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 3, 4 and 11 March 2005, under the chairmanship of Professor Paul van der Heijden.

2. The members of Salvadorian, Mexican and Venezuelan nationality were not present during the examination of the cases relating to El Salvador (Case No. 2214), Mexico (Cases Nos. 2338, 2347) and Venezuela (Case No. 2353) respectively.

3. Currently, there are 134 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for their observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 30 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 23 cases and interim conclusions in 7 cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

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

4. The Committee considers it necessary to draw the special attention of the Governing Body to Case No. 2340 (Nepal) because of the extreme seriousness and urgency of the matters dealt with therein.

New cases

5. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the examination of the following cases: Nos. 2392 (Chile), 2393 (Mexico), 2394 (Nicaragua), 2397 (Guatemala), 2399 (Pakistan), 2400 (Peru), 2401 (Canada), 2402 (Bangladesh), 2403 (Canada), 2404 (Morocco), 2405 (Canada), 2406 (South Africa), 2407 (Benin), 2408 (Cape Verde), 2409 (Costa Rica), 2410 (Mexico) and 2411 (Venezuela) since it is awaiting information and observations from the governments concerned. All these cases relate to complaints submitted to the last meeting of the Committee.

Observations requested from governments

6. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the following cases: Nos. 2068 (Colombia), 2265 (Switzerland), 2270 (Uruguay), 2279 (Peru), 2302 (Argentina), 2317 (Republic of Moldova), 2339 (Guatemala), 2348 (Iraq), 2350 (Republic of Moldova), 2352 (Chile), 2364 (India), 2372 (Panama), 2373 (Argentina), 2374 (Cambodia), 2375 (Peru), 2376 (Côte d'Ivoire), 2378 (Uganda), 2382 (Cameroon), 2384 (Colombia), 2385 (Costa Rica), 2386 (Peru), 2387 (Georgia), 2390 (Guatemala) and 2391 (Madagascar).

Observations requested from complainants

7. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the complainants in the following cases: Nos. 2313 (Zimbabwe), 2322 (Venezuela) and 2379 (Netherlands). In Case No. 2351 (Turkey), the Committee requests the complainant to provide comments on the Government's reply.

Partial information received from governments

8. In Cases Nos. 1865 (Republic of Korea), 2177 (Japan), 2183 (Japan), 2189 (China), 2248 (Peru), 2249 (Venezuela), 2262 (Cambodia), 2286 (Peru), 2298 (Guatemala), 2314 (Canada), 2318 (Cambodia), 2329 (Turkey), 2333 (Canada), 2342 (Panama), 2361 (Guatemala), 2366 (Turkey), 2377 (Argentina), 2396 (El Salvador) and 2398 (Mauritius) the governments have sent partial information on the allegations made. The Committee requests all these governments to send the remaining information without delay so that it can examine these cases in full knowledge of the facts.

Observations received from governments

9. As regards Cases Nos. 1787 (Colombia), 2241 (Guatemala), 2244 (Russian Federation), 2254 (Venezuela), 2258 (Cuba), 2268 (Myanmar), 2269 (Uruguay), 2277 (Canada), 2293 (Peru), 2294 (Brazil), 2309 (United States), 2320 (Chile), 2323 (Islamic Republic of Iran), 2326 (Australia), 2327 (Bangladesh), 2331 (Colombia), 2334 (Portugal), 2337 (Chile), 2341 (Guatemala), 2346 (Mexico), 2349 (Canada), 2355 (Colombia), 2356 (Colombia), 2357 (Venezuela), 2360 (El Salvador), 2362 (Colombia), 2363 (Colombia), 2367 (Costa Rica), 2368 (El Salvador), 2371 (Bangladesh), 2388 (Ukraine), 2389 (Peru) and 2395 (Poland), the Committee has received the governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting. In cases Nos. 2292 (United States) and 2319 (Japan), the Committee received the observations of the Governments. It requests nevertheless the complainant organizations and the Governments concerned to transmit any information they might consider relevant so that these cases may be examined in full knowledge of the facts.

Urgent appeals

10. As regards Cases Nos. 2264 (Nicaragua), 2275 (Nicaragua) and 2343 (Canada), the Committee observes that despite the time which has elapsed since the submission of the complaints, it has not received the observations of the governments. The Committee draws the attention of the governments in question to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of these cases if their observations or information have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests these governments to transmit or complete their observations or information as a matter of urgency.

Withdrawal of complaint

11. The Committee noted that in Case No. 2278 (Canada), the complainant organization, the Association of the Substitutes of the Prosecutor of Quebec, withdrew its complaint because of the adoption of a new law. The Committee also takes due note of the request of the complainant, the International Textile, Garment, Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF), to withdraw its complaint in Case No. 2287 (Sri Lanka).

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

12. The Committee draws the legislative aspects of Case No. 2369 (Argentina) to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

Follow-up given to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine allegations of trade union rights violations in Belarus

13. The Committee has taken note of the report of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the article 26 complaint concerning the observance by the Republic of Belarus of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), which was taken note of by the Governing Body at its 291st Session (November 2004). The Committee notes, in particular, the Commission's suggestion in paragraph 636 that the implementation of its recommendations be followed up by this Committee and the decision by the Governing Body to this effect. The Committee therefore requests the Government to transmit its observations and information relating to the measures taken to implement the Commission's recommendations as soon as possible, taking due account of the deadline set by the Commission in respect of a number of its recommendations.

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

Case No. 2047 (Bulgaria)

14. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in November 2004 when it urged the Government to initiate the necessary measures immediately so that the Association of Democratic Trade Unions (ADS) and the National Trade Union (NTU) may establish whether they meet the requirements for obtaining representative status at national level. It further requested the Government to indicate whether the two organizations (the Association of Industrial Capital in Bulgaria and the Association of Trade Unions to "Promyana" Alliance) that applied for recognition at the national level in August 2004 have been granted this status and to keep it informed of developments in respect of any requests for recognition (see 335th Report, paras. 31-45).

15. In a communication dated 7 January 2005, the Government indicates that the two organizations which had applied for recognition at the national level were recognized by decision of the Council of Ministers; the Association of Industrial Capital in Bulgaria (AICB) was recognized as a representative employers' organization from 22 October 2004 and the Association of Trade Unions to "Promyana" Alliance (hereinafter the Promyana Alliance) was recognized as a representative workers' organization from 26 November 2004. However, the Confederation of Labour "Podkrepa" and the Confederation of the Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) appealed the decision recognizing the Promyana Alliance to the Supreme Administrative Court.

16. The Government also indicates that, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Committee in November 2004, it sent a letter to ADS and NTU dated 31 December 2004 explaining the provisions of section 1 of the transitional and final provisions of the Council of Ministers Decree No. 152 of 11 July 2003, for adoption of the Ordinance on the procedures for identifying the presence of criteria for representation of organizations of workers and employees and organizations of employers and on the procedures for applying to be recognized as representative organizations at national level. The Government states that it clarified in the letter that, while ADS and NTU do not have a status of workers' organization representative at national level, they may request to be recognized as such by submitting the necessary documents for initial identification of criteria for representation to the Council of Ministers, in accordance with section 2, point 1, of the Ordinance.

17. The Government emphasizes that all employers' and workers' organizations have the right to apply for recognition of representativeness at the national level by virtue of section 36 of the Labour Code and the Ordinance, and this of course includes the ADS and the NTU. This same procedure for determining representativeness was recently applied with respect to the AICB and the Promyana Alliance. The Government, however, points out that the Council of Ministers has no authority to initiate this procedure, except in cases where it verifies the prerequisites for representation for those organizations already recognized. The procedure for identification of the presence of criteria for representativeness must be initiated by the workers' or employers' organization concerned. To date, no such request has emanated from ADS or NTU.

18. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government, including the recognition of representativeness at the national level for the AICB and the Promyana Alliance. The Committee further notes with interest the efforts made by the Government following the Committee's previous examination of this case in November 2004 to clarify to ADS and NTU the procedure that may be followed to request recognition of their representative status at the national level. The Committee trusts that the ADS and the NTU will provide the necessary documentation in accordance with the appropriate procedure should they still wish to be considered for recognition of representativeness at the national level and requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect. The Committee further requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal made by Podkrepa and CITUB in respect of the recognition of the Promyana Alliance and to furnish a copy of the Supreme Administrative Court judgement as soon as it has been handed down.

Case No. 2141 (Chile)

19. At its meeting in March 2004, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings concerning the death of Luis Lagos and the serious injuries sustained by Donaldo Zamora during the strike at the FABISA S.A. enterprise in May 2001 (see 333rd Report, para. 33).

20. In a communication dated 27 October 2004, the Government states that the 18th Criminal Court of Santiago, which has jurisdiction in this case, is examining the case concerning the alleged manslaughter of the worker Luis Lagos B. and the injuries sustained by Donaldo Zamora. The case is at the plenary stage and a criminal indictment has been filed. The bus driver who ran down and caused the death of Luis Lagos and injured Donaldo Zamora is the subject of legal proceedings and has been released on bail. The family of the deceased worker is acting as plaintiff in the case and is seeking financial compensation for the incident, in addition to any criminal liability that may apply.

21. The Government states that the 6th Labour Court of Santiago ruled that the FABISA S.A. enterprise was responsible for the worker's death. It also ruled that the enterprise must provide financial compensation to the Lagos family, given that the incident was an occupational accident. The Labour Court in its ruling stated that the FABISA S.A. enterprise was responsible for the death of Mr. Lagos, since a company manager had instructed the driver to force his way into the plant premises. The Labour Court also ruled that the enterprise must pay the following sums in compensation to the family of the deceased man: for loss of earnings - 20,000,000 pesos; for emotional distress - 50,000,000 pesos; and for the four surviving children of the deceased - 60,000,000 pesos.

22. The Committee takes note of this information, and requests the Government to send a copy of the ruling handed down in the proceedings concerning the death of Luis Lagos and the serious injuries sustained by Donaldo Zamora during the strike at the FABISA S.A. enterprise in May 2001.

Case No. 2151 (Colombia)

23. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2004 meeting (see 335th Report, paras. 50-65). On that occasion the Committee made the following recommendations regarding the issues that remained outstanding:

As to the allegations regarding the mayor of Bogotá's refusal to negotiate collectively and the lack of regulation concerning the right to collective bargaining within the public service, the Committee notes with interest the adoption of Decree No. 137 of 29 April 2004 on the creation of the District Committee for Labour Dialogue and Coordination, established as a coordinating body for labour issues related to public servants of the Capital District. The Committee also notes that, as a first result of the District Committee's functioning, the increase in wages of the public employees of the Capital District has been agreed upon. Moreover, the Committee notes the creation of a forum for dialogue with the Union of Public Servants of the Districts and Municipalities of Colombia (UNES), with the aim of jointly analysing the successive pronouncements of the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the progress made in the area of collective bargaining in the public sector within the Capital District, as well as of any new agreements which might be reached. Taking into account the fact that it has examined various cases involving difficulties linked to collective bargaining in other areas of the public sector, the Committee hopes that similar measures will be adopted in those areas.

With regard to the alleged non-compliance with trade union agreements establishing certain advantages in respect of wages and benefits that have been recognized since 1992, the Committee notes that the Government states that Decree No. 1919 was called into question on several occasions before the Council of State and this high court is currently considering a ruling with regard to this issue. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed as to the results of these proceedings once the rulings have been handed down.

As to the allegations regarding the dismissal of trade union officials belonging to SINTRABENEFICENCIAS for having formed a trade union organization in the Cundinamarca district, on which the Territorial Directorate of Cundinamarca was to issue the corresponding decision against the background of the administrative inquiry that has been initiated, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with a copy of this decision.

The Committee notes that the Government has not transmitted information on the suspension of the trade union immunity of the trade union officials dismissed from the Bogotá Council (SINDICONCEJO), and the allegations of SINTRAGOBERNACIONES regarding the failure to consult with the trade union during the preparation of a draft by-law aimed at modifying the Basic Statute of the Public Administration of Cundinamarca and reorganizing the structure of the Departmental Administration and requests the Government to transmit its observations in this respect.

24. The Public Servants Union of Districts and Municipalities of Colombia (UNES) sent additional information in a communication of 12 January 2005, indicating that the decision of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection dated 25 June 2003 did not take into account the appeal lodged by the trade union with the aim of verifying the dismissal of the officials of SINTRABENEFICENCIAS which took place without having lifted their trade union immunity, as it considered that the period for filing such appeal had lapsed.

25. The Government sent additional information in communications dated 29 October and 18 November 2004. As regards the allegations concerning the dismissal of trade union officials of SINTRABENEFICENCIAS for having formed a trade union organization in the Cundinamarca district, the Government states that according to information received from the Cundinamarca charitable institution, restructuring of that body was ordered by its General Board in Decree No. 683 of 29 March 1996 and in Agreements Nos. 011 of 9 July 1996, 012 of 12 July 1996, 07 of 1994 and 016 of 18 July 1996, which provided for changes in staffing and the elimination of some posts. The Government adds that the administration of the charitable institution of Cundinamarca was not informed of the constitution of the trade union until 24 July 1996, by which time the workers had been informed of the elimination of posts through Agreement No. 016. The charitable institution then proceeded with restructuring, issuing Decisions Nos. 1259, 1291, 1297 and 1308 between July and August 1996. The Government states that the elimination of the posts in question involved payment of appropriate compensation in accordance with the collective agreement in force at the time. The Government provides an account of the proceedings initiated by the founding members of the trade union, the great majority of whom have been concluded with rulings favourable to the public body in question.

26. As regards the judicial suspension of the trade union immunity of SINDICONCEJO officials, the Government states that in conformity with Agreement No. 29 of 2001, the Council of Bogotá Capital District has ordered that if posts must be eliminated in connection with changes to staffing in a public body, in cases where for legal reasons the employees in question cannot be removed immediately, they should be allowed to remain in their posts until any factors that prevent their dismissal cease to apply. Accordingly, Decision No. 275 ordered that the public servants with trade union immunity at that time be allowed to remain in their posts. This is still applicable, and none of the trade union officials working for the Bogotá Council have been removed.

27. As regards the allegations relating to the dismissals of officials of SINTRABENEFICENCIAS for having formed a trade union organization in the Cundinamarca district, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government according to which the decisions and agreements regarding the restructuring of the charitable institution of Cundinamarca pre-date the notification given to that public body regarding the constitution of SINTRABENEFICENCIAS, and that the dismissed trade union officials were paid compensation in accordance with the collective agreement in force at the time. The Committee takes note of the fact that the majority of the judicial proceedings initiated by the dismissed officials have been concluded with rulings favourable to the public body. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the trade union organization concerning the administrative decision of the Ministry of Labour that the time period for filing the appeal had lapsed. The Committee nevertheless recalls that in a previous examination of the case, it had requested a copy of the decision arising from the administrative inquiry initiated by the Territorial Directorate of Cundinamarca (see the Committee's 332nd Report, para. 35). Noting that the Government has sent no observations on this matter, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the ruling in question.

28. As regards the alleged suspension of the trade union immunity enjoyed by the SINDICONCEJO officials, the Committee notes the Government's information according to which Decision No. 275 ordered that the public servants who at that time enjoyed trade union immunity be allowed to remain in their posts, and that this is still applicable, as none of the trade union officials employed by the Bogotá Council have yet been removed. The Committee expects that any future dismissal of trade union officials resulting from the process of restructuring will take place only after trade union immunity has been suspended in accordance with national legislation.

29. As regards the other issues that remained pending in the previous examination of the case, specifically, those concerning: (1) progress made with regard to collective bargaining in the public sector in the Capital District; (2) decisions of the Council of State concerning the legality of Decree No. 1919 which suspended certain wage and benefit payments required under the terms of collective agreements; and (3) the allegations by SINTRAGOBERNACIONES concerning failure to consult the trade union during the preparation of a draft by-law aimed at modifying the Basic Statute of the Public Administration of Cundinamarca and reorganizing the structure of the Departmental Administration, the Committee notes that the Government has not sent any information, reiterates its previous recommendations, and requests the Government to send the requested information without delay.

Case No. 2084 (Costa Rica)

30. At its meeting in March 2004, the Committee requested the Government to transmit the decision handed down relating to the dismissal of trade union official Mario Alberto Zamora Cruz (see 333rd Report, para. 46).

31. In its communication of 25 August 2004, the Government reports on the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal dated 26 August 2003, that the dismissal of Mario Alberto Zamora Cruz was justified and did not give rise to any liability on the part of the State. The Government adds that an appeal against the decision has been filed with the labour tribunal and is still pending.

32. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to communicate any ruling handed down by the labour tribunal.

Case No. 2104 (Costa Rica)

33. At its meeting in March 2004, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed with regard to issues relating to the dismissal of the trade union official Luis Enrique Chacón, the unfair practices of the University of Costa Rica verified by the administrative authority and the violations of the Ministry of Education in the matter of trade union leave (see 333rd Report, paras. 47-49).

34. The Government states that the proceedings regarding the dismissal of Luis Enrique Chacón, the Ministry of Public Education and the University of Costa Rica are still pending. The Government reiterates the various initiatives and measures on the part of the Ministry of Labour and other authorities to guarantee collective bargaining. The Government also states that the Executive (the President of the Republic and the Ministry of the Presidency), by Decree No. 31905-MP of 29 July 2004, tabled the draft instruments of adoption of ILO Conventions Nos. 151 and 154 for examination by the extraordinary sessions of the legislative assembly which opened on 3 August 2004.

35. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments with regard to these issues.

Case No. 2272 (Costa Rica)

36. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2004 session and at that time requested that the Government keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings with regard to the union officials Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales and his wife Ms. Kenya Mejía Murillo and their disassociation from the National Insurance Institute (INS). The Committee also requested that the Government inform it of the outcome of the proceedings for defamation against Rodolfo Jiménez Morales (see 329th Report, para. 542, approved by the Governing Body at its 289th session (March 2004)).

37. The National Association of Public and Private Employees (ANEP), in its communications of 20 February and 12 April 2004, states that on 24 July 2003 an application was made for enforcement of constitutional rights in the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to restore the rights to freedom from persecution and the right to work of Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales. This application was rejected on legal grounds by the Constitutional Chamber leaving it to the ordinary industrial courts to pass sentence. Subsequently, Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales applied for a writ of habeas corpus for the order to arrest and imprison put out for him at the time, but this application was declared to have no grounds. The ANEP also alleges persecution against Ms. Kenya Mejía, Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales wife, who was dismissed from her new job at the Banco Popular because her immediate superior alleges that the good relationship between said organization and the National Insurance Institute was at risk. Ms. Kenya Mejía made an application for enforcement of constitutional rights in the Constitutional Chamber in order to be reinstated. The Constitutional Chamber admitted the application and established temporary reinstatement until a legal ruling was made. However, the authorities at the Banco Popular did not recognize this order and proceeded to dismiss her, but this time without management responsibility, protected by the presumption that the Constitutional Chamber would again reject the application on legal grounds.

38. The ANEP condemns the tardiness and inefficiency of the reparation proceedings in the administration of labour justice for anti-union activity and states that the current judicial applications regarding Rodolfo Jiménez Morales and his wife Kenya Mejía Murillo will take years.

39. The Government, in its communications of 25 August 2004 states, on the subject of the outcome of the legal proceedings with regard to the officials Mr Rodolfo Jiménez Morales and his wife Kenya Mejía Murillo, that they are ordinary labour proceedings in which no ruling of first instance has yet been given.

40. Regarding the outcome of the legal proceedings for defamation against Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales, the Government points out that this is a matter of a private nature for which it would be necessary to request information from the complainant when a judicial decision is made. In addition, this action was brought by Mr. Cristobál Zawadski Wojtasiak in a personal capacity and not in his capacity as executive director of the National Security Institute, which is why, in the opinion of the Government, the Committee should not deal with this matter.

41. The Government states, regarding the application for enforcement of constitutional rights brought by Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales referred to by the ANEP, that this application was rejected because it corresponded to ordinary jurisdiction; therefore, passing a verdict on the matter could interfere with the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Regarding the application for a writ of habeas corpus for the order to arrest and imprison in the first instance (a matter that the Committee had already examined), in relation to the action for defamation against Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales; this application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was rejected because the Penal Court of Justice of the First Justice Circuit of San José declared it to be defaulting in the terms of article 89 of the Code of Penal Procedure by virtue of the fact that the defendant was not able to appear, even though every effort was made.

42. The Government states, regarding the application for enforcement of constitutional rights brought by Ms. Kenya Mejía Murillo, that the plaintiff was indeed reinstated; however, she was dismissed from the new organization where she worked due to unjustified absence. From the ruling it seems that there is no reason why this would be an unfair dismissal, as it was noted that her last sick note covered the period from 9 to 13 June 2003 and the appellant did not come to work in the days subsequent to 13 June of that year, thus absenting herself unjustifiably.

43. Regarding the lawsuit for defamation against Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales, the Committee emphasizes that although the Government states that this is a private dispute, given Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales position as a trade union official and Mr. Cristóbal Zawadski Wojtasiak's position as executive director of the National Insurance Institute, it believes it necessary to examine the outcome of the legal proceedings in order to determine whether said official's testimony went too far.

44. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations, requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings with regard to the officials Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales and his wife Ms. Kenya Mejía Murillo; the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the proceedings for defamation against Mr. Rodolfo Jiménez Morales and expresses the hope that the procedures in question will be concluded soon.

Case No. 2316 (Fiji)

45. The Committee examined this case, which concerns the Government's failure to: (1) enforce a Compulsory Recognition Order (CRO) which it had previously issued; (2) counter attempts by the employer (Turtle Island Resort) to avoid recognition of the complainant (National Union of Hospitality, Catering and Tourism Industries Employees - NUHCTIE) through delaying tactics; and (3) counter efforts to prevent workers from joining the union through anti-union dismissals and interference, at its June 2004 meeting (see 334th Report approved by the Governing Body at its 290th Session) and made the following recommendations:

(a) Noting that the request for the recognition of the National Union of Hospitality, Catering and Tourism Industries Employees (NUHCTIE) as the majority union at the Turtle Island Resort dates back to November 2002 and that the Compulsory Recognition Order has been issued in this framework, the Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures of inspection, conciliation and enforcement, in accordance with national law, with a view to ensuring the implementation of the Compulsory Recognition Order, and to keep it informed in this respect.

(b) The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures so as to ensure that the NUHCTIE enjoys the facilities necessary for the proper exercise of its functions, including access to the Turtle Island Resort and the possibility to meet with management and trade union members without impairing the efficient operation of the undertaking. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.

(c) Deploring that the Government has not yet taken any action to guarantee protection against acts of interference despite repeated requests, the Committee urges it to take all necessary measures, including legislation, so as to investigate and put an end to any acts of anti-union discrimination and interference in this case. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.

46. In a letter dated 21 July 2004, the Government indicates that it did not fail to enforce the CRO concerning recognition of the complainant NUHCTIE by the Turtle Island Resort. The Government specifies that under the provisions of the Trade Unions (Recognition) Act 1998, the parties affected by the CRO (i.e. the complainant and the employer in this case) had to make all efforts to convene a meeting with the aim of concluding a collective agreement. The Government adds that the law encourages negotiations between the parties without third-party (government) interference to enhance a positive industrial relations climate among the social partners. The Government will only intervene once a report is received from either party that they are unable to finalize an agreement as stipulated under the Trade Disputes Act, even if one of the parties is using delaying tactics. Similarly, since the union claimed that efforts were made by the company to prevent workers from joining the union through anti-union dismissals and interference, the union could have reported a trade dispute for unfair dismissal and for employer's non-compliance with section 59 of the Trade Unions Act for violating the workers' freedom to join a union of their own choice. This would have provided it with an opportunity to have these matters amicably resolved through the government machinery for settlement of disputes under the Trade Disputes Act. However, the Government notes, the complainant union never reported a trade dispute.

47. As for the Committee's recommendation to the Government to take all necessary measures of inspection, conciliation and enforcement of labour laws with a view to ensuring the implementation of the CRO, the Government states that the complainant had denounced the employer's refusal and delaying tactics in negotiating a collective agreement, and this had led the Government to file charges against the employer for failure to comply with the CRO. However, in reality this was a ploy by the complainant to force the employer to negotiate its log of claims with a view to getting an agreement signed while the case was still before the court.

48. The Government adds that the complainant had not at any time admitted that they had made a first round of negotiations on their log of claims, thus lying to their affiliates abroad that the employer had failed to negotiate and that the Government had never intervened. However, the Government notes, in reality it had been waiting all this time for the complainant's report, since it does not interfere and invoke the settlement machinery until either party requests its intervention by reporting a trade dispute.

49. As for the Committee's recommendation that the facilities to be afforded to workers' representatives should include access to the workplace and to the management of the undertaking for the proper exercise of their functions, the Government notes that the management came to the mainland and held their first negotiations with the union on the collective agreement. Thus, although the management had refused to allow the union to meet their members, they were willing to negotiate over the union's log of claims. Immediately after the CRO was issued, the union vide its letter dated 27 January 2003 submitted its log of claims to the management. However, it was not until five months later that they had arranged for the first negotiations. They never followed up from there until today. The Government considers that, given this situation, it should not be blamed for the inefficiency of others who do no live up to their fundamental responsibilities to the workers whom they purport to represent. The Government adds that due to the union's inaction for about 18 months after the issuance of the CRO, the members withdrew their membership. Following an application for derecognition by the employer on 23 June 2004, an exercise was conducted to determine the percentage of union membership and it was established from the union's records that they did not have a single financial member, hence the Government's decision to withdraw the recognition.

50. As for the allegations concerning the Government's alleged failure to counter repeated attempts by the employer to prevent workers from joining the union through dismissals and acts of interference such as the promotion of a staff association, the Government notes that the union had not reported these cases to the Government. Through the local media, they had stated that about 60 workers were dismissed but not a single complaint was lodged. In 2000, the union had reported the unfair dismissal of two former employees and even though the union was not recognized then, the Government had accepted the report and activated the dispute settlement machinery which resulted in the settlement of their case through the Arbitration Tribunal.

51. The Government adds that section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Trade Disputes Act states that no trade dispute which arose more than one year from the date it is reported under section 3 shall be accepted by the Permanent Secretary for Labour, Industrial Relations and Productivity. The Government considers that the complainant was aware of the above provisions and intentionally did not report the dispute as the one-year period had expired. The one-year period was sufficient for them to report the matters raised and they had no excuse whatsoever for not carrying out such an important task. Furthermore, the union was complaining about the formation of a staff association without actually understanding its role. The association was registered as an industrial association and not as a trade union and therefore could not perform the role of a trade union or represent members on any industrial relation matters.

52. The Government finally states that it intends to legislate on the Industrial Relations Bill by the end of this year so as to further bolster the position of unions and guarantee adequate protection to workers and their organization from any unfair labour practice.

53. With regard to its request that the Government take all necessary measures to enforce the CRO issued for the recognition of the National Union of Hospitality, Catering and Tourism Industries Employees (NUHCTIE) as the majority union at the Turtle Island Resort, the Committee notes that the Government initially instituted proceedings against the employer with a view to having the CRO enforced but later on formally withdrew the charges on the grounds that the complainant had made false allegations. The complainant had apparently not indicated that the employer had participated in a first round of negotiations and therefore had in fact recognized the union as representative for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee also notes that according to the Government, the complainant did not request the intervention of the Government's settlement machinery in order to overcome any difficulties in the negotiation and remained inactive for 18 months. The Committee finally notes that in June 2004, the complainant's recognition as representative union was withdrawn at the request of the employer since it turned out that the complainant did not have any financial members.

54. With regard to its request that the Government take all necessary measures, including legislation, so as to investigate and put an end to any acts of anti-union discrimination and interference in this case, the Committee notes that according to the Government, the complainant did not report any act of anti-union dismissal and interference by the employer, as it could have done on the basis of section 59 of the Trade Unions Act, so as to have these matters amicably resolved, and as it had done in 2000 with regard to two former workers. On the contrary, according to the Government, the complainant indicated to the local media that 60 workers had been dismissed and let the legal deadline for reporting the trade dispute elapse. Furthermore, according to the Government, the complainant was protesting about the formation of a staff association without actually understanding its role, since such an association could not perform the role of a trade union and represent members on any industrial relations matters.

55. While taking due note of this information, the Committee considers that the main issue in this case is whether acts of anti-union discrimination and interference took place to prevent the effective recognition of a newly established union and undermine the latter, despite its apparent recognition by the employer (through participation in a first round of negotiations). The Committee also considers that even if the complainant had not reported acts of anti-union discrimination and interference to the Government, the latter was aware of the complainant's allegations, not only through the local media but also through this Committee which had addressed a specific request to the Government to investigate them. Thus, the Committee is of the view that the Government could have taken certain steps to examine the situation even if the complainant had not reported the case for amicable settlement. The Committee recalls for instance, that governments should take the necessary measures to enable labour inspectors to enter freely and without previous notice any workplace liable to inspection and to carry out any examination, test or inquiry which they may consider necessary, in order to satisfy themselves that the legal provisions - including those relating to anti-union discrimination - are being strictly observed (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 753). The Committee also recalls that, since inadequate safeguards against acts of anti-union discrimination, in particular against dismissals, may lead to the actual disappearance of trade unions composed only of workers in an undertaking, additional measures should be taken to ensure fuller protection for leaders of all organizations, and delegates and members of trade unions, against any discriminatory acts (see Digest, op. cit., para. 700).

56. The Committee expresses regret at the withdrawal of the complainant's recognition as representative union. It requests the Government to exercise greater vigilance in the future when it comes to ensuring protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and to take all necessary measures to ensure that an expeditious and effective mechanism is in place to prevent and remedy such acts.

57. The Committee takes due note in this respect of the Government's statement that it intends to legislate on the Industrial Relations Bill by the end of this year so as to guarantee protection against unfair labour practices. The Committee hopes that the Government will spare no effort in order to have legislation in this area enacted as quickly as possible. Noting, moreover, that the Government recently ratified Convention No. 87, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to avail itself of the ILO's technical assistance in the process of drafting new legislation.

58. With regard to its request that the Government take all necessary measures so that the complainant may enjoy the facilities necessary for the proper exercise of its functions, including access to the workplace and management without impairing the efficient operation of the undertaking, the Committee notes that according to the Government, the management did refuse to allow the union access to the workplace so as to meet their members, but did not refuse to meet the complainant and came to the mainland in order to hold a first round of negotiations. The Committee once again recalls that governments should guarantee access of trade union representatives to workplaces, with due respect for the rights of property and management, so that trade unions can communicate with workers, in order to apprise them of the potential advantages of unionization (see Digest, op. cit., para. 954). The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to take all necessary measures so as to ensure that trade unions, including the complainant, enjoy the facilities necessary for the exercise of their functions, such as access to the workplace and the possibility to meet with management and members without impairing the efficient operation of the undertaking and to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 2233 (France)

59. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2003 session (see 332nd Report, paras. 614-646, approved by the Governing Body at its 288th Session). It concerned alleged restrictions on the right of bailiffs, as employers, to establish and join the organization of their own choosing and to their right to collective bargaining. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to amend Order No. 45-2592 of 2 November 1945, which regulates the status of bailiffs, so that bailiffs have the right to organize as an integral part of their status and are able freely to choose the organizations representing their interests in the collective bargaining process and that the organizations in question are exclusively employers' organizations which could be considered to be independent from the public authorities in that their membership, organization and functioning are freely chosen by the bailiffs themselves.

60. In a communication dated 16 September 2004, the Government states that the matter had been referred to the Council of State in August 2003 by the Ministry of Employment, Labour and Solidarity and by the National Union of Bailiffs (SNHJ) appealing the decision of 20 May 2003 of the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal. The Government adds that the Council of State has not yet handed down a ruling on the matter and that this should take place soon. The Government also recalls that it has implemented the necessary steps to ensure that the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining are respected.

61. The Committee notes the information sent by the Government and requests it to inform the Committee of the ruling of the Council of State as soon as it is handed down.

Case No. 1970 (Guatemala)

62. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns murders and dismissals, at its November 2002 meeting (see 329th Report, paras. 48-50). On that occasion it made the following recommendations, which remain pending:

The Committee notes once again that the complainant organization has not sent further information concerning the murder of the trade union member Cesáreo Chanchavac. The Committee once again requests the complainants to send further information in respect of this murder. As regards the proceedings concerning dismissals at the Ofelia, La Patria, Santa Fe and La Palmera farms, the alleged dismissals at the El Arco farm and the alleged impossibility of negotiating a collective agreement at the San Carlos Miramar farm, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not sent any observations in this respect. The Committee once again requests the Government to keep it informed on the rulings that are handed down in relation to these dismissals and to promote the negotiation of a collective agreement at the San Carlos Miramar farm.

63. In a communication of 2 December 2004, the Government states with regard to allegations concerning the La Patria farm, that a conciliation initiative took place in the presence of CGTG representatives and an agreement has been signed through the mediation of the Labour Inspectorate of Mazatenango providing for an appropriate wage settlement. The case has consequently been closed. As regards the Santa Fe and La Palmera farms, the Government notes that according to the case filed with the Labour, Social Security and Family Court of Retalhuelu, the workers concerned have reached a settlement with the employers. In a communication of 19 January 2005, the Government mentions, as regards the allegations concerning the San Carlos Miramar farm, that, on 10 January 2002, under the auspices of the Labour Inspectorate, the legal representative of the farm and the leaders of the trade union have concluded a buy/sell agreement of 400 "cuendras" of the San Carlos Miramar farm, that have been distributed among 18 temporary workers of the farm. The Government adds however that it has been informed that the trade union is not active any more at the farm and that the farm is not being exploited any more.

64. The Committee takes note of this information. It regrets that the complainant has not sent the further information requested more than two years ago on the murder of the trade unionist Cesáreo Chanchavac. Under these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the allegation in question. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the proceedings concerning dismissals at the Ofelia and El Arco farms.

Case No. 2230 (Guatemala)

65. At its meeting in March 2004, the Committee examined this case relating to the dismissal of 42 trade union members from the municipality of Esquipulas without the judicial authorization provided for in the Labour Code (see 333rd Report, paras. 71-73). On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to continue to make every effort to ensure that the dismissed workers were reinstated and to keep it informed of any judicial or other type of complaint initiated in this respect.

66. In a communication dated 2 December 2004, the Government states that, with regard to collective dispute No. 12-2003 which was being dealt with by the Labour, Social Security and Family Court in the Department of Chiquimula after being filed by 42 municipal employees against the municipality of Esquipulas in the Department of Chiquimula on 19 March 2002, the Court decided to close the case because the workers in question, through the executive committee of the Trade Union of Workers of the Municipality of Esquipulas, had agreed on a settlement with the municipal council which provided for their reinstatement. In a communication of 27 July 2004, the complainant (the CGTG) confirms that the 42 workers in question were reinstated on 16 January 2004, and adds that a collective agreement on working conditions was concluded on 5 March 2004.

67. The Committee notes this information with interest.

Case No. 2236 (Indonesia)

68. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2004 session. The Committee recalls that, following difficult salary negotiations with the local union, the Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia Company suspended from work the four union representatives in the negotiations and initiated dismissal proceedings against them for violations of Indonesian law and the collective agreement. In fact, two concomitant processes were set in motion. First, the company initiated dismissal proceedings, which resulted in four decisions from the National Committee for Labour Disputes Settlement (hereafter the "National Committee") authorizing the dismissals, and which were appealed against by both the workers and the company. Second, the complainant organization lodged, on the four union officers' behalf, a complaint for anti-union discrimination, pursuant to section 28 of Act No. 21/2000, in respect of which no conclusions had been reached; in fact, the procedure was delayed notably because of the failure of the former president-director of the company to attend the competent court. During its last examination of the case, the Committee formulated the following recommendations (see 335th Report, para. 971):

(a) The Committee strongly regrets that to date the Government has not taken the necessary measures to guarantee that the procedure concerning the allegation of anti-union discrimination takes precedence over the dismissal procedures. As appeals have been lodged against the National Committee's decisions, the Committee urges the Government to now take the necessary measures to that effect. The Committee requests to be kept informed both in relation to the measures taken by the Government and any decisions reached in the appeals.

(b) Noting the adoption of Act No. 2/2004 concerning industrial relations dispute settlement, the Committee requests that the Government clarify to what extent this Act provides, in case of anti-union discrimination, means of redress that are expeditious, inexpensive and fully impartial, and, in particular, that it clarify whether the competent bodies under this Act will have the necessary authority to apply the sanctions provided under article 43 of Act No. 21/2000.

(c) Noting that the allegations of anti-union discrimination submitted by the complainant organization on behalf of the four union officers have not led to any conclusion more than two years after their submission: (i) the Committee urges the Government, once again, to take the necessary steps to ensure that the procedure on the allegations of anti-union discrimination be brought to a speedy conclusion in a fully impartial manner, and to keep it informed in this respect, including by providing a copy of any decision reached; (ii) further if the allegations are found to be justified, but that the workers have received formal notification of their dismissals, the Committee requests that the Government ensure, in cooperation with the employer concerned, that the workers are reinstated or, if reinstatement is not possible, that they are paid adequate compensation; the Committee requests to be kept informed in this regard.

(d) Recalling that freedom of association implies the right of the organizations themselves to pursue lawful activities for the defence of their occupational interests, the Committee requests that the Government look into the allegations that the four union officers were significantly restricted in their union activity while the employment relationship still existed, and to take, if need be, appropriate steps to ensure that the local union may freely organize its activities to defend the occupational interests of its members; the Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect.

69. In a communication of 6 January 2005, the Government submits the following information and observations on the Committee's recommendations set out above. With respect to the dismissal proceedings and the question of their link with the procedure concerning the alleged anti-union discrimination, the Government disagrees with the Committee's recommendation that the examination of allegations of anti-union discrimination should take precedence over the dismissal procedure. The Government states that both procedures are carried out simultaneously in line with the prevailing laws. The Government indicates also that the employer's appeal against the decisions of the National Committee resulted in two decisions dated 21 October 2004 of the National Administrative High Court, according to which the dismissals should occur without any severance pay; these decisions concern the dismissals of Messrs. Nazar and Setio. The National Committee has appealed against these decisions before the Supreme Court. The Government indicates that the appeals lodged by the workers themselves against the decisions of the National Committee are still pending before the National Administrative High Court.

70. Regarding the procedure on the alleged anti-union discrimination, the Government reiterates that it must be conducted on the basis of convincing evidence assembled by the competent authorities. Efforts are still under way to have the former president-director of the company, designated by the Government as "the suspect", appear before the court since he is back in his home country. The Government states that the completion of criminal cases is hampered if the suspect is absent. The Government states that if the allegations of anti-union discrimination are found to be justified but the workers received a formal notification of their dismissals, the Government "could" make efforts to conduct an amicable negotiation between the employer and the workers. Concerning the issue of the means of redress in cases of anti-union discrimination and in particular the relevance of Act No. 2/2004 in this respect, the Government describes the different disputes governed by this Act. The Government adds, at the same time, that it guarantees freedom of association under section 28 (prohibition of anti-union discrimination) of Act No. 21/2000 concerning trade unions. Any infringement to section 28 is considered a crime calling for the application of the sanctions provided for under section 43 of Act No. 21/2000. The competent bodies to apply these sanctions are those competent to sanction any crime, which are: state courts, high courts and the Supreme Court.

71. Regarding the local union's activities in the company, the Government underlines that this union is still in existence and that it functions. Indeed, the union members appointed new union officers who replaced the four former leaders.

72. On a general note, the Government indicates that on 5 January 2005, the Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration once again endeavoured to resolve the case by officially inviting the management of Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia Company to discuss actions to be taken. Unfortunately, the company's management did not attend the meeting.

73. A communication dated 30 December 2004 from the complainant organization, received on 13 January 2005, confirms the information transmitted by the Government. Further, from the complainant organization's communication, it seems that the National Administrative High Court dismissed the workers' appeal in a decision of 8 November 2004 and that this decision was impugned before the Supreme Court by both the four workers and the National Committee. The complainant organization underlines that the four workers have not received formal notifications of their dismissals yet.

74. The Committee takes note of the information submitted by the complainant organization and the Government.

75. With respect to the dismissal procedures, the Committee once again strongly regrets the Government's failure to take the necessary steps to have the procedure on the alleged anti-union discrimination take precedence over the dismissal procedures. These steps have been repeatedly requested by the Committee for the reasons set out in its two previous reports (see 331st Report, para. 514 and 335th Report, paras. 965 and 966). The Committee must insist that the appropriate steps be taken, all the more since the procedure on the alleged anti-union discrimination has reached a stalemate while the dismissal procedures, although they have not yet resulted in final decisions and formal dismissal notifications, are following their course.

76. With respect to the allegations of anti-union discrimination, the Committee recalls that they raised two questions: the general question of the means of redress in cases of anti-union discrimination and the more specific question of the Government's particular responsibility as regards the allegations pertaining to the present case. On the general question, the Committee acknowledges that sections 28 and 43 of Act No. 21/2000 cover two important aspects of the protection against anti-union discrimination: a broad prohibition and dissuasive sanctions in case of violations of this prohibition. The Committee must underline however that the existence of legislative provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is insufficient if they are not accompanied by efficient procedures to ensure their implementation in practice (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 742). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take, as a matter of priority, the necessary measures so that workers who consider that they have been subject to anti-union discrimination, in violation of section 28 of Act No. 21/2000, can have access to means of redress which are expeditious, inexpensive and fully impartial and to keep it informed in this respect.

77. With respect to the specific allegations of anti-union discrimination in the present case, while taking due note of the Government's explanation on the delay encountered in the procedure implemented in their respect, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to expedite this procedure. The Committee expects that the procedure will be completed in the near future in a fully impartial manner. If the allegations are found to be justified, but the workers have already received formal notification of their dismissals, the Committee once again requests that the Government ensure, in cooperation with the employer concerned, that the workers concerned are reinstated or, if reinstatement is not possible, that they are paid adequate compensation. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

78. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the remaining decisions of the National Administrative High Court, the decisions of the Supreme Court in respect of the dismissals as well as of any decision reached with due reasons on the allegations of anti-union discrimination.

Case No. 2281 (Mauritius)

79. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns the need to revise the Industrial Relations Act in conformity with freedom of association principles, at its November 2004 session (see 335th Report, paras. 152-155). The Committee noted with interest that, a White Paper was being prepared by a technical committee for the revision of the IRA and that consultations had taken place with employers' and workers' organizations in this context. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the steps taken for the revision of the IRA and to maintain consultations with the social partners during the revision process.

80. In a communication dated 5 January 2005, the Minister of Labour, Industrial Relations and Employment sought the technical assistance of the ILO in order to further clarify certain concepts in relation to the White Paper on a New Framework for Industrial Relations in Mauritius which had been released on 5 November 2004 and had met with criticism from the employers' and workers' organizations. In a letter dated 7 February 2005, the Government indicates that the mission which took place from 30 January to 5 February 2005 had the opportunity to meet the employers' and workers' organizations, various officials as well as the Prime Minister and was very helpful in resuming dialogue with the social partners and bringing further clarifications on certain crucial principles underlying Convention No. 87. Finally, in a communication dated 11 February 2005, the Government indicated that it approved the ratification of Convention No. 87 and procedures were initiated to deposit the instrument of ratification.

81. The Committee takes note with interest of the approval of the ratification of Convention No. 87 and the ongoing preparation of new legislation to revise the IRA. It strongly encourages the Government to maintain consultations with the social partners during the process of the revision of the IRA and reiterates its hope that this process will be concluded soon so as to bring the law into full conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Case No. 2205 (Nicaragua)

82. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2002 meeting, and on that occasion expressed regret that the negotiation of a list of demands presented by the José Benito Escobar Workers' Trade Union Confederation (CST-JBE) in the construction sector had gone on for more than a year. The Committee notes with interest that the parties involved and officials from the Ministry of Labour signed agreements in August and September 2002 which ended the dispute. The Committee requested the Government to take steps to ensure that, in future, collective bargaining procedures are carried out within reasonable time limits (see 329th Report, para. 721, approved by the Governing Body in its 285th Session (November 2002)).

83. In a communication dated 22 November 2003, the CST-JBE alleges serious delays in the negotiation of a collective agreement, in contravention of the time limits established by legislation. It adds that the Nicaraguan Construction Chamber (CNC) failed to attend the hearings set by the conciliator, which delayed negotiations, and that the Ministry of Labour has not responded to the complainant's request to appoint the president of the strike council.

84. In its communication of 15 November 2004, the Government states that the collective agreement of 2002 provided for its own revision from 5 February 2003. The Government adds that, according to the employers, a considerable number of construction companies had closed down during the negotiations, while in others, workers were at their lowest productive capacity. The workers' committee complained of the repeated absences of the CNC from meetings. A request was made to the collective negotiations directorate to take steps in accordance with the law (section 385 of the Labour Code) to establish a strike council. The Government adds that, at the request of the members of the trade unions and confederations in this sector, the strike council was appointed within the statutory period once the negotiation process had been exhausted. The Government states that although this process took longer than the period stipulated by law, extensions were given at the request of the parties for the purpose of consulting their respective leaders and economic sectors on the proposals that had been made. The Government concludes by stating that on 17 August 2004, definitive agreements were reached between the parties.

85. The Committee takes note of this information and expects that, in future, the process of negotiating the collective agreement will take place within the time limits provided for in legislation.

Case No. 2288 (Niger)

86. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2004 meeting (see 333rd Report, paras. 805-832). On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations:

(a) As regards the measures taken by the Government to cut back on salaries and the non-compliance on its part with agreements concluded between the Government and the CDTN, the Committee requests the Government to give preference to collective bargaining in determining the conditions of employment of public servants and to respect the agreements which it has freely concluded on this issue.

(b) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures swiftly, so as to ensure, by legislative or other means, that trade union representativeness is determined on the basis of criteria which are in conformity with freedom of association principles and to keep it informed in this respect.

(c) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that compensatory guarantees, such as conciliation and arbitration proceedings, be granted to customs officials who have been deprived of the right to strike and to keep it informed in this respect.

(d) The Committee requests the Government to make swift amendments to the legislation to restrict requisition orders to essential services in the strict sense of the term to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to situations of acute national crisis, and to keep it informed in this respect.

87. In its communication of 20 September 2004, the Government provides information on each of the recommendations made by the Committee. It stresses, inter alia, that:

(a) several bargaining frameworks have been set up to allow the social partners to express their opinions on all the measures relevant to them that are planned by the Government:

(i) the creation of an Interministerial Bargaining Committee with the social partners, its aim being to provide regular information for the social partners, to discuss the demands of trade union organizations, to bargain for and conclude agreements with the social partners and to supervise compliance with the terms of agreements concluded with the social partners;

(ii) the creation of the National Committee for Social Dialogue (CNDS), a body responsible for preventing and finding solutions for social conflicts of all types; and

(iii) Nigerian legislation promotes collective bargaining; workers' rights in this area are recognized by sections 173-199 of Decree No. 96-039 of 29 June 1996 and sections 7 and 8 of the Interoccupational Collective Agreement of 15 December 1972;

(b) the process continues of establishing criteria to facilitate the determination of the representativeness of trade union organizations; in this regard, a mission visited the Republic of Benin in August 2004 to gain inspiration from that country's experience in the area of trade union elections;

(c) the right of customs officials to organize is recognized, and several bargaining frameworks have been set up for their demands. This allows their trade unions: (i) to bargain directly with the General Customs Board and with the Ministry in question; (ii) to bargain with the Interministerial Bargaining Committee through being represented by the trade union centres to which they are affiliated; or (iii) to use the facilitation services of the CNDS at all levels of bargaining whenever they so request;

(d) the process of reviewing the Decree On the Right to Strike of State Officials is developing as hoped with the establishment, by Order No. 0825/MFP/T of 2 June 2003, of a national tripartite committee responsible for implementing the recommendations of one-day conferences on the right to strike and the representativeness of trade union organizations.

88. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed with regard to the development of the process of establishing criteria for the representativeness of trade union organizations and to send it any texts that are relevant in this regard.

89. In addition, with regard to the process of reviewing the Decree On the Right to Strike of State Officials, the Committee hopes that the amended text will take account of the Committee's prior recommendation and will restrict requisition orders to essential services in the strict sense of the term, to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to situations of acute national crisis. It requests the Government to continue to keep it informed in this regard and to send it a copy of the amended Decree as soon as it is adopted.

Case No. 1996 (Uganda)

90. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2004 session, where it deplored that, more than four years after the first examination of the case and after repeated demands, some issues were still pending. Recalling that the Uganda Textile, Garments, Leather and Allied Workers' Union (UTGLAWU) was the most representative, if not the sole, organization of workers in the textile sector in Uganda, the Committee once again requested the Government to speed up the process concerning the recognition of the UTGLAWU at Southern Range Nyanza Ltd., and to take measures to remedy this situation. The Committee further requested the Government to provide information: on various legal proceedings filed by the UTGLAWU against a number of companies (Vitafoam Ltd.; Leather Industries of Uganda; Kimkoa Industry Ltd.; Tuf Foam (Uganda) Ltd.; and Marine and Agro Export Processing Co. Ltd.) to obtain recognition for collective bargaining purposes; and on the adoption of two draft bills amending some provisions of the Trade Unions Decree (see 333rd Report, paras. 96-101).

91. In a communication dated 12 January 2005, the Government indicates that it has always pursued a policy of consultation, dialogue and education as a strategy for dealing with disputes relating to non-recognition of trade unions. In this spirit, the UTGLAWU and Southern Range Nyanza Ltd. were given ample time to negotiate, but this has not worked. The Government further states that section 17(2) and (3) of the Trade Unions Act, 2000, which provide for compulsory recognition of a union by an employer, are not applied in practice. The Government adds that it has exhausted all appropriate conciliatory measures, to no avail; the next step is arbitration by the Industrial Court, where the process is under way.

92. As regards the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Bill, and the Labour Unions Bill, elaborated with a view to amending some provisions of the Trade Unions Decree that are inconsistent with freedom of association principles, the Government states that the principles for these Bills are now under consideration of the Ministry of Finance for clearance of financial implications. A certificate will be issued to enable the Ministry of Labour to submit these bills to Cabinet for consideration and adoption.

93. The Committee takes note of the Government's reply. Pointing out that more than six years have now elapsed since the filing of this complaint, without tangible results, the Committee must emphasize, once again, that employers should recognize, for collective bargaining purposes, the representative organizations of the workers employed by them or organizations that are representative of workers in a particular industry (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 821, 823 and 824). In this connection, the Committee notes with regret that the Government merely states that the provisions of the Trade Union Act that are meant to remedy those situations of refusal to recognize a representative union "are not applied in practice", and stresses that the major responsibility for having such legislation applied in practice rests with the Government. Noting further that the matter is pending before the Industrial Court, the Committee trusts that the latter will handle a decision in the very near future, in view of the inordinate delays already incurred, and requests the Government to provide it as soon as possible with a copy of the said judgment.

94. Noting that the Bills amending some provisions of the Trade Unions Decree that are inconsistent with freedom of association principles, will be submitted to Cabinet for consideration and adoption, after clearance by the Ministry of Finance, the Committee trusts that these Bills will be adopted in the very near future and requests the Government to provide it with a copy of these Bills as soon as they are adopted.

95. The Committee notes that the Government has not yet provided any information on the legal proceedings filed by the UTGLAWU against a number of companies (Vitafoam Ltd.; Leather Industries of Uganda; Kimkoa Industry Ltd.; Tuf Foam (Uganda) Ltd.; and Marine and Agro Export Processing Co. Ltd.) in order to obtain recognition for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee urges once again the Government to provide without delay information on these legal proceedings.

Case No. 1965 (Panama)

96. At its meeting in November 2004, the Committee stated that it was awaiting the decision on the dismissal of Darío Ulate and Julio Trejos (see 335th Report, para. 161).

97. In its communication of 5 January 2005, the Government states that to date the court has made every possible effort to locate representatives of the enterprise against which the complaint has been made, but has been unable to do so for more than one year because the enterprise is no longer at the address indicated in the complaint. The Government adds that it is waiting for the workers to seek a court order against the enterprise. According to the documents provided by the Government, this situation has prevented a final decision from being taken. These documents refer in particular to unsuccessful official efforts to locate the employer enterprise.

98. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments.

Case No. 1785 (Poland)

99. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2004 session, where it requested the Government to continue to keep it informed in respect of the remaining claims pending before the Social Revindication Commission (the "Commission") and the Supreme Administrative Court as well as of any further developments in respect of the Employees' Recreation Fund (see 333rd Report, paras. 116-118).

100. In a communication of 25 October 2004, the Government submits further information relating to the proceedings both before the Commission and the Administrative Courts, regarding the restitution of assets of NSZZ Solidarnosc, forfeited under martial law. As far as the Commission is concerned, the Government indicates that: (1) there is currently one case pending before the Commission; it seems that the last examination of this case took place on 25 June 2004 and was adjourned for an indefinite duration, at the request of the claimant so that it could complete its evidence; (2) the Commission handed down a decision in favour of NSZZ Solidarnosc on 25 June 2004; the decision may be appealed against within 60 days as of the date of its receipt by the parties; (3) in a decision of 7 May 2004, the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw invalidated a decision of the Commission regarding the payment of a compensation by the State Treasury in favour of an "establishment organization" of NSZZ (a workers' organization functioning at the level of a particular enterprise); the case is sent back to the Commission which will re-examine it after the notification of the court's ruling.

101. With respect to the Administrative Courts, the Government indicates that: (1) the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw is examining an appeal lodged against a decision of the Commission by an establishment organization of NSZZ Solidarnosc as well as an appeal lodged by the Federation of Miners' Trade Unions in Poland; (2) an appeal dated 2 June 2004, was lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court against a decision of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw dated 16 March 2004 dismissing an appeal submitted by an establishment organization of NSZZ Solidarnosc against a decision of the Commission refusing the restitution of assets. The Government underlines in this respect that both courts will determine whether these cases may return before the Commission. Finally, the Government adds that one cannot exclude sporadic claims from establishment organizations of NSZZ Solidarnosc and which could re-ignite proceedings that already resulted in valid decisions (such would be the situation if for example an organization discovers documents existing at the date the decision had been rendered and unbeknownst to the Commission). Indeed, such claims were orally announced to the Commission.

102. The Committee notes this information that is along the same lines as the information the Government has been providing to the Committee for some time, on the continuing proceedings at the national level regarding the restitution of assets of NSZZ Solidarnosc, forfeited under martial law. Noting that the NSZZ Solidarnosc and its affiliates seem to be availing themselves fully of the recourses available at the national level and that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations is also following the matter within the framework of the application of Convention No. 87, the Committee trusts that the national proceedings will continue to fully involve the organizations concerned and that all the claims will be settled as rapidly as possible.

Case No. 2255 (Sri Lanka)

103. The Committee last examined this case which concerns certain provisions of the Guidelines for the Formation and Operation of Employees' Councils issued by the Board of Investment (BOI), the overseeing authority for Sri Lanka's free trade zones (FTZs) and the BOI Manual on Labour Standards and Employment Relations, at its November 2004 meeting (see 335th Report, paragraphs 173-180). During its previous examination of the case, the Committee had: (1) noted the observation of the Government that the modifications to sections 5, 12.3 and 13(ii) of the BOI Guidelines for the Formation and Operation of Employees' Councils made pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee, would be presented for discussion and adoption to the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC) once it is reconstituted and resumes its meetings and requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard; (2) noted the observation of the Government that the issue of the 40 per cent requirement for the recognition of trade union representativeness would be taken up by the NLAC once reconstituted and requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard; (3) noted that the Government did not indicate any further measures to promote collective bargaining, as previously requested by the Committee and therefore requested the Government to indicate the concrete measures taken to promote collective bargaining in FTZs and to provide statistical data regarding the number of collective agreements concluded in FTZs; and (4) noted that section 9A of the BOI Manual on Labour Standards and Employment Relations had been revised so as to provide trade union representatives access to workplaces in FTZs, under certain conditions but that such access was envisaged only "for the purpose of performing representation functions" and therefore requested the Government to specify the exact scope and meaning of the phrase.

104. In its communication of 4 January 2005, the Government indicates with regard to the first issue noted above that the BOI guidelines were amended on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee and that it is only in respect of the 40 per cent requirement that the government had earlier indicated that action was being taken to bring up the matter at the NLAC.

105. In respect of the 40 per cent requirement for the recognition of trade union representativeness for collective bargaining purposes, the Government indicates that the issue has been noted for listing in the NLAC agenda within the next three months and that further developments in this regard will be notified to the Committee in March 2005.

106. In respect of the third issue mentioned above, the Government indicates that the Ministry has initiated measures to promote collective bargaining in FTZs through the mediation officers of the Department of Labour assigned to the FTZs and the Assistant Commissioners of Labour in charge of the zonal areas and that further intensive measures will be undertaken by the Department of Labour after providing suitable training to the officers who are identified for this purpose. The Government also refers to the annexure to its observations, which according to the Government indicates that three collective agreements were concluded in 2004 and another three are being negotiated. In addition, two more agreements have been concluded as "memorandum of settlement" which falls within the meaning of collective agreement.

107. In respect of the issue of access of trade union representatives being restricted for the performance of trade union functions, the Government indicates that the phrase "representation functions" embraces all activities and functions a trade union may undertake to protect and further the interests of its members. The Government also mentions the functions of branch unions established at the enterprise level and parent unions and explains when the parent union can have access to the workplace. According to the Government, trade unions have established branch unions to deal with the management on personnel and welfare matters and to handle grievances and disputes. Where the branch union fails to reach an accord with the management on any of these matters, the parent union steps in to pursue the disputed or unsettled issues with the management. The parent union itself can raise matters or submit claims affecting the interests of the members directly with the management. Collective bargaining is initiated by the parent union. Collective bargaining negotiations and conclusion of collective agreements are undertaken by the parent unions. For purposes of discussing any issues arising from disputed matters or unions' claims or for negotiating collective agreements, the parent union can seek entry to the workplace within or outside the FTZs. In practice, parent union officials may enter the zone to address annual general meetings of their branch union. The Government indicates that all these aspects fall within the scope of "representation functions" within an enterprise for the purpose of paragraph 9(A)(ii) of the BOI Manual on Labour Standards and Employment Relations.

108. In respect of the first of the aforesaid issues, the Committee recalls that in its communication of 14 May 2004, the Government had indicated that the modifications to the BOI guidelines need to be presented to the NLAC for discussion and adoption and it had therefore requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee notes that the Government in its communication of 4 January 2005 appears to however indicate that the BOI guidelines have been amended and only the issue of the 40 per cent requirement needs to be brought up before the NLAC. In the circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the amendments to sections 5, 12.3 and 13(ii) of the BOI Guidelines for the Formation and Operation of Employees' Councils have come into effect.

109. In respect of the 40 per cent requirement for the recognition of trade union representativeness, the Committee notes that the Government has indicated that the issue has been noted for listing in the NLAC agenda within the next three months. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

110. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the Ministry has initiated measures to promote collective bargaining in FTZs through the mediation officers of the Department of Labour assigned to the FTZs and the Assistant Commissioners of Labour in charge of the zone areas and that further intensive measures will be undertaken by the Department of Labour after providing suitable training to the officers who are identified for the purpose. The Government has however not specified what specific measures have been taken and are intended to be taken in this regard. The Committee therefore requests the Government to specifically indicate the measures taken to promote collective bargaining in the FTZs.

111. The Committee takes note of the statistical data furnished by the Government which indicates that three collective agreements were concluded in the FTZs in 2004, three are in the process of being negotiated and two agreements were concluded as memoranda of settlements. The Committee also notes that the annexure to the Government's communication of 4 January 2005 indicates that ten trade unions are operating in the zones and that their membership is spread over 54 enterprises and constitutes 10 per cent of the FTZ workforce. The annexure further indicates that an enterprise union affiliated to the All Ceylon Federation of Free Trade Unions had recently signed a collective agreement with the management.

112. In respect of the issue of access of trade union representatives to FTZs under section 9A of the BOI Manual on Labour Standards and Employment Relations, the Committee notes that according to the Government, the phrase "representation functions" includes all activities and functions that a trade union may undertake to protect and further the interests of its members. The Committee also notes that the Government has indicated that representatives of branch unions may have access to the workplace to deal with the management on personnel and welfare matters and to handle workers' grievances and disputes, and those of parent unions may have access for the purpose of discussing any issues arising from disputed matters or union claims or for negotiating collective agreements, and to address annual general meetings of the branch union. The Committee notes however that the explanation of the Government does not indicate that trade union representatives may have access for the purpose of communicating to workers, the potential advantages of unionization. The Committee recalls in this context that Governments should guarantee access of trade union representatives to workplaces with due respect for the rights of property and management, so that trade unions can communicate with workers, in order to apprise them of the potential advantages of unionization (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 954). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that trade union representatives can also seek access to FTZ enterprises under section 9A of the BOI Manual on Labour Standards and Employment Relations for the purpose of apprising the workers in the enterprises of the potential advantages of unionization.

Case No. 2148 (Togo)

113. This case was last examined by the Committee at its November 2003 session (see the 332nd Report, paras. 166 to 168). On that occasion, it once again urged the Government to rescind the decrees declaring certain teachers to be absent without leave. The Committee also expressed the hope that the verification committee set up to determine which teachers were affected by the decrees would carry out its investigations very rapidly, and requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of those deliberations and of the decisions taken regarding the teachers still affected by the application of the decrees.

114. In its communication of 6 January 2005, the Government states that, in view of the fact that the verification committee has noted considerable differences between the list provided by the National Union of Independent Trade Unions (UNSIT) and that held by the Directorate of Human Resources of the Ministry of National Education, the results of the committee's work cannot be used in their present form, and more in-depth examination within a wider and more consensual framework is required. The Government states in this regard that, given the sensitive nature of the case and the many associated difficulties, it has been agreed with UNSIT that the case will be placed on the agenda of forthcoming social dialogue meetings, which are at an advanced preliminary stage.

115. The Committee takes note of this information. Recalling once again that the events which gave rise to this complaint date from June 1999 and that the Government has still not acted on the Committee's recommendation, reiterated since March 2002, to rescind the decrees in question (see the 327th Report, para. 804), the Committee strongly reiterates its previous recommendation.

Case No. 2192 (Togo)

116. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2003 meeting (see 330th Report, paras. 1054 to 1076). On that occasion, the Committee had noted that the case concerned alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by the company New Seed Processing Industry Oil of Togo (NIOTO) in the carrying out of trade union activities, and made the following recommendations:

- As regards the dismissal of Mr. Awity, General Secretary of the National Trade Union of Food and Agriculture Industries (SYNIAT), by the company NIOTO:

(i) the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings concerning Mr. Awity's dismissal;

(ii) should it emerge that the dismissal was indeed motivated by anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to take immediate measures so that Mr. Awity is reinstated and to keep it informed of any measures taken.

- As regards the refusal of leave of absence: the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the reasons given by the NIOTO company for refusing leave of absence to Mr. Abotsi-Adjossou for the purpose of a trade union training.

117. With regard to the dismissal of Mr. Awity, the Government states, in a communication of 6 January 2005, that the case is still pending before the courts. According to the Government, the hearing that was to have been held on 3 August 2004 was postponed to 14 September 2004, and then postponed again to 1 February 2005. The Government states that it will without fail inform the Committee of any future developments in the case.

118. As regards the information requested concerning the refusal to grant Mr. Abotsi-Adjossou leave of absence, the Government refers to a letter in which the managing director of NIOTO states that he received the application for leave of absence on 26 March for a meeting scheduled on 29 March, and that it was not possible to find a replacement for Mr. Abotsi-Adjossou at such short notice. The managing director also states that NIOTO is not, under the laws and regulations currently in force, required to grant requests for leave of absence for employees to attend a trade union round table. In fact, provisions concerning such an obligation - which is strictly limited in scope - apply only to trade union delegates. According to the managing director, Mr. Abotsi-Adjossou did not occupy such a position at the time of the application for leave, and still does not; NIOTO was therefore under absolutely no obligation to grant him trade union leave.

119. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government, which justifies the refusal to grant leave of absence to Mr. Abotsi-Adjossou for the purpose of a trade union training by citing the fact that the notice was too short and the applicant was not a trade union representative.

120. With regard to the dismissal of Mr. Awity, the General Secretary of SYNIAT, by the company NIOTO, the Committee reiterates it previous recommendation and requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of any progress made with regard to the judicial proceedings currently under way.

Case No. 2038 (Ukraine)

121. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2004 meeting when it noted the contradiction between the newly amended section 16 of the Law on Trade Unions, according to which "a trade union acquires the rights of a legal person from the moment of the approval of its statute" and section 3 of the Law of Ukraine on the State Registration of Legal Persons and Physical Persons/Entrepreneurs of 15 May 2003, according to which, "the associations of citizens (including trade unions), for which special conditions for state registration have been established under the Act, shall obtain the status of legal person only after their state registration, to be conducted in accordance with the order established by the present Act", as well as section 87 of the Civil Code of 16 January 2003, which provided that an organization acquires its rights of legal personality from the moment of its registration. The Committee requested the Government to provide clarification in this respect (see 334th Report, paras. 79-81).

122. In its communication of 27 August 2004, the Government states that a trade union or an association of trade unions acquires the right of legal personality from the moment of the adoption of its statute (regulations). The primary organizations of the trade union, acting on the basis of its statute, shall also acquire the right of legal personality. The Government indicates that the Law of Ukraine on the State Registration of Legal Persons and Physical Persons/Entrepreneurs has entered into force on 1 July 2004. In accordance with article 4 of this Law, the state registration of legal and physical persons/entrepreneurs shall testify to the fact of the establishment or termination of the activities of a legal person, of the acquisition of a status of an entrepreneur by a physical person or loss of such a status, as well as of the application of other registration procedures, provided for by this Law, by way of making relevant entries into the Unified State Register. Parts 2 and 3 of article 3 of this Law provide that the distinctive features of the state registration of the associations of citizens, including trade unions, could be established by legislation. In accordance with paragraph 3 of the Final Provisions of the Law, the laws and normative and legal instruments, adopted prior to the enactment of this Law, shall be effective only in respect of those provisions thereof, which do not contradict it.

123. The Government further states that in accordance with part 4 of article 87 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a legal person shall be deemed established from the date of its state registration. It admits that part 3 of article 3 of the Law of Ukraine on the State Registration of Legal Persons and Physical Persons/Entrepreneurs and part 4 of article 87 of the Civil Code of Ukraine are not in conformity with article 16 of the Law of Ukraine on the Trade Unions.

124. The Government informs that the People's Deputies of Ukraine, Mr. Volynets, Mr. Derkach and Mr. Ekhanurov submitted to the Supreme Rada of Ukraine a draft Law on Introducing Amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine. It is proposed in article 2 of the draft Law to add in part 4 to article 87 the following sentence: "trade unions shall acquire a status of a legal person from the moment of the approval of their statutes (regulations)".

125. The Government further informs that with a view of implementing the Final Provisions of the Law of Ukraine on the State Registration of Legal Persons and Physical Persons/Entrepreneurs and the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 12 June 2003, No. 35948, the State Committee on Entrepreneurship has developed and submitted to the Government, by its letter of 12 May 2004, a draft Law of Ukraine on Introducing Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine with a view of bringing these Laws into conformity with the Law of Ukraine on the Trade Unions. Pending the adoption of the aforesaid Law by the Supreme Rada of Ukraine, the State Committee on Entrepreneurship has sent, by its letter of 12 July 2004, to its territorial offices an explanatory note in respect of including in the Unified State Register of the Legal Persons and Physical Persons/Entrepreneurs the data about their registration.

126. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. It hopes that the relevant legislation, which would bring the Law of Ukraine on the State Registration of Legal Persons and Physical Persons/Entrepreneurs and the Civil Code into conformity with the Law of Ukraine on the Trade Union, would be soon adopted. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

Case No. 2079 (Ukraine)

127. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2004 meeting when it urged the Government: (1) to transmit the conclusions of the independent investigation on violations of trade union rights at the "AY-I EC Rovnoenergo" and the "Volynoblenergo" enterprises; and (2) to set up an independent inquiry into the dismissal of Mr. Linnik and, if there was evidence that he had been dismissed for reasons linked to his legitimate trade union activities, to take all necessary measures to reinstate him in an appropriate position without loss of pay or benefits (see 334th Report, paras. 175-178).

128. In its communication of 27 August 2004, the Government indicates that the Main Direction of the Labour and Social Protection of the Population, in conjunction with the territorial branch of the State Labour Inspection in the Rovno Region carried out the inspection in connection with the complaint, lodged by the chairman of the trade union committee of the All-Ukrainian Trade Union "Capital-Regions". The Government indicates that in the current year, the management of the Open-end joint stock company "AIS Rovnoenergo" has been changed and so has its name (now Close-end joint stock company "AIS Rovnoenergo"). At present, there are two trade union organizations operating at this enterprise: a primary trade union organization of the Trade Union of the Workers of Energy Sector and Power Generating Industry - 1,350 members (Chairman of the trade union committee Mr. M.O. Masich) and a primary trade union organization of the All-Ukrainian Trade Union "Capital-Regions" - 33 members. During the inspection, the facts of interference of the management of the "AIS Rovnoenergo" with the activities of the trade union organizations were not established.

129. The Government further indicates that the complaints, lodged by the chairman of the primary trade union organization of the All-Ukrainian Trade Union "Capital-Regions" at the "Volynoblenergo" enterprise with the territorial branch of the State Labour Inspection in the Volyn Region, concerning the harassment of himself and of the members of his trade union, were not corroborated.

130. As concerns the dismissal of Mr. Linnik from the Lutsk Bearing Plant, the Government reiterates that it was carried out without violation of the legislation in force. The Government explains that Mr. Linnik, a press-forging plant operator, was dismissed according to paragraph 1 of article 40 of the Labour Code of Ukraine in connection with the reduction of personnel (staff), related to the restructuring at the plant, which was carried out in 1999. The procedure of the discharge of Mr. Linnik was carried out in compliance with the requirements of the legislation in force. The consent to his dismissal from office was given by the shop and plant committees of the All-Ukrainian Trade Union Association "Solidarity of Workers" (minutes of 1 April 1999, No. 36, and of 2 April 1999, No. 3, accordingly). Mr. Linnik was a member of this trade union. Mr. Linnik was notified in writing about his dismissal two months before his dismissal. The Government further points out that Mr. Linnik did not lodge an appeal against his dismissal from work, either with a labour dispute commission or with the court. Finally, the Government indicates that during the inspection, the facts of harassment of Mr. V.A. Linnik for his trade union activity on the part of the management of the Lutsk Bearing Plant were not corroborated.

131. The Committee takes note of this information.

Case No. 2271 (Uruguay)

132. At its meeting in June 2004, the Committee noted the sharp fall, from 95 per cent to 16 per cent, in the proportion of workers in all sectors covered by collective agreements, a fact that was not denied by the Government. The Committee requested the Government to take measures to promote collective bargaining in conformity with Article 4 of Convention No. 98; to examine, with the complainant and all other concerned parties, the state of collective bargaining in the graphic arts sector; and to communicate any measure taken to promote collective bargaining in that sector (see 334th Report, para. 812, approved by the Governing Body at its 290th Session (June 2004)).

133. In its communication of 24 November 2004, the Government states that there is currently a situation of expectation regarding the manner in which collective bargaining will be carried on in the country, given that the right of collective bargaining is not restricted in Uruguay and the convening of sectoral wage councils is one of the commitments of the new Government elect.

134. The Committee takes note of this information, and requests the Government to communicate any measure adopted with a view to promoting collective bargaining.

Case No. 2160 (Venezuela)

135. At its meeting in June 2004, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the trade unionists Messrs. Amaro, Aular, Sivira, Montero and Acuña remained dismissed for their participation in the establishment of a trade union (see 334th Report, para. 91, approved by the Governing Body at its 290th Session (June 2004)).

136. In its communication of 5 November 2004, the Government states that the workers Amaro and Aular withdrew their claim before the Supreme Court of Justice (Political/Administrative Chamber). As regards Sivira and Acuña, they applied to the judge on 22 June 2004 to continue examination of the case. Mr. Montero no longer works for the INLACA corporation.

137. The Committee takes note of this information. It notes that the trade unionists Amaro and Aular withdrew the legal action which they had filed following their dismissal, and that the trade unionists Sivira and Acuña asked the court to continue examination of the case concerning their dismissal. The Committee requests the Government to communicate the details of any ruling handed down. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the trade unionist Montero has initiated legal action in connection with his dismissal.

Cases Nos. 1937 and 2027 (Zimbabwe)

138. The Committee last examined these cases at its March 2004 session (see 333rd Report, paras. 171-176). On that occasion, the Committee noted the Government's recent ratification of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and trusted that it would take efforts to ensure that its legislation was brought into conformity with the Convention. It therefore urged the Government to amend the Labour Relations Amendment Act No. 17/2002 to ensure that industrial action may be taken in respect of questions of economic and social policy without sanctions and to guarantee that no penal sanctions are taken in case of peaceful strikes and that sanctions are proportionate. In relation to the assault on the trade union leader, Mr. Morgan Tsavangirai, the Committee expressed its deep concern about the Government's lack of cooperation and deplored its persistent refusal to conduct an independent investigation. The Committee urged the Government to ensure that an independent investigation was fully carried to its term with the aim of identifying and punishing the guilty parties, and requested to be kept informed of the measures taken in this regard as well as the results of the investigation. Concerning the investigation into the arson of the ZCTU offices, the Committee requested to be kept informed of any development in this respect.

139. In a communication dated 17 December 2004, the Government stated that there have been no material developments regarding these cases and that it accordingly wished to reaffirm its previously submitted comments and observations.

140. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government.

141. Given the lack of material developments regarding the very serious matters raised by these cases, the Committee is obliged to once again express its deepest concern at the Government's lack of cooperation in relation to the legislative changes necessary to ensure compatibility with the Convention and the holding of independent investigations into the allegations of assault on a trade union leader and arson of union facilities. The Committee recalls that when a state decides to become a member of the Organization, it accepts the fundamental principles embodied in the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia, including the principles of freedom of association, and reminds the Government of its obligations to respect fully the commitments undertaken by ratification of ILO Conventions (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 10-11). The Committee once again repeats its earlier conclusions in these cases and strongly urges the Government to take the appropriate steps in this regard. The Committee requests to be kept informed of all developments envisaged or undertaken in relation to the matters raised by these cases.

142. Finally, as regards the following cases, the Committee requests the governments concerned to keep it informed of any developments relating to these cases.

Case / Last examination on the merits / Last follow-up examination

1826 (Philippines) / March 1996 / November 2003

1890 (India) / June 1997 / March 2004

1951 (Canada) / June 2001 / March 2004

1952 (Venezuela) / March 1999 / March 2004

1975 (Canada) / June 2000 / March 2004

1991 (Japan) / November 2000 / June 2004

2086 (Paraguay) / June 2002 / November 2003

2096 (Pakistan) / March 2004 / -

2114 (Japan) / June 2002 / November 2002

2126 (Turkey) / March 2002 / June 2004

2132 (Madagascar) / June 2003 / November 2004

2133 (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) / November 2002 / November 2003

2146 (Serbia and Montenegro) / March 2002 / November 2004

2150 (Chile) / November 2002 / March 2004

2156 (Brazil) / March 2002 / November 2004

2158 (India) / March 2003 / March 2004

2161 (Venezuela) / March 2003 / March 2004

2164 (Morocco) / March 2004 / November 2004

2166 (Canada) / March 2003 / March 2004

2172 (Chile) / March 2004 / -

2173 (Canada) / March 2003 / March 2004

2175 (Morocco) / November 2002 / November 2004

2180 (Canada) / March 2003 / March 2004

2186 (China, Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong) / March 2004 / -

2187 (Guyana) / November 2003 / November 2004

2196 (Canada) / March 2003 / March 2004

2197 (South Africa) / June 2004 / -

2200 (Turkey) / June 2004 / -

2217 (Chile) / November 2004 / -

2226 (Colombia) / November 2004 / -

2227 (United States) / November 2003 / November 2004

2228 (India) / November 2004 / -

2229 (Pakistan) / March 2003 / March 2004

2234 (Mexico) / November 2003 / November 2004

2237 (Colombia) / June 2003 / November 2004

2252 (Philippines) / November 2003 / November 2004

2253 (China, Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong) / June 2004 / -

2256 (Argentina) / June 2004 / November 2004

2257 (Canada) / November 2004 / -

2266 (Lithuania) / June 2004 / November 2004

2267 (Nigeria) / June 2004 / -

2273 (Pakistan) / November 2004 / -

2274 (Nicaragua) / November 2004 / -

2276 (Burundi) / November 2004 / -

2280 (Uruguay) / June 2004 / -

2283 (Argentina) / November 2004 / -

2285 (Peru) / November 2004 / -

2297 (Colombia) / June 2004 / November 2004

2303 (Turkey) / November 2004 / -

2330 (Honduras) / November 2004 / -

143. The Committee hopes that these governments will quickly provide the information requested.

144. In addition, the Committee has just received information concerning the follow-up of Cases Nos. 2006 (Pakistan), 2017 (Guatemala), 2048 (Morocco), 2050 (Guatemala), 2088 (Venezuela), 2097 (Colombia), 2109 (Morocco), 2111 (Peru), 2118 (Hungary), 2125 (Thailand), 2134 (Panama), 2138 (Ecuador), 2171 (Sweden), 2182 (Canada), 2188 (Bangladesh), 2208 (El Salvador), 2211 (Peru), 2215 (Chile), 2216 (Russian Federation), 2221 (Argentina), 2251 (Russian Federation), 2284 (Peru), 2289 (Peru), 2291 (Poland), 2296 (Chile), 2299 (El Salvador), 2301 (Malaysia), 2304 (Japan), 2305 (Canada), 2308 (Mexico), which it will examine at its next meeting.