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 29 and 30 May and 6 June 2003, under the chairmanship of Professor Paul van der Heijden.

2. The members of Salvadorean, Indian, Pakistani and Venezuelan nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to El Salvador (Case No. 2214), India (Case No. 2228), Pakistan (Case No. 2169) and Venezuela (Case No. 2154), respectively.

3. Currently, there are 90 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for their observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 28 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 12 cases and interim conclusions in 16 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. 2248 (Peru), 2249 (Venezuela), 2250 (Argentina), 2251 (Russian Federation), 2252 (Philippines), 2253 (China/Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), 2254 (Venezuela), 2255 (Sri Lanka), 2256 (Argentina), 2257 (Canada), 2259 (Guatemala), 2260 (Brazil), 2261 (Greece), 2262 (Cambodia), 2263 (Argentina), 2264 (Nicaragua), 2265 (Switzerland), 2266 (Lithuania), 2267 (Nigeria) and 2268 (Myanmar), 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. 2088 (Venezuela), 2103 (Guatemala), 2111 (Peru), 2174 (Uruguay), 2179 (Guatemala), 2186 (China/Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), 2189 (China), 2200 (Turkey), 2203 (Guatemala), 2211 (Peru), 2233 (France), 2235 (Peru), 2239 (Colombia), 2240 (Argentina), 2241 (Guatemala), 2244 (Russian Federation), 2245 (Chile) and 2246 (Russian Federation). In Case No. 2197 relating to allegations concerning the South African Embassy in Ireland, the Committee is awaiting the comments of the Government of Ireland.

Partial information received from governments

6. In Cases Nos. 2087 (Uruguay), 2096 (Pakistan), 2153 (Algeria), 2164 (Morocco), 2172 (Chile), 2204 (Argentina), 2219 (Argentina), 2223 (Argentina), 2224 (Argentina) and 2258 (Cuba), 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. The Committee also referred to the governments' observations in Case No. 2232 (Chile). In this respect, it requests the Government and the complainant to provide additional information so that the Committee may proceed with its examination in full knowledge of the facts.

Observations received from governments

7. As regards Cases Nos. 2046 (Colombia), 2201 (Ecuador), 2218 (Chile), 2221 (Argentina), 2227 (United States), 2234 (Mexico), 2238 (Zimbabwe), 2242 (Pakistan), 2247 (Mexico) and 2255 (Sri Lanka), 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. 2216 (Russian Federation), 2222 (Cambodia) and 2225 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 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.

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

9. 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: Bahamas (Case No. 2127), Madagascar (Case No. 2132) and Russian Federation (Case No. 2199).

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) and 2090 (Belarus) because of the extreme seriousness and urgency of the matters dealt with therein. Furthermore, the Committee feels it necessary to draw the Governing Body's special attention to the total lack of cooperation demonstrated by the Russian Federation in respect of Cases Nos. 2185 and 2199.

11. The Committee expressed its concern over the fact that it has had to examine some cases without any government reply and the increasing number of incomplete replies from governments. The lack of thorough observations on their part in numerous cases does not allow the Committee to proceed with the examination of matters in full knowledge and obliges it to resort ever more frequently to the presentation of interim reports to the Governing Body. This situation results in an increase in the Committee's workload and delays in the adoption of definitive conclusions, thus impairing the proper functioning of the procedure. In these circumstances, the Committee would appeal to governments to ensure that their observations reply in a detailed and comprehensive manner to all of the allegations made by the complainants.

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

Case No. 2156 (Brazil)

12. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the murder of trade union leader Carlos Alberto Santos, at its November 2002 meeting (see 329th Report, paras. 16-18). On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the ongoing investigations.

13. In a communication dated 10 February 2003, the Government states that: (1) evidence gathered during the police investigation indicates that the crime was not related to the victim's trade union activities; and (2) the Comarca Criminal Court is awaiting final statements before giving a ruling on two persons charged with the crime.

14. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to supply the text of the final ruling handed down in this respect.

Case No. 1955 (Colombia)

15. At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee formulated the following recommendations (see 329th Report, para. 399, clauses (a), (b) and (c)):

- the Committee: (1) expects that the judicial authorities will rapidly rule on the legal proceedings initiated by 16 trade union officials and workers affiliated to SINTRATELEFONOS who were dismissed by the enterprise ETB and requests the Government to send a copy of the judgements handed down; (2) in view of the fact that the legal proceedings concerning the dismissal of 16 trade union officials and workers of SINTRATELEFONOS have not been concluded after over four years, requests the Government to ensure the expedition of these proceedings so that a final decision is reached in the very near future, and if the judicial authority affirms that these dismissals were of an anti-union nature, to take immediate measures for the reinstatement of the dismissed without loss of wages; and (3) also asks the Government to take steps to ensure that the administrative inquiry initiated with respect to the dismissals of Martha Querales, Elías Quintana and Carlos Socha of the ETB is completed very soon and to send the corresponding results;

- with regard to the judicial proceedings brought by the workers dismissed from the Engativa office in 1999, the Committee expresses the hope that these proceedings will be finalized in the very near future and requests the Government to keep it informed about the final result;

- in respect of the recent alleged threats made by the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (a paramilitary group) against the members of the executive committee of the trade union organization SINTRATELEFONOS, and in particular the trade union officials Rafael Galvis, Sandra Cordero and Manuel Rodríguez, the Committee requests the Government promptly to take measures to provide protection to the threatened officials and to keep it informed in this respect.

16. In a communication dated 2 January 2003, the Government states, in relation to clause (a) of the Committee's recommendations, that the Political Constitution of Colombia establishes the three-way division of power (the executive, the legislature and the judiciary) and from this constitutional rule it can be deduced that the executive branch of public power cannot intervene in the functions which belong to the judicial branch, by requesting that proceedings initiated by trade union officials and members be expedited. It is not up to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, nor the other bodies that form part of the Government, to take steps with regard to the immediate reinstatement of the dismissed workers. It is up to the judicial authorities, at the request of those concerned, to try and to decide the requests for reinstatement. With regard to clause (b) of the Committee's recommendations, the Government states that the proceedings brought by the workers dismissed in 1999 are pending before the regular labour courts.

17. In a communication dated 15 January 2003, the Government states with regard to clause (c) of the Committee's recommendations, that it is currently taking all steps to provide rapid protection for the members of the executive committee of SINTRATELEFONOS.

18. The Committee notes this information. The Committee deeply regrets that the legal proceedings relating to the alleged anti-union dismissals have already taken more than four-and-a-half years. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that as a result of the division of public powers it cannot request that the proceedings be expedited and that these are still pending. In this regard, the Committee recalls that on many occasions it emphasized that cases concerning anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98 should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, 4th edition, para. 749). In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to take steps immediately to ensures that the legal procedures relating to the alleged anti-union dismissals at the ETB enterprise of 16 trade union officials and workers affiliated to SINTRATELEFONOS, and those relating to the workers from the Engativa office, are finalized rapidly and that it ensure that these workers are reinstated in their jobs if the legal authorities decide that they were dismissed for anti-union reasons, or if their reinstatement is not possible, to ensure that they receive adequate compensation. Moreover, the Committee requests the Government to take steps without delay to finalize the administrative inquiry relating to the dismissal of Martha Querales, Elías Quintana and Carlos Socha of the ETB enterprise, which was initiated some time ago. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the legal and administrative proceedings relating to all the dismissed workers. More generally, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that procedures relating to protection against acts of anti-union discrimination are rapid and effective.

19. Finally, the Committee notes that the Government states that it is taking steps to protect the members of the executive committee of SINTRATELEFONOS and requests the Government to confirm that all persons concerned have been guaranteed adequate protection.

Case No. 1962 (Colombia)

20. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2002 meeting (see 329th Report, paras. 400-417) and on that occasion it formulated the following recommendations:

- regarding the alleged attempt of the Mayor's office of the Municipality of Arauca to dismiss Antonio Marín Bravo, trade union official of SINTREMAR, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the ruling adopted in the judicial proceedings concerning the lifting of the trade union immunity of this SINTREMAR official;

- regarding the judicial proceedings concerning the dismissal of the trade union leader Gladis Correa Ojeda and the criminal proceedings concerning the trade union leader Juan Bautista Oyola Palomá which gave rise to his dismissal, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the proceedings will be concluded shortly and requests the Government to inform it of the outcome thereof;

- regarding the mass dismissal and lifting of trade union immunity of the leaders of the Public Works Trade Union of Cúcuta so that they can be dismissed, the Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure that an inquiry is conducted and, if it is concluded that the dismissals or the lifting of trade union immunity have been the result of their trade union activities, to take measures to ensure that the dismissed workers are reinstated in their jobs and that trade union immunity is restored. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect;

- regarding the alleged political persecution of Fermín Vargas Buenaventura, a lawyer for the trade union, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authority launches an inquiry in this respect and to keep it informed of the outcome thereof;

- regarding the alleged dismissal of all the workers and members of the Public Servants and Employees' Trade Union of Pitalito-Huila by the Municipality of Pitalito, the Committee requests the Government to speed up the inquiry and that, if it is concluded that the dismissals occurred for anti-trade union reasons, it should take measures to ensure that the injured parties are reinstated in their jobs without loss of earnings. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

21. In its communication of 2 January 2003, the Government states that the proceedings on the dismissal of trade union officials Antonio Marín Bravo and Gladis Correa Ojeda, and the criminal proceedings against Juan Bautista Oyola Palomá, are under way. With regard to the mass dismissal and lifting of trade union immunity of the leaders of the Public Works Trade Union of Cúcuta, the Government states that currently proceedings requesting the reinstatement of the trade union officials are before the ordinary labour court.

22. Finally, the Government states that with regard to the political persecution of Fermín Vargas Buenaventura, as already indicated in a previous reply, the Superior Council of the Judicature is the competent body to investigate complaints concerning lawyers and the exercise of the legal profession.

23. The Committee notes this information. The Committee regrets that, despite the amount of time that has elapsed, the judicial proceedings under way on anti-union dismissals of trade union officials and/or the lifting of trade union immunity have still not been concluded. In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the proceedings in question are finalized without delay and to keep it informed of the outcome of these proceedings.

24. With regard to the alleged political persecution of Fermín Vargas Buenaventura, a trade union lawyer, the Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the relevant competent organization or institution carries out an inquiry in this respect.

25. Finally, regarding the alleged dismissal of all the workers and members of the Public Servants and Employees' Trade Union of Pitalito-Huila by the Municipality of Pitalito, the Committee urges the Government to speed up the inquiry that it says has begun and if it is concluded that the dismissals occurred for anti-union reasons, to take measures to ensure that the injured parties are reinstated in their jobs without loss of earnings. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 2084 (Costa Rica)

26. At its meeting in November 2001, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the final administrative decisions and judicial verdicts handed down in relation to the case of trade union leader, Mario Alberto Zamora Cruz (see 326th Report, paras. 65 and 67), who had been dismissed.

27. In its communications of 14 January and 17 March 2003, the Government undertakes to communicate the rulings and decisions requested by the Committee. The Government explains in detail the status of the proceedings relating to his dismissal, in particular the proceedings in the Civil Service Tribunal (delayed as a result of the many appeals brought by the complainant; 14 of the 15 such appeals have been resolved). In addition, the Constitutional Division has rejected the complaint brought by Mr. Zamora against the Deputy Minister on the grounds that this is an allegation that can be dealt with through criminal law procedures; at the same time, the Attorney-General's Office has issued a statement that the management board of the institution where Mr. Zamora worked has no grounds for instituting criminal proceedings against him, and that only board members who considered their honour to have been impugned by Mr. Zamora's actions could bring private complaints and thus instigate criminal proceedings.

28. The Committee notes this information, and requests the Government to transmit the ruling handed down by the Civil Service Tribunal on the dismissal of the trade union official, Mario Alberto Zamora Cruz.

Case No. 2104 (Costa Rica)

29. At its meeting in November 2002, the Committee made the following recommendations on pending questions (see 329th Report, paras. 38-40):

- The Committee notes with interest the Government's intention to adapt its legislation to the ILO standards relating to collective bargaining and the steps it has taken to do so, which include a constitutional reform (which has been submitted to the legislative plenary) and the submission of draft legislation for the ratification of Conventions Nos. 151 and 154. The Committee hopes that progress will be made in the near future and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

- With regard to the other two recommendations made at its previous meeting, the Committee notes that the Government has not sent the information requested of it and therefore the Committee repeats these requests, that the Government:

- - with regard to the matter of unfair labour practices at the University of Costa Rica noted by the administrative authorities, keep it informed of any appeal and any new decision;

- - keep it informed of the outcome of the complaint lodged by the administrative authorities to the courts after confirming that the Ministry of Education had committed violations in the matter of trade union leave.

- Finally, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the dismissal of the trade union official, Mr. Luis Enrique Chacón.

30. In its communications of 14 January and 17 March 2003, the Government lists the many steps taken by the Ministry of Labour to ensure that the Legislative Assembly examines the draft legislation to ratify ILO Conventions Nos. 151 and 154 before the end of the period of extraordinary sessions (30 April 2003). Also, at the initiative of the Ministry of Labour, an official of the multidisciplinary advisory team provided technical assistance to the leaders of the various parties in the legislature in connection with these Conventions. These initiatives were all intended to guarantee collective bargaining in the public sector. In addition, the government party in the Legislative Assembly on 10 May 2002 submitted a proposal to amend article 192 of the Constitution, which was the result of dialogue between the authorities and the trade union confederations. With the same objective, the executive branch submitted to the Legislative Assembly amendments to the General Public Administration Act, together with a draft law to introduce collective bargaining in the public sector which gives force of law to Decree No. 29576 of 31 May 2001. The draft law in question was the result of work done by a bipartite commission. The Government also refers to recent administrative rulings (which are binding) confirming the right of public servants to negotiate collective agreements.

31. The Government also states that the judicial proceedings in connection with violations (by the Ministry of Education) of trade union leave entitlements and unfair labour practices in the University of Costa Rica, as well as the proceedings in connection with the dismissal of trade union leader, Luis Enrique Chacón, have yet to be concluded.

32. The Committee notes the Government's information on these proceedings, and requests the Government to supply copies of any rulings that may be handed down. The Committee notes with interest the various initiatives taken by the Ministry of Labour and other authorities (proposed constitutional and legislative amendments, etc.) with a view to guaranteeing full enjoyment of the right of collective bargaining in the public sector, including bills to ratify Conventions Nos. 151 and 154; and notes that an ILO official has provided technical assistance in one of these initiatives. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments with regard to these issues.

Case No. 2158 (India)

33. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in March 2003 and made the following recommendations on the allegations that remained pending (see 330th Report, para. 854):

(a) The Committee requests the Government to provide information as to the nature of the three charges brought against the leader of the complainant organization and the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Jangipur Court.

(b) With regard to the six workers of the Pataka Biri Co. Ltd. who were dismissed in 1998:

- the Committee takes note of the reinstatement of one worker pursuant to a finding that his dismissal was on anti-union grounds;

- the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures as soon as possible to have the case of two dismissed apprentices examined as to its substance, and if dismissals are found to be on anti-union grounds, to ensure that these workers are reinstated in their jobs without loss of pay and to guarantee the application against the enterprise of corresponding legal sanctions. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect;

- the Committee notes that two appeals were rejected by reason of disciplinary offences and requests the Government to transmit the text of the judgment delivered, together with the grounds adduced therefore.

(c) With regard to the dismissal of nine workers only 45 days after requesting the enforcement of a ten-point list of demands, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures as soon as possible with a view to the rapid conclusion of the proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court and if the anti-union nature of the dismissals is confirmed, to rapidly take the necessary measures to ensure that these workers are reinstated in their jobs, without loss of pay, and that the enterprise faces the corresponding legal sanctions. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.

(d) The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures as soon as possible to ensure that all other allegations concerning acts of anti-union discrimination and intimidation, including the imprisonment of the trade union leader for a second time, the retrenchment of eight workers, threats, harassment and pressure to quit the union, are investigated by a high-ranking independent body which, in addition to being speedy and impartial, is also seen to be such by the parties concerned, and under guarantees which enable the parties to participate in the procedure in an appropriate and constructive manner. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.

34. In its response provided on 27 March 2003, the Government states that the leader of the complainant organization, Ashique Hossain, was murdered on 25 June 2002 and that the case is under investigation. With regard to the three charges previously brought against the late Ashique Hossain, the Government states that he was accused of attempted robbery and criminal breach of trust, on the basis of complaints lodged by his wife on 28 March 2000, and for rape, on the basis of complaints lodged by a female person on 14 April 2000. He was arrested the same day and was released on bail after 72 days of custody. Finally, the late Ashique Hossain and eight other persons were accused of criminal conspiracy/promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race etc./sale etc. of obscene books, on the basis of complaints lodged by the General Manager of Pataka Beedi Co. on 12 December 2001. More specifically, on that day, while prayer was going on near the office building of Pataka Beedi Co., the late Ashique Hossain and his supporters raised slogans against the owners of the company, inciting communal disharmony between Hindu and Muslim workers of the company. On the basis of this complaint, the late Ashique Hossain was arrested for a second time along with another person and was released on bail the same day.

35. The Government also states that one of the most senior Additional Labour Commissioners was deputed to Murshidabad to gather facts and to look into the grievances of the workers promptly and in an impartial manner and to initiate immediate measures to safeguard the rights of trade unions. He held one round of discussions in Berhampore on 28 February 2003. Moreover, the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, will be closely monitoring further developments.

36. In addition to this, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Murshidabad, has been directed to examine the circumstances of the dismissal of two apprentices and in case it appears that they were based on anti-union grounds, to take steps so that these workers are reinstated forthwith.

37. Finally, the Government states that the proceedings in the case of nine dismissed workers are still pending before the Calcutta High Court and that a senior officer of the Labour Directorate has been entrusted with the responsibility of taking all possible steps to expedite the case.

38. The Committee deplores the murder of the leader of the complainant organization, Ashique Hossain, and the fact that this murder was communicated by the Government with considerable delay. The Committee emphasizes that the killing, disappearance or serious injury of trade union leaders and trade unionists requires the institution of independent judicial inquiries in order to shed full light, at the earliest date, on the facts and the circumstances in which such actions occurred and in this way, to the extent possible, determine where responsibilities lie, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of similar events (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 51). The Committee urges the Government to institute an independent judicial inquiry in order to shed full light on the facts and the circumstances in which the murder of trade union leader Ashique Hossain occurred, determine where responsibilities lie and punish the guilty parties, and to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the actual situation of the complainant organization.

39. The Committee notes that most of the charges brought against Ashique Hossain were not related to trade union activities. The Committee notes, however, that the latest charge was based on a complaint filed by the General Manager of Pataka Beedi Co. against Ashique Hossain and eight other persons. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether proceedings have been initiated against the eight persons who were accused along with Ashique Hossain and if this is the case, to keep it informed of developments in this case and provide it with a copy of the court ruling as soon as it becomes available.

40. The Committee notes the Government's statement that under the supervision of the Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, a senior public official has undertaken an impartial investigation and held one round of discussions on the allegations contained in the complaint. However, the Government does not inform the Committee of the result of such discussions. The Committee hopes that the investigation of allegations of serious acts of anti-union discrimination, including threats of damaging the union office and harassment and pressure on members to quit the union, will be concluded in the shortest possible time. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress of the investigation and to transmit a copy of the report once it is adopted.

41. The Committee notes the Government's statement that it will examine the circumstances under which two apprentices were dismissed and, if it is found that the dismissals were based on anti-union grounds, will take steps to reinstate the workers. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the investigation of this issue is concluded in the shortest possible time and to keep it informed of developments.

42. With respect to the case of nine workers who were dismissed only 45 days after requesting the enforcement of a list of demands, the Committee observes that the proceedings are still pending before the Calcutta High Court and that a senior officer of the Labour Directorate has been entrusted with taking all possible steps to expedite the case. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress of the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court and if the anti-union nature of the dismissals is confirmed, to rapidly take all necessary measures to ensure that these workers are reinstated in their jobs, without loss of pay, and that the enterprise fully conforms with the court judgement rendered, including all remedies that may be imposed.

Case No. 2116 (Indonesia)

43. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in June 2002 (see 328th Report, paras. 325-370). Since that time, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) indicated its desire to formally withdraw this case in a letter dated 20 May 2003, in the light of an agreement signed between the workers' representatives of the SPMS and the management of the Shangri-La Hotel. The IUF expressed its appreciation for the excellent work done by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the International Labour Office in relation to the complaint.

44. The Committee takes note of this information.

Case No. 1991 (Japan)

45. The Committee last examined this case concerning allegations of anti-union discrimination arising out of the privatization of the Japanese National Railways (JNR) which were taken over by the Japan Railway companies (JRs) at its March 2002 meeting. The Committee expressed its regret that no real progress had been made, since all the parties had accepted the Four-Party Agreement in May 2000. The Committee urged all parties concerned, to start without delay, serious and meaningful negotiations towards a rapid satisfactory solution, which would ensure that the dismissed workers would be fairly compensated (see 327th Report, paras. 70-73).

46. In a communication dated 5 November 2002, KENKORO-TETSUDOHONBU (formerly ZENDORO, one of the initial complainants) mentions that on 24 October 2002 the Tokyo High Court issued a decision dismissing the appeal it had filed against the Tokyo District Court of 29 March 2000. The complainant states that for the first time, the Tokyo High Court has acknowledged the responsibility of the JRs as "employers" and recognized that the opposition of ZENDORO and of its members to the privatization plans was taken into account and given a considerable weight in the evaluation of workers to be recruited in the new companies; ZENDORO members were thus given low ratings, which resulted in significant disparities in the hiring rates of workers by union affiliation. However, the High Court concluded at the same time that this prejudicial treatment did not constitute an unfair labour practice, which the complainant considers as contrary to Article 1(2)(b) of Convention No. 98 and Article 2 of Convention No. 87. The complainant further states that this disregards the repeated commitments by representatives of the Government and the JNR that there would be no discrimination based on union membership or activities when selecting workers for the new company. KENKORO-TETSUDOHONBU will appeal the Tokyo High Court decision to the Supreme Court. It recalls that more than 12 years have elapsed since ZENDORO members were dismissed by JNR, and that two of the 62 workers concerned have already passed away, which makes an urgent solution ever more necessary. In a further communication of 13 February 2003, KENKORO states that the Government has adopted a wait-and-see attitude and that the lack of serious and meaningful consultations by the Government and the JRs is a major obstacle in the solution of the problem of the non-hiring of its members.

47. In a communication dated 25 December 2002, the National Railway Workers' Union (KOKURO) indicates that the Four-Party Agreement was annulled on 6 December 2002, as the three ruling parties withdrew unilaterally from it. KOKURO had initially accepted the agreement and the major concessions it entailed, since it was convinced that an early settlement was desirable to provide relief for dismissed workers; KOKURO acknowledges however that a number of its members were opposed to that reversal of policy, and still wanted to pursue the legal responsibility of the JRs. According to KOKURO, the ruling parties had never started their actual settlement work, using as an excuse the existence of a minority opinion in the union. KOKURO still hopes for a negotiated settlement with the JRs and the Government, including at political level if necessary. KOKURO adds that more than 16 years have elapsed since the privatization of JNR, that it was nearly 14 years ago that Labour Commissions issued relief orders in favour of its discriminated members, that 26 of its affected members have already died and that a significant number of the 1,047 KOKURO members affected have passed the retirement age in the JRs. Additional delays will limit the effectiveness of any relief measures that could be decided. In a further communication of 25 February 2003, KOKURO criticizes the High Court judgement which it says contradicts the spirit of the Committee's recommendations and creates another obstacle to bringing about a satisfactory solution for the parties.

48. In its communication of 28 October 2002, the Government states that the ruling parties considered that the contradictions within KOKURO prevented the possibility of moving forward in the implementation of the Four-Party Agreement and requested that KOKURO resolved these contradictions and have the result accepted by all its members before proceeding any further, failing which they would withdraw from the agreement. While KOKURO adopted some "guidelines" in this respect at its extraordinary (69th) convention on 27 May 2002, internal dissensions remained since, inter alia, some 280 members refused to withdraw their lawsuits against JNR. For its part, the Government believed that the only way left to solve the issue was a political settlement, from a humanitarian point of view. Between April and September 2002, it held 34 meetings with political parties and six meetings with KOKURO, to try to resolve the issues.

49. In its communication of 6 January 2003, the Government mentions that KOKURO held another national (70th) convention in November 2002, where the focus was whether KOKURO could implement the guideline adopted at the earlier convention. However, the outcome of the 70th convention was another guideline which, according to the Government, represented a step back from the previous one. The ruling parties considered that this was unacceptable and that KOKURO had in fact rejected a political solution based on the Four-Party Agreement. Consequently, they decided on 6 December 2002 to abandon that solution, thus annulling the Four-Party Agreement. Since January 2001, the Government met 79 times with political parties, 26 times with KOKURO and four times with the JRs. It considers that it has done all it could do concerning the non-recruitment of the former JNR personnel. As matters stand, there have been no developments concerning the non-recruitment of KOKURO members since the matter is still being litigated in the Supreme Court; as regards the non-recruitment of KENKORO members, the Tokyo High Court dismissed the trade union appeal by concluding that there had been no unfair labour practices in the hiring procedure.

50. In its communication of 10 April 2003, the Government states that ZENDORO's interpretation of the Tokyo High Court ruling is so simplified as to be misleading. According to the Government, the court held that while ZENDORO members were assessed disadvantageously as to whether or not they were suitable as personnel for the new companies (their staunch opposition to the privatization being taken into account in that respect, as well as their numerous actions in violation of workshop rules, including illegal strikes) it decided that this did not constitute an unfair labour practice. The Tokyo High Court ruling stated that the relevant ZENDORO members were not hired, not because they were members of ZENDORO or for carrying out legal activities as union members, but because they repeatedly engaged in acts against workshop rules including illegal strikes against the JNR privatization and division. These series of acts were taken into account in the hiring process. The Government recalls that there were 17 lawsuits before the Tokyo District Court altogether (16 by KOKURO, one by ZENDORO); the Tokyo High Court has dismissed 15 of the 16 cases appealed, except the ZENDORO appeal mentioned above, where it acknowledged that the JRs had a responsibility as employers but that there were no unfair labour practices. At present, 14 of these cases are pending before the Supreme Court.

51. In the same communication, the Government summarizes the situation and the efforts made at all stages of the reform:

- the initial JNR reform called for drastic lay-offs (from 277,000 to 215,000 employees); however, these staff reductions were uneven among regions (one in two employees would be excess in Hokkaido; one in three in Kyushu; one in six in Honshu), coupled with unequal re-employment opportunities in the different regions. To remedy this imbalance, the JNR implemented interregional transfers from 1986, but those who accepted the transfers were mostly TETSURO and DORO members;

- the Settlement Corporation made every effort to secure employment for the 7,628 former JNR staff who were not re-employed when the JRs started their operations in April 1987. As a result, 6,581 persons found employment and the other 1,047 refused the Corporation's offer. The then Ministry of Transport put additional pressure on the JRs to rehire employees. However, because KOKURO and KENKORO insisted on re-employment by their local JRs, the number of employees who applied was lower than expected; ultimately, only 1,606 returned to the JRs as part of the additional hiring opportunities;

- in 1992, the Central Labour Relations Commission (CLRC) offered a settlement plan to KOKURO, KENKORO and the JRs. The companies stated that they would examine the plan; the trade unions ignored it;

- additional efforts were made towards a political settlement, including the Four-Party Agreement, whose acceptance was recommended by the Freedom of Association Committee, but which was unsuccessful due to the trade unions' inability to agree, as explained above (internal dissensions within KOKURO; outright rejection by KENKORO).

52. To summarize, the measures for redundant employees was considered one of the most important issues throughout the JNR reform. Out of the 277,000 JNR personnel, about 66,000 chose voluntary retirement or transfer to the public sector. After the reform, for the some 7,600 persons still unemployed, the JNR Settlement Corporation set up a three-year employment measures period with guaranteed salary, training and vocational guidance; as a result, about 6,600 found re-employment. During this period, the JRs hired another 1,606 employees. The 1,047 employees left are KOKURO and KENKORO members who have been insisting on employment by their local JRs, and did not accept the offers made during the three-year employment measures period. These unions have also rejected the offer at the political level on humanitarian grounds. Pushing now for additional measures in favour of these employees would be unfair for the vast majority of employees who have accepted compromises during the reform, and who consider the issue as settled.

53. The Committee notes with concern that there could be no agreement on the implementation of the May 2000 Four-Party Agreement. Without attempting to apportion responsibilities for that failure, the Committee recalls that, at its November 2000 session, it had urged the parties to accept this agreement, as it considered that it "offers a real possibility of speedily resolving the issue of non-hiring by the JRs" (see 323rd Report, para. 376). The Committee notes that the Tokyo High Court ruled for the first time in its October 2002 decision that the JRs had a responsibility as employers and that KOKURO's and KENKORO's opposition to the privatization plan was indeed a factor in the rehiring decisions, although the court stated that this did not constitute unfair labour practices. The Committee emphasizes that the issues at hand are very serious ones in terms of freedom of association principles, i.e. preferential treatment at hiring, and should be addressed by the Government. While noting the numerous efforts made in various fora at all stages of the reform process, the Committee urges the Government and the parties concerned to pursue their efforts towards finding a fair solution, acceptable to the largest possible number of workers; this is becoming increasingly urgent, given that the events date as far back as 1987, and taking into account the indications provided on the numbers of affected workers who have already died or have passed retirement age, which will make whatever solution ultimately found increasingly illusory. The Committee also requests the Government to provide it with a copy of the decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the members of KOKURO and KENKORO.

Case No. 2175 (Morocco)

54. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2002 meeting (see 329th Report, paras. 688-697). On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether, following the communication of the Banks' National Trade Union (SNB/CDT) of 8 April 2002, the Professional Association of Moroccan Banks (GPBM) had accepted the adherence of this trade union to the collective labour agreement governing working relations in the banking sector, and if the negotiations between the parties involved had begun. Should this not be the case, the Committee requested the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that acceptance of the trade union's adherence and the opening of negotiations between the parties involved took place without delay. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

55. In a communication dated 28 January 2003, the Government states that the SNB/CDT has adhered to the collective labour agreement governing working relations in the banking sector. The Government states that the SNB/CDT, having respected the procedure laid down in article 11 of the Dahir of 17 April 1957 on the collective labour agreement, is legally considered to be party to the agreement and thereby becomes a negotiating party within the banking sector; the Government attached to its communication a copy of the notifications sent by the SNB/CDT in this respect. The Government states that the SNB/CDT has the same rights and obligations as the other signatories to the agreement. Finally, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Employment has taken the necessary steps with the CGEM and the GPBM to re-establish social relations.

56. In a communication dated 27 February 2003, the Democratic Labour Confederation of Morocco (CDT) informs the Committee that the GPBM continues to ignore and exclude the SNB/CDT from all negotiations and dialogue. In reply, in a communication of 8 April 2003, the Government states that it brought the matter to the president of the Professional Association of Moroccan Banks on three occasions, without success. The president of the General Confederation of Moroccan Enterprises was also called upon to intervene with the GPBM. The Committee considers that these steps demonstrate its good will in order to establish a permanent and constructive dialogue between the parties concerned. The Government finally asks the Committee to conclude that the complaint should have been oriented against the GPBM and not the Government.

57. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government concerning the steps which have been taken in order to establish a dialogue between the GPBM and the SNB/CDT. It thus recalls that the issue involved not only information with regard to whether the adherence of the SNB/CDT to the collective labour agreement was legally valid but also whether the GPBM had followed up on this adherence and, in particular, whether negotiations had begun with the SNB/CDT. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government's initiatives have not produced any results until today. In these circumstances, recalling that governments are bound to ensure that the provisions of Conventions which have been freely ratified are respected in law and in practice throughout their territory, the Committee requests the Government to continue to take steps in order to ensure that negotiations between the SNB/CDT and the GPBM take place without delay. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 2113 (Mauritania)

58. During its previous examination of this case (see 330th Report, paras. 129-131), 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.

59. In a communication dated 10 April 2003, the Government states that the outcome of the investigations carried out by the competent authorities advises that no trade union leaders of the National Fisheries Federation were arrested or questioned.

60. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government.

Case No. 1996 (Uganda)

61. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2001 meeting, where it requested the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning the recognition of the Uganda Textile, Garments, Leather and Allied Workers' Union (UTGLAWU) at the Nytil Picfare company, later taken over by Southern Range Nyanza Ltd. The Committee also requested information about various legal proceedings filed by UTGLAWU against a number of companies to obtain recognition for collective bargaining purposes. Finally, the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in the adoption of two draft bills which would amend provisions of the Trade Unions Decree inconsistent with freedom of association principles (see 326th Report, paras. 115-119).

62. In a communication of 24 January 2003, the Government indicates that the matter of recognition is being pursued afresh with the new management, which is agreeable to negotiations. The parties have held one meeting and another one is planned; the parties are still negotiating. It is hoped that the negotiations will be fruitful in solving this long-standing matter, failing which the Government will take appropriate action.

63. The Committee notes this information. Recalling that this matter has been pending since 1998, the Committee requests the Government to speed up the process and to keep it informed of any progress achieved concerning the recognition of UTGLAWU by Southern Range Nyanza Ltd. Noting that the Government has not provided information on the other legal proceedings filed by UTGLAWU, nor on the adoption of two draft bills (elaborated with ILO technical assistance) amending provisions of the Trade Unions Decree inconsistent with freedom of association principles, the Committee requests once again the Government to provide such information in the near future.

Case No. 2098 (Peru)

64. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in November 2002 (see 329th Report, paras. 123-126). On that occasion, it requested the Government: (1) to keep it informed of any legal proceedings connected with the dismissals of the union official Hipólito Luna Melgarejo (of the trade union of the Agroindustrial San Jacinto SA enterprise) and of the Secretary-General and six leaders of the Single Trade Union of Workers of the Agroindustrial Laredo SA enterprise; (2) to investigate without delay the dismissals of Carlos Alberto Paico and Alfredo Guillermo de la Cruz Barrientos (members of the Board of the Trade Union of Workers of the Industrial Nuevo Mundo Company) and of that union's members and former leaders, Alfonso Terrones Rojas and Zósimo Riveros Villa, and, if it were found that they were dismissed because of their trade union activities, to take measures to ensure their reinstatement in their posts; and (3) with regard to the need to amend legislation with a view to reducing the number of workers required by law to constitute non-enterprise trade unions, to keep it informed of progress made with the proposed law to amend the Collective Labour Relations Act which would set at 20 the minimum number of workers in an enterprise trade union and 50 for other types of union.

65. In a communication dated 1 January 2003, the Government states that: (1) the Congress has passed Act No. 27912 amending the Collective Labour Relations Act, and that the Act in question amends section 14, among others, of Act No. 25593, by specifying that in order to be established and remain in existence, trade unions must have at least 20 members at the enterprise level or 50 at some other level; and (2) there are no judicial proceedings under way in relation to the dismissals of Hipólito Luna Melgarejo and the other officials of the Single Trade Union of Workers of the Agroindustrial Laredo SA enterprise.

66. The Committee notes with satisfaction the information concerning the amendment to the Collective Labour Relations Act, which refers to the minimum number of workers required to set up enterprise trade unions or other types of trade union. The Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to investigate the dismissals of Carlos Alberto Paico and Alfredo Guillermo de la Cruz Barrientos (members of the Board of the Trade Union of Workers of the Industrial Nuevo Mundo Company) and of union members and former leaders of that union, Alfonso Terrones Rojas and Zósimo Riveros Villa, and, if it finds that they were dismissed because of their trade union activities, to take measures to ensure their reinstatement in their posts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1581 (Thailand)

67. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2002 meeting when it regretted that no progress had been made in respect of its previous recommendations on the conformity of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act (SELRA) with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee therefore urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the act in order to bring it fully into conformity with these principles and to keep it informed of any developments in this regard (see 329th Report, paras. 136-138). The examination of the Committee relates also to the amendments of the Labour Relations Act which applies to the private sector. When it last examined this particular aspect, the Committee requested the Government to send a copy of the draft Labour Relations Act as soon as the Council of State had finished its reading thereof (see 325th Report, para. 84).

68. In a communication, dated 20 March 2003, the Government submits information on the Labour Relations Act. It first recalls the key issues of the Act to be amended and which were already noted by the Committee in one of its previous examinations (see 323rd Report, para. 89). The Government then proceeds to give a detailed chronology of the revision process implemented in relation to the Act, and which can be summarized as follows. It should first be recalled that the Committee had already been informed of the transmission to the Council of State of the draft amendment to the Labour Relations Act and of the submission of suggestions by the main employers' and workers' organizations. According to the Government, upon reception of the amendment, the Office of the State Council submitted it to the Second Committee of the State Councillors for scrutiny. The process began on 22 July 1999. The Government indicates that, on 4 July 2000, the President of the Labour Congress of Thailand (LT) and 50 workers coming from 26 labour organizations, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister to oppose the draft amendment. On 26 February 2001, the opinion of the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare (MOLSW) was sought by the secretariat of the cabinet as to whether the Minister deemed it fit to continue the scrutiny of the amendment by the State Council. The Minister, in a letter of 29 March 2001, eventually informed the Office of the State Council that it should pursue its scrutiny of the amendment. To enhance the consultation of the interested parties on the amendment, a seminar was organized by the Office of the State Council. During the seminar, employers' and workers' organizations proposed additional amendments, which were transmitted by the MOLSW to the State Council so that it could take them into account. The amendment to the Labour Relations Act is still under review by the Ninth Committee of the State Councillors to which the Office of the State Council has now referred it.

69. The Committee takes note of this information. It regrets that the Government has not given any information on the measures it was requested to take by the Committee to amend the SELRA to bring it into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee would like to recall that it had expressed concern over the maintenance by the Act of a situation of trade union monopoly in state enterprises, broad powers granted to the Registrar to oversee certain internal affairs of the trade union, a general prohibition of strikes and severe penalties for strike action, even when peaceful (see 327th Report paras. 109-111). The Committee trusts that the Government has taken the necessary steps to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. Finally, the Committee requests the Government once again to send a copy of the latest version of the amendment to the Labour Relations Act so that it may assess its contents in the light of the principles on freedom of association.

Case No. 2125 (Thailand)

70. At its March 2002 meeting, the Committee examined this case, which relates to the dismissals of 21 employees of ITV-Shin Corporation, all of whom were either members or elected union officials of the ITV Labour Union. In its conclusions, recalling that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee requested the Government to take steps to ensure the reinstatement of the 21 dismissed members and officials of the ITV Labour Union in their jobs with the payment of back wages. The Committee also requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judgement of the Central Labour Court over the dismissals of the 21 ITV Labour Union members and officials. In this respect, it should be recalled that, following a complaint filed by the ITV Labour Union before the tripartite Labour Relations Committee LCR, in a decision of 20 June 2001, the LCR unanimously ordered the reinstatement of the 21 dismissed ITV union officials and members. The ITV appealed this decision to the Central Labour Court.

71. In a communication of 9 December 2002, the complainant sent certain follow-up information. In this communication, the complainant indicated that the Central Labour Court, in a decision of 26 October 2002, ruled in favour of the 21 dismissed employees and ordered their immediate reinstatement. The ITV appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Thailand. The complainant adds that the ITV has appointed a senator to represent its interests before the Supreme Court. This senator is also a prominent lawyer and a member of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the Parliament. In the complainant's view, this appointment raised a question of conflict of interests. The Government sent two communications following the conclusions of the Committee. In a first communication of 7 October 2002, it confirmed that the dismissal of the 21 employees of ITV-Shin Corporation was still sub judice before the Central Labour Court. In a second communication of 20 March 2003, the Government confirmed that the Central Labour Court eventually decided that there were no reasonable grounds on which it could revoke the decision of the LCR. Since ITV filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Thailand against the ruling of the Central Labour Court, the Government states that the case is sub judice.

72. The Committee takes note of this information and in particular of the fact that the Central Labour Court confirmed the unanimous decision of the tripartite Labour Relations Committee that the dismissal of the 21 employees, members and officials of the ITV Labour Union, was illegal and that they should all be reinstated. While the Committee notes that the case in now before the Supreme Court of Thailand, it would like to underline that in its original conclusions it specifically requested the Government to take steps to ensure the reinstatement of the 21 employees. In other words, the Government was requested not only to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of the national judicial procedure, but also to take active steps to ensure the 21 employees' reinstatement, in particular to avoid that recourse to national jurisdictions by ITV prolongs unduly the effects of the anti-union discrimination it had exerted on these employees. In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the reinstatement of the 21 dismissed union members and officials, to keep it informed thereof as well of the outcome of the procedure before the Supreme Court of Thailand.

Case No. 2181 (Thailand)

73. At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee examined this case which relates to the automatic dissolution of the Bangchak Petroleum Public Co. Ltd. Employees' Union (BCPEU) - the complainant organization - as a result of purported change of status of a state-owned oil company, the Bangchak Petroleum Public Co. Ltd. In its conclusions, the Committee requested the Government, first to take appropriate measures so that the legal personality and registration of BCPEU be restored immediately. Second, it requested the Government to clarify the status, public or private, of the Bangchak Petroleum Public Co. Ltd. and to provide updated information on the trade union and collective bargaining situation in the company; the request for information on the second issue was also addressed to the complainant organization. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to take appropriate measures so that this situation would not arise again in the future (see 329th Report, paras. 757-764).

74. The Government sent a communication dated 20 March 2003 to the Committee following its conclusions. In this document, the Government confines itself to repeating the information transmitted in its reply to the complaint and which has already been examined by the Committee.

75. In a communication of 3 April 2003, the complainant sends additional information on the status of the Bangchak Petroleum Public Co. Ltd. and its implications for the BCPEU. In an earlier communication, examined by the Committee, the complainant had indicated that, following a complaint it had lodged, the Subcommittee on Grievances of the Committee on Labour and Social Welfare of the Parliament had ruled that the change in shareholders at the company did not impact on its status as a state enterprise; therefore, there should be no change in BCPEU status as a state enterprise union. In its last communication the BCPEU informs the Committee that this conclusion has been confirmed by another subcommittee (the Subcommittee on Labour Laws Revision) of the Committee on Labour and Social Welfare; a translation into English of the findings of the Subcommittee on Labour Laws Revision is attached to the communication. The Subcommittee on Labour Laws Revision also found that the Director-General of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare had carried out his duty in accordance with the laws, in relation to the cancellation of the registration of the BCPEU. The complainant has also attached a letter sent to the Ministry of Labour from the State Enterprise Workers' Relations Confederation (SERC) and the response dated 25 February 2003 of the Director-General of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare. The response recalls the conclusions of the Council of State that the Bangchak Petroleum Public Co. Ltd. was no longer covered by the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act of 2000 (SELRA) and that, as a result, the BCPEU was henceforth covered in particular by the Labour Relations Act of 1975. Treating the BCPEU differently from other unions registered under the Labour Relations Act would adversely affect the rights of these unions. The SERC raised the matter with the Prime Minister whose response is still awaited. Finally, the complainant indicates that the Bangchak Petroleum Public Co. Ltd. is presented as an agency "attached to the Ministry of Energy", on the Ministry's web site.

76. The Committee regrets that the Government has not submitted the information requested. The Committee recalls that it found that the administrative dissolution of BCPEU and the automatic revocation of its registration and legal personality infringed a number of principles of freedom of association. This is the reason why the Committee requested the restoration of the union's legal personality and registration whatever the change of company status may have been; in this respect the Committee notes that the question of the status of the company remains unclear. Further, in taking note of the registration of a new union led by another president, the Committee requested information on the situation of trade union and collective bargaining rights in the company, in particular to clarify the consequences of this registration in terms of preferential bargaining rights.

77. In these circumstances, the Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures so that the legal personality and registration of BCPEU be restored. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect as well as to submit the information on the trade union and collective bargaining rights in the company. In this last respect, the Committee points out that its request was also directed at the complainant organization.

Case No. 1952 (Venezuela)

78. At its meeting of March 2002, the Committee formulated the following recommendations on the outstanding questions (see 327th Report, paras. 127-129):

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

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

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

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

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

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

79. In a communication of 8 May 2002, the Trade Union Association of Professional Firefighters, Auxiliaries and Others of the Federal District and the State of Miranda (SINPROBOM) and in a communication of September 2002, the National Trade Union Association of Professional Firefighters, Auxiliaries and Related Workers of Venezuela (ASINBOMPROVEN), a new organization resulting from the merger of various organizations including SINPROBOM, provide new information of which the following should be highlighted:

- signatures were collected by the employer's legal representatives with the object of forcing officers belonging to the Caracas Fire Brigade to reject the trade union organization. The signatures were formally handed to the metropolitan mayor of Caracas by the Commander-in-Chief of the Fire Brigade;

- "black lists" are being drawn up to identify trade union leaders and prevent them from freely acting as trade union representatives, as well as to harass them and prevent them from entering the various places of work;

- trade union leave, granted through collective bargaining, as well as by the current regulations under the Administrative Service Act is being suspended, thus allowing members of the trade union's national executive committee to be transferred; as a result, this situation hinders the free exercise of trade union activities;

- there are requests to vacate trade union premises, and prohibitions on holding meetings of any kind with members, with the object of preventing the distribution of information on the implementation of trade union strategies and plans;

- after being notified of the registration of the new trade union organization (ASINBOMPROVEN), the Caracas Metropolitan District Fire Brigade ordered the transfer of the trade union official, Luis Rodríguez Herrera, the union's culture and training secretary. Subsequently, the authorities forced this official to take compulsory retirement;

- there is a breach of collective agreements and the acquired rights of all firefighters and, especially, reduction in wages of the administrative personnel of the former Eastern Fire Brigade;

- in addition, the Caracas Metropolitan District Fire Brigade refuses to allow firefighters to exercise the rights to submit collective petitions and propose voluntary collective bargaining of conditions of work, the employer threatening to impose disciplinary sanctions and dismissals in cases where collective disputes arise.

80. In its communication of 21 February 2003, ASINBOMPROVEN sends new information which was transmitted to the Government for its observations. According to this organization, the Caracas Metropolitan District Fire Brigade does not apply the rights contained in the collective agreement signed before the merger of the capital's fire brigades in the case of 220 firefighters. Administrative proceedings were commenced against the president of the trade union for having invited the media to an interview in the trade union premises. In addition, for informing members of the date of an assembly, disciplinary action was taken against Martín Rodríguez, the trade union's secretary for international affairs and relations.

81. In its communication of 29 January 2003, the Government states that the fire brigades have been decentralized and that the Constitution of the Republic recognizes their civilian character. The Ministry of Labour has achieved a series of steps forward in the face of attempts by the employers (some governors and mayors) to challenge the registration or inscription of trade unions in this sector (such as the new organization ASINBOMPROVEN which merges several unions) and has recognized the corresponding trade union rights (including collective bargaining) seeking by all means to remedy anti-union conduct and acts of anti-union discrimination.

82. The most striking cases of anti-union discrimination have been those suffered by the officials and members of the Trade Union Association of Professional Firefighters, Auxiliaries and Others of the Federal District and the State of Miranda, as well as the Firefighters Trade Union of the Municipalities of Guacara, San Joaquín and Mariana in the State of Carabobo. Indeed, the obduracy and deliberate refusal by the employers to voluntarily comply with the reinstatement orders issued by the labour administration, assisted by the suborning, connivance and complicity of the labour courts, forced the National Legislative Commission, mandated by the National Constituent Assembly, to pass a resolution of 5 June 2002 which emphatically ratified the obligation to reinstate and compensate the workers affected by the anti-union discrimination. The Government sends a copy of this Commission's resolution.

83. As regards the judicial guarantees of compliance with these obligations, as pointed out, the story is contradictory and at times disappointing given the subordination and the situation described above which, some noteworthy exceptions apart, have occurred in the past and persist now. In this respect, there is a situation of impunity which makes it impossible to reinstate quickly the officials and members of SINPROBOM and SINTRABOM. However, the reinstatement order in respect of Emerson Ochoa, under the procedure of constitutional amparo or legal protection was recently obeyed. According to documentation from local authorities, Tomás Arancibia has been reinstated and received his wage arrears.

84. The Government adds that the national executive, through the Ministry of Labour, recognizes the firefighters' right freely and voluntarily to negotiate their conditions of work with their respective employers. Certainly this right has been limited by the exercise of command by the authorities within institutions which state that such a right is not possible given the application of a "paramilitary" or "quasi military" discipline. Nevertheless, in 1995, SINPROBOM discussed with its employer, the Eastern Joint Fire Brigade, the first collective agreement for this category of workers in the country. This contractual instrument was formally deposited with the respective Inspectorate of Labour and was subsequently revised and amended, although not without disputes, the last of which involved a hunger strike in front of the town hall in the autonomous municipality of Chacao in the State of Miranda, aimed at forcing compliance with the universal principle of equal pay for equal work. Likewise, after years of trade union persecution, the trade union officials of the Fire Brigade Foundation of the municipalities of Guaraca, San Joaquín and Mariara in the State of Carabobo are engaged in a process of voluntary collective bargaining with the employer concerned.

85. The most significant express and positive recognition of the right of voluntary collective bargaining for this sector can be found in article 54 of the Decree of 28 May 2002 creating the Caracas Metropolitan District Fire Brigade. It is expressly laid down there that it must imperatively be respected and obeyed and its provisions remain in force.

86. In the authoritarian and militaristic view of those who rule the Caracas metropolitan mayor's office, and a group of officers and commanders of the capital's fire brigade, the creation of the new body was a good opportunity to eliminate the country's principal firefighters' trade union. It should not be forgotten that those who make up and preside over the National College of Firefighters are, at the same time, the employers' representatives at national level. It is thus a case of an association presided over by the Commanders of the Caracas Fire Brigades who at the same time claim to discuss their economic and professional interests. In the face of this a priori anti-union position, the future of the Eastern Joint Fire Brigade (which no longer exists) was the perfect alibi for the elimination of SINPROBOM. To such an extent that, despite the efforts of the metropolitan mayor to prevent the transfer and merger of the fire services, thereby avoiding recognition of the trade union, the metropolitan council, the legislative organ of the city of Caracas, adopted the Decree creating the Caracas Metropolitan District Fire Brigade. The opposition of the metropolitan mayor of Caracas was so manifest that he even refused to sign the new Decree as required by the Municipal Government Organic Act and it had to be published under the signature of the vice-president of the metropolitan council.

87. This explains a series of acts by the representatives of the city council and the representatives of the new Caracas Metropolitan District Fire Brigade, regarding which the national executive continues to be watchful to prevent further human rights violation such as: (a) discrimination in prompt and correct payment of wages and other remuneration to trade union officials and activists; (b) unilateral compulsory retirement of trade union officials; (c) raids on trade union offices; (d) failure to respect trade union permits and leave; (e) the deliberate public campaign by commanders of the Caracas Metropolitan District Fire Brigade to collect enforced signatures rejecting the trade union, supporting public statements by the Caracas metropolitan mayor; and (f) the physical assaults and aggression against trade union officials. Conduct which violates and fundamentally threatens human rights and the international obligations assumed by the Republic has thus worsened. This situation, clearly, will ensure that the metropolitan mayor and authorities of the Caracas Metropolitan District Fire Brigade act in a way which respects their firefighters' human rights, including freedom of association and collective bargaining.

88. In the allegations in the present case, the Government goes on to say, various acts and different individual situations have been mentioned involving state and municipal authorities. The majority of these authorities form part of the ultra-right opposition block which facilitated and contributed to the coup d'état last 11 April 2002, in particular, the metropolitan mayor, the governor of the State of Yaracuy, the mayors of the autonomous municipalities of Chacao and Baruta in the State of Miranda and the governor of the State of Miranda. These people, with their authoritarian and fascist baggage, are behind the persecution suffered for years and still suffered by officials and activists of SINPROBOM, now ASINBOMPROVEN. They are the ones who refused to discuss conditions of work voluntarily, who refuse registration of trade unions, who do not accept the consequences of the Decree creating the Caracas Metropolitan District Fire Brigade, who refuse leave and permissions for trade union activities and who are promoting a campaign of repression and vilification within the fire brigades, thus engaging in various forms of discrimination.

89. The position of the national executive has been to call on these authorities to reflect on their actions, fall into line with the framework of the law and the Constitution, and acknowledge that the enjoyment of freedom of association does not conspire against the exercise of government, since unionized firefighters have demonstrated an excellent level of public service as well as formulating proposals to the Government on cost savings and optimizing service to the public.

90. The national executive, through the Ministry of Labour, will continue to conduct investigations to verify compliance with the obligations contained in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization.

91. Finally, the Government sends the replies of the mayors and institutions mentioned in the complaints, which are summarized as follows:

- The wage arrears of officers belonging to the Eastern Joint Fire Brigade and transferred in 2002 to the metropolitan district were paid and the delay was due to causes beyond the town hall's control. These workers include the trade union official Tomás Arancibia. The wages of Glácido Gutiérrez were also paid.

- The collection of signatures in the Metropolitan District Fire Brigade did not come from the brigade's commander but was an initiative by a group of senior officers and other ranks, in particular concerning the promotion of a supposed trade union unknown to them, who had not participated in its formation and in the absence of an electoral process. The trade union did not represent the brigade's collective interests, although it had the support of groups of staff of other brigades in the country.

- No blacklists were drawn up. Thirteen officers refused to work in the assigned places and were absent from duty claiming trade union business when they did not have any kind of trade union leave.

- The supposed complainant union did not request any leave from the employer nor can it enforce a collective agreement with a former fire brigade (which no longer exists).

- As to the alleged requests to vacate trade union premises or banning of meetings, the premises were occupied by members of the presumed trade union without authorization. A period of notice was given to move out but they were not evicted.

- As regards the transfer of the trade union official, Luis Rodríguez Herrera and his subsequent compulsory retirement, the trade union's registration was not known and the transfer (without demotion) of the workplace is quite normal due to the needs of the service. Retirement is not a punishment but a benefit which may not be waived.

- As to the violation of collective bargaining, the trade union which was party to the collective agreement (which did not apply to the metropolitan district) no longer exists. No petition was presented in the metropolitan district. No disciplinary sanctions were imposed and there were no threats.

- In November 2001, the wages of the Eastern Joint Fire Brigade were aligned with those of the metropolitan firefighters, including administrative personnel. For this reason, the metropolitan mayor simply considered it unnecessary to mention parity in the Decree to which the complainant refers (moreover the mayor's proposal was not accepted by the metropolitan council). The benefits enjoyed by the employees of the Joint Brigade (including those achieved through collective bargaining) are in essence the same as those enjoyed by officers of the Metropolitan District Fire Brigade. Thus, their hierarchy, seniority and acquired rights were respected.

Dismissals of unionized firefighters

92. The Committee observes that, according to the Government, the labour administration ordered the reinstatement of the dismissed officers but the attitude of the employers with the suborning, connivance and complicity of the labour courts (from which they sought reinstatement) resulted in the National Legislative Commission passing the resolution of 5 June 2002 ratifying the obligation to reinstate and compensate the workers concerned.

93. The Committee notes that the Government reports that Emerson Ochoa has been reinstated as the result of a judicial measure of "amparo" and that according to the local authorities, Tomás Arancibia has been reinstated and has received his wage arrears. Trade union official Glácido Gutiérrez has also received his wages. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the decision of the judicial authority on the question of the reinstatement of trade unionists Rubén Gutiérrez and Juan Bautista Medina and payment of unpaid wages.

Draft decree restricting firefighters' trade union rights

94. The Committee understands that by the Decree of 28 May 2002 the abovementioned draft decrees mentioned by the complainants were dropped and observes that, as the Government states, article 54 of that Decree recognizes the right of collective bargaining (this Decree was agreed with the trade unions, according to the local authorities) and that collective bargaining is in progress in the municipalities of Guacara, San Joaquín and Mariana. The Committee notes that the Government states that the Constitution of the Republic recognizes the civilian character of the fire brigades and that the Government recognizes the trade union rights of such workers and points out that a new organization, ASINBOMPROVEN, has been formed which merges several existing trade unions. The Committee finds that the abovementioned Decree does not provide for the dissolution of trade unions or the constitution of an association controlled by the employers unlike, according to the complainant, the previous draft decrees which were dropped. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to guarantee the exercise of trade union rights in the fire-fighting sector.

Anti-union campaign to prevent the right of free association of firefighters in the Eastern Joint Fire Brigade, the Guacara, San Joaquín and Mariara Fire Brigade Foundation, and the Valencia Fire Brigade Autonomous Municipal Institute

95. The Committee requests the Government to have the labour inspectorate undertake an investigation into obstacles to free association in the bodies mentioned by the complainant and to inform it thereof.

Harassment and vilification campaign against the Yaracuy Fire Brigade Foundation and the promulgation of the law of 22 December 2001 which excludes firefighters from the rights of free association and collective bargaining

96. The Committee requests the Government to send it the text of the law in question and to have the labour inspectorate undertake an investigation into the alleged harassment and vilification campaign.

New allegations

97. As regards the allegations of SINPROBOM (8 May 2002) and ASINBOMPROVEN (September 2002), the Committee notes that the Government confirms the allegations and attributes anti-union conduct to different local authorities, while the local authorities deny that they have an anti-union attitude and offer a different version of the facts. The Committee notes the Government's wish to continue with investigations and requests it to have the labour administrative authority (labour inspectorate) carry out an exhaustive investigation and inform it thereof. The Committee further requests that the investigation should also cover the allegations of ASINBOMPROVEN of 21 February 2003. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full respect for trade union rights in the fire-fighting sector.

Case No. 2161 (Venezuela)

98. At its meeting in March 2003, the Committee made the following recommendations on questions that remained pending (see 330th Report, para. 1147):

- The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures (including sanctions) to ensure the reinstatement of the trade union officials who remain dismissed by the Foundation of the Museum of Contemporary Art of Caracas and the payment of the wages owing to them. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

(In its communication of 25 September 2002, the complainant organization had indicated that the Foundation of the Museum of Contemporary Arts in Caracas, without the prior authorization of the Labour Inspectorate required by law, had dismissed trade union officials Jorge Moreno (Secretary-General), José Gregorio González (Secretary), Delvis Beomont (Treasurer), Alfonso Perdomo (Public Relations Officer) and Omar Burgos (Secretary for Labour and Complaints (see 330th Report, para. 1136). At its meeting in July 2002, the Committee made the following recommendations (see 328th Report, para. 676): "As regards the dismissal of the trade union leaders Teresa Zottola and Sonia Chacón, the Committee urges the Government to investigate promptly and impartially these dismissals and, if their anti-union nature is established, to take the necessary measures without delay to reinstate the trade union officials in question in their posts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.")

- The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary legislative or other steps to speed up the procedures relating to anti-union discrimination.

- The Committee reminds the Government that the technical assistance of the ILO at its disposal in relation to the issue of slowness of the pending proceedings concerning anti-union dismissals and other acts of anti-union discrimination.

99. In its communication of 28 March 2003, the Government states that the Labour Administration shares the concerns of the Committee on Freedom of Association with regard to the urgent need for legislative reforms to speed up rulings protecting workers from anti-union discrimination. In the light of this, the Executive, together with the National Assembly's Commission for Social Development, has proposed certain legislative amendments, of which the ILO will be informed in good time so that it may provide the necessary technical assistance. The Government also indicates that, in accordance with the recommendation made by the Committee on Freedom of Association, it will initiate a process of social dialogue aimed at evaluating these measures, the results thereof and the financial resources needed to provide the Labour Administration with the personnel and infrastructure that will allow more effective application of legislation.

100. As regards the situation of members of SUTRAMACCSI affected by anti-union discrimination, the Government states that it is continuing to move ahead with measures intended to bring about the reinstatement of the trade union officials by the employers, that it has imposed financial penalties and is considering claims made by employees in connection with the employer's failure to meet its obligations. Similarly, it has indicated that the Deputy Minister for Culture has been replaced for, among other reasons, disregarding instructions from the Labour Administration to reinstate the union officials affected by anti-union measures.

101. The Committee notes the measures adopted by the Government with a view to implementing its recommendations regarding the reinstatement of dismissed SUTRAMACCSI officials, and requests the Government to continue to take steps to ensure that the "Sofía Imbert" Museum of Contemporary Art in Caracas reinstates them in their posts. The Committee also notes in this connection that the authorities have proposed amendments to legislation relating to anti-union discrimination, and will be requesting the ILO's technical assistance. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments with regard to the dismissed individuals and to legislation, and hopes that these matters will soon be satisfactorily resolved.

Cases Nos. 1937 and 2027 (Zimbabwe)

102. The Committee last examined these cases at its March 2002 meeting. As regards Case No. 1937, it requested the Government to transmit a copy of the Labour Amendment Bill so that it could examine the Bill's conformity with freedom of association principles and previous recommendations concerning the Labour Relations Act (see 327th Report, paras. 130-132). As regards Case No. 2027, it once again requested the Government to: (1) take the necessary measures to institute an independent investigation into the assault on Mr. Morgan Tsavangirai; (2) take the necessary measures to institute an independent investigation into the arson of the ZCTU offices; (3) keep it informed of any progress made in the amendments to the Labour Relations Act; and (4) keep it informed of any further information it may receive concerning the ZCTU case before the High Court (see 327th Report, paras. 133-135) .

103. In a communication dated 10 February 2003, the Government stated that the Labour Amendment Bill, including amendments, was passed by Parliament on 18 December 2002 and will come into force with the President's assent. A copy of the Bill has been transmitted to the Office. In addition, more specifically concerning Case No. 2027, the Government reiterates its position in respect of the assault on Mr. Morgan Tsavangirai. It reaffirms that it would set a wrong precedent to set up a judiciary inquiry over a case which was competently handled by the courts of law. As concerns the arson of the ZCTU offices, the Government mentions that no information about the arrest of the perpetrators has been received.

104. The Committee takes note of this information. It notes with interest the amendments made to sections 98, 99 and 100 of the Labour Relations Act, which had granted broad powers to the labour authority to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration. It also notes that the definition of "unlawful collective job action" was not amended as proposed in the former Labour Relations Amendment Bill of 1999. However, some problems remain in the present version of the Bill. Firstly, the various definitions given to the term "unlawful collective job action" may raise difficulty in respect of the right to strike which should not be limited to industrial disputes that are likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement. The Committee recalls that the occupational and economic interests which workers defend through the exercise of the right to strike do not only concern better working conditions or collective claims of an occupational nature, but also the seeking of solutions to economic and social policy questions and problems facing the undertaking which are of direct concern to the workers (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 479). It requests the Government to indicate the manner in which, under current law, it is ensured that industrial action may be taken in respect of questions of economic and social policy without sanctions.

105. Secondly, the Committee notes that, in the case of unlawful collective job action being organized as strictly defined in the Bill, excessive sanctions are provided. Sections 109 and 112 establish possible imprisonment of the individual engaged in an unlawful collective job action, while section 107 gives the power to the Labour Court to dismiss the individual engaged in such action and to suspend or rescind the registration of the trade union involved in such action. In respect of the sanctions of imprisonment, the Committee must recall that all penalties in respect of illegitimate actions linked to strikes should be proportionate to the offence or fault committed and the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike (see Digest, op. cit., para. 599). Furthermore, concerning the sanctions of dismissal and dissolution, it recalls that no one should be penalized for carrying out or attempting to carry out a legitimate strike (see Digest, op. cit., para. 590) and that, in any case, the sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations (see General Survey of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, 81st Session, 1994, para. 178). Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to amend the Labour Amendment Bill so as to bring it into conformity with freedom of association principles on this point.

106. The Committee takes note of the information related to the assault on Mr. Morgan Tsavangirai. Once again it expresses its deep regret that the Government maintains its previous position concerning that case. It recalls that the case would not appear to have been "completely handled by the courts" as the Government in the past has only referred to the acquittal of an alleged assailant. The Committee emphasizes that the absence of judgements against the guilty parties creates a situation of impunity which reinforces the climate of violence (see Digest, op. cit., para. 55). Such climate aimed at trade union leaders and their families is not favourable to the free exercise of trade union rights and all States have the duty to guarantee their respect (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 55 and 61). The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that an independent investigation is fully carried to its term with the aim of identifying and punishing the guilty parties. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning the investigation into the arson of the ZCTU offices. Finally, the Committee once again requests the Government to keep it informed of the judgement of the High Court concerning the temporary ban on industrial action issued in November 1998.

Case No. 2081 (Zimbabwe)

107. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2002 meeting in which it again urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 120 of the Labour Relations Act in order to bring it into line with freedom of association principles. It asked to be kept informed of developments in this regard (see 329th Report, paras. 156-159).

108. In a communication dated 10 February 2003, the Government stated that the Labour Amendment Bill, including amendments, was passed by Parliament on 18 December 2002 and will come into force with the President's assent. A copy of the Bill has been transmitted to the Office.

109. The Committee notes with regret that section 120 of the Labour Relations Act was not amended. It recalls once again that section 120 gives rise to two different sets of problems from the standpoint of freedom of association. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 120 authorize an investigator appointed by the Minister to enter trade union premises and question any person employed there at all reasonable times and without prior notice. The Committee has emphasized in this respect that the right of the inviolability of trade union premises necessarily implies that the public authorities may not insist on entering such premises without prior authorization or without having obtained a legal warrant to do so and any search of trade union premises, or of unionists' homes, without a court order constitutes an extremely serious infringement of freedom of association (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 175 and 177). Moreover, searches of trade union premises should be made only following the issue of a warrant by the ordinary judicial authority where that authority is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for supposing that evidence exists on the premises material to a prosecution for a penal offence and on condition that the search be restricted to the purpose in respect of which the warrant was issued (see Digest, op. cit., para. 180).

110. Secondly, as regards paragraph (c) of subsection (2), which empowers an investigator, at all reasonable times, and without prior notice, to inspect and make copies and take extracts from any books, records or other documents on trade union premises, the Committee has previously stated that the control exercised by the public authorities over trade union finances should not normally exceed the obligation to submit periodic reports. The discretionary right of the authorities to carry out inspections and request information at any time entails a danger of interference in the internal administration of trade unions. Moreover, as regards certain measures of investigations, the Committee has considered that these should be applied only in exceptional cases, when justified by grave circumstances (for instance, presumed irregularities in the annual statement or irregularities reported by members of the organization), in order to avoid any discrimination between one trade union and another and to preclude the danger of excessive intervention by the authorities which hamper a union's exercise of the right to organize its administration freely, and also to avoid harmful and perhaps unjustified publicity or the disclosure of information which might be confidential (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 443 and 444). The Committee notes that the powers of supervision contained in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) are not limited to exceptional cases; rather this provision gives excessive powers of inquiry to the administrative authorities into financial management of trade unions, thereby violating the right of workers' and employers' organizations to organize their administration without interference by the public authorities.

111. In light of the above, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 120 of the Labour Relations Act so as to bring it into conformity with freedom of the abovementioned and asks to be kept informed of any developments in this regard.

112. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1785 (Poland), 1826 (Philippines), 1843 (Sudan), 1854 (India), 1890 (India), 1930 (China), 1943 (Canada), 1951 (Canada), 1959 (United Kingdom/Bermuda), 1965 (Panama), 1970 (Guatemala), 1973 (Colombia), 1975 (Canada), 2006 (Pakistan), 2017 (Guatemala), 2018 (Ukraine), 2031 (China), 2038 (Ukraine), 2048 (Morocco), 2050 (Guatemala), 2051 (Colombia), 2067 (Venezuela), 2075 (Ukraine), 2083 (Canada), 2086 (Paraguay), 2105 (Paraguay), 2109 (Morocco), 2118 (Hungary), 2120 (Nepal), 2124 (Lebanon), 2126 (Turkey), 2128 (Gabon), 2129 (Chad), 2133 (Serbia and Montenegro), 2134 (Panama), 2139 (Japan), 2140 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2141 (Chile), 2143 (Swaziland), 2144 (Georgia), 2146 (Serbia and Montenegro), 2147 (Turkey), 2148 (Togo), 2150 (Chile), 2160 (Venezuela), 2163 (Nicaragua), 2166 (Canada), 2167 (Guatemala), 2173 (Canada), 2176 (Japan), 2178 (Denmark), 2180 (Canada), 2182 (Thailand), 2188 (Bangladesh), 2191 (Venezuela), 2192 (Togo), 2195 (Philippines), 2196 (Canada), 2206 (Nicaragua), 2207 (Mexico), 2208 (El Salvador), 2212 (Greece), 2229 (Pakistan) and 2230 (Guatemala), 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. 1888 (Ethiopia), 1957 (Bulgaria), 1992 (Brazil), 2047 (Bulgaria), 2058 (Venezuela), 2079 (Ukraine), 2106 (Mauritius), 2115 (Mexico), 2136 (Mexico), 2151 (Colombia), 2171 (Sweden) and 2198 (Kazakhstan), which it will examine at its next meeting.