salvador)

80. At its June 2002 meeting, the Committee formulated the following recommendations on the pending allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination at El Salvador International Airport as part of staff reduction measures (see 328th Report, para. 251):

- the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures urgently to ensure that an investigation is carried out to determine the reasons why such a high proportion of unionists and workers' representatives were dismissed and, if it transpires that any of these dismissals were due to trade union membership or legitimate union activities, that it takes the necessary measures to ensure the reinstatement of those workers in their jobs, without loss of pay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard as a matter of urgency;

The Committee had observed that the Government had not denied that over half of the workers dismissed were members of SITINPEP, and that 24 of them were workers' representatives in various commissions and committees (see 328th Report, para. 247).

- as concerns the allegation of the militarization of El Salvador International Airport on 24 and 25 September 2001, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to carry out an investigation to determine the reasons for this militarization and the extent to which it interfered with trade union activities and to keep it informed urgently of the outcome of this investigation.

81. In its communication of 30 August 2002, the Workers' Union of the National Institute for Public Employees' Pensions (SITINPEP) indicates that the dismissals from the INPEP had anti-union purposes and affected 55 union members (namely 42.5 per cent of the total number of members), 28 of whom were officials in trade union structures.

82. In its communication of 13 September 2002, the Federation of Public Service Workers' Trade Unions of El Salvador (FESTRASPES) states that as regards the partial agreement of 26 February 2002 between the Autonomous Port Executive Commission (CEPA) and SITEAIES, the latter decided to halt its judicial and administrative proceedings in El Salvador since it considered that the country's institutions do not function properly, but said Federation has not withdrawn its complaint before the ILO given that these agreements must be overseen and improved until all of the airport workers obtain the employment benefits and conditions they enjoyed prior to militarization. The FESTRASPES alleges that more workers have renounced their trade union membership under pressure from the management following the 26 February 2002 agreement. The FESTRASPES sent a report from the Prosecutor's Office for the Defence of Human Rights of El Salvador which indicates the following (it is not known whether the following is a statement by the Prosecutor's Office or the trade union official's version):

Following an inspection at the site, it has come to light that the El Salvador International Airport authorities prevented a General Assembly from taking place within the establishment at SITEAIES headquarters on 12 October 2002. Military police reserves were positioned in the area surrounding the terminal to prevent this meeting from taking place. When questioned, they said they had been given orders by the airport's security chief to prevent suspended workers from entering the building and "to prevent the Assembly from taking place on these premises". For this reason members of the Assembly met on rented premises in order to hold the aforementioned Assembly and elect new trade union officials.

83. In its communications of 8, 28 October and 10 December 2002, the Government sent a copy of the agreement signed by the Port Executive Commission and 64 workers (whose contracts were suspended) terminating their individual employment contracts and establishing the specific amounts that they would receive. At the same time, the trade union SITEAIES decided to renounce any claims made before an institution, including the complaint made before the ILO (the same person who made the complaint to the ILO signed the agreement). The Government adds that no act of militarization occurred at the airport and that trade union rights were not obstructed. This case related to the suspension of individual employment contracts owing to force majeure as outlined in the Labour Code. The Government states that the administration had informed staff and the Union on many occasions of the financial situation of the INPEP which would lead to staff reductions. It also discussed the actual status of the institution's finances and the imminent staff reductions with the trade union's officials. Both unionized and non-unionized workers were amongst the staff whose posts were frozen. The jobs belonging to members of the executive board of the trade union and its former officials were respected; some officials with trade union immunity had their jobs frozen because they had failed to inform the institution of their trade union confederation membership, but had accepted their redundancy with the condition that their salaries be paid for the period during which they had been covered by trade union immunity; this condition was met. The redundancies were not motivated by trade union membership or trade union activities; affiliated and non-affiliated staff are currently working at the institution.

84. The Committee observes that, unlike SITEAIES, the complainant organizations SITINPEP and FESTRASPES have not withdrawn their complaints. The Committee notes that 64 workers, SITEAIES and the institution CEPA reached an agreement. The Committee observes that the versions provided by the complainant organizations and the Government concerning the anti-union nature of the termination of contracts at the airport differ, as do their versions of the militarization of the airport in October 2001 and the alleged obstruction of the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee recalls that, generally speaking, the right of organizations to hold meetings and demonstrations must be guaranteed and that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government, SITINPEP and FESTRASPES jointly to examine the situation of other members of these organizations (not the 64 members already mentioned) who allege that they have been prejudiced for trade union reasons, with a view to their reinstatement in their jobs or the payment of compensation.

Case No. 2123 (Spain)

85. At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee requested the Government to take measures in order to give preference as far as possible to collective bargaining in determining the conditions of employment of public servants. To this effect, the Committee requested the Government to open negotiations with representative trade union organizations without delay in order to re-establish professional relations on solid and firm ground in an atmosphere of mutual trust. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any measure taken in this respect (see 329th Report, para. 534).

86. In its communication of 26 November 2002, the Government states that the process of collective bargaining with public servants has already taken place with positive results; an agreement was concluded between the administration and trade unions on 15 November 2002 for the 2003-04 period (the Government sent a copy of this agreement).

87. The Committee notes this information with interest.

Cases Nos. 2017 and 2050 (Guatemala)

88. At its meeting of November 2002, the Committee formulated the following conclusions and recommendations on the pending questions (see 329th Report, paras. 51-63):

- The Committee regrets that the Government has not sent its observations on the allegations concerning: (1) the judicial rulings relating to the closure of the Cardiz S.A. company; (2) the kidnapping, assaults and threats against the trade unionist of the Santa María de Lourdes Farm, Walter Oswaldo Apen Ruiz and his family, and the death threats against the trade union leaders Rolando Sacuqui García, Wilson Armelio Carreto López and José Luis Mendía Flores; (3) the murder of the trade unionists of the Exacta Efraín Recinos Farm, Basilio Guzmán and Diego Orozco, the injuries to 11 workers and the detention of 45 workers from that farm; (4) the murder of the trade unionist José García González and the trade union leader Baudillo Amado Cermeño; and (5) the raid on the Luz y Fuerza Union. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on these allegations indicating the status of the respective proceedings. The Committee deplores these acts of violence against trade unionists, expresses its great concern at this situation and points out to the Government that a free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free of violence, threats and intimidation. The Committee requests the Government to guarantee the security of all the threatened trade unionists listed in this case.

- With respect to the dispute involving the Banco de Crédito Hipotecario Nacional, the Committee takes note that a negotiating committee has been set up for all the pending issues (negotiation of a collective agreement, mass dismissals, etc.) and observes that the suspension of trade union leave had been initially resolved but that the complainant organization has now alleged that they were suspended again on 26 July 2002. The Committee observes that the dispute is the subject of court proceedings. The Committee stresses the importance of complying with judicial rulings which prohibit dismissals without legal authorization, hopes that the negotiating committee can quickly find a solution to the dispute and requests the Government to keep it informed of progress in that committee. The Committee requests the Government to communicate any ruling on these allegations.

- The Committee observes that the Government has sent insufficient or imprecise information on the other pending questions: the cases of SITRABI, the Santa María de Lourdes farm, the Hidrotécnica company, the municipality of Jalapa (breach of collective agreement) and the National Zoological Park. The Committee requests the Government to send additional information on these allegations. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that the trade unionist José Luis Mendía Flores has been reinstated in his job as ordered by the judicial authority.

(Santa María de Lourdes Farm: the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the legal grounds for the cancellation of the registration of all of the officers of the trade union and emphasized that it would have been appropriate to retain all of the trade union officers except the farm administrator.

With respect to the allegations of dismissal of the founders of the trade union formed in 1997 in Hidrotécnica S.A., the Committee:

- - urged the Government to organize without delay an investigation into these allegations and keep it informed of developments;

- - stated that the necessary measures should be taken so that trade unionists who have been dismissed for activities related to the establishment of a trade union are reinstated in their functions, if they so wish).

(As regards the allegations relating to the death threats received by members of the Workers' Union of Banana Plantations of Izabal (SITRABI), the threats by the Bandegua company to leave the country if the workers do not agree to a reduction of their rights under the collective agreement, the dismissals threatened and carried out by that company (25 dismissals at five farms), the Committee requests the Government:

- - urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the security of the threatened trade unionists, place the cases of the alleged death threats and raid before the Attorney-General without delay and keep it informed of the penal sanctions applied;

- - to ensure that anti-union dismissals do not take place and investigate the motives for the dismissals that have occurred; and

- - to ensure respect for the collective agreement and keep it informed of developments in the situation).

- The Committee observes that other labour cases (outstanding from the last examination of the case) are the subject of judicial proceedings (Ace Internacional Company, Tanport Company, La Exacta farm). The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations on these questions and requests the Government to send additional information.

(Regarding the Tanport S.A. company, the Committee hopes that the existing discrimination will be ended without delay and requests the Government to inform it of the result of the legal proceedings undertaken to protect the money owed to the UNSITRAGUA members who were dismissed because of the company's closure.

As regards the Ace Internacional S.A. assembly plant, the Committee had requested the Government urgently to communicate the court resolutions handed down on the serious allegations sent of discrimination and intimidation.

With respect to the La Exacta farm, the Committee had requested the Government to ensure compliance with the court orders on reinstatement of the workers dismissed from the La Exacta farm.)

89. In its communication of 25 October 2002, the Guatemala Workers' Union (UNSITRAGUA) states that the employer-controlled trade union SITRACOBSA (a fact admitted by the Government) opposed the decision by the Ministry of Labour to reactivate workers belonging to the legitimate trade union (SITECOBSA) of the Corporación Bananera S.A. and to declare void the suspension of those workers' contracts of employment. UNSITRAGUA adds that on 2 September 2002, SITRACOBSA contributed to the negative and intimidatory attitude of the company (which has reinforced security at the entrance to the farm with heavily armed security guards and dogs) by assembling its members and temporary workers to intimidate SITECOBSA workers and UNSITRAGUA officers who were seeking together with labour inspectors to reinstate the SITECOBSA members as ordered by the Ministry of Labour. In a recent communication of 18 February 2003, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) sent additional information on some of the allegations in the complaint.

90. In its communication of 30 December 2002, the Government states that it will provide information on the rulings concerning the Cardiz S.A. and Ace Internacional companies. The Government adds that the cancellation of the registration of the trade union officers of the Santa María de Lourdes farm was due to the expiry of the executive board on 21 April 2000 without a new board being appointed. On 18 September of that year, a new board was registered with the Ministry of Labour on submission of the appropriate documentation, but the Central Trade Union CUSG objected that the general assembly had included persons who were not members of the trade union, and the registration was therefore ordered to be cancelled. On 8 January, a new executive board was registered once the irregularities had been corrected.

91. As to the alleged threats against the trade union officer, Otto Rolando Sacuqui, this person was no longer working at the Santa María de Lourdes farm and is now a supervisor of labour inspectors in the Ministry of Labour. As regards the threats against the SITRABI members, the Government points out that there are no complaints before the Presidential Human Rights Commission and that during a visit by the Attorney-General to the area to investigate the case no complaints materialized. There is now a good collective bargaining climate in the area.

92. With respect to the break-in of the office of the Luz y Fuerza union, a criminal investigation is under way and the Government gives details of the actions undertaken. Finally, the Secretary-General of the trade union has not come forward to collaborate in the investigations.

93. As to the threats against the unionist José Luis Mendía Flores, the Government reports that he changed his workplace and that his trade union confirmed that in any case the threats ceased two years ago.

94. The Government states that it will inform the Committee about the judicial proceedings concerning the murder of the trade unionists at the La Exacta farm (Efraín Recinos, Basilio Guzmán and Diego Orozco) and other acts of violence, the injuries to 11 workers and the detention of 45 workers from that farm.

95. With respect to the murder of the trade union official Baudillo Amado Cermeño Ramez, the Government sent a summary of the police and judicial proceedings in the case and provided the names of two suspects.

96. As regards the threats against the trade unionists Miguel Angel Ochoa and Wilson Armelio Carreto López, the Government states that according to a search of Ministry of Labour records, these persons do not belong to any trade union. Moreover, there has been no complaint to the Attorney-General. Neither has the complainant organization provided details.

97. As to the alleged violation of the collective agreement in the municipality of Jalapa, the Government states that the mayor responsible has been suspended from his duties and the present mayor has been able to restore collective bargaining and harmony between the parties.

98. The Committee takes note of the Government's explanations as to the reasons for the cancellation of the executive board of the trade union of the Santa María de Lourdes farm and observes that this matter was subsequently resolved in a satisfactory manner. The Committee also takes note that there are no complaints of threats against the trade unionist Otto Rolando Sacuqui, and that he has changed jobs and is now chief of inspectors in the Ministry of Labour. The Committee also takes note that the trade unionist José Luis Mendía Flores has changed his workplace and that his trade union confirmed that the previous threats had ceased. The Committee also takes note of the police and judicial proceedings concerning the murder of the trade unionist Baudillo Amado Cermeño Ramírez and requests the Government to inform it of the ruling in that case. The Committee further notes that according to the Government Mr. Miguel Angel Ochoa and Wilson Armelio Carreto López are not members of any trade union and that no complaints have been sent in respect of threats against these persons to the Attorney-General; the Committee invites the complainants to send comments on these observations. The Committee further takes note that, according to the Government, collective bargaining has been restored in the municipality of Jalapa following the appointment of a new mayor. Finally, the Committee takes note that the Secretary-General of Luz y Fuerza had not come forward to collaborate in the investigations into the break-in of the trade union headquarters, and stresses the importance of the trade union assisting in order to determine the circumstances of the break-in so as to identify the guilty parties.

99. Lastly, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided information on the other pending questions. The Committee requests the Government to send the requested information and observations without delay and observes that the Government has announced that it is sending information on some of these questions. The Committee also requests the Government to send its observations on the allegations contained in the UNSITRAGUA communication of 25 October 2002 and on the recent ICFTU communication of 18 February 2003.

Case No. 2167 (Guatemala)

100. At its meeting in June 2002, the Committee made the following recommendations on matters that had remained pending (see the Committee's 328th Report, para. 304):

- Strongly emphasizing the importance that employers' and workers' organizations should be consulted by the authorities on matters of mutual interest, including the preparation and application of legislation which affects their interest and the determination of minimum wages, as well as the importance of consultations taking place in good faith, confidence and mutual respect, and of the parties having sufficient time to express their views and discuss them in full, the Committee requests the Government to take these principles into account on social and economic matters, particularly with regard to setting minimum wages, drafting the code of labour procedure and developing new tax laws, and to ensure that it attaches the necessary importance to agreements reached between workers' and employers' organizations.

- Deploring the harassment and intimidation of employers, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that employers' and workers' organizations must be allowed to conduct their activities in defence of their interests in a climate that is free from pressure, intimidation, harassment, threats or efforts to discredit them or their leaders, which includes the adulteration of documents. The Committee requests the Government to ensure respect for this principle in future.

- Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any judicial decisions taken with regard to this case.

101. In its communication of 30 December 2002, the Government refers to the efforts and progress it has made in social dialogue and to the various tripartite consultations that have taken place. The Government also sends a recent press cutting concerning a call to the private sector to help find joint solutions to the country's problems.

102. The Committee notes the Government's information, and again requests the Government to keep it informed of any judicial decision specifically as concerns the alleged harassment and intimidation of the employer in this complaint, as it had requested in its previous examination of the case.

Case No. 2118 (Hungary)

103. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2002 meeting (see 327th Report, paras. 605-644). On this occasion, the Committee made the following conclusions and recommendations:

(a) Concerning the legal interpretation of the Hungarian Act on Strike, the Committee notes that in the case of the February 2000 strike, the decision following the re-examination proceedings has not yet been rendered and requests the Government to keep it informed of the latest developments in this case and to provide a copy of the re-examination decision.

(b) Recalling that it is essential that the introduction of draft legislation affecting collective bargaining or conditions of employment should be preceded by full and detailed consultations with the appropriate organizations of workers and employers, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that these organizations are involved in the discussion proceedings prior to the adoption of new labour legislation.

(c) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all developments and provide copies of the judicial decisions regarding the alleged violation of paragraph 21(2) of the Labour Code by Order No. Gy. 26-46/2000 on the management of labour affairs and the decision on the implementation of the Instructions for Clothing No. K-6441/2000.

(d) With regard to the allegation of the non-implementation of the annex of the collective agreement between the Directorate of Rolling Stock of the Hungarian State Railways and the Free Trade Union of the Railway Employees of Hungary at the Northern Mechanical Office of Traffic-Manager of MAV Rt. following Decree No. 1508/1999, the Committee recalls that such non-implementation of the collective agreement, even on a temporary basis, does violate the right to bargain collectively as well as the principle of bargaining in good faith and that agreements should be binding on the parties. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the judicial decision regarding this matter.

(e) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the instructions from the Deputy General Manager for Public and Labour Relations are repealed and to keep it informed in this regard.

(f) Regarding the complainant's premises presently occupied by the law firm, the Committee asks the Government to ensure that the complainant regains its premises.

104. In a communication dated 14 October 2002 the Government states with regard to point (a) above, that the Supreme Court abrogated the decree of the Industrial Court of Budapest which had qualified the February 2000 strike as unlawful.

105. Concerning point (b) of the Committee's recommendations, that is, the carrying out of tripartite consultations prior to the introduction of draft legislation affecting collective bargaining or conditions of employment, the Government provides information on the activities of the National Labour Council between April 1999 and February 2002.

106. Concerning point (c) of the Committee's recommendations, that is the alleged violation of paragraph 21(2) of the Labour Code by Order No. Gy. 24-26/2000 on the management of labour affairs and the implementation of the Instructions for Clothing No. K-6441/2000, the Government states that the Industrial Court of Budapest rejected the complainant's grievances and found that these measures were lawful. The decisions were made final and absolute in the absence of an appeal.

107. The Government explains its position with regard to items (d) and (e) of the Committee's recommendations as follows. Concerning the alleged non-implementation of the annex of the collective agreement at the Northern Mechanical Office of Traffic-Manager of MAV Rt. following Decree No. 1508/1999, the Government states that the matter is still pending before the Industrial Court and that the adjudicating judge has requested the Constitutional Court's position in respect of the pertinent sections 33(3), (4), (5) and (7) of the Hungarian Labour Code which set forth the bargaining power of trade unions based on their results at the election of the works council. According to these provisions, collective agreements may be concluded: (a) jointly by all trade unions if their cumulative power represents an absolute majority of the votes cast in the elections for works councils (section 33(3) of the Labour Code); or (b) jointly by certain trade unions each one of which represents at least 10 per cent of the votes cast in these elections and have obtained altogether more than 50 per cent of the votes (sections 33(4) and 29(4) of the Labour Code); and (c) individually, only where one trade union has received more than 65 per cent of the votes cast in the elections for works councils (section 33(5) of the Labour Code).

108. The Government states that the Constitutional Court found these provisions unconstitutional because their application prevents the trade union with the widest support from concluding a collective agreement with the employer. According to the Court's position, this rule restricts the right of representation as provided under the Constitution. In this case, the trade union winning more than 50 per cent but less than 65 per cent of the votes cast, i.e. the Free Trade Union of Railway Workers, cannot alone conclude an agreement with the employer without the other trade union, which is also representative but with less support, i.e. the Trade Union of Hungarian Railwaymen, which is the complainant in this case. The Government adds that the same percentage requirements apply with regard to the termination of collective agreements (sections 31(1) and (3) of the Labour Code).

109. The Government holds that these provisions are not unconstitutional because they are intended to encourage trade unions to come to an agreement with each other and make a coalition in order to gain larger support from the workers. This is important because, on the one hand, the effect of the collective agreement extends to all employees and, on the other, the collective agreement could contain not only provisions more favourable than those contained in the Labour Code, but also provisions which are less favourable when this is permitted by the law (e.g. in respect of the annual amount of overtime). Moreover, trade unions which received less support in the elections to the works councils and whose position differs in respect of the issues regulated by the collective agreement from the other trade unions intending to form a coalition, are authorized to take action in the field of advocacy. The Government further states that the lack of agreement between the parties in this case cannot be attributed to the legislation. The Government informs the Committee that subsequent to the promulgation of the Constitutional Court's position on this matter and the resolution of the law suit, it will submit a copy of the award as requested by the Committee.

110. Regarding point (f) of the Committee's recommendations, namely, reinstatement in the complainant's premises, the Government states that following consultations with MAV Rt., the premises were returned to the complainant.

111. The Committee takes note of this information. With regard to Point (a) of its previous recommendations, the Committee notes with interest that the Supreme Court abrogated a decree of the Industrial Court which, based on a particular interpretation of the Hungarian Act on Strike, had qualified the February 2000 strike as unlawful. With regard to point (f) of its recommendations, the Committee also notes with interest that the complainant organization was allowed to return to its premises.

112. With regard to point (b) of its recommendations, the Committee takes note of the material provided concerning tripartite consultations prior to the introduction of legislation in the area of collective bargaining and conditions of employment for the period April 1999 to February 2002.

113. With respect to point (c) of its recommendations, the Committee notes that the Decrees of the Industrial Court of Budapest which rejected the complainant's grievances concerning the alleged violation of paragraph 21(2) of the Labour Code and the implementation of the Instructions for Clothing No. K-6441/2000, became final and absolute in the absence of an appeal.

114. With respect to point (d), the Committee notes that the legal suit filed by the complainant organization for non-implementation of the annex to the collective agreement at the Northern Mechanical Office of Traffic-Manager of MAV Rt., following Decree No. 1508/1999, is still pending before the Industrial Court and that in the framework of this law suit, a question has been referred to the Constitutional Court which seems to have declared section 33(3), (4), (5) and (7) of the Labour Code unconstitutional. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings before the Industrial Court and the measures taken pursuant to the decision of the Constitutional Court.

115. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in accordance with Article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), measures should be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' and workers' organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. The Committee observes that it might be difficult in practice for trade unions to attain a percentage of 65 per cent (individually) or 50 per cent (jointly) as required by section 33 of the Labour Code in order to be able to engage in collective bargaining, especially at the level of the enterprise or branch of activity. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures as soon as possible to amend section 33 of the Labour Code so as to bring it in line with the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case.

116. With regard to point (e), the Committee notes with concern that the Government does not provide any information concerning measures to repeal the instructions from the Deputy General Manager for Public and Labour Relations according to which trade union activities should be continuously monitored, formal and informal conversations reported and any programme or events organized by the trade union brought to the employer's knowledge. The Committee once again recalls that respect for the principle of freedom of association requires that the public authorities exercise great restraint in relation to intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions. It is even more important that employers exercise restraint in this regard (see Digest, op. cit., para. 761). The Committee once again urges the Government to take all necessary measures as soon as possible to ensure that the instructions are repealed and to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 1854 (India)

117. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2002 meeting (see 328th Report, paras. 48-49). On that occasion, the Committee recalled that this very serious case concerning the murder of a trade unionist (Ms. Ahilya Devi) who was organizing rural workers, goes back to 1995, and requested the Government to provide it with the judgment of the District Session Court, Purnea, where trial was to begin soon on the accused (Messrs. Bhirigunath Gupta, Rattan Gosh, Papan Chaki and Narsingh Singh), as well as to keep it informed of developments concerning the arrest of the other two accused (Messrs. Shri Munna Punjabi, alias Jai Prakash and Shri Shrawan Giri) who had been declared absconding parties.

118. In communications dated 12 September 2002 and 3 and 10 January and 3 March 2003, the Government states that the hearing of the case was initially fixed for September 2002 and has been postponed on three occasions until 10 March 2003.

119. The Committee takes note of this information. The Committee notes with regret that judicial hearings on this very serious case have not taken place yet, eight years after the murder of Ms. Ahilya Devi. The Committee reminds the Government that justice delayed is justice denied and hopes that it will be in a position to report substantial progress in this case in the very near future. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with the judgment 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. 2139 (Japan)

120. The Committee examined this case on its merits at its June 2002 meeting. It concerns allegations of preferential treatment granted to certain workers' organizations in the appointment of nominees to the central and prefectoral labour relations commissions, and various other central and local councils. It recommended that the Government take appropriate measures, based on freedom of association principles, to afford fair and equal treatment to all representative trade union organizations, with a view to restoring the confidence of all workers in the fairness of the composition of labour relations commissions and other councils (see 328th Report, para. 447).

121. In a communication dated 27 December 2002, the Government indicates that, upon expiry of the 26th term of the Central Labour Relations Commission (CLRC), 15 employer members, 15 worker members and 15 public members were appointed on 16 November 2002 for a two-year term. In choosing worker members, the Government took into account the recommendations of trade unions and various factors, including the organizational situation of each trade union. As a result, all worker members appointed for the 27th term of the CLRC originate from RENGO, a confederation other than the complainant organization, which still has no representative on that body. As regards prefectoral labour relations commissions (PLRCs) the Government indicates that members have been appointed in 21 of the 47 prefectures upon expiry of the previous terms. The number of worker members coming from trade unions affiliated with the complainant organization has been raised from four to six.

122. The Committee notes with interest that the number of worker members coming from trade unions affiliated with the complainant organization and appointed to the PLRCs has been raised, thereby resulting in a more balanced composition of such bodies. It notes with regret that this has not been the case as regards appointments to the Central Labour Relations Commission, despite the fact that the Government, after having been informed of the Committee's recommendation, recently had an opportunity to correct the existing imbalance in the CLRC composition, which is now set for two years. The Committee hopes that the Government will take remedial measures on the occasion of appointments for the 28th term of the CLRC or before that, should worker member positions become vacant in the meantime. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments.

Case No. 2048 (Morocco)

123. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2001 meeting (see 324th Report, paras. 60-62). On that occasion, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the decisions of the Rabat Court of Appeal and of the Court of the First Instance of Rabat concerning the events which took place in September 1999 during the social dispute at the Avitema farm would be reached without delay and again requested the Government to communicate these decisions to it as soon as they had been handed down.

124. In a communication dated 25 September 2002, the Government stated that the ruling of the Court of the First Instance of Rabat had been upheld in one case (that of Mr. Abdesslam Labied) by suspending the detention and still imposing the fine. In six of the cases (those of Mrs. Naïma Dkiki, Nouzha Hafidi, Touria Al Maoui, Samira Ouchak, Ghannou Al Otmani and Saadia Zaïri) the Court of Appeal suspended the one month suspended sentence whilst still imposing the fine. In two cases (those of Mrs. Jemaa Dkiki and Mr. Mohammed Ikour Laabidi Lhaj), the Court of Appeal handed down a two-month suspended prison sentence; a fine seems to have been imposed in only one of these two cases. In one case (that of Mr. Mohammed Choukri), the Court of Appeal handed down a two-month custodial sentence and imposed a fine. The Committee notes, according to the information with which it has been provided, that in one case (that of Mr. Abdelkader Khatri), the Court of Appeal pronounced a suspended prison sentence and imposed a fine but that the precise duration of the sentence was not given comprehensively. The other prisoners were given a two-month suspended prison sentence and fined. Finally, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Court of the First Instance administering the costs jointly to all the defendants.

125. The Committee takes note of this information. It regrets that some workers at the Avitema farm who had enjoyed conditional release have been given suspended prison sentences and that even in one case, a custodial prison sentence has been given. Furthermore, it notes that according to the information provided by the Government, the Court of Appeal had suspended some sentences to one month's suspended sentence or upheld the suspension of the sentence; it is however difficult for the Committee, on the basis of the information provided by the Government, to understand the precise significance of this "suspension". Generally, the Committee cannot reach entirely objective conclusions without the text of the judgement handed down in the appeal; it was for this reason that it requested at its previous examinations to obtain a copy of the judgement and that it urges the Government once again that this document finally be submitted to it. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information regarding the prosecution for assault and battery brought in accordance with the Penal Code before the Court of the First Instance of Rabat in the cases of Mr. Abderrazak Chellaoui, Mr. Bouazza Maâche and Mr. Abdeleslam Talha. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Court has already handed down its decision or that it will do so in the very near future. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it receives a copy of the judgement in question.

Case No. 2106 (Mauritius)

126. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the annulment of an interim increase for public servants decided by a previous government just before a general election, and the failure to apply an agreement on various working conditions in a state-owned sugar milling enterprise, at its November 2002 meeting. It noted that a satisfactory agreement had been concluded in the sugar enterprise and requested the Government to inform it of the final decision concerning the pay claim (see 329th Report, paras. 76-79).

127. In a communication dated 31 December 2002, the Government states that a review conducted by the Pay Research Bureau (PRB) should be completed by June 2003. In addition to the salary compensation, already mentioned, granted to all workers in July 2002, the Government agreed to grant, with effect from January 2003, an allowance to primary-school teachers, who constitute a significant percentage of public officers. A meeting was also held on 23 December 2002 between authorities and representatives of all the federations of public officers, where the Government proposed a special allowance (5 per cent of basic monthly salary, up to a maximum of rs.750) to all public officers, except those who have already benefited from an allowance. Such advance is an interim increase pending the report of the PRB. The Government considers that the matter at issue is being progressively and appropriately addressed.

128. Noting with interest this resuming of social dialogue and collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments once the final decision is made.

Case No. 2113 (Mauritania)

129. During its previous examination of this case (see 328th Report, paras. 56-58), the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the investigations under way into the alleged arrest of trade union leaders following a fishermen's protest march.

130. In a communication dated 8 January 2003, the Government once again highlights that the fishermen had not applied to the competent authorities for permission to carry out the march. The Government adds that the competent authorities had asked them to conform to the regulations in force, in particular the provisions governing the organization of street demonstrations. The Government states that no arrests or questioning took place following this attempt to hold an unauthorized demonstration. The Government also comments that the Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania (CLTM) has never referred the alleged arrests to the Minister of the Interior.

131. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. It notes that the Government has not referred to the investigations that were "under way", to repeat the terms used in its penultimate communication of 10 January 2002. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the investigations that were conducted as well as their outcome, particularly as regards the leaders of the National Fisheries Federation whose names are cited in paragraph 367 of the Committee's 326th Report. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 2136 (Mexico)

132. At its meeting in November 2002, the Committee formulated conclusions on an allegation that had remained pending in relation to this case and refers to the dismissal of members of ASPA. The complainant (ASPA) had alleged in June 2001 that, following ASPA's decision to demand a collective agreement for AVIACSA pilots, a number of pilots had been unfairly dismissed only because they supported ASPA, including Captain Emilio Alberto Zárate González, Captain Andrés Flores López, Captain Gerardo Gorría Carmona, Captain Ismael Cruz Román, Captain Marcos Guillermo Mendoza Escobar, Captain Luis Fernando del Río Leal, Captain Manuel Tostado Almazán, Captain José Eduardo Rodríguez Normandía, Captain Gerardo Serrato Sala, Captain Jorge Eduardo Moreno Aguirre, Captain Ari Rafael Rose Errejón and Captain Mario Rafael Escalera Cárdenas. As a consequence of the unfair dismissals, individual appeals against dismissal were lodged and are being processed by Special Council No. 2 of the Federal Council for Conciliation and Arbitration under case numbers 332/2000, 333/2000, 334/2000, 336/2000 and 350/2000 (see the Committee's 328th Report, para. 497). In June 2002, ASPA alleged that the company again dismissed more pilots between April and May 2002 for voting in favour of ASPA at the most recent ballot on 13 March 2002 (see the 329th Report, para. 89). At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations (see the 329th Report, para. 101):

As regards the dismissals of the ASPA members referred to by the Committee in its previous examination of the case, the Committee observes that the judicial proceedings are still pending. The Committee requests the Government to take the appropriate measures to ensure that those proceedings are concluded as quickly as possible and, if the anti-union nature thereof is proven, that the dismissed workers are reinstated immediately, without loss of pay. In addition, the Committee notes with concern the allegations relating to the dismissal of new workers for voting in favour of the ASPA trade union organization. The Committee notes the high number of dismissals in the context of a collective bargaining dispute and that the Government merely points out the existence of the possibility of taking legal action. The Committee recalls that no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 696). The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the relevant inquiries are conducted immediately and, if the anti-union nature of these latest dismissals is proven, to consider the possibility of ensuring the reinstatement of these workers as soon as possible. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

133. In its communication of 21 January 2003, the Government supplied information on the status of the cases relating to the 12 individuals named by the complainants that are currently being examined by the Federal Council for Conciliation and Arbitration (a jurisdictional body) and have not yet been concluded. The Government states that it is this Council that will have to rule on whether the workers were dismissed unjustifiably for their trade union activities. In its communication dated 14 February 2003, the Government requests the complainant to indicate the court and the number of the file of any other cases of dismissal that have not been resolved.

134. Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of all of the cases relating to dismissals and hopes that judicial rulings will be handed down in the near future.

Case No. 1965 (Panama)

135. At its meeting in June 2002, the Committee made the following recommendations on matters that remained pending (see the 328th Report, para. 61):

The Committee recalls that the Government had requested the Procurator-General of the Nation to carry out an investigation 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.

136. In its communication of 28 November 2002, the Government reiterates that as regards the alleged raid on SUNTRACS headquarters and ill-treatment, investigations by the Ministry of Labour have not found any corroborating documents or other evidence. The Government adds that the Attorney-General's office has stated that efforts to summon those who consider themselves to have been affected by these alleged acts have been almost entirely unsuccessful, and it has not been possible to take any statements. As regards the dismissals, the Government states that the workers Porfirio Beitia, Francisco López, Eugenio Rivas, Darío Ulate and Julio Trejos have lodged a complaint of unjustified dismissal; Mr. Francisco López won a ruling against the company; in the case of Mr. Eugenio Rivas, the case against the company was quashed on the grounds that it had lapsed; and the cases relating to Darío Ulate, Porfirio Beitia and Julio Trejos are still pending.

137. The Committee notes this information. It regrets that the investigations on the alleged raid at SUNTRACS headquarters and ill-treatment have not produced any results owing to the lack of cooperation on the part of those involved. The Committee requests the Government to communicate the final judicial ruling on the dismissals of Darío Ulate, Porfirio Beitia and Julio Trejos.

Case No. 1826 (Philippines)

138. When it last examined this case, which concerns lengthy delays and several postponements of a trade union certification election (first requested in February 1994) at Cebu Mitsumi Inc., in the Danao export processing zone, the Committee expressed its deep regret that the certification issue had not yet been resolved despite the lengthy period elapsed and urged the Government to expedite related proceedings. The Committee also regretted once again that the Government had not provided any information on other issues, notably the suspension of Mr. Ulalan, President of the Cebu Mitsumi Employees' Union, and the steps taken to adopt a legislative framework establishing a fair and speedy certification process providing adequate protection against acts of interference by employers in certification matters (see 329th Report, paras. 126-128).

139. In a communication of 6 January 2003, the Government states that the Department of Labour conducted a continuation of the pre-election conference on 13 November 2002, which was supposed to be pursued on 10 January 2003, and that the Committee will be informed. The Government did not provide any other information.

140. The Committee takes note of this information. Recalling that this case was first examined seven years ago, after it had to launch an urgent appeal to the Government, the Committee must once again express its deep concern at the inordinate delays intervened in the present case, which concerns the very existence of a trade union, and urges the Government to speed up as a matter of urgency the process of certification at Cebu Mitsumi Inc. and to inform it of concrete results obtained in this respect. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government did not provide any other information on the other issues (the suspension of Mr. Ulalan, and the steps taken to establishing a fair and speedy certification process providing adequate protection against acts of interference by employers in such matters) and strongly requests it once again to provide this information without delay.

Case No. 1785 (Poland)

141. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting when it requested the Government and the complainant to confirm that all claims pending before the Revindication Commission have been settled. It further requested the Government to keep it informed on developments concerning the status of the Employees' Recreation Fund and the future regulation of the legal status of property of the former Trade Unions' Association and other trade union organizations dissolved under martial law (see 326th Report, paras. 143-147).

142. In its communication dated 17 September 2002, the Government provides detailed information on the discharge of non-cash liabilities resulting from decisions of the Social Revindication Commission in the form of treasury bonds. As on 10 September 2002, there were three proceedings on restitution of assets forfeited by trade unions and social organizations under martial law conducted before the Commission and nine proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court. The Government adds that it will keep the Committee informed if the legislative works on regulation of the status of the Employees' Recreation Fund, which had not been finished by the parliamentary elections, are recommenced.

143. The Committee takes due note of this information and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed in respect of the remaining claims pending before the Social Revindication Commission and any further developments in respect of the status of the Employees' Recreation Fund.

Case No. 2148 (Togo)

144. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2002 meeting (see 327th Report, paras. 781-804). On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to rapidly rescind the decrees declaring the teachers absent without leave and to restore the rights of all teachers still affected by these decrees. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

145. In a communication dated 31 December 2002, the Government informed the Committee that a consultation had taken place with the National Union of Independent Trade Unions of Togo (UNSIT) to identify the teachers who, after the regularizations carried out by the Ministry of the Civil Service, Labour and Employment, have not been called back to work and who wish to return to duty. The Government maintains that, during this consultation, it had been agreed that UNSIT would hand over a list of the teachers in question to the Government at the next meeting. This meeting took place on 27 December 2002, and according to the Government, UNSIT postponed the submission of the list. The Government states that it is still willing to continue consultation with UNSIT in order to identify these teachers with a view to their recall to work.

146. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. It recalls that the central point of the complaint was a strike organized by a teachers' union demanding the payment of arrears and outstanding debts. Noting that the strike was legal, the Committee had requested the Government, on the one hand, to rapidly revoke the decrees on the basis of which it had undertaken measures of retribution against the workers who had exercised their right to strike within the law; on the other hand, the Committee requested the Government to restore the rights of all teachers still affected by these decrees.

147. Whilst noting that two consultation meetings had taken place with UNSIT, the Committee notes that the information provided by the Government made no mention of measures to rescind the decrees in question and that it falls to the Government to undertake them. Consequently, the Committee again urges the Government to rescind without delay the decrees in question and to restore the rights of all teachers affected by these decrees and not just of the teachers who have had their situation regularized by the Government. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in respect of these two elements.

Case No. 2126 (Turkey)

148. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2002 meeting (see 329th Report, paras. 139-141). On that occasion, the Committee expressed its deep regret at the Government's unwillingness to give effect to the recommendations set out in its 327th Report (see para. 847) on all the matters raised, with the exception of the question of dual criteria for representational rights. Recalling its conclusions that the classification of the Pendik and Alaybey shipyards as part of the national defence sector constituted a violation of both the organizational and representational rights of the workers affiliated to Dok Gemis-Is, the Committee once again called on the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the right of Dok Gemis-Is to organize and represent its members in the Pendik and Alaybey shipyards and to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard. Regarding the institution of independent investigations into the allegations of impending dismissals, harassment and intimidation, the Committee once again urged the Government to institute independent investigations into these pending matters with the aim of improving the overall industrial relations climate and redressing any acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any developments in the drafting of amendments concerning the dual criteria for representational purposes.

149. In a communication dated 7 January 2003, the Government reaffirms that trade unions can freely be established in Turkey and that any trade union thus established can freely exercise its trade union rights. Further, under the national legislation, any worker fulfilling the statutory requirements can freely join a trade union and benefit from the activities of the trade union of which he or she is a member. The Government states that if any complaint regarding unlawful acts such as harassment or intimidation towards Dok Gemis-Is members reaches the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, it will be examined thoroughly by the relevant institutions, including the Labour Inspection Department, in accordance with the legislation and administrative procedure. The Government indicates that no complaint has been lodged with the Ministry of Labour and Social Security on this issue so far.

150. In taking note of this information, the Committee must once again express its deep regret at the Government's unwillingness to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee concerning the right of Dok Gemi-Is to organize and represent its members in the Pendik and Alaybey shipyards and the anti-union discrimination acts mainly directed against Dok Gemi-Is members.

151. In particular, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information on the measures it was requested to take so as to guarantee fully the organizational and representational rights of the workers affiliated to Dok Gemi-Is. The Committee would also like to draw the Government's attention to the last comments made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on the issue. The Committee therefore urges once again the Government to take the necessary measures so as to guarantee the right of Dok Gemi-Is to organize and represent its members in the Pendik and Alaybey shipyards and to ensure that any lost membership in this union as a result of the classification of these shipyards as falling within the national defence be immediately restored. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

152. On the issue of anti-union discrimination exerted against Dok Gemi-Is members, in view of the information provided by the Government, the Committee must recall that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and that it must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th (revised) edition, 1996, para. 738). The Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security is the same authority who, under Act No. 2821 on trade unions, had the authority to change the classification of the Pendik and Alaybey shipyards and that this change in classification resulted in the loss of representational rights for the Dok Gemi-Is trade union. Further, the Committee would like to refer the Government to the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on the need to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation to ensure a more effective protection of workers against all acts of anti-union discrimination (including dismissal). The Committee notes in this respect that the Government was asked to submit a copy of a new draft bill amending in particular Act No. 2821. In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government once again to institute independent investigations into all the allegations of anti-union discrimination and to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 2038 (Ukraine)

153. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2002 meeting when it requested the Government to engage in full consultations with the social partners on the possible amendment of section 16 of the Trade Unions Act, which had created certain difficulties with regard to the interpretation of standards concerning the inclusion of trade unions in the appropriate state registers (see 329th Report, paras. 145-148).

154. In communications dated 17 October and 6 November 2002, the Free Trade Union's Federation of Ukraine provides examples of difficulties encountered by unregistered trade unions. In particular, the complainant mentions trade unions (local trade unions of the Free Trade Union of Miners of Ukraine and the Free Trade Unions' Confederation of Lugansk region), which the regional administrative statistics department refuses to include in the State Registry of Enterprises and Organizations without a preliminary registration by the branches of Ministry of Justice. As a consequence, those trade unions, having obtained legal personality upon their creation, cannot exercise their activities. The complainant further states that a working group was created in order to examine whether the Trade Unions Act is in conformity with the freedom of association Conventions. According to the complainant, this working group was created with the sole aim of delaying the decision on a possible amendment of section 16 of the Act. Furthermore, the complainant states that members of executive power and the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine are using mass media means to block the adoption of the amendments to section 16 proposed by the complainant.

155. In its communications dated 25 November 2002 and 24 January 2003, the Government indicates that the Cabinet of Ministers asked the Ministry of Justice and the State Registry of Enterprises and Organizations to examine the refusal by the statistics authorities to include the Free Trade Unions' Confederation of Lugansk region and trade union bodies of the Independent Trade Union of Miners in the State Registry. The National Department of Statistics gave its approval to include those trade unions in the registry without obtaining official legal recognition, by a procedure based on a verification of the organization's compliance with its declared status. The relevant certificate of inclusion of such unions in the State Registry includes therefore a note to the effect that the union "has not been registered with the judicial authorities". In the communication of 24 January 2003, the Government indicates that under the legislation in force, official legal recognition of public organizations and their associations is not the responsibility of the state statistic authorities and therefore inclusion of trade union organizations in the State Registry signifies only that they are considered for the purposes of identification and clarification. In its first communication, the Government indicates however that in order to resolve similar situations, work is being done to prepare amendments to existing laws and regulations.

156. The Committee takes note of this information. The Committee notes with interest that the National Department of Statistics gave its approval to include the Free Trade Unions' Confederation of Lugansk region and trade union bodies of the Independent Trade Union of Miners in the State Registry of Enterprises and Organizations. It notes, however, that according to the complainant these are only some of the examples of a workers' organization encountering difficulties with regard to their inclusion in the State Registry. The Committee considers that where the difficulties with regard to the interpretation of standards concerning the inclusion of trade unions in the appropriate state registers create situations where competent authorities make excessive use of their powers, problems of compatibility with Convention No. 87 may arise. The Committee notes the Government's indication that work is being done to prepare amendments to existing laws and regulations in order to resolve those difficulties. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in the preparation, in full consultation with the social partners, of amendments to the existing law which may resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned.

Case No. 2079 (Ukraine)

157. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2002 meeting when it requested the Government to clarify the situation of the Volynskaya Province division of the All-Ukraine Trade Union "Capital/Region" as far as its registration with local authorities is concerned. The Committee further requested the Government to set up an independent inquiry into the dismissal of Mr. Linik, and if there was evidence that he had been dismissed for reasons linked to his legitimate trade union activities, to take all necessary measures to reinstate him in an appropriate position, without loss of wages or benefits. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to continue to keep it informed of the measures effectively taken to bring the Trade Unions Act into full conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 (see 329th Report, paras. 765-778).

158. In its communication dated 18 October 2002, the complainant alleges the illegal lay-offs of 1,150 workers at the Lutsk Bearing Plant. According to the complainant, among the people fired, Ms. Lubov Vaschuk was fired because of her trade union activities and without the consent of the trade union of which she is a member.

159. In its communication of 8 January 2003, the Government, in reply to the above allegation, states that on the instructions of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, the Territorial State Labour Inspectorate of Volyn region had examined the complaint and found that those measures were taken due to restructuring of the enterprise and that the conditions of lay-offs were established with the agreement of the trade union committees at the enterprise. The Government adds that in the particular case of Ms. Lubov Vaschuk, the approval of the trade union was obtained.

160. The Committee notes the statements of the Government and the complainant. In light of the fact that the complainant's allegation of illegal lay-offs does not refer in any way to the question of trade union membership or trade union activities (with the exception of Ms. Vaschuk, one out of the 1,150 workers dismissed and concerning whom the Government and the complainant have provided contradictory statements), the Committee considers that this allegation does not call for further examination.

161. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in respect of its previous recommendations. Accordingly, the Committee once again requests the Government to clarify the situation of the Volynskaya Province division of the All-Ukraine Trade Union "Capital/Region" as far as its registration with local authorities is concerned and to set up an independent inquiry into the dismissal of Mr. Linik, and, if there is evidence that he had been dismissed for reasons linked to his legitimate trade union activities, to take all necessary measures to reinstate him in an appropriate position, without loss of wages or benefits. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 2058 (Venezuela)

162. At its November 2000 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendation: "The Committee hopes that the Government will register the trade union SINTRANES as a trade union soon. It requests the Government to inform it of any court rulings that have been, or may be, handed down in future on the matter" (see 323rd Report, para. 554). The complainant had indicated that the trade union was registered in June 1998, and the Government had stated that the judicial authorities had suspended the administrative ruling legalizing the union and it was now for the appellate courts to give a final ruling.

163. In a communication dated 28 September 2000, the Government had indicated that the matter was before the courts, and in its communication of 1 October 2002 the Government recalls that the union had been registered on 15 June 1998.

164. The Committee regrets that the Government has given no further details on the legal status of this case. It urges the Government to supply this information and to communicate any court ruling that has been or may in future be handed down on this matter.

Case No. 2067 (Venezuela)

165. At its November 2001 meeting, the Committee submitted a number of legislative questions to the Committee of Experts and also made the following recommendations (see 326th Report, para. 517):

The Committee once again strongly urges the Government to put an end to the functions of the National Electoral Council as it is established in the National Constitution and to repeal the Special Statute on the renewal of trade union leadership. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken in this regard. Moreover, if this Statute has been applied from the date of its promulgation to that of the examination of this case, the Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the trade unions which so wish may hold new elections governed by the provisions of their by-laws and without any interference whatsoever by the authorities or by bodies that have nothing to do with workers' organizations.

166. In communications of 15 November 2001 and 1 March and 22 October 2002, the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation (CTV) indicated that the authorities, and in particular the President of the Republic, deny that the CTV is the most representative organization. It also alleges that the authorities have made statements to the media interfering in the electoral process of the CTV discrediting it, as well as criticizing its president. The CTV sent press cuttings in support of its claims to demonstrate the hostility directed against it. The CTV also refers to the fact that the authorities are promoting a parallel confederation loyal to the government party. It adds that in January 2002 the workers of the Trade Union of Workers of the Construction Industry of Caracas, Vargas and the State of Miranda, while participating in a demonstration, were mercilessly repressed by order of the Mayor's Office of Municipio Libertador on 17 January 2002; 12 workers were injured by the municipal police force - five were shot, four were attacked by dogs and three were beaten. The mayor of the municipality also ordered a construction company to stop contracting trade union members, describing unemployment as one of the "advantages" of trade union membership. Furthermore, the Minister of Labour did not invite the CTV to the tripartite committee (discussion on the minimum wage) and more recently it was not consulted about a draft bill relating to conflict resolution in the event of economic crisis (mass dismissals).

167. In its communication of 15 July 2002, the ICFTU states that on the afternoon of 11 July, following a mass march which peacefully and democratically called for the necessary changes to be made to overcome the current political, economic and social crisis affecting Venezuela, a group of approximately 100 motorized individuals, politically identified with the Government, aggressively and violently stormed the area surrounding the headquarters of the CTV, yelling threats and throwing dangerous objects and homemade explosives at the premises, even firing guns, resulting in extensive damage to the lower floor of the building. A number of witnesses, including trade union officials, journalists and other people using the building, confirmed this allegation, which was corroborated by Commissioner Miguel Mora, chief of the Andrés Bello municipal police station. The ICFTU considers that the aggression directed at the CTV's premises is just one of a number of occurrences that confirm an ongoing anti-union climate upheld by the Government and its forces. Despite the fact that there were no victims, this attack could have injured dozens of people who were working in the building.

168. With its communication of 18 February 2002, the Government sent a long communication on the trade union election procedure and the results of the electoral process, with 2,850 trade union organizations having concluded the procedure to date. It referred to a number of specific irregularities adding that 1,180 collective agreements have been concluded with the mediation of the Ministry of Labour. It included press cuttings to show that members of the CTV were satisfied with the results of the elections.

169. In an extensive communication dated 4 November 2002, the Government states that the CTV is the most representative trade union organization and it is untrue that the authorities do not recognize this organization as the legitimate representative of its affiliated workers. The problem is of another kind; more specifically, it is an intra-union problem as those who proclaimed themselves the legitimate and legally elected members are being challenged by other candidates who participated in the electoral process, and in this respect challenges remain that have yet to be decided. Complaints and civil procedures, administrative and penal disputes have been brought by these trade unions and by first and second level organizations, particularly for the violation of the applicable regulations and the trade union by-laws approved by the CTV. Consequently, the Government cannot say which are the legitimate and legal representatives, or it could be accused of interference and favouritism. The self-proclaimed members of the executive committee of the CTV (including the self-proclaimed president) have undertaken actions contrary to the rule of law and to democracy and they had a high level of involvement and responsibility in the coup d'état of 11 April 2002 and continue to carry out conspiratorial activities, even supporting a military uprising to destabilize the democracy and interfere with human rights. The Government denies that it is developing an anti-union policy against the CTV and indicates that the CTV's allegations (hostile treatment, refusal to recognize its officials and promoting the creation of a parallel confederation) reveal the response of the Venezuelan people to the abovementioned attitude of its self-proclaimed officials. The allegation that the President of the Republic is promoting a workers' confederation loyal to his party is absolutely false and lacking in any proof. The President has in fact met with a number of organizations (including some affiliated to the CTV), currents and social movements at the request of these sectors, which consider that the self-proclaimed officials of the CTV lack legitimacy, and they have sought to promote a process of social dialogue and have asked for clean and transparent elections for the executive committee of the CTV. The Government responded that it cannot and must not interfere in electoral processes by reason of the Constitution.

170. As to the allegation that the CTV was not consulted concerning a draft bill, the Government says that through the media it convened all interested persons and workers' and employers' organizations and that subsequently consultations were held with the organizations that took the initiative to participate; for example, employers' organizations such as FEDECAMARAS submitted their observations. A meeting was also convened for interested trade union organizations to participate in. It is therefore untrue that the CTV was not invited or that it was prevented from participating in this process; the self-proclaimed president of the CTV refused to participate or neglected to do so and the Government invites him to take an active role in the social and trade union dialogue that is under way in the country.

171. With regard to its previous recommendation concerning the need to put an end to the functions of the National Electoral Council (CNE) in respect of trade union elections, the Committee deplores the fact that the Government has not sent any observations in this connection. The Committee observes that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations referred to this matter at its December 2002 meeting in an observation that is reproduced below:

Article 293 and the eighth transitional provision, which provide that the Electoral Authority (the National Electoral Council) is responsible for organizing the elections of occupational unions and that, pending promulgation of the new electoral laws provided for in the Constitution, electoral process will be convened, organized, managed and supervised by the National Electoral Council. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government's statements that: (i) the draft Bill to amend the Organic Labour Act proposes an amendment to section 433, which provides that trade union organizations may request the cooperation of the Electoral Authority for the holding of elections to their executive bodies; (ii) once this provision has received parliamentary approval, it will repeal the Special Transitional Rules for the renewal of trade union leadership; and (iii) the eighth transitional provision of the Constitution of the Republic is no longer in force and is not therefore applicable. Notwithstanding the Government's observations, the Committee considers that it should amend article 293 of the Constitution of the Republic to remove from paragraph 6 the power entrusted to the Electoral Authority, through the National Electoral Council, to organize the elections of trade unions, and it requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect. The Committee also notes that the direct contacts mission expressed its concern with regard to the draft Electoral Bill, which maintains the intervention of the National Electoral Council in trade union matters. In this regard, the Committee notes that on 30 October 2002 approval was given to the Organic Act respecting the Electoral Authority, which contains provisions that are not in conformity with the Convention (for example section 33, which makes the National Council competent for organizing trade union elections, proclaiming the elected candidates, monitoring elections and declaring them null and void, hearing and resolving appeals and investigating complaints). The Committee once again reminds the Government that the regulation of trade union election procedures and arrangements must be done by trade union statutes and not by a body outside the workers' organizations. In these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend article 293 of the Constitution of the Republic and the Organic Act respecting the Electoral Authority, which provides for its intervention in the elections of workers' organizations, and to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this respect.

172. The Committee fully shares the point of view expressed by the Committee of Experts and urges the Government to amend article 293 of the Constitution and the Organic Act respecting the Electoral Authority as indicated.

173. As regards the alleged support of a parallel trade union confederation by the authorities, the alleged interference by the authorities in the electoral process of the CTV, and the discrediting of the CTV and its president by means of hostile statements made by the President of the Republic to the media, the Committee notes the Government's statements in which it emphatically denies that the authorities are promoting a parallel trade union confederation, that it refuses to recognize the representativity of the CTV and that it has interfered in the electoral process, and indicating that the electoral process of the CTV and its self-proclaimed leaders has been contested before the competent authorities by other trade union organizations and their representatives. The Committee nevertheless emphasizes that the numerous press cuttings sent by the CTV show that the members of the executive committee of the CTV were insulted and discredited by the authorities, and it consequently urges the Government to take measures to ensure that the authorities refrain from making intimidating statements to the CTV. Furthermore, concerning the challenges to the CTV's electoral process, the Committee stresses that the authorities must not deprive the members of the executive committee of the CTV of legitimacy in the absence of a pronouncement by the judicial authority nullifying the elections. Indeed, the Committee has pointed out on previous occasions that in order to avoid the danger of serious limitation on the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom, complaints brought before labour courts by an administrative authority challenging the results of trade union elections should not - pending the final outcome of the judicial proceedings - have the effect of suspending the validity of such elections (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, para. 404). The Committee therefore asks the Government to recognize the executive committee of the CTV.

174. As to the alleged lack of consultation of the CTV concerning a draft bill, the Committee notes that the Government invited generally through the press, all trade union organizations to participate in consultations and that the CTV failed to attend, nor did it present any observations in writing. The Committee observes that the Government has not referred to a similar allegation relating to its failure to invite the CTV to the tripartite committee to discuss the minimum wage. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the most representative confederation at the national level cannot be treated as if it were just another trade union organization and that in cases such as those alleged it should have been invited directly, formally and individually, and not through the press, to participate in the process. The Committee asks the Government in future to duly respect and consult it on all draft bills relating to labour issues and to abide by its status as the most representative trade union confederation.

175. In this respect the Committee stresses that the most representative employers' and workers' organizations, and in particular the confederations, should be consulted at length by the authorities on matters of mutual interest, including everything relating to the preparation and application of legislation concerning matters relating to them and to the fixing of minimum wages; this would contribute to legislation, programmes and measures that the public authorities have to adopt or apply being more solidly founded and to greater compliance and better implementation. This being the case, the Government should, as far as possible, also base itself on the consensus of workers' and employers' organizations, which should share the responsibility for achieving well-being and prosperity for the community in general. This is particularly true in light of the growing complexity of problems facing societies, and also, of course, facing the people of Venezuela. No public authority should claim to hold all knowledge nor presume that what it proposes will always and entirely satisfy the objectives in any given situation. The Committee requests the Government to apply these principles in future.

176. Lastly, the Committee observes with concern, and deplores the fact, that the Government has not responded to the serious allegations of anti-union violence submitted by the ICFTU in its communication of 15 July 2002 nor to the allegations by the CTV concerning acts of violence against members of the Trade Union of Workers of the Construction Industry of Caracas, Vargas and the State of Miranda and against the CTV. The Committee urges the Government to send its observations in this respect without delay and immediately to carry out an urgent investigation into these allegations.

Case No. 2160 (Venezuela)

177. At its June 2002 meeting, the Committee urged the Government "to take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that: (a) the trade union of the Corporación INLACA enterprise, called the Trade Union of Revolutionary Workers of the New Millennium, is registered; and (b) all of the workers of the enterprise who were dismissed for having participated in the establishment and application for registration of the trade union in question are reinstated. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in these respects" (see 328th Report, para. 660).

178. In its communication of 11 November 2002, the Government states that the trade union founders opted for a category of trade union ("enterprise union") which could not legally include workers who were not working for the same employer. The Government states that the new union has initiated a legal challenge to the decision of the Ministry of Labour not to register it, and adds that it invites the founders to choose a different category of trade union.

179. The Committee notes the Government's information and requests the Government to supply a copy of any court ruling regarding the refusal to register the complainant. At the same time, the Committee deplores the fact that the Government has not supplied any information in connection with its recommendation concerning the reinstatement of all the workers who were dismissed for participating in the establishment of the union in question, and urges the Government to take measures without delay to ensure that these workers are reinstated in their posts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

180. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1813 (Peru), 1843 (Sudan), 1880 (Peru), 1890 (India), 1930 (China), 1957 (Bulgaria), 1959 (United Kingdom/Bermuda), 1970 (Guatemala), 1991 (Japan), 2006 (Pakistan), 2014 (Uruguay), 2018 (Ukraine), 2031 (China), 2053 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2084 (Costa Rica), 2086 (Paraguay), 2098 (Peru), 2104 (Costa Rica), 2109 (Morocco), 2115 (Mexico), 2120 (Nepal), 2124 (Lebanon), 2125 (Thailand), 2128 (Gabon), 2129 (Chad), 2133 (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), 2135 (Chile), 2137 (Uruguay), 2140 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2141 (Chile), 2143 (Swaziland), 2146 (Yugoslavia), 2147 (Turkey), 2150 (Chile), 2163 (Nicaragua), 2176 (Japan), 2188 (Bangladesh), 2195 (Philippines) and 2198 (Kazakhstan), 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. 1937 (Zimbabwe), 1952 (Venezuela), 1955 (Colombia), 1962 (Colombia), 1996 (Uganda), 2027 (Zimbabwe), 2075 (Ukraine), 2081 (Zimbabwe), 2116 (Indonesia), 2156 (Brazil), 2175 (Morocco) and 2181 (Thailand), which it will examine at its next meeting.