What we do
Themes
Regions
Departments and Offices
About the ILO
ILO Home
  
Governing Body

GB.273/6/1
273rd Session
Geneva, November 1998

SIXTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA

311th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association

Contents

Introduction

Case No. 1873 (Barbados): Report in which the Committee requests
to be kept informed of developments

The Committee's recommendation

Case No. 1934 (Cambodia): Interim report

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1969 (Cameroon): Report in which the Committee
requests to be kept informed of developments

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1943 (Canada/Ontario): Interim report

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1951 (Canada/Ontario): Interim report

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1942 (China/Hong Kong): Report in which the Committee
requests to be kept informed of developments

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1787 (Colombia): Interim report

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1865 (Republic of Korea): Interim report

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1966 (Costa Rica): Report in which the Committee
requests to be kept informed of developments

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1954 (Côte d'Ivoire): Report in which the Committee
requests to be kept informed of developments

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1961 (Cuba): Interim report

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1950 (Denmark): Definitive report

The Committee's recommendations

Cases Nos. 1851 and 1922 (Djibouti): Interim report

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1968 (Spain): Definitive report

The Committee's recommendation

Case No. 1956 (Guinea-Bissau): Report in which the Committee
requests to be kept informed of developments

The Committee's recommendations

Case No. 1869 (Latvia): Report in which the Committee
requests to be kept informed of developments

The Committee's recommendation

Case No. 1944 (Peru): Report in which the Committee
equests to be kept informed of developments

The Committee's recommendations

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 5, 6 and 12 November 1998, under the chairmanship of Professor Max Rood.

* * *

2. Currently, there are 67 cases before the Committee, in which complaints have been submitted to the governments concerned for observations. At its present meeting, the Committee examined 19 cases on the merits, reaching definitive conclusions in 11 cases and interim conclusions in eight cases; the remaining cases were adjourned for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs.

New cases

3. The Committee adjourned until its next meeting the examination of the following cases: Nos.1971 (Denmark), 1973 (Colombia), 1974 (Mexico), 1975 (Canada/Ontario), 1976 (Zambia), 1978 (Gabon), 1980 (Luxembourg), 1981 (Turkey), 1983 (Portugal), 1984 (Costa Rica), 1985 (Canada), 1986 (Venezuela), 1988 (Comoros), 1989 (Bulgaria), 1990 (Mexico), 1991 (Japan), 1992 (Brazil) and 1993 (Venezuela) because it is awaiting information and observations from the governments concerned. All these cases relate to complaints or representations submitted since the last meeting of the Committee. In Case No. 1974 (Mexico), the Government stated that it would send its observations shortly.

Observations requested from governments

4. The Committee is still awaiting observations or information from the governments concerned in the following cases: Nos. 1773 (Indonesia), 1888 (Ethiopia), 1930 (China), 1931 (Panama), 1949 (Bahrain), 1952 (Venezuela), 1962 (Colombia) and 1964 (Colombia). In Cases Nos. 1930 (China) and 1965 (Panama), the governments stated that they would send their observations shortly.

Observations requested from complainants
and governments

5. In Case No. 1929 (France/Guiana) the Committee is awaiting the complainant's comments and the Government's observations. The Committee requests them to send the observations and information requested without delay. In Case No. 1960 (Guatemala), the Committee requests the complainant and the Government to provide more detailed observations and information so that it can examine this case in full knowledge of all the facts.

Partial information received from governments

6. In Cases Nos. 1835 (Czech Republic), 1906 (Peru), 1939 (Argentina), 1953 (Argentina), 1963 (Australia), 1965 (Panama), 1970 (Guatemala), 1972 (Poland) and 1979 (Peru), the Governments have sent partial information on the allegations made. The Committee requests all of these governments to send the remaining information without delay so that it can examine these cases in full knowledge of all the facts.

Observations received from governments

7. As regards Cases Nos. 1812 (Venezuela), 1880 (Peru), 1927 (Mexico), 1947 (Argentina), 1948 (Colombia), 1959 (United Kingdom/Bermuda), 1967 (Panama), 1977 (Togo), 1982 (Brazil) and 1987 (El Salvador), the Committee has very recently received the Governments' observations and intends to examine the substance of these cases at its next meeting.

Urgent appeals

8. As regards Case No. 1955 (Colombia), the Committee observes that, despite the time which has elapsed since the submission of the complaint, it has not received the complete observations of the Government concerned. The Committee draws the attention of the Government 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 this case even if its complete observations or information have not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requests this Government to transmit its observations or information as a matter of urgency.

Serious and urgent case which the Committee especially
draws to the attention of the Governing Body

9. The Committee again wishes to draw the special attention of the Governing Body to Case No. 1787 (Colombia) due to the extremely serious nature of the outstanding allegations [see 309th Report, para. 9]. Furthermore, it notes that the trade union situation prevailing in Colombia was the subject of a complaint made under article 26 of the ILO Constitution by several Worker delegates at the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference and that this complaint is being submitted to the present session of the Governing Body.

Transmission of cases to the Committee of Experts

10. The Committee draws the legislative aspects of the following cases to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations: Argentina (Case No. 1887) and China/Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Case No. 1942).

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

Case No. 1887 (Argentina)

11. In its meeting of June 1998 [see 310th Report, paras. 90-106], when examining allegations relative to restrictions on collective bargaining in virtue of the Decrees issued in December 1996 by the Executive Power (Decrees Nos. 1553, 1554 and 1556), the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of developments concerning these decrees and the collective agreements adopted pursuant to them. In a communication dated 19 October 1998, the Government indicated that the Decrees in question had been left without effect by virtue of the approval by the National Congress of Act No. 25013 (2 September 1998) on labour reform. The Government adds that this Act establishes a system of collective bargaining which is in harmony with the principles of freedom of association, and was a product of the agreement reached with the workers' representatives, expressed through the General Confederation of Labour (CGT). The Committee takes due note of this information and draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this new legislation.

Case No. 1862 (Bangladesh)

12. The Committee last examined the substance of this case at its November 1997 meeting [see 308th report, paras. 17-23]. On this occasion, the Committee requested the Government to:

13. In a communication dated 19 May 1998, the Government states that further inquiries on the trade union situation at Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd are in progress; the Committee will be informed of the outcome of such inquiries in due course. While noting this information, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided specific information on the matters expressly mentioned in point (b) above, despite their seriousness and the time which has elapsed since the Committee first examined the case; it therefore requests the Government to communicate the results of these inquires without delay.

14. As regards the need to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), the Government reiterates that the IRO substantially conforms with the requirements of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Amendments to the IRO which would lead to the suppression of the membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments concerned for a union to be registered would result in a multiplicity of trade unions and jeopardize their effective functioning. The Government concludes that amendments in this regard cannot be insisted upon. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that for many years, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has been asking the Government to review these provisions in order to bring them into conformity with the principles of freedom of association [see observation, Report III, Part 4A. of 1997, p. 151 of the English text]. The Committee, like the Committee of Experts, considers that they unduly restrict the right of all workers to organize and urges therefore the Government to take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation in this respect.

15. Regarding the granting of registration to the union formed at Saladin Garments Ltd., the Government repeats that the proposed trade union's application was rejected by the Registrar. The trade union appealed this decision and the case is still pending. Noting this information, the Committee reiterates its recommendation that the Government should take the necessary steps to ensure that the union is granted registration so as to enable it to exercise legitimate trade union activities and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

16. As regards the inquiries into allegations of violations of trade union rights at Saladin Garments Ltd., the Government repeats that all the complainants are working in their respective fields peacefully and that the Director of Labour reached objective and fair conclusions through a neutral and independent inquiry. The Government therefore considers that no judicial inquiry is warranted in this case. The Committee regrets that the Government did not comply with its requests to institute an independent judicial inquiry in this regard and cannot but insist on the importance it attaches to such inquiry with a view to clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts.

17. Finally, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided any information on its other recommendations, i.e. the outcome of the court cases filed by BIGU members and activists (points (c) and (e) mentioned above) and Ms. Kalpana's employment situation (point (c) above).

Case No. 1849 (Belarus)

18. During its last examination of this case at its meeting in November 1997, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken: to amend Order No. 158 of 28 March 1995 to ensure that strikes may only be prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term; to revoke articles 1, 2 and 3 of Presidential Decree No. 336 which interfere with the free exercise of trade union rights; and to ensure the reinstatement in their jobs of all workers dismissed in connection with the strikes in Minsk and Gomyel in August 1995 [see 308th Report, paras. 24-27].

19. In communications dated 15 May and 7 September 1998, the Government indicates that Presidential Decree No. 657 of 29 December 1997 has declared invalid paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 336 which suspended the activities of the Free Trade Union of Belarus, Cell Union of Minsk Subway Workers. The Government further indicates that the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions of Belarus was registered by the Ministry of Justice on 19 December 1997; out of the 40 trade unions registered in the country, eight define themselves in their names as free, independent and democratic. As concerns the Act on the procedure for the settlement of collective labour disputes, the Government indicates that a draft Act concerning amendments and additions to this Act were approved by the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly at the end of June and has been submitted to the President for signature. According to the Government, this draft once adopted will resolve the problems which had arisen under Order No. 158 of 28 March 1995 which established the list of enterprises, the stoppage or interruption of whose activity would endanger the life and health of the population. The Government concluded by thanking the Office for the consultations and technical assistance provided in order to assist it in bringing its legislation into conformity with international labour standards.

20. The Committee notes this information with great interest. In particular, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the Presidential Decree suspending the Free Trade Union of Belarus (FTUB), has been revoked and that the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions of Belarus, an umbrella organization of which the FTUB is a member, has been registered. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether paragraph 2 and, in particular, paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No. 336, which establishes that activities of trade unions taking part in strikes on enterprises listed in Order No. 158 shall be terminated as per legal procedure, remain in force. As concerns the draft amendments to the Act on the procedure for the settlement of collective labour disputes, the Committee notes that the latest version provided to the Office represents a significant step towards recognition of the principle of the right to strike, in particular by proposing to repeal section 16 of the Act which sets forth the list of enterprises and services in which strikes may be restricted and upon which Order No. 158 was based. The Committee trusts that these draft amendments will enter into force in the near future and that they will ensure full conformity with the principles of freedom of association. It requests the Government to transmit the final version of the Act as amended. Finally, given that the Government has not provided any information in respect of the measures taken to reinstate the workers dismissed in connection with the strikes in Minsk and Gomyel in August 1995, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.

Case No. 1509 (Brazil)

21. The Committee examined this case concerning the murder of the trade union leader Valdicio Barbosa dos Santos at its meeting in June 1998 [see 310th Report, para. 13] and requested the Government to keep it informed of the final outcome of the judicial proceedings and of the new inquiry to which reference had been made. In its communication dated 12 October 1998, the Government indicates in relation to the murder of trade union leader Valdicio Barbosa dos Santos that intense research was carried out within the proceedings under way in order to carry out a preventive detention of the accused persons, as well as to pursue the investigations in order to explain the responsibility for the theft of the murder weapon and to determine whether there were other persons involved in the crime. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceeding.

Case No. 1889 (Brazil)

22. The Committee examined this case at its March 1997 meeting [see 306th Report, paras. 152 to 176], when it insisted that the Government take measures to ensure that the fines imposed on the trade unions of the Single Federation of Oil Workers for their participation in strikes in the PETROBRAS enterprise in 1995 are annulled.

23. The Committee notes with satisfaction that in its communication dated 2 September 1998 the Government informs it that Act No. 9689, adopted on 14 July 1998, cancelled the fines imposed by the Supreme Labour Tribunal on the trade unions of the Single Federation of Oil Workers for their participation in strikes in the PETROBRAS enterprise in 1995.

24. However, the Committee once again requests the Government to consult the social partners on the content of Bill No. 1802/96 (which regulates the imposition of fines in the event of strikes deemed to be abusive or illegal) and hopes that the final text will take into account the results of these consultations and the principles set forth in the conclusions contained in the 306th Report of the Committee [paras. 171 to 175].

Case No. 1957 (Bulgaria)

25. At its meeting of June 1998, when it examined allegations relating to eviction from trade union premises occupied by a trade union organization and the confiscation of the union's property, the Committee, considering that the complainant organization had been deprived of the use of premises which it had used from 1992 to 1997, invited the Government to consider the possibility, taking into account the representativeness of the National Syndical Federation (GMH), of granting the complainant premises in the city of Sofia in which it might set up its headquarters, and requested the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to ensure that all the equipment and documents confiscated from the complainant organization were returned to it [See 310th Report, para. 133(a) and (b)].

26. In its communication of 30 June 1998, the Government states that: (1) in order to allow the Ministry of Economics to use the premises occupied by the trade union organization GMH, in accordance with the legal authorization obtained by the Ministry to take over the premises in question, the office equipment and documents belonging to the GMH were moved and the premises where they were stored were sealed to ensure their safe keeping, not to prevent the complainant from using the equipment and documents in question; and (2) the GMH legally occupied the premises in question only during the period 1992-93, their occupation of the premises between 1994 and 1997 having been illegal; the GMH may, through the procedure established by the Cabinet in implementation of the State Property Law, ask for other premises to be allocated to it.

27. The Committee takes note of this information. With regard to the confiscation of material, equipment and documents belonging to the GMH, the Committee notes that the Government does not state whether these have been returned to the complainant. Under these circumstances, the Committee once again draws the Government's attention to the fact that confiscation of trade union property by the authorities without a court order constitutes an infringement of the right of trade unions to own property and undue interference in their activities, contrary to the principles of freedom of association; the Committee requests the Government, if it has not already done so, to take steps without delay to ensure that all the property confiscated from the complainant organization is returned to it. With regard to the possibility of allocating premises to the GMH, the Committee invites the complainant organization to request that premises be allocated to it under the terms of the State Property Law, as the Government has suggested.

Case No. 1928 (Canada/Manitoba)

28. At its June 1998 meeting [see 310th Report, paras 134-184], the Committee examined this case concerning amendments to the Public Schools Act of Manitoba. The Committee urged the Government to take steps to have the amendments that circumscribe the jurisdiction of the interest arbitrators repealed, and to keep it informed in this regard. In a communication of 22 September 1998, the Government informs the Committee that section 129(3) and (4), which were referred to in the complaint, were amended during the committee stage of the legislative process, after consultation with and representations from various stakeholders and the general public. Pursuant to the amendments, "ability to pay" is now one of a number of factors that shall be considered by the arbitrator, rather than being the primary basis of his or her decision. The Government highlights the influence of the consultation process in this regard, and states that the amendments to the Public Schools Act came only after two major public consultations -- one in 1992 and the other in 1996. During the consultations in 1996, the Teacher Collective Bargaining and Compensation Review Committee held 11 public meetings at seven locations around the province. Over 2,000 people attended, 190 people made oral presentations, and 484 written submissions were received. The Committee held a special meeting to hear submissions from the various interested educational associations and stakeholder groups, and the public had the opportunity to make submissions to the legislative committee. Fifty-seven presentations were made to the legislative committee, including by representatives of teachers' associations, school boards and the Manitoba Teachers' Society. Furthermore, the Government states that prior to convening the Teacher Collective Bargaining and Compensation Review Committee, the Government invited the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the Manitoba Association of School Trustees to enter into discussions concerning what changes to the collective bargaining process might be appropriate. The Committee takes note of this information.

29. The Government contends that the amendments pursuant to the Public Schools Amendment Act, 1996, do not deny the right of teachers to bargain collectively or interfere with the independence of the arbitration process. The Government contests in particular the Committee's conclusion that issues such as the selection, appointment, assignment and transfer of teachers and principals, the method for evaluating the performance of teachers and principals, and the scheduling of recesses and the midday break are clearly related to conditions of employment. According to the Government, while it may be possible to so characterize these issues in a traditional workplace, the education system is not such a workplace. It states that these matters are all important areas having pedagogical impact. In addition, the Government states that there is nothing in the legislation restricting the ability of school boards and teachers' associations from negotiating these matters through the collective bargaining process. The Government, repeating what it had said in its earlier reply, notes that the legislation requires school divisions and districts to act reasonably, fairly and in good faith in administering policies relating to matters that have been statutorily excluded from arbitration. The Government states that since a breach of this duty is subject to arbitration, the divisions and districts do not have an absolute right to act unilaterally. The Government concludes that the changes requested by the Committee "are currently not warranted given the experience with the legislation to date".

30. The Committee regrets the Government's decision not to take steps to have the amendments repealed that circumscribe the jurisdiction of the interest arbitrators. The Committee again recalls that the right to bargain freely with employers with respect to conditions of work constitutes an essential element of freedom of association, and trade unions should have the right, through collective bargaining or other lawful means, to seek to improve the living and working conditions of those whom they represent [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 782]. The Committee has always been conscious of the need to take into consideration the specificity of the education system when considering the scope of collective bargaining in that sector. Regarding the Government's assertion that the school boards and teachers' association are able to bargain collectively concerning the matters excluded from arbitration, the Committee repeats its earlier conclusion in this case that "where workers' organizations are not permitted to resort to any means of pressure to promote and defend their position in collective bargaining, effective collective bargaining may be inhibited" [see 310th Report, para. 176]. The provisions imposing an obligation on the school divisions and districts to act in good faith concerning the excluded subjects, cannot be considered as tantamount to collective bargaining, and it is not the type of compensatory measure considered by the Committee as adequate in the absence of the right to strike. The Committee recalls that compensatory measures should include adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage [see Digest, para. 547]. Considering the particular education system in Manitoba, the Committee again urges the Government to take steps to have the amendments to the Public School Act that circumscribe the jurisdiction of the interest arbitrators repealed and to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1941 (Chile)

31. At its meeting of June 1998, when it examined allegations relating to the restitution of trade union assets confiscated during the 1973 coup d'état, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Act on the restitution or compensation of assets confiscated from the trade union organizations could enter into force without delay, and requested the Government to keep it informed of measures taken in this respect [See 310th Report, para. 254]. In its communication of 24 July 1998, the Government states that on 25 June 1998, the President of the Republic approved the Bill on the restitution or compensation of assets confiscated or acquired by the State and that the Bill in question was published in the Official Bulletin of Thursday, 23 July 1998 as Law No. 19.568. The Government also states that the Minister of National Property will receive any applications from natural or legal persons who may be affected and that a special office has been established to receive such applications and determine assets for restitution or appropriate compensation for the persons in question. The Government also sends a copy of Law No. 19568. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction.

Case No.1945 (Chile)

32. In a previous examination of the case [see 309th Report, paras. 56-68, adopted by the Governing Body at its March 1998 (271st) Session], certain allegations remained pending with regard to the dismissal of, or legal proceedings instituted against, trade union leaders. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 309th Report, para. 68]:

33. In its communication dated 22 July 1998, the Government states that Mr. Eduardo Araos Herrera and Rhona SA came to a settlement in the case before the Labour Tribunal of Viña del Mar; in accordance with this agreement, the enterprise paid all of the employment benefits which had been the subject of the action (US$30,000) and Mr. Araos Herrera renounced his employment and any other legal action in connection with the employment relationship between the two parties. With regard to the dismissals of the trade union leaders, namely Messrs. Sergio Antonio Cea Valenzuela, Sergio Silva and Jorge Muñoz, the Government forwarded extensive documentation and details regarding the various court decisions rejecting these unionists' complaints and indicates that the ruling handed down by the First Labour Tribunal of Valparaíso, rejecting the evidence regarding their status as workers and trade union leaders, is at present under appeal. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal proceedings.

34. With regard to the detention and prosecution on charges of "contempt of authority" of the leaders of the Confederation of Bank Employees' Trade Unions, Messrs. Luis Pereira Concha, Nicolás Soto Reyes and Luis Mesina Marín, the Government reports that the proceedings have been stayed and, consequently, no sentence has been pronounced. The Committee takes note of this information.

Case No. 1850 (Congo)

35. The Committee examined this case at its June 1996 meeting [see 304th Report, paras. 199 to 220], June 1997 meeting [see 307th Report, paras. 102 to 122] and June 1998 meeting [see 310th Report, para. 14]. The Committee had requested the Government, with respect to the breaking up of a trade union meeting at the Pointe Noire labour exchange on 30 September by a detachment of the national police, resulting in many people being wounded, including Mr. Ngakoya, an employee of the national railways, to keep it informed of the findings of the inquiry and of the measures taken to punish those who are responsible for these reprehensible acts. In relation to the expulsion from Pointe Noire of the president of the Trade Union Confederation of Workers of Congo (CSTC) by the Public Prosecutor and the ban on his returning, the Committee asked the Government to annul this decision; on the subject of the expulsion of the CSTC from its premises, the Committee requested the Government to help, as far as possible, the CSTC to obtain new premises; in relation to protest strikes against the non-payment of salaries by the Government, the Committee called on the Government to revoke all anti-union reprisals that may have been directed against the strikers, and in particular dismissals and blacklisting. In addition, the Committee requested the Government to transmit a copy of the Bill relating to the right to strike in the public service before its adoption.

36. In a communication dated 12 October 1998, the Government indicates that the serious administrative and institutional disruptions which occurred in the country following the recent situation of war prevented it from conducting a thorough and objective inquiry into the events which took place more than five years ago concerning the violent breaking up of a trade union meeting at the Pointe Noire labour exchange in September 1993. While taking note of this information as well as the Government's statement that it is committed to the principles of freedom of association and that it will do its utmost to prevent such events in the future, the Committee insists once again on the need for an in-depth and independent inquiry in such circumstances. In addition, concerning the expulsion and the ban on his returning from Pointe Noire of the president of the CSTC, the Government indicates that the president of the CSTC has appealed against the decision of the Public Prosecutor. The Government explains that it did not feel bound by the decision of the Public Prosecutor and that it had authorized the president of the CSTC to return and stay in Pointe Noire and that the president of the CSTC had since resumed his trade union activities there. While noting this information with interest, the Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the decision of the appeal body concerning the recourse against the decision of the Public Prosecutor.

37. Concerning the premises requested by the CSTC, the Government recalls that the recent war destroyed most of the infrastructure in Brazzaville but that it is nevertheless ready to examine any proposition which might be submitted by the CSTC in this respect. Insisting once again on the importance of an adequate protection for trade union assets and that, in this respect, the CSTC should be able to obtain premises for its trade union activities, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.

38. The Committee notes the information from the Government according to which the Bill on the right to strike was shelved following the recent political changes in the country. Finally, the Committee request the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken to revoke all anti-union reprisals (including dismissals and blacklisting) that may have been directed against the strikers who participated in the protest strikes against the non-payment of salaries in 1995.

Case No. 1870 (Congo)

39. The Committee examined this case at its November 1996 meeting [see 305th Report, paras. 134 to 147], June 1997 meeting [see 307th Report, paras. 13 to 16] and June 1998 meeting [see 310th Report, para. 14]. Having, amongst other things, requested the Government to send it a copy of all the judgements concerning legal proceedings against a number of trade unionists, the Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its communication of 12 October 1998 stating that the legal proceedings against the trade unionists in the Criminal Court of the Brazzaville High Court and benefiting from parole on bail were acquitted by court decision on 17 September 1998.

Case No. 1594 (Côte d'Ivoire)

40. At its meeting of March 1998, the Committee requested the Government to do all it could to ensure that social elections were held as soon as possible at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan and to make sure that the first-level organizations affiliated to the trade union confederation, Dignité, were able to participate in them [see 309th Report, para. 17]. In its communication of 26 May 1998, the Government states that on 14 April 1998 elections for staff delegates took place at the Autonomous Port of Abidjan and attaches to its observations a copy of the election record, according to which the Free Trade Union of Dockers of the Autonomous Ports of Côte d'Ivoire (SYLIDOPACI) affiliated to Dignité participated in the elections. The Committee notes this information with interest.

Case No. 1824 (El Salvador)

41. The Committee examined this case at its meeting of November 1997 [see 308th Report, paras. 35-38] when it noted that the Government had not provided the information requested concerning the following recommendations:

42. The Committee, in November 1997, took note of the large volume of documentation sent by the Government on the different stages of the legal proceedings on the illegal occupation of the workplace, resistance to public authorities and abusive use of the right to strike and to work against the trade union official Mr. Huezo.

43. In communications of 28 May and 3 July 1998, the Government informed the Committee that Mr. Huezo had been acquitted of the charges of abusive use of the right to strike and to work and resistance.

44. The Committee takes due note of this information. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the other charges against Mr. Huezo concerning false testimony, sequestration, murder threats, illegal detention, defamation and damages and interest. Finally, the Government urges the Committee to provide the information requested regarding the other allegations.

Cases Nos. 1512 and 1539 (Guatemala)

45. At its meetings in November 1997 and March 1998, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made by the Commission on Historical Clarification in connection with the allegations under review concerning the assassination or disappearance of trade unionists (1990-94) [See 308th Report, para. 394(b) and 309th Report, para. 19]. In a communication dated 18 September 1998, the Government indicated that a copy of the report of the Commission will be transmitted to the Committee as soon as it has been submitted. The Committee notes this information and continues to await receipt of the report.

Case No. 1876 (Guatemala)

46. In its previous examination of the case in May-June 1998 [see the Committee's 310th Report, paras. 23-26] various allegations concerning detentions, acts of violence and anti-union discrimination against trade unionists remained pending.

Detentions and acts of violence

47. The Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of developments in the inquiries into the alleged rape of trade unionist Vilma Cristina González and into the alleged detention of the trade unionists Eswin Rocael Ruiz Zacarías, Edwin Tulio Enríquez García and Belarmino González de León [see 310th Report, para. 26]. In a communication dated 4 June 1998 the Government stressed that these persons -- who are going about their business as usual -- were still not collaborating with the authorities which is why no progress had been made in the inquiries. In this respect the Committee indicates that it will only pursue its examination of the allegations if the complainant organization sends additional information concerning the allegations and the lack of collaboration by the persons involved in the inquiries.

Acts of anti-union discrimination

48. The Committee made the following recommendations [see 310th Report, para. 26]:

As regards the allegations relating to acts of discrimination (International Textile Corporation enterprise, El Salto farm, and Las Delicias farm) the Committee once again stresses the importance of remedying all acts of anti-union discrimination and asks the Government to keep it informed of the progress of these procedures. The Committee requests the Government to take measures for the reinstatement of those dismissed in their jobs if it is confirmed that they were dismissed for their trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of the legal proceedings currently under way relating to the dismissal of trade unionists Juan José Morales Moscoso and Everildo Revolorio Torres and to take measures for the reinstatement of those dismissed in their posts if it is confirmed that they were dismissed for their trade union activities.

49. In its communication dated 4 June 1998 the Government stated that the legal proceedings relating to the dismissal of the trade unionists Juan José Morales Moscoso and Everildo Revolorio Torres were still under way. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in these procedures.

50. As regards the remaining allegations of anti-union discrimination, the Government stated in its communications of 4 June and 28 July and 18 September 1998 that the International Textile Corporation had now been replaced by another enterprise and that in any event no complaints were reported to the authorities. The Government added that the Las Delicias farm went out of business and paid all its workers 100 per cent severance pay. In respect to the El Salto enterprise, the Government made no specific reference to the allegations of anti-union discrimination and indicated that a draft collective agreement had been submitted and that the request for annulment made by the employer has been considered inadmissible. The Committee recalls the fact that it examined these allegations for the first time in November 1997 [see 308th Report, para. 392] when it stressed the importance of remedying all acts of discrimination. The Committee regrets that in the meantime the authorities have not carried out timely inquiries into these acts, that two of the enterprises (International Textile Corporation and Las Delicias farm) have ceased to exist, and that as a result it is not possible to redress the alleged acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to carry out an inquiry, to reply specifically to the allegations of discrimination in the third enterprise (El Salto farm) and to take measures for the reinstatement of those dismissed in their jobs if it is confirmed that they were dismissed for their trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1936 (Guatemala)

51. This case relates to a collective dispute between the Trade Union of Workers of the National Electrification Institute and the Institute, which occurred when the trade union denounced the collective agreement in April 1997, and that gave rise to legal procedures (relating to the dismissal of four trade union leaders) and criminal proceedings (lodged by the Institute and the trade union respectively). In its previous examination of the case, observing that a new collective agreement had been negotiated and that industrial relations had improved, and given that the parties had expressed their willingness for the legal action taken under the penal law to be entirely withdrawn, the Committee requested the Government -- in view of the current favourable industrial relations climate -- to confirm that all legal procedures and criminal proceedings concerning the complainant trade union and the National Electrification Institute had been withdrawn [see 309th Report, para. 272]. In communications dated 4 June and 24 July 1998, the Government states that the Institute withdrew the legal procedures. As regards the criminal proceedings, one of these relates to the theft of an item of movable property belonging to the Institute, and the Government indicates that the complaint lodged with the public prosecutor has not been activated. The other criminal proceeding is an individual action lodged by the administrative manager of the Institute against a group of workers; he has decided not to withdraw it for the moment. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these criminal proceedings.

Case No. 1854 (India)

52. The Committee last examined the substance of this case at its March 1997 meeting [see 306th Report, paras. 426-476]. On this occasion, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the criminal proceedings under way against Messrs. Shravan Giri and Tapan Kumar Chaki who confessed to the murder of Ms. Ahilya Devi and the developments regarding the arrest of Messrs. Kumar Mandal, Narsingh Singh, Bhrigu Nath Gupta and Ratan Ghosh who have been implicated in the murder of the trade unionist Ms. Ahilya Devi.

53. In a communication dated 25 May 1998, the Government specifies that Messrs. Kumar Mandal, Bhrigu Nath Gupta and Ratan Ghosh were arrested in 1996; formal charge sheets against these men were filed in courts in 1996 and 1997. On 10 July 1997, Mr. Narsingh Singh surrendered; supplementary charges were filed in court against him. In addition, the Government indicates that Mr. Muna Punjabi, alias Jai Prakash Singh, was arrested in 1996 and formally charged on 25 August 1996. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated against these men.

Case No. 1890 (India)

54. The Committee last examined this case at its March 1998 meeting [see 309th Report, paras. 20-23]. On this occasion, the Committee requested the Government to continue to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings concerning the dismissal of Mr. Malwankar, President of the Fort Aguada Beach Resort Employees' Union (FABREU) and, given its conclusions that he was dismissed on account of trade union status and activities, urged the Government to take the necessary steps to have him reinstated in his post if he so desires. The Committee also requested the Government to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the management inquiries on alleged acts of misconduct of 15 FABREU members were dropped and to obtain the employer's recognition of FABREU for collective bargaining purposes.

55. In a communication dated 17 July 1998, the Government indicates that the proceedings concerning the dismissal of Mr. Malwankar and the inquiries of seven FABREU members who are under suspension pending their completion are still in progress. Any governmental intervention at this stage in both cases would not be in conformity with the law and practice. As regards the other eight FABREU members who were transferred by the company to other establishments, the Government has already referred to the Industrial Tribunal the cases of six of them since one has been dismissed and the other has resigned. Finally, the Government specifies that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Trade Union Act, 1926, it has no authority to compel any employer to recognize any trade union.

56. While taking note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings concerning the dismissal of Mr. Malwankar and, since he was dismissed on account of his trade union activities, urges again that Mr. Malwankar be reinstated in his post, if he so desires.

57. As regards the management inquiries which are in progress and concern seven workers, the Committee notes the government information that any intervention at this stage in these procedures would not be in conformity with the law and practice; however, the Committee must recall its previous conclusions that these inquiries constituted anti-union discrimination and requests the Government to ensure that they are dropped.

58. As regards the eight other workers who were transferred to other establishments and also subjected to inquiries, the Committee notes that one of them was dismissed, another resigned and the cases of the other six are pending before the Industrial Tribunal. In this regard, the Committee reiterates its previous conclusions that these inquiries are of an anti-union nature as are measures taken pursuant to them, such as transfer or dismissal. The Committee urges therefore that these workers be reinstated in their initial post, if they so wish, and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the six cases pending before the Industrial Tribunal.

59. Finally, concerning the recognition of FABREU as collective bargaining agent, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government that it has no authority to compel any employer to recognize any trade union; the Committee nevertheless recalls that recognition by an employer of the main unions represented in his undertaking, or the most representative of these unions, is the very basis for any procedure for collective bargaining on conditions of employment in the undertaking [see Digest, op. cit., para. 822] and insists on the importance that the employer recognizes FABREU for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress in this regard.

Case No. 1920 (Lebanon)

60. At its November 1997 meeting, the Committee had requested the Government to specify whether judicial recourse had been taken concerning the contested results of the elections of the trade union leaders of the General Labour Confederation of Lebanon (CGTL) held on 24 April 1997, and to keep it informed of the result. Furthermore, concerning the arrest of the trade union leaders Mr. Abou Rizk and Mr. Yasser Nehmi, and their subsequent prosecution, the Committee had urged the Government to do everything in its power to ensure that the charges brought against them were withdrawn immediately [see 308th Report, para. 525.]

61. In a communication dated 9 January 1998, the Government stated that the court of first instance of Beirut had decided, on the grounds of procedural irregularity, to dismiss the request for the annulment of the elections within the CGTL.

62. In a communication dated 10 September 1998, the Government indicated that on 30 July 1998 new elections were held for the post of President of the General Labour Confederation of Lebanon, in which all the trade union federations participated. These elections were held under the supervision of the Ministry of Labour, which validated the results on 6 August 1998. Mr. Abou Rizk was elected President of the General Labour Confederation of Lebanon and Mr. Yasser Nehmi a member of the Confederation's executive committee. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction.

Case No. 1940 (Mauritius)

63. The Committee examined this case at its March 1998 meeting [see 309th Report, paras. 273-288]. It had requested the Government to keep it informed of whether the prosecutions of 11 trade unionists had been carried out and if that was the case, to do everything in its power to ensure that the charges brought against these union leaders be withdrawn immediately.

64. In a communication dated 25 May 1998, the Government indicates that the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to prosecute the 11 trade union leaders. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction.

Case No. 1894 (Mauritania)

65. At its meeting of June 1998, the Committee requested the Government to do everything possible to ensure that the Mauritanian Transport Workers' Federation could obtain legal recognition as soon as possible and to keep it informed of measures adopted in this regard [see 310th Report, paras. 30-34]. In its communication of 11 July 1998, the Mauritanian Transport Workers' Federation states that to date it has not been granted recognition. Under these circumstances, the Committee reminds the Government that under Article 2 of Convention No. 87 workers shall have the right, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization, and once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the trade union organization in question can obtain legal recognition.

Case No. 1698 (New Zealand)

66. When it last examined this case at its March 1998 meeting, the Committee again recalled that provisions that prohibit strikes concerning whether a collective employment contract will bind more than one employer, are contrary to the principles of freedom of association on the right to strike. Therefore, the Committee again requested the Government to amend section 63(e) of the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) and to keep it informed of any measures envisaged in this respect. It also requested the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in introducing the concept of "fair bargaining" into the ECA [see 309th Report, paras. 30-32].

67. In a communication dated 28 May 1998, the Government states that no amendments to section 63(e) are being considered. It again reaffirms the view that section 63(e) protects the right of both employers and employees to choose the coverage of employment contracts. The Government states that "employers should not be compelled to be bound into arrangements with other businesses, which may undermine their interests. Once the structure is agreed, strikes and lockouts may be used in support of the negotiation of the content of the contract". On the question of fair bargaining, the Government indicates that it has been considering the issues relating to bargaining, particularly the recognition of the employees' representative. It notes the existence of a coalition agreement covering a wide range of interrelated industrial relations issues and indicates the Government's plan to announce its conclusions on these issues as an integrated policy "within the next few weeks". The Government also supplied information on recent cases concerning the application of the ECA.

68. With respect to section 63(e), the Committee notes with regret that the Government in its response once more repeats the same arguments. The Committee recalls once again that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, para. 475]. This right is stated in broad terms, and does not apply merely in relation to the content of collective agreements. The Committee urges the Government to amend section 63(e) and to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee also notes that the Government's conclusions on the issue of recognition of workers' organizations for purposes of collective bargaining were due to be released some months ago. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to forward this information to it, and recalls the importance which it attaches to the right of representative organizations to negotiate.

Case No. 1864 (Paraguay)

69. During its previous examination of the case, the Committee had requested the Government to confirm that there were no charges pending against trade unionists in connection with the strike which took place in the EXPCAR enterprise in October 1995 [see 307th Report, para. 433, adopted by the Governing Body at its June 1997 (269th) Session]. In its communication of 28 May 1998, the Government confirms that there are no pending charges against them. The Committee takes note of this information.

Case No. 1891 (Romania)

70. At its March 1998 meeting [see 309th Report, para. 33] the Committee had asked the Government to send information on developments in this case and to communicate as soon as possible a copy of the new law on the settlement of labour disputes in order to bring its legislation into conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

71. In a communication dated 7 September 1998, the Government states that the Bill amending Act No. 15 respecting labour disputes has not yet been approved by Parliament, but that a copy of it will be sent to the ILO as soon as it is published in the Official Gazette. The Government indicates the amendments introduced by the Bill, i.e. that the compulsory arbitration provided for in sections 38 and 43 will be replaced by a conciliation, mediation and arbitration procedure decided at the request of the two parties, that employers may only petition the court to suspend a strike for 30 days (instead of 90 days) if the strike endangers the life or health of persons (section 30) (instead of major interests of the national economy), and that section 13(3), which lays down the requirement of three years' length of service in the enterprise in order to be eligible for trade union office, and sections 32(3) and 36(3), which provide for financial liability of organizers of a strike held without observing the procedures, have not been retained in the Bill. The Government adds that strikes will be prohibited only for (a) prosecutors, judges and military personnel of the Ministries of Defence, the Interior and Justice and the units subordinate to them and (b) employees of the national energy system, operational services of nuclear reactors, units with continuous furnaces, the stoppage of which would carry a risk of explosion, and units filling orders to meet national defence needs. However, it adds that employees referred to under (b) may request mediation by the Economic and Social Council in the event of conflicts of interest. Air, naval and land transport employees may not declare a strike after leaving and before reentering the country, and personnel on board merchant marine vessels flying the Romanian flag may not declare a strike except in conformity with the standards laid down in international conventions ratified by Romania. Lastly, in the health sector, telecommunications, radio and television, transport units and the railways, including railway guards, public transport units and those responsible for sanitation, as well as gas, electricity, heating and water supply, strikes are authorized on condition that their organizers ensure essential services at a third of normal levels of activity at least (the Bill does not retain in the list employees of pharmaceutical units, teachers, those engaged in rolling stock repair and those supplying the population with bread, milk and meat).

72. The Committee notes this information with interest and trusts that the text in question will be adopted shortly. It requests the Government to send a copy of the amendments to Act No. 15 respecting labour disputes once they have been adopted.

Case No. 1618 (United Kingdom)

73. At its March 1998 meeting, the Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in providing express legislative protection against blacklisting or other forms of discrimination based on past trade union membership or activities [see 309th Report, paras. 34-36].

74. In its communication of 27 May 1998, the Government informs the Committee of the publication of a consultative White Paper entitled "Fairness at work" which contains a proposal to outlaw both discrimination against trade union members and the blacklisting of trade union activists. The Government indicates its intention to provide in due course full details of its proposed action in this regard.

75. The Committee notes this information with interest and encourages the Government to adopt, as soon as possible, provisions ensuring protection against anti-union discrimination, including blacklisting, based on trade union membership or activities. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the consultation process and the status of the proposals.

Case No. 1852 (United Kingdom)

76. At its March 1998 meeting, the Committee noted with interest the Government's indication that a White Paper on "Fairness at work", with a focus on union recognition, was being prepared, and expressed the hope that any resulting legislation would have as an effect the encouragement of employer recognition of representative workers' organizations. The Committee also called on the Government to take steps to amend section 13 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act so that it ensures workers' organizations adequate protection from acts of interference on the part of the employer and so that it does not result in fact in the discouragement of collective bargaining. It requested to be kept informed concerning these matters [see 309th Report, paras. 308-342]. In its communication of 27 May 1998, the Government informs the Committee of the publication of the consultative White Paper entitled "Fairness at work". The Government states that the White Paper covers many of the issues raised by this case and that the Government is "currently considering the full implications of the White Paper's legislative proposals, which will be taken forward in full consultation with the social partners, and will provide a full and up to date response ... as soon as possible".

77. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the consultation process and the status of the proposals. It also requests the Government to provide information arising out of the specific facts of the case, which are not addressed in the White Paper. In particular the Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the ISTC is afforded reasonable access to Co-Steel both for contact with its members and potential members, and requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

Case No. 1912 (United Kingdom/Isle of Man)

78. The Committee had examined this case at its March 1998 meeting [see 309th Report, paras. 343 to 370]. It had requested the Government, inter alia, to take the necessary measures to ensure as soon as possible the reinstatement of Mr. Harrison to his former employment and to amend the relevant legislation to ensure protection against dismissal and other prejudicial acts for participating in industrial action.

79. In a communication dated 28 September 1998, the Government indicates that Mr. Harrison did not exercise his right under the MEA's Agreed Internal Disciplinary Procedure to appeal to an independent person if he believed his downgrading to be unjust. The Government also indicates that the MEA continues to offer a range of training and development opportunities which would facilitate promotion, should Mr. Harrison choose to apply for a post at his previous grade. Finally, the Government indicates that the relevant legislation is currently under review.

80. The Committee takes note of this information. It requests the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken or envisaged in order to amend its legislation to ensure protection against dismissal and other prejudicial acts for participating in industrial action.

Case No. 1843 (Sudan)

81. The Committee last examined this case concerning allegations of dismissals, arrest, detention, torture and death of trade unionists, at its March 1998 meeting [see 309th Report, paras. 371-386]. The Committee, regretting that the Government had responded only partially to the serious allegations presented, requested the Government to provide it with further information. The Committee also drew the Governing Body's attention to this case due to the seriousness and urgency of the issues raised [see 309th Report, para. 9].

82. In its communication of 15 October 1998, the Government informs the Committee that with respect to the recommendations of the appeal body established for the re-examination of complaints of unfair dismissal, the President issued decrees to the concerned ministries and institutions containing the names of the workers benefiting from the decision of the appeal body. The decree instructs them to take immediate action to reinstate the workers or improve their pensions according to the recommendations of each individual case. The Committee recalls that in its previous report, it expressed its deep regret that the Government had provided only very partial information on the situation of the workers whose names appeared in the appendices of the interim report on this case [see 306th Report, paras. 601-618]. The Committee deplores the fact that the Government has again provided only very partial information and insists that the Government provide specific and detailed information on the situation of each of the workers noted in the appendices to the 306th Report. The Committee would also request the Government to forward copies of any written reasons or recommendations of the appeal board, as well as copies of the presidential decrees referred to above.

83. Regarding the allegations of arrest and detention of trade unionists, often accompanied by acts of torture, the Government states that the Ministry of Manpower addressed a letter to the Sudanese Advisory Council for Human Rights in the Ministry of Justice to handle the case involving Messrs. Abdel Moniem Suliman, Abdel Moniem Rahma, Mohamed Babiki and Yousif Hussain. With respect to Messrs. Osman Abdel Gadir and Daoud Suliaman, the Government asserts that they led an illegal strike and had their employment terminated in conformity with the law. Concerning the allegations regarding Mr. Ahmed Ali, the Government states that since the name is an extremely common one, further information is required before it would be possible to investigate the allegations. On the last point, the Committee requests the complainant to forward to the Committee further information so that the person in question can be identified. With respect to Messrs. Osman Abdel Gadir and Daoud Suliaman, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government did not address the specific and very serious allegations of detention and torture. Furthermore, the Committee regrets that with respect to all of the persons named, the Government has not yet opened an inquiry. The Committee again urges the Government to open an inquiry to establish the precise circumstances in which the above-noted persons were detained, tortured or killed, and to take the necessary steps for legal proceedings against those responsible and the redress of the prejudice suffered.

84. The Government, in reply to the Committee's final recommendation concerning the need to review the national legislation as soon as possible due to the many and serious incompatibilities with freedom of association principles, states that a tripartite committee has almost completed reviewing the Trade Union Act, 1992, taking into consideration the observations of the ILO supervisory bodies. The Government states further that on 30 June 1998, the President of the Republic signed the new Constitution of Sudan, article 26(1) of which provides that "citizens shall have the right of association and organization for cultural, social, economic, professional or trade union purposes without restriction, save in accordance with the law". The Committee takes note of this information, and requests the Government to inform it of the results of the tripartite committee's review, to forward copies of any report or recommendations of that committee, and to inform it of the steps to be taken and time frame foreseen for the implementation of any recommendations made.

Case No. 1884 (Swaziland)

85. During its last examination of this case at its meeting in May-June 1998, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Industrial Relations Bill would be adopted in the near future and that, in its final form, it would maintain the changes made in response to the Committee's previous recommendations so as to ensure full respect for the principles of freedom of association. Furthermore, the Committee once again urged the Government to repeal section 12 of the 1973 Decree and to ensure that the 1963 Public Order Act be amended so that it could no longer be used for the purpose of oppressing legitimate and peaceful strike action. Finally, the Committee once again urged the Government to establish independent investigations into the death of the 16 year-old schoolgirl killed by a stray bullet during the January 1996 stay-away, the abduction of Jan Sithole in August 1996 and the dismissal of Jabulani Nxumalo. [See 310th Report, para. 591.]

86. In a communication dated 22 September 1998, the Government indicates that Cabinet passed the Industrial Relations Bill on 5 August 1998 (now Bill No. 13 of 1998) and that, in its present form, it maintains the major changes which had been introduced in response to previous recommendations (a copy of the Bill was provided). This Bill, however, could not be referred to Parliament as the latter was dissolved within the statutory 30 days of the Bill's publication. Other legislative procedures were procured, however, and the Bill has since been referred to the Council of Ministers which began its debate thereon on 15 September. As concerns the 1973 Decree and the 1963 Public Order Act, the Government indicates that the concerns raised by the Committee should be addressed by the Industrial Relations Bill once it becomes law. As concerns the independent investigations requested by the Committee, the Government believes that it has adequate facilities in the Royal Swaziland Police to carry out such investigations and has not yet decided on the establishment of an independent investigation. As concerns Mr. Jabulani Nxumalo, the Government indicates that it had no responsibility for his dismissal nor any legal authority or knowledge of his engagement or dismissal. In addition, Mr. Nxumalo, according to the Government, does not insist on reinstatement with his former employer, with whom he presently has business dealings. According to the Government, he does not appear to desire reinstatement.

87. The Committee takes note of this information. It notes in particular that the Industrial Relations Bill has been passed by Cabinet and is currently being debated in the Council of Ministers. The Committee must once again expresses the firm hope that this Bill will be adopted in the very near future and that, in its final form, it will ensure full respect for the principles of freedom of association and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. As concerns the Government's statement that any difficulties having arisen from section 12 of the 1973 Decree on the rights of organizations and the 1963 Public Order Act will be resolved as soon as the Industrial Relations Bill becomes law, the Committee indeed notes that the 1973 Decree and the 1963 Act, while concerning more generally mass actions which would result in a disturbance of the peace, had been used in the past to suppress strike action which would appear now to be granted by way of right in the Industrial Relations Bill. Furthermore, section 103(1) of the Bill provides that a person holding a public office, or acting or purporting to act on behalf of anyone holding such office, shall not exercise any power conferred by or under any law in such a way as to impede the exercise of rights conferred or recognized by this Act. The Committee expresses the firm hope that, with the passage of this Bill, the 1973 Decree and the 1963 Public Order Act will no longer be used to suppress legitimate trade union activities.

88. Regarding the call to establish an independent investigation into the death of a 16 year-old schoolgirl during a mass stay-away and the abduction of Mr. Sithole, while noting the Government's indication that it considers an investigation by the police to be sufficient, the Committee first notes that it has not been informed of the outcome of any investigations into either of these matters which occurred over two years ago. Secondly, given that the allegations in the original complaint queried the police involvement in these incidents, the Committee considers that an independent inquiry into these matters would be necessary to assure the parties that all elements were considered without any bias and to ensure full confidence in the conclusions drawn. In the light of these considerations, the Committee would once again urge the Government to establish independent investigations into these two matters and to keep it informed of the outcome. Finally, the Committee notes from the Government's reply that, while indicating that Mr. Nxumalo does not desire to be reinstated in his post, it would appear that there has not been an investigation into the reasons for his dismissal. While further noting the Government's indication that it was not involved in the recruitment or in the dismissal of Mr. Nxumalo, the Committee would recall that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the principles of freedom of association are respected throughout its territory. The Committee would recall, in this respect, that it has been alleged that Mr. Nxumalo was dismissed because of his trade union activity, in violation of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee would once again request the Government to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Nxumalo's dismissal and, in the event it is determined that he was dismissed because of his trade union activity, to ensure that he is appropriately compensated, if indeed he does not wish to be reinstated. The Committee requests to be kept informed of the measures taken in this regard.

Case No. 1581 (Thailand)

89. At its March 1998 meeting, the Committee urged that all necessary measures be taken so that the State Enterprise Labour Relations Bill, in its final form, would be in conformity with the principles of freedom of association [see 309th Report, paras. 37 and 38]. In a communication dated 8 June 1998, the Government indicated that the adoption of the Bill was delayed due to the disapproval of the House of Representatives. According to the relevant constitutional requirements, the Government specifies that the House of Representatives may take up the original Bill (the one earlier approved by the House of Representatives last February 1997) or the Bill amended by a joint ad hoc committee, and then vote again on this issue. The Government adds that it has committed itself to reforming the SELRA so as to bring it closer into conformity with international norms, and that it is determined to improve workers' rights, taking into account Thailand's economic, social and development needs and international standards. Finally, the Government declares that the amendments to the SELRA 1991 would restore several international fundamental rights for workers in organizing and collectively bargaining.

90. The Committee has recently been informed that the earlier version of the Bill referred to by the Government was adopted by the House of Representatives in September 1998, but has been challenged before the Constitutional Court. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard and to provide a copy of the Bill which has been passed by the House.

Case No. 1886 (Uruguay)

91. At its meeting in March 1998 the Committee requested the Government to send it, as soon as it is handed down, a copy of the ruling of the Administrative Court relating to the allegations of anti-union discrimination arising from the nomination of only non-union members to executive positions within Lloyds Bank [see 309th Report, para. 43]. In a communication dated 14 August 1998, the Government states that the case is being examined by the State Prosecutor for administrative litigation who must give his ruling before the case is presented to the judges of the Administrative Court for examination and the corresponding ruling. The Government also states that it will inform the Committee of the outcome of the proceedings in good time. The Committee takes note of this information. Once again the Committee expresses the hope that these proceedings will be concluded shortly and requests the Government to send it a copy of the ruling as soon as it is handed down.

Case No. 1937 (Zimbabwe)

92. At its meeting of March 1998, when it examined allegations relating to violations of the right to strike and anti-union dismissals, the Committee: (1) urged the Government to amend sections 98, 99, 100, 106 and 107 of the Labour Relations Act as revised in 1996, which grants the labour authorities the power to refer disputes to compulsory arbitration whenever it considers this to be appropriate, so as to ensure that such compulsory arbitration may be imposed only with respect to essential services and in cases of acute national crisis; and (2) requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that those workers who were dismissed for their participation in the Standard Chartered Bank strike of April 1997 are reinstated in their posts under the same terms of employment and with the same benefits as they enjoyed before the strike, and to take the necessary steps to amend section 107(5) of the Labour Relations Act to ensure that workers are not discriminated against in their employment for engaging in legitimate trade union activities. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard [see 309th Report, para. 452(a) and (b)].

93. In its communication of 30 May 1998, the Government states that in December 1997 the High Court rejected the case of the dismissed bank workers and that subsequently the workers in question lodged an appeal against that ruling before the Supreme Court. The Government states that the judicial system and the current proceedings must be respected and that the Government and the trade union organization in question will have to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling, since the doctrine of the separation of powers prevails in Zimbabwe.

94. In a communication dated 13 October 1998, the complainant indicates that the Supreme Court has ruled against the reinstatement of the bank workers and provides a copy of the court judgement.

95. The Committee takes note of this information. It recalls that in its previous examination of this case, it had observed that the mass dismissals of strikers at Standard Chartered Bank were based on a disposal order issued by the labour officer which provided that the employer could take any disciplinary action which he deemed fit against any employee failing to comply with the order. Yet, the compulsory arbitrations imposed by the order, and the order as a whole, have been considered by the Committee to be contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee further notes that neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court considered these matters in their review. Under these circumstances and recalling that the dismissal of workers for participating in a legitimate strike constitutes discrimination in employment, the Committee urges the Government to take all necessary steps, in accordance with the above-noted principles, to ensure that the dismissed workers are reinstated in their posts as soon as possible and to keep it informed in this regard. Lastly, the Committee notes that the Government has not replied in respect of its recommendation to amend the Labour Relations Act and requests the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken or envisaged in this regard.

* * *

96. Finally, as regards Cases Nos. 1809 (Kenya), 1813 (Peru), 1819 (China), 1826 (Philippines), 1834 (Kazakhstan), 1837 (Argentina), 1900 (Canada/Ontario), 1908 (Ethiopia), 1914 (Philippines), 1916 (Colombia), 1921 (Niger), 1925 (Colombia) and 1938 (Croatia), the Committee requests the governments concerned to keep it informed of any developments relating to these cases. It hopes that these governments will quickly furnish the information requested. In addition, the Committee has recently received information concerning Cases Nos. 1719 (Nicaragua), 1796 (Peru), 1877 (Morocco), 1883 (Kenya) and 1895 (Venezuela), which it will examine at its next meeting. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to send its complete observations in Case No. 1785 (Poland).

 

Case No. 1873

Report in which the Committee requests
to be kept informed of developments

Complaint against the Government of Barbados
presented by
the National Union of Public Sector Workers (NUPW)

Allegations: Restrictions on collective bargaining in the public sector

97. The Committee already examined the substance of this case at its June 1997 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 307th Report, paras. 88 to 101, approved by the Governing Body at its 269th Session (June 1997)]. In the light of the very partial observations sent by the Government in a communication dated 9 September 1997, the Committee, at its November 1997 meeting, decided to adjourn its examination of this case [see 308th Report, para. 5]. At its May-June 1998 meeting, the Committee addressed an urgent appeal to the Government to send its observations [see 310th Report, para. 9]. The Government has not sent any new observations to date.

98. Barbados has ratified 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).

A. Previous examination of the case

99. The National Union of Public Sector Workers (NUPW) presented allegations to the effect that the Government had departed from any established collective bargaining practices by unilaterally imposing a new wage plan on the majority of public workers. The NUPW further alleged that although there were six other workers' organizations that had accreditation as bargaining bodies, the NUPW's membership was substantially larger than the combined membership of the other organizations and that they transcend more categories of workers.

100. The Government, for its part, sent information in which it indicated that contrary to the complainant's claim, the Government did reach an agreement with a majority of trade union bodies representing the majority of civil servants. It added that it did not act in bad faith nor in a manner contrary to the previously agreed protocol but that it could not pay the members of the NUPW at one rate and members of the umbrella body of trade unions at another rate.

101. The Committee, in its previous conclusions, had indicated that it could not conclude from the allegations at hand that the Government had refused collective bargaining altogether or that it had negotiated in deliberate bad faith.

102. At its June 1997 Session, in the light of the Committee's interim conclusions, the Governing Body approved the following recommendations:

B. The Government's new reply

103. In a communication dated 9 September 1997, the Government sent a very partial reply where it only indicated that it was unable to complete a report to the ILO by the due date and it requested assistance with the structuring of the questionnaire on the verification of which union represented the majority of workers in the public sector in Barbados. In addition, the Government sent a copy of a communication which it had addressed to the NUPW on 26 July 1998, where it asked the NUPW whether it was still interested to pursue the matter relating to this complaint. Since that date, the Government has sent no new information.

C. The Committee's conclusions

104. The Committee regrets that, despite the time which has elapsed since the complaint was presented, the Government has only sent very partial information in reply to allegations of the complainant organization, although it was invited on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on this case.

105. In these circumstances, in accordance with the applicable procedural rule [see para. 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee finds itself obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take into account the information it had hoped to receive from the Government.

106. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure instituted by the International Labour Organization to examine alleged violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee is convinced that, if it protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side must recognize the importance for the protection of their own good name of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such allegations made against them. [See the Committee's First Report, para. 31].

107. The Committee recalls that the allegations in this case refer to restrictions on collective bargaining in the public sector by the Government which imposed unilaterally a new wage plan on the majority of public workers.

108. With regard to the allegation that a minority agreement between the Government and other public sector bargaining bodies was imposed on the general public services, the Committee indicated previously that this raised the question of the recognition of the most representative organizations in an industrial relations system, according to which the negotiating agent representing the most representative trade unions has a priority with regard to collective bargaining. Concerning this aspect of the case, the Committee can only recall that the competent authorities should, in all cases, be able to proceed to an objective verification of any claim by a union that it represents the majority of the workers in an undertaking, provided that such a claim appears to be plausible. The Committee regrets that more than one year after its recommendations, the Government has still not proceeded to such a verification. Therefore, the Committee once again urges the Government to proceed without delay to such a verification as to whether or not the NUPW represents the majority of the workers in the public sector. The Committee requests the Government to send it the results of this verification as soon as possible.

109. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that the International Labour Office remains at the disposal of the Government to provide technical assistance with respect to the problems raised in this case.

The Committee's recommendation

110. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

Case No. 1934

Interim report

Complaint against the Government of Cambodia
presented by
the World Confederation of Labour (WCL)

Allegations: Violations of the right to form a trade union,
the right to strike and collective bargaining, dismissals of
trade unionists, pressure on and threats against trade unionists

111. The Committee examined this case at its November 1997 meeting during which it formulated a number of interim conclusions. [See 308th Report, paras. 85 to 138, approved by the Governing Body at its 270th Session in November 1997.] At its meeting in March 1998 [see 309th Report, para. 6], the Committee, having received the Government's partial observations, decided to adjourn its examination of the case. At its meeting in May-June 1998 [see 310th Report, para. 8], the Committee, having received the Government's observations late, proposed to examine them at its next meeting.

112. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 2 December 1997 and 7 May 1998.

113. Cambodia has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

114. The World Confederation of Labour (WCL) submitted allegations of numerous violations of the right to organize and the right to strike and of other trade union rights and civil liberties which have occurred since democratic elections were held in Cambodia. The WCL has claimed that the country's first trade union organization, the Workers' Free Trade Union of the Kingdom of Cambodia (SLORC), which was established in December 1996, has suffered repression by numerous enterprises which have refused to recognize it and has been the target of repressive measures by the State. In addition, the WCL has alleged that, during the strikes that took place at three enterprises (Cambodia Garment Ltd., Gennon Manufacturing and Tack Fat Garment), the Government and the employers employed the security forces on a large scale to suppress the strikes and at peaceful demonstrations by striking workers and that people were injured during these violent acts of repression. It is also alleged that several workers were dismissed following the strikes because of their trade union activities. Finally, the WCL alleged that the Government violated rights guaranteed under Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 by systematically restricting and suppressing the right of workers to organize freely.

115. The Government for its part sent some partial information in explanation of the overall situation in Cambodia with regard to new private enterprises in the clothing industry. The Government acknowledged that there had been abuses with regard to working conditions and stated that measures had been adopted to eliminate these abuses. The Government also stated that a new Labour Code had been officially promulgated in March 1997 and that the competent Minister had been charged with the urgent task of implementing it. However, the Government also pointed out that there was lack of experience and practice in this area and that the labour officials were unable to keep up with the rapid economic development and the growth in the workers' movement. With regard to the establishment of SLORC, the Government claimed that, since the promulgation of the Labour Code, the union has not complied with provisions regarding registration. As regards the strikes at the three enterprises, the Government maintained that SLORC's organization of these strikes and demonstrations did not comply with the law and that acts of violence had been committed at the instigation of the union. Finally, the Government pointed out that the Cambodian authorities had not violated the rights guaranteed under Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and that they respected the right of citizens to form trade unions without prior authorization. In this regard, the Government explained that, since the new Labour Code had not yet been officially promulgated at the time of the events which gave rise to the complaint, the staff delegates had been recognized as the sole legitimate representatives of the workers.

116. At its November 1997 session, in the light of the Committee's interim conclusions, the Governing Body approved the following recommendations:

B. The Government's new reply

117. In its communications of 2 December 1997 and 7 May 1998, the Government states first that, following the Committee's recommendations, the Labour Inspectorate on 18 March 1998 wrote to SLORC asking the union to deposit its rules for the purpose of registration. According to the Government, the President of SLORC herself collected the letter from the Labour Inspectorate.

118. Secondly, the Government states that the Ministry of Social Affairs, Labour and War Veterans (MASTAC) recently published and implemented a ministerial order concerning procedures for registering and publishing collective agreements and monitoring their implementation. It states that to date a number of works unions and staff delegates have already conducted collective negotiations and concluded collective agreements with employers, with or without the help of labour inspectorate staff. In this regard, the Government states that SLORC cannot enter into collective talks until it is registered. However, the Government also explains that it has no objection to the employer or the Clothing Manufacturers' Association of Cambodia agreeing to talks with SLORC before it is registered, on condition that any collective agreement that might result from such talks should not be enforceable with regard to the other (registered) trade unions. Lastly, the Government states that, to date, 39 works unions in different sectors and one trade union have been registered by MASTAC.

119. With regard to the right to strike, the Government states that the procedures for exercising that right are set out in Chapter XIII of the new Labour Code, and that it has always recognized the right to strike but cannot allow unlawful strikes. In this regard, the Government states that most of the strikes carried out by workers in the clothing factories were carried out without due regard to the procedures stipulated in sections 320 and 324 of the Labour Code, and adds that the strikes carried out by SLORC contravened section 331 of the Labour Code in that they were not peaceful.

120. With regard to measures taken to deprive trade union leaders of their liberty because of their trade union activities, the Government explains that, in order to prevent any recurrences of such cases, it would like the trade unions to obtain the prior consent of company management before engaging in trade union activities during working hours.

121. With regard to the dismissals of workers, the Government refers primarily to its first reply concerning the settlement of the disputes involving two workers at the Gennon Manufacturing factory and 16 workers at the Tack Fat Garment factory. Two other workers, one at the Golden Time factory, the other at Winner Garment, have lodged complaints. The Government explains that in the process of settling these disputes, the complaint of the first worker was regarded as invalid because the complainant had been absent from the conciliation meeting without a valid reason. The second worker received 50 dollars from the employer as compensation for being dismissed. With regard to the dismissal of 13 workers at the Tack Fat Garment factory, the Government states that investigations produced no evidence that the dismissals had been carried out for anti-union motives. On the contrary, the employer had provided documentary evidence that the dismissals had not been for anti-union reasons, and the Government therefore settled these disputes through conciliation. As for the dismissal of three trade union leaders at the clothing factory of SAMHAN Fabrics Co. Ltd., the Government states that two of the workers were dismissed for engaging in trade union activities during working hours without the employer's consent, for slandering management and for taking unauthorized leave, while the third worker was dismissed for failure to comply with disciplinary rules and striking his section chief. The three workers lodged their complaint with the Labour Inspectorate and claimed to have been dismissed by their employer for anti-union reasons. The Government states that, in the absence of adequate evidence of any anti-union motives for these dismissals, it settled the disputes through conciliation. Following conciliation, the employer refused to reinstate the workers but agreed to pay compensation to two of the workers concerned.

122. With regard to the violations of fundamental human rights, in particular trade union rights, the Government states that new measures have been taken to remedy the errors of the past, including the following: the establishment of an inter-ministerial commission to deal with strikes and demonstrations, the commission's permanent secretariat being established within MASTAC; increasing the number of labour inspectors and their resources; increasing the number of inspections in clothing factories; passing a series of ministerial orders to improve implementation of the Labour Code; introducing more severe penalties against employers who break the law, including, where appropriate, suspending exports of their products; and holding regular seminars, including some financed by the ILO, with a view to training the social partners and allowing an exchange of opinions on all matters relating to the rights and interests of workers, trade union activities and conciliation in labour disputes.

C. The Committee's conclusions

123. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of violations of the right freely to establish trade unions and the right to strike and collective bargaining, dismissals of trade unionists and pressure on and threats against them. The Committee also recalls that the alleged acts took place during a transitional period when new labour legislation was about to be adopted but did not come into force until several months after the events which gave rise to the complaint.

124. With regard to recognition of the Workers' Free Trade Union of the Kingdom of Cambodia (SLORC), the Committee recalls that the union was established before the promulgation of the Labour Code. The Government had originally stated that since the promulgation of the Labour Code, the union had failed to implement provisions regarding the registration of trade union rules. However, the Government explains that in March 1998, the Labour Inspectorate wrote to SLORC asking it to deposit its rules with a view to registration and that the President of the union herself collected the letter. The Committee urges the Government to indicate whether or not the union, which was formed almost two years ago when it deposited its rules with the competent authority, has in fact been registered.

125. With regard to infringements of collective bargaining rights, the Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to allow the trade unions in general to promote and defend workers' interests through collective negotiations and, specifically, to allow SLORC to negotiate working conditions in the clothing industry with the employers. In the light of the Government's new reply, the Committee notes that the Government has recently published and implemented a ministerial order concerning procedures for the registration and publication of trade union rules and for monitoring their implementation. In this regard, the Committee notes that, to date, a number of unions at the enterprise level and workers' representatives have already conducted collective negotiations and concluded collective agreements with the employers. At the same time, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether negotiations have taken place between SLORC and the employers in the clothing manufacturing sector.

126. As regards the right to strike, the Committee takes note of the provisions of the new Labour Code which guarantee the right to strike and set out implementation procedures. The Committee notes the Government's statements that most of the strikes by clothing factory workers were carried out in contravention of procedures stipulated in the Labour Code, in particular section 324 regarding prior notification. However, the Committee notes that these strikes were started before the promulgation of the new Labour Code and that, consequently, the Government could not cite non-compliance with particular provisions of the Labour Code as grounds for declaring the strikes unlawful. The Committee can only recall once again that it has always recognized the right to strike by workers and their organizations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests and requests the Government in this respect to make all efforts to respect the exercise of this right in the future. [See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th (revised) edition, 1996, para. 474.]

127. With regard to the dismissals of workers, the Committee had requested the Government to investigate the dismissals at the Tack Fat Garment factory in order to ascertain whether or not there had been anti-union motives for them. The Committee notes that the Government in its reply maintains that investigations carried out by the competent minister produced no evidence that workers were dismissed for anti-union motives. Despite this conclusion, the Committee notes that the Government attempted a conciliation. Following the conciliation process, the employer refused to reinstate the workers concerned. While noting the Government's explanations of the reasons for the dismissals, the Committee recalls that, according to the complainant organization, the reasons given for the dismissals were spurious, the real reason being the workers' strike action. The Committee once again wishes to stress that no one should be penalized for carrying out a legitimate strike and that it may often be difficult, if not impossible, for a worker to furnish proof of an act of anti-union discrimination of which he or she has been the victim. [See Digest, op. cit., paras. 590 and 740.] In this case, the Committee requests the Government to review the situation of the dismissed workers at the Tack Fat Garment factory within the framework of expeditious, inexpensive and impartial procedures aimed at presenting acts of anti-union discrimination and, in the event that the dismissals are found to be related to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, to obtain the reinstatement in their jobs of the workers in question.

128. As concerns the dismissal of two workers at the Golden Time and Winner Garment factories and the subsequent resolution of these cases, the Committee would like to obtain more specific information on the manner in which these cases were dealt with.

129. With regard to the dismissal of three trade union leaders at the factory of SAMHAN Fabrics Co. Ltd., the Committee notes the Government's explanations regarding the reasons for the dismissals. Once again, the Government maintains that, after having carried out the investigation, it had no sufficient evidence that the dismissals were of an anti-union nature and it therefore settled the disputes through conciliation. The Committee notes that following this conciliation, only two trade union leaders were granted compensation. The Committee recalls, first, that with regard to the reasons for dismissal, the activities of trade union officials should be examined in the context of particular situations which may be especially strained and difficult in cases of labour disputes and strike action. In addition, the Committee stresses that one way of ensuring the protection of trade union officials is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter, except for serious misconduct. Finally, the Committee again stresses that it would not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as set out in Convention No. 98, is granted by legislation in cases where employers can in practice, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal, dismiss any worker, if the true reason is the worker's trade union membership or activities. [See Digest, op. cit., paras. 707, 727 and 731.] The Committee recalls that the existence of general legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice. Such protection against acts of anti-union discrimination may thus take various forms adapted to national legislation and practice, provided that they prevent or effectively redress anti-union discrimination, and allow union representatives to be reinstated in their posts and continue to hold their trade union office. The Committee therefore emphasizes the necessity of providing expeditious, inexpensive and impartial means of preventing acts of anti-union discrimination or reducing them as quickly as possible. [See 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paras. 214 and 216.] In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to consider adopting measures to reinforce protection against anti-union discrimination and to review the case of the three trade union leaders dismissed from SAMHAN Fabrics Co. Ltd., within the framework of the above-mentioned procedures and, in the event that these dismissals are found to be related to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities to obtain the reinstatement in their jobs of the trade union leaders in question.

130. Moreover, the Committee notes with concern the declaration of the Government according to which it indicates that it would like the trade unions to obtain prior consent of company management before engaging in trade union activities during working hours. In this regard , the Committee recalls that, while account should be taken of the characteristics of the industrial relations system of the country, and while the granting of such facilities should not impair the efficient operation of the undertaking concerned, Paragraph 10, subparagraph 1, of the Workers' Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143), provides that workers' representatives in the undertaking should be afforded the necessary time off from work, without loss of pay or social and fringe benefits, for carrying out their representation functions. Subparagraph 2 of Paragraph 10 also specifies that, while workers' representatives may be required to obtain permission from the management before taking time off, such permission should not be unreasonably withheld. [See Digest, op. cit., para. 952.]

131. With regard to the physical assaults and ill-treatment suffered by the workers, the Committee notes the statements of the Government according to which specific measures have been adopted to rectify the abuses committed in the past, including increasing labour inspectorate staff and their resources and increasing the frequency of inspections carried out in clothing factories, the promulgation of a series of ministerial orders aimed at improving implementation of the Labour Code, and the introduction of more severe penalties against employers who violate workers' fundamental rights. In this regard, the Committee fervently hopes that all these measures will be reflected in practice by greater respect for fundamental human rights with a view to guaranteeing the necessary conditions in which workers are able to exercise freely their basic rights and particularly their trade union rights.

The Committee's recommendations

132. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations: