|
Report of the Committee on the Application of Standards |
|
|
| |
Convention No. 87: Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948
Argentina (ratification: 1960). A Government representative thanked the Committee of Experts in the name of his Government for the observation concerning Act No. 23551 which regulated and protected trade union activities in Argentina, and for the opportunity to present the opinion of his Government on the results of almost ten years of application of this Act. In 1992, the Committee of Experts had expressed satisfaction at the adoption of the Act and of its implementing decree and had undertaken an exhaustive study of its provisions, and had made observations on certain of them. Replying to the request of the Committee of Experts, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had prepared a full two-volume report on the trade unions in Argentina, which reflected their importance and diversity and contained interesting conclusions on the results of the application of the Act in light of the observations made by the Committee of Experts. The satisfaction expressed by the Committee of Experts for the adoption of Act No. 23551 was due first of all to the fact that the Act had replaced the legislation adopted in the period of the dictatorship in Argentina between 1976 and 1983, which had reduced to the minimum, independent trade union activity and had resulted in the persecution of the Argentinian labour movement. The other reason for the satisfaction had been that the adoption of the Act was a product of a broad political and social consensus, as reflected in the very large majority in the Argentinian Parliament, with support from the representatives of the main political parties, both those in power and in opposition, fully respecting the obligations of the country deriving from the ratification of Convention No. 87. In this manner, Act No. 23551 fitted into the constitutional system of Argentina, which guaranteed freedom of expression, trade union representation and the rights of minorities. The establishment of trade unions was not subjected to any condition and did not require legal personality to be obtained by workers' associations. The best proof of this was the high number of trade unions established with legal personality (2,776 trade unions), of which 915 trade unions had been formed in the last ten years, that is since the coming into force of the Act. In addition, the existence of 540 associations which had taken the form of unions at the level of the enterprise, or the branch, clearly showed that there were no limitations on the workers adopting the form of organization which they freely chose. It was important to recall that the Act did not establish any abusive or discriminatory requirements for the granting of the status of the most representative association. The only objective condition imposed was to have the largest number of members. Thus, there were today 1,317 sectoral unions in Argentina and 334 associations had requested the same status, which emphasized the broad diversity of types of organization. These associations enjoyed the exclusive right to collective bargaining in their respective fields. The Act also accorded associations which were merely registered and did not have the most representative status, the right to represent the individual or multiple interests of their members, the right to present petitions in defence of their collective interests, as well as the right to develop any other activity pertaining to the trade union. All these rights were granted without any condition other than the registration of the association. The possibilities offered by the Act were so large that there were at present in Argentina 1,436 associations of this type and another 332 associations had requested to be registered in this category. The Act guaranteed the exercise of the right of freedom of association and established legal procedures before the competent courts without distinction between representatives of the workers who were members of organizations with trade union status or of those associations which were not the most representative in their category. By virtue of section 47 of the Act, all workers and trade unions, without any exception, could initiate the extraordinary procedure of summary judgement, which was the most expedient procedure established under Argentinian legislation to arrive at the judicial decision with the aim of bringing to an end immediately any anti-trade union behaviour, including unfair practices contradicting the industrial relations ethics.
The regulations issued under Act No. 23551 and its application in practice had made it possible to guarantee to Argentinian workers the rights established by Convention No. 87, and in particular those referring to the plurality of representation of their interests in collective bargaining and the recognition of the most representative association. This was because it had taken into account the experiences of other countries, so as to prevent it encouraging unnecessary divisions in the trade union movement and fragmentation of union representation, which would have resulted in the loss of negotiating power by the workers. As confirmed by the Committee of Experts and the practice over the last ten years, there was a balance in the Act between the important rights recognized for associations which are merely registered and the precautions to avoid excessive minority representation which was a factor in the fragmentation and loss of bargaining power. It should not be forgotten that the principle of the most representative organization had been established and promoted by the ILO and permitted the reconciliation of freedom of association with the effective practice of having free and strong social organizations. The proof of this was given in the report submitted to the Committee, according to which 2,776 associations which were currently active had more than 4,400,000 members. Comparing this figure with the data on the economically active population, this gave one of the highest rates of unionization in the world. It showed the vision of the legislators in 1988, who had wanted to give the trade union movement real weight in the economic and social life of the country, thereby giving effect to a real tradition of defending the interests of the workers.
Nevertheless, as with any legal text, the Act could be improved. This was why his Government had paid particular attention and interest to the observations of the Committee of Experts. In reply to them, it had tried to promote the recommendations of the Committee by means of the regulations issued under the Act, the manner in which it was being applied by the competent authority, and the submission of a draft reformed Act to the Parliament, as noted in the Committee of Experts' report this year. These measures taken by the Government and the practices of the social partners had gradually closed the gap which might have existed between certain sections of the Act and the understanding of them by the Committee of Experts. For example, what seemed to be the most important observation of the Committee stemmed from its concern for the workers who could not benefit from their collective interests being represented by the organizations having the most representative status. The study undertaken by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security showed, however, that through the links between associations which did not have trade union status with those who did have this status, 98.1 per cent of the trade union members in Argentina in all categories, had the possibility to exercise their rights through associations with trade union status.
In reply to these observations and the comments made by the Committee of Experts this year, the Government had prepared a report for submission to the Committee. The report was intended exclusively to respond to these observations and might need further analysis, which the Committee of Experts was probably better placed to carry out. The Government therefore hoped that it could continue to benefit from ILO assistance in improving its labour legislation and, in this sense, remained open to any possibility for cooperation which might arise in the future with respect to this particular aspect of its labour legislation.
The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for the information provided and the study which it had transmitted. They were a positive sign of favourable development of the case. For many years, the Committee of Experts had criticized the application of the Convention, particularly as concerned the provisions of Act No. 23551 of 1988. Several cases had also been brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning the application of Convention No. 87. In its observation this year, the Committee of Experts once again regretted that the Government had not provided new elements in response to the questions raised by the Committee over a number of years. It had therefore raised once again eight points of contradiction between national law and the requirements of the Convention, and had noted that the Government had not provided any explanation of reasons delaying the adoption of a draft law which had been prepared with the participation of an ILO advisory mission. The Committee hoped that the draft law would soon be adopted and that other provisions contrary to the Convention would be quickly amended, removing any risk of partiality or abuse in determining the degree of representivity of trade unions, or the consequences of such abuse. Rather than referring to each of the eight points that had been raised by the Committee of Experts for a long time, it was necessary to urge the Government to take the measures required to overcome the obstacles which had prevented any progress in this case for many years. The Government representative had stated that the Government was willing to receive the assistance of the ILO in order to harmonize its legislation with the requirements of the Convention. A solution to the problem should be found without delay with the assistance of the Office. Moreover, in view of the nature of the problem, all trade union organizations should be associated in the search for its solution, including those organizations which had been registered but not granted trade union status. The study which had been mentioned, but whose contents were not yet known, might provide useful elements in this respect. Any results that were achieved should be evaluated by the Committee of Experts, so that the Conference Committee could confirm that the situation was developing in the direction towards full respect for the provisions of the Convention.
The Employers' members thanked the Government representative for its well-balanced position on the subject under examination. He had made repeated references to a study which had been undertaken of the problem as a whole. This study should be examined by the Committee of Experts, whose conclusions could then provide a basis for discussion by the Conference Committee. For some years, the Committee of Experts had been criticizing the provisions of Act No. 23551 of 1988, particularly with regard to the criteria applied for the granting of trade union status. In this respect, the Employers' members recognized that a certain level of representativity was required to take part in collective bargaining and to enjoy the advantages deriving from the recognition of trade union status. The relevant criteria were normally set out in trade union legislation. The question of the representativity of trade unions was addressed in the ILO Constitution and the Committee of Experts had emphasized that it could have important consequences for the effectiveness of collective bargaining. The criteria for the granting of trade union status should therefore be objective and determined in advance. One of the criteria applied in the country regarding trade union status at the enterprise level was that for an association to contest such status, it should have a considerably higher number of members than the rival association. This had been set at a level of at least 10 per cent more dues-paying members than the other association. It was not possible under the terms of the Convention to determine whether this was an acceptable criterion. The Committee of Experts had listed other criteria set out in the Act and had stated that excessive conditions had been established in the country for the granting of trade union status, which conferred considerable privileges, including advantages of participating in collective bargaining, certain tax advantages and the fact that only associations enjoying trade union status could collect membership dues directly from wages. What was at issue was the principle of equality of treatment between registered and unregistered trade union organizations. As requested by the Committee of Experts, the Government should be called upon to make rapid progress in the determination of clear criteria concerning trade union representativity since, if such criteria were too vague, they could lead to legal uncertainty and abuse. The Government should also be urged to examine the problems together with the organizations of employers and workers with a view to finding a solution that was in full accordance with the Convention.
The Worker member of Argentina, as the Secretary-General of the CGT, stressed the value of the work of the Committee of Experts in ensuring full enforcement of freedom of association. As regards the trade union system in Argentina, there were no restrictions on the right to establish workers' organizations. Proof of this was given by the 2,776 existing trade unions, including registered trade unions and the most representative organizations. There were no limitations to the establishment of trade unions or federations, nor to their international affiliation, in the climate of absolute political pluralism. There were no obstacles to free and democratic internal organization, in total independence from the Government and employers, and there was no lack of legal protection against persecution of unions, representatives and activists.
In conditions of strong pressure from parties interested in dismantling the unions, the system of labour relations based on the democratic regulation of trade union and collective bargaining legislation had managed to reduce the most negative effects of an injust distribution of income and combat the policy of economic concentration and social exploitation. A high level of coverage of workers by the trade unions and collective agreements had been maintained in the primary, manufacturing, services and the public sector, attaining 45 per cent of employees, thereby avoiding the fragmentation and individualization of labour relations, notwithstanding the pressure from the international financial centres.
He stressed that registered trade unions were given the capacity to pursue their objectives of defending the interests of the workers: they could present their demands to the Government and employers, represent the interests of their members, freely adopt their statutes and elect their representatives, formulate their programmes of action and organize their administration. They could take measures of direct action, promote improvements in the legislation, and conduct collective bargaining in the absence of a most representative organization.
He emphasized that trade union pluralism, as it was promoted by the ILO, meant the freedom in which strong and efficient trade unions could act in defence of the interests of all the workers and withstand the neo-liberal policies imposed on them. Such trade union pluralism was a reality in the labour practice in his country.
In conclusion, he stressed that in order to continue strengthening its work in defence of the genuine interests of the workers, the CGT was looking forward to the comments and recommendations formulated by the Office, multidisciplinary teams, and supervisory bodies of the ILO, in the framework of the Active Partnership Policy which inspired the Organization. With this in mind, he supported the suggestion made by the Workers' members to ask for the technical assistance to ensure compliance with the Convention through dialogue between the Government and the workers.
The Employer member of Argentina fully associated himself with the statement made by the Employers' members. His intervention was aimed at providing certain technical comments to better appraise the political, economic and social context. A stable and democratic political regime could not shed doubt on the Conventions concerning the fundamental human and labour rights. Argentina had ratified seven Conventions on basic human rights, including the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138). The employers of Argentina promoted respect for fundamental Conventions on human rights in their enterprises and applied mechanisms of tripartite consultation in accordance with the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), which had also been ratified by Argentina. The constitutional reform of 1994 had established the legal superiority of ratified Conventions on fundamental human rights, which made it possible to invoke their provisions directly before the courts.
The technical questions raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts had to be analysed and attention should be paid to the report submitted by the Government to the Office. This analysis could be carried out in the context of the reforms which were currently being discussed, with the technical assistance of the ILO in the framework of tripartite consensus but, at the same time, it had to be admitted that this process should include individual and collective labour institutions; in these areas, there were, however, aspects which did not concern only the internal organization of trade unions but also industrial relations practices in enterprises, such as the quality of the person carrying out collective bargaining, the level of the negotiation (sector or enterprise), the extent of the protection accorded to worker representatives. The employers were ready to participate in the dialogue on these questions, given that full compliance with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 were equally important to organizations of workers and employers. He affirmed the full cooperation of the Argentinian employers in the observance of the fundamental Conventions.
The Worker member of Spain recalled that both the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts had examined the concepts of trade union unity and plurality. Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 guaranteed freedom of association in the first place. If there was no freedom to create and establish trade unions to defend the interests of their members, it was not possible to talk of either the unity or the plurality of trade unions. Freedom of association was not contradicted if the fragmentation of trade unions was avoided by means of appropriate legislation. In Spain, the legislation provided for the appraisal of the level of representativity of the trade unions by means of organizing union elections every four years. In other countries, the criterion in this respect was the number of members. Both criteria had been accepted by the ILO supervisory bodies.
The Worker member of Uruguay stated that the Government of Argentina had given preference to economic over social interests. To fight inflation, it had increased social marginalization and violations of trade union rights, as illustrated by the dismissal of the trade union leaders in a private electricity enterprise. The Government of Argentina had turned a deaf ear to social and wage claims and the demands of the teachers. He supported the statement made by the Workers' members and trusted that an ILO mission would hold consultations with all the sectors involved so that trade union rights were ensured for all organizations of Argentinian workers.
The Worker member of Ecuador indicated that this case had been examined for several years and that the observations of the Committee of Experts concerned various sections of Act No. 23551, which were contrary to the Convention. He was convinced that the analysis of the Committee of Experts had taken into consideration the unity of the Argentinian trade union movement, which had steadfastly defended the interests of the workers at difficult moments. The worker representatives of Argentina had adopted firm positions in defence of freedom of association and the right to organize in this Committee and in other international fora. He emphasized the importance of the statement of the Government representative which showed the concern of the Government to avoid the division and fragmentation of the trade union movement. He trusted that the technical reforms and principles which would be adopted would not weaken the Argentinian trade union movement and that whatever assistance the ILO could provide would be accepted by the Government. He supported the idea expressed by the Workers' members concerning the value of accepting a technical assistance mission and emphasized that whatever reforms were undertaken should have a tripartite character. Finally, he expressed hope that in the near future progress would be achieved in resolving these problems.
The Worker member of Colombia stated that it was not easy to make comments on the application of a Convention when situations arose concerning not only employers, governments but also the trade union movement. Argentinian trade unions had been a significant model for the trade union movement in Latin America. He supported the views expressed by the Workers' members and hoped that the discrepancies in the application of the Convention would be resolved by way of dialogue and mutual respect.
Trade union unity could not be established by way of law, decree or resolution. It could only be the result of a commonality of ideas developed in the light of democracy and freedom, taking continually into account the defence of the rights and interests of workers against neo-liberal policies, in the eyes of which the best solution was to have no trade union at all. He expressed the hope that ILO support would contribute to a resolution of the problem.
The Worker member of Guatemala endorsed the statement of the Workers' members. This case illustrated the fact that, more important than ratification, was practical application and the concrete fulfilment of the Conventions. The continued attitude of the Government of Argentina was a cause for concern as it did not resolve the issues raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts. The Government should comply with the letter and spirit of Convention No. 87. Government interference constituted a violation of the Convention.
The Worker member of Pakistan paid tribute to the struggles of the people and workers of Argentina to rid themselves of a dictatorial regime and to achieve democracy. He emphasized that the principles of freedom of association set out in the Convention were basic workers' rights contained in both the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia. In view of the fact that it was the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention, an important country such as Argentina should be making great efforts to eradicate any contradictions between its laws and the Convention in order to give full effect to its provisions in practice. The Committee of Experts had been pointing out for a number of years that excessive restrictions were placed on the granting of trade union status. What was at issue was the freedom of Argentinian workers to establish a multiplicity of representative organizations and the lack of transparency in the rules applied in this respect. The Government should therefore be urged to make use of ILO technical assistance to bring the provisions of Act No. 23551 of 1988 into conformity with the Convention with regard to the points raised by the Committee of Experts.
The Government representative of Argentina welcomed the comments of the different speakers and indicated his agreement with the point made by the Worker members of Guatemala and Pakistan, who had said that the implementation of standards in practice was much more important than their simple ratification. The report presented by the Government tended to show that in practice the responsible authority, that is the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, had taken action to reduce the divergencies between national practice and the different points raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts. The Government representative also agreed with the point expressed by the Worker member of Colombia that Argentina should be proud of the strength of its trade union movement, which had been a model for all of Latin America. The development of the trade union movement in Argentina was also due to the manner in which Act No. 23551 had been applied. As the Worker member of Ecuador had mentioned, the Argentinian Government wished to prevent the fragmentation of the trade union movement. However, the Government representative could not subscribe to certain views expressed by the Worker member of Uruguay; he recalled that in 1989 the inflation rate in Argentina had been 3,470 per cent and that today it had been reduced to 1.3 per cent. Of all those affected, inflation penalized wage-earners the most. The defeat of hyper-inflation had safeguarded the interests of workers and their families. As concerned the cases of employment termination raised by the Worker member of Uruguay, it was not possible to know if the workers in question had sought their reinstatement through the courts. The case had also been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association. In this regard he wished to note that the Committee on Freedom of Association had had before it only seven cases involving Argentina and four dealing specifically with Convention No. 87: three of these cases had been resolved, two were subject to follow-up and one was pending. There were therefore no grounds for referring, as had the Workers' members, to “numerous” cases based on Convention No. 87 before the Committee on Freedom of Association.
Reference had been made in the Committee of Experts' observation to the expected adoption of a draft text modifying Act No. 23551. The National Congress was the best placed to give information on this subject. Meanwhile, it should be noted that the draft text, which contained numerous elements meant to address the comments of the Committee of Experts in relation to the law in question, had been discussed without having been adopted due to the changes which had occurred over recent years. Discussion of the draft text had been interrupted due to the consequences on labour law of the constitutional reforms mentioned by the Employer member of Argentina.
The Employers' members had mentioned the fact that an association claiming designation as the most representative union should have at least 10 per cent more dues-paying members than the petitioning association. In this regard, the Government representative recalled that Convention No. 87 did not set specific criteria, and it therefore seemed logical for the State to set such criteria. He was in complete agreement with the Worker member of Spain on the importance of the full assurance of the right to organize, before deciding the appropriate criteria for trade union plurality, or possibly unity. Act No. 23551 had resulted in the former by guaranteeing absolute freedom of association in the country.
The question raised by the Employers' members concerning the manner by which organizations could function without trade union status was answered in the report provided by the Government. Nothing prohibited employers concluding collective agreements with groups without trade union status.
In conclusion, the Government representative hoped that the Committee of Experts would examine closely the detailed report which he had presented to show how in practice Act No. 23551 responded to the points raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts. The Government was prepared to pursue collaboration with the Office to resolve any technical problems that might remain. The suggestion of the Workers' members was certainly constructive and the Government was ready to accept it.
The Committee took note of the oral information furnished by the Government representative and the discussion that took place in the Committee. The Committee noted from the observation of the Committee of Experts that for several years it had been requesting the Government to amend certain provisions of Act No. 23551 of 1988 on trade union associations and the corresponding Decree, which contained requirements as regards the granting of trade union status which were not compatible with the Convention. The Committee underlined the importance it attached to the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to further and defend the interests of their members. It noted that the Government was willing to have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office. The Committee hoped that this assistance would facilitate the full implementation of the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee trusted that the Government would consult, in this respect, employers' as well as workers' organizations, including those workers' organizations which were registered but which did not yet have trade union status. It also trusted that the Committee of Experts would very soon be able to note substantial progress towards the full application of the Convention.
Bolivia (ratification: 1965). A Government representative, Minister of Labour, recalled that, only a few days after it had taken over the responsibility of governing the country, the Government had received the direct contacts mission to review observance of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It had gathered together the social partners and reactivated the initiative to establish a formal procedure for the modernization of industrial relations, involving a 23-month programme financed by the State and the Inter-American Development Bank. It was primarily, but not exclusively, in the context of this programme that all the themes covered by the above Conventions, and other fundamental matters for an updated concept which protected the interests of workers and employers, should be addressed.
He added that, since the direct contacts mission, the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB) had changed its leaders on three occasions, giving rise to difficulties in addressing the modernization of industrial relations. At present, partial progress was being made with them with regard to all their demands. Nevertheless, the common concern of the three executive committees of the COB was to reject participation in the programme known as the Social Dialogue Programme. Bolivian trade unionists did not accept the observance of a Convention which provided for freedom of association and the establishment of more than one trade union per enterprise. The Government was continuing its policy of dialogue and consultation, and that was the reason why it had not used its powers to adopt the necessary legal instruments since to do so without consensus would prejudice the principal objective of the adoption of a new General Labour Act.
Endorsing a number of government policies, he stated that the non-recognition of the right to organize of public servants only affected a small group of public sector workers, since public employees in education, health, the oil industry and other sectors were fully covered by trade unions. This right was also enjoyed by public servants in the central administration, who worked in ministries and other bodies in which enjoyment of the right would not affect their fundamental functions.
Nevertheless, an analysis was being undertaken of the effect on the population of union membership for public officials who demanded the right of freedom of association.
He added that the Government, despite supporting the right to have more than one union per enterprise, had been avoiding this extreme through legal provisions and had worked with the COB to seek solutions for the discrepancies which had arisen. Nevertheless, there was currently a serious problem relating to workers in the social security sector, who had elected officers in a national congress who were not now recognized by the COB. It was probable that a congress of unity would be held to resolve the problem. If not, a new trade union body would emerge as a result of internal struggles in the trade union movement.
The Ministry of Labour had not submitted a text amending the legislation to the Council of Ministers in view of the launching on 15 February this year of the Social Dialogue Programme, for which a coordinator had been appointed who was organizing initial tripartite meetings with a group of technicians. It was to be hoped that these meetings, which were to be held with all the sectors concerned and throughout the national territory, would lead up to a proposal for the amendment of the labour legislation. Nevertheless, particular subjects on which consensus was achieved and which could be classified as urgent would be resolved on a case-by-case basis by the Government. The Government also accepted the need to amend provisions which inappropriately extended the powers of labour inspectors to trade union activities (section 101 of the General Labour Act). It would also be necessary to repeal section 129 of the Decree issued under the General Labour Act, which provided for the possibility of dissolving trade union organizations by administrative authority. Protection for workers other than trade union leaders against acts of anti-union administration would also be included. As a result, it could be said that, even without the adoption of the new legislation, the Ministry of Labour had continuously taken action to provide the protection in question.
He agreed with the need to include provisions in the legislation granting protection against any act of interference by employers' organizations in workers' organizations, and vice versa. Once again, effective action had been taken. The Government had neither imposed nor permitted the imposition of penal sanctions in the case of general strikes or sympathy strikes. He added that in his country penal measures were covered by the Penal Code, and not by labour legislation. He also said that agricultural wage-earners were now no longer excluded from the scope of the General Labour Act. A section in the National Agrarian Reform Institute Act had abolished this discriminatory provision, which had been contained in section 1 of the General Labour Act, which had been amended. A tripartite seminar had recently been held involving the most representative organizations and ILO experts, in which the draft text of the Decree to implement the provision incorporating agricultural wage-earners within the scope of labour legislation had been discussed. He noted in this respect that, following the revolution in 1952, the great majority of agricultural workers had become owners of their land and were therefore self-employed workers not covered by any dependent labour relationship.
He then referred to the points raised in the report of the Committee of Experts, namely denial of the right to organize of public servants, prohibition of more than one trade union per enterprise, the requirements for the holding of trade union office, certain restrictions on the right to strike, the illegal nature of general strikes and sympathy strikes, the prohibition of strikes in banks, and the possibility to impose arbitration by decision of the Executive to bring an end to a strike. He stated that they would be examined in the context of the Social Dialogue Programme with a view to achieving consensus and the incorporation of the relevant provisions in the new General Labour Act.
He said that he would continue working with ILO experts and would look forward to the comments of the Committee of Experts. He also emphasized that trade unions could be established without any previous authorization and considered that the subject of strikes in public markets was of greater importance. Trade unions were very active in those areas and their right to strike had been fully respected by the Government.
In conclusion, he said that the Government had noted the comment concerning collective agreements and was pursuing a policy for the development of this type of negotiation, as well as for its extension to the agricultural sector. Its scope should not be confined to wage negotiation, but should also include other conditions of employment.
The Employers' members thanked the Government representative for his statement describing the positive developments that had occurred, which were all the more welcome since the application of the Convention in his country had already been examined by the Committee in 1993, 1995 and 1997. In its previous report, the Committee of Experts had noted 11 points on which the legislation was not in conformity with the Convention. This year, the Committee of Experts had noted that on five of these points, consensus had been reached by the Government and the social partners on the implementation of the recommendations of the direct contacts mission of October 1997. This mission seemed therefore to have been a success and the necessary changes to the legislation should be made in the near future. The pending questions included the freedom of association of agricultural workers. However, the Government was endeavouring to reach a consensus on this point and the Committee of Experts had noted that trade unions of agricultural workers already existed in certain enterprises. Certain aspects of the right to strike were still under discussion. It was possible not to share the opinion of the Committee of Experts concerning certain restrictions on the right to strike, such as the necessity of a three-quarters majority vote to take strike action: what was at issue was ultimately the application of the democratic principle according to which most serious decisions required a qualified majority. In general, the Government was demonstrating its will to negotiate and there were no reasons to doubt its sincerity. The Bolivian Central of Workers (COB), for its part, remained attached to the principle of having one trade union in an enterprise, which was understandable from its point of view; this was a case of the classical conflict between principles and interests. It was not necessary to dwell on the question of the prohibition of the right to strike in public markets which were considered to be an essential service, because the COB had not contested the situation, and the Committee of Experts had not expressed any criticism in this respect. The Conference Committee should therefore take note of the positive developments taking place in the context of lively tripartite dialogue and the productive collaboration with the ILO. The Government should be encouraged to pursue this line of action and to inform the supervisory bodies of the progress achieved.
The Workers' members thanked the Minister for his presence and the explanations provided. Since 1966, the Committee of Experts had been noting serious divergencies between the legislation and the Convention, and the question had been examined by the Conference Committee in 1993, 1995 and 1997. In 1993, the Government had stated that a preliminary draft law had been prepared in cooperation with the ILO to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. In 1995, the state of emergency had resulted in a wave of massive repressions against trade unionists. In 1997, the Committee had noted the Government's request for a direct contacts mission. This mission had taken place in October 1997 and the Committee of Experts had noted with interest in its comments on the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 that it had made it possible to identify solutions to each of the problems that it had raised. However, in practice, the Government had stated that the social partners had not reached a consensus position on the right of public servants to organize trade unions and on allowing the existence of more than one trade union in an enterprise. Consensus had emerged on the need to modify the legislation on the other five points raised by the Committee of Experts: the possibility of interference by the public authorities in the activities of trade unions; the possibility of dissolving trade unions by administrative authority; the insufficient provisions to ensure protection against anti-union discrimination; the absence of provisions guaranteeing the independence of employers' and workers' organizations from each other; and penal sanctions in the event of general and solidarity strikes. The Committee of Experts had also noted that consensus had been reached in principle on the recognition of the organizations of agricultural workers. It had noted, however, that on eight points of non-compliance with the Convention that it had identified, the social partners had still not arrived at a common position. These were: the denial of the right to organize for public servants; the impossibility of establishing more than one trade union in an enterprise; the nationality and residence conditions to be satisfied to be a trade union leader; certain restrictions on the right to strike; the unlawful nature of sympathy strikes; the unlawful nature of strikes in banks; and the possibility of imposing compulsory arbitration in order to put an end to a strike. The Committee of Experts had insisted on the need to modify the legislation on each of these points, including the right to strike, on which it had expressed a position in the 1994 General Survey which was fully supported by the Workers' members. The beginnings of progress could therefore be seen, as well as the persistence of substantial divergencies with the Convention in a certain number of areas. The Minister's statement, the observation of the Committee of Experts and the report of the direct contacts mission pointed to the commitment of the Government to continue consultations with the social partners to find a solution for each of these problems. It was to be hoped that the difficulties could be overcome through social dialogue and that new amendments to the legislation could be foreseen. The Committee should therefore invite the Government, on the one hand, to indicate the reforms which resulted in the adoption of the legislation that conformed with the Convention and, on the other hand, to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity in the other areas.
The Worker member of Bolivia welcomed the excellent work of the Committee of Experts and agreed with the statement by the Government representative that being in Bolivia was like being in paradise. Although he recognized that there were major problems in the country, the Government needed to respect the principles of the Convention. Even though public officials only accounted for a small number of workers, they should enjoy the right to organize, both in the ministries and in municipal authorities.
He stated that substantial resources were being provided by the Inter-American Development Bank for the modernization of the industrial relations system. Nevertheless, the workers were not in agreement with such modernization, since it involved the limitation of labour rights which had been acquired. He referred to the case of two rural workers from Chaparé, where recent confrontations had resulted in workers being detained, wounded and killed. The COB had emphasized the need for dialogue, which had been rendered impossible because government violence had prevented a climate of dialogue from developing. COB leaders and rural workers from Chaparé had been detained and this situation could not continue if dialogue was to be promoted for the improvement of industrial relations. Trials against trade unionists also had to be brought to an end.
With reference to the report of the Committee of Experts, he stated that the five points raised needed to be resolved if progress were to be made. However, it did not appear to be possible to reach an agreement with the Government on the amendment of the general labour legislation. In conclusion, he said that the workers would oppose any such amendments and the ILO should safeguard the general well-being of the workers.
The Worker member of Colombia emphasized the importance of giving effect to the Convention in all developing countries in view of its significance for freedom, democracy and the protection of fundamental human rights. He said that the Government should make greater efforts to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention in accordance with the comments made by the Committee of Experts. With regard to the right to strike, he said that the application of the Convention was undermined in the country by claiming that the services concerned were essential, without the appropriate democratic and tripartite dialogue on the scope of that right. The lack of dialogue meant that the right to strike was determined by the authorities.
On the subject of agricultural workers, he called for the Government to provide information on real progress in the inclusion of those workers in the scope of the General Labour Act, particularly in view of the high number of workers in the sector. In conclusion, he stated that any restriction on the right to organize, collective bargaining or the right to strike could not be accepted by the Committee and that the Government could not say that it was adopting an attitude of comprehension when it pleaded the public and general interest, such as in the case of public employees.
The Worker member of Argentina considered that the ILO direct contacts mission had underlined the need to amend the legislation which was not in conformity with the principles of the Convention, particularly in relation to interference by the authorities in trade union activities, the dissolution of trade unions by administrative authority, the absence of protection for workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and the lack of provisions prohibiting interference by employers in trade unions. In addition to all of these violations of freedom of association, the right to strike was restricted, particularly in the case of general strikes and sympathy strikes.
It was essential for the Government to provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to amend the legislation. He referred to the Summit of American Peoples held recently in Santiago de Chile, where the Coordinadora de Centrales Sindicales del Cono Sur, which included the central trade union organizations of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, had transmitted an urgent protest to the President of Bolivia on the repression of rural workers and teachers who had taken part in strikes.
Turning to the prohibition of the right to organize of public servants, he stated that this restriction prevented an important sector from exercising its trade union rights and participating in negotiations to improve its wages and working conditions. The permanent repression of the right to strike in a wide range of sectors resulted in the denial of this inalienable right to many workers. This general context of repression was aggravated by the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the general labour legislation. The ILO should place special emphasis on observance of the Convention as a means of protecting workers in developing countries from the structural adjustment policies which were steadily impoverishing the working class. In conclusion, he supported the statements by the Workers' members urging Bolivia to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention in the near future.
The Worker member of Spain informed the Committee that he had recently returned from Bolivia, where he had participated in the seminar in Santa Cruz de la Sierra to which the Government representative had referred. A declaration had been concluded there on 10 June 1998 which clearly stated that: the Government frequently had recourse to repression instead of dialogue, as had happened in Chaparé and one month ago in La Paz, resulting in several workers being wounded; and that there was an absence of a culture of dialogue. The absence of a culture of tripartism was perhaps caused by the lack of material resources. Although the Committee of Experts had noted in its report that 1,143 collective agreements had been concluded, these mainly covered wages rather than other working conditions. With the signature of the declaration of Santa Cruz, in which the signatories had undertaken to enter into dialogue, a new era had been commenced. He trusted in the will of the Government, the COB and the employers to enter into negotiations. Finally, he stated that the ILO and the Catholic Church were carrying out praiseworthy work to establish a new era of dialogue which would help to resolve the discrepancies in the application of the Convention.
The Worker member of Guatemala said that when it had been in vogue, the doctrine of national security in Latin America had been used to combat the trade union movement with a view to dividing it. The application of the Conventions on freedom of association had been a distant dream. With the arrival of representative democracy, hope had grown that the fundamental rights of workers would be recognized. However, that had not been the case. Freedom of association was one of the rights that continued to be systematically violated by the authorities in Bolivia.
With reference to the statement made by the Government representative, he regretted that the Government had not maintained the receptive and constructive attitude shown during the direct contacts mission, which had been noted by the Committee of Experts in its report. He also regretted that the Government had not taken advantage of the political opportunities which had arisen to find solutions to the five points raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts, with particular reference to public servants and rural workers.
He requested the Government representative to state clearly whether the Government had a real commitment to dialogue, particularly since he had said that it had not been possible to enter into dialogue with the COB, while at the same time affirming that disputes would be settled through tripartite dialogue. The problems relating to the application of the Convention were of a long-standing nature and no progress had been made, even after the visit by the ILO direct contacts mission.
The Government representative wished to reply to the comments made by a number of the members of the Committee. He considered that in practice much progress had been made in the field of industrial relations and that the authorities did not interfere in trade union matters. Nor had trade unions been dissolved or interfered with by administrative authority. There had been no such interference, and this had not been denied by the trade union leaders who were present. The right of trade union leaders to defend the interests of those whom they represented had been protected, except in cases where the judicial authorities had intervened due to violations of the legislation. With reference to the intervention by the Worker member of his country, who had stated that various leaders of rural workers had been brought before the courts, he emphasized that this had occurred because they had violated the general law, but not as a means of exerting pressure on trade union activities. The executive did not have the power to interfere with the judicial authorities and the leaders in question had been convoked by magistrates, not the police.
He emphasized that the Ministry of Labour had not intervened in relations between workers and employers during collective bargaining. With regard to the general strikes, he said that they had been protected, as illustrated by the period between 1 March and 13 April 1998, when the COB had called an indefinite general strike, which had been resolved by dialogue, not violence. There had been no penal consequences of the strike. The Government took no action in labour matters that were not fully discussed with the social partners. With reference to the comments made by a number of speakers concerning rural workers and teachers, he pointed out that the Government had entered into its first process of dialogue with teachers. He repeated his statement from his previous intervention with regard to agricultural workers and quoted section 4 of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform Act No. 1715, which had included agricultural wage-earners within the scope of the General Labour Act. He recalled that a seminar had been held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra with the technical assistance of the ILO in which the most representative organizations of workers and employers, including rural workers' organizations, had participated. In the conclusions adopted in June 1998, the request had been made for the ILO to continue its technical assistance to support the Technical Tripartite Commission in the formulation of a draft decree respecting agricultural wage-earners, which marked a high point in the processes of dialogue and consultation in the country.
He reaffirmed the Government's commitment to seeking consensus and hoped that new labour legislation could be developed through dialogue. The Government was prepared to introduce changes in the areas in which it was within its competence to make decisions, for example through executive decrees, and undertook to amend all provisions which were in contradiction to the Convention. This had not been done earlier because the Government had been working within the context of the Social Dialogue Programme to reach consensual decisions. However, it was not in a position to make an undertaking to amend legislative provisions, for which only Parliament was competent. Contradictions existed between the workers in the country, who were not prepared to enter into discussions with the Government concerning reforms to the labour legislation, particularly on a change to allow more than one trade union per enterprise. The only discrepancy which involved the Government was the recognition of the right to organize of public servants, although even that only affected workers in ministries and prefectoral authorities. On the subject of the need for a two-thirds majority to call a strike, he said that this was an old provision and it was for the trade unions to seek a solution, not the Government. With regard to decisions to call strikes in markets, he said that the workers normally owned their stalls and there were no restrictions in practice.
He recalled that a draft General Labour Act had been formulated in 1993, but had not been successful because it had been a government draft which had not received consensus. For this reason, it had become necessary to establish a programme of social dialogue. He admitted that in 1995, under the previous Government, reprisals had been carried out against workers and that trade union leaders had been arrested under emergency legislation. However, when the current Government had been faced with trade union demands opposing the wages policy in the national budget in March this year, a solution had been found through dialogue and for the first time in many years, the problems had been resolved without the adoption of the usual measure of declaring a state of emergency. With reference to the social unrest in the Chaparé region, he noted that this involved agricultural workers who grew cocoa and whose crops were not legally permitted for traditional purposes. The authorities responsible for maintaining order had intervened because when the crop was grown in areas where it was not permitted under a 1988 Act, it was used by drug traffickers, who manipulated the social sectors. The violence which had occurred in the region, which had been mentioned by several speakers, had not been related to trade union activities, but to disputes relating to the production of cocaine. In conclusion, while recognizing that Bolivia was not a paradise, he said that much progress had been achieved in the field of trade union freedoms and the efforts made to modernize the labour legislation were designed to optimize the industrial and agricultural capacity of the country with a view to creating more jobs. He reaffirmed his previous statement that the appropriate attitude and aptitude was required for dialogue and that the Government was prepared to work with the social partners to promote a culture of dialogue and understanding.
The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Minister of Labour and of the discussion that took place in the Committee. The Committee noted that this case had been discussed in the Conference Committee on numerous occasions. It recalled that the Committee of Experts had been formulating comments for several years on the discrepancies between national legislation and Articles 2, 3, 4 and 10 of the Convention, such as the denial of trade union rights for civil servants, the impossibility of setting up more than one union at the enterprise level, the requirement to have Bolivian nationality to be elected as a trade union official, the wide powers of the authorities over trade union affairs, the severe restrictions on the right of workers' organizations to formulate their programmes of action free of intervention by the public authorities and the administrative dissolution of trade unions. The Committee noted with interest that a direct contacts mission had taken place in October 1997 to help the Government improve the application of the Convention. In this regard, it also noted that some progress had been made in elaborating draft legislation on five important points raised by the Committee of Experts to bring the legislation into fuller conformity with the Convention. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the coming session of the Committee of Experts on the concrete measures taken to adopt and implement the legislative amendments prepared during the ILO mission. It also expressed the hope that the Government would continue social dialogue with all the persons involved and that measures would be taken to adjust legislation so as to remove all the other discrepancies with Convention No. 87.
Cameroon (ratification: 1960). A Government representative, Minister of Labour, recalled that his country had been questioned and criticized for an insufficient application of Convention No. 87 concerning the free exercise by the workers and employers of their rights and the protection of their professional interests. He underscored that the provisions of the Convention were clear in this respect: workers and employers have the right to set up and join organizations of their choice with a view to defending and promoting their interests. These organizations have the right to develop their statutes and rules, freely to choose their representatives, to organize their management and their activities, and to formulate their programmes of action. Public authorities should refrain from any action aimed at limiting this right or to impeding the legal exercise of these rights. They should not be dissolved or suspended by administrative measures. He intended to elaborate to the Committee how Cameroon applied these important provisions of Convention No. 87 and, more specifically, the efforts that had been made to have the new Act on civil servants' unions promulgated.
The speaker recalled that Cameroon had ratified 44 ILO Conventions, including the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) as well as six other fundamental human rights Conventions. His country was therefore committed to respecting the provisions of these ILO instruments. He underscored that full conformity between national and international standards could only be achieved progressively. He declared that there was no deliberate intention by the Government to thwart human rights and he recalled that the representative of the Government of the Republic of Cameroon had already clarified this at previous sessions. He reaffirmed this forcefully today. It is thus in this context that the reform announced of the legislation on civil servants' unions should be seen. A Bill had been prepared by the Minister of Labour on this subject and according to the regular procedure it would be transmitted to the office of the National Assembly for adoption after it had been re-examined by the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic. The major steps of this procedure were already under way and there was no doubt that this text would be adopted in the immediate future. He noted that this was not the only text which had had to go through the above-mentioned procedures and which were close to adoption. Cameroon has undertaken a large-scale reform of fundamental acts, including the Constitution which was adopted in 1996. This new fundamental Act was distinctly progressive, liberal and put human beings at its centre, and it had a decisive influence on all other Acts which were being applied or were close to adoption whether they concerned conditions of work, the freedom of the press, public speech or fundamental freedoms. The speaker noted that there was therefore no obstacle of any nature which could hinder the adoption of this Act and confirmed that the higher levels of Government would accelerate its referral for examination and adoption by the National Assembly at one of its three annual sessions.
He reiterated the positive attitude of the Government of Cameroon towards a definitive liberalization of the trade union sector. The fact that the Act on civil servants' unions had not yet been adopted did not result from any deliberate obstruction, nor from bad faith, but from a concern to respect scrupulously existing procedures. These procedures would allow for a determined evolution towards democracy, the respect for human rights and development. Furthermore, trade unions functioned normally in Cameroon, without any trouble caused by public authorities. The trade unions thus conducted their general assemblies, their seminars and, in short, their regular statutory activities, as the Government had always proven to be adaptable in this respect. Cameroon thus applied, de facto, the provisions of Convention No. 87 which it had ratified.
Finally, he mentioned that there were more than 200 base trade unions joining workers in different branches of activities, more than 50 regional trade unions joining the base unions in different branches of activities, 17 national trade union federations joining the unions of different branches of activities, national trade unions and two national trade union confederations. In the public service there were some ten trade unions of public servants functioning freely which were not hindered by the provisions of the Act of 1968 that was being amended.
The Workers' members recalled that for several years the Committee of Experts had commented on this case. The present Committee had discussed the case in 1986, 1994 and 1996. Cases were pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning interferences by the Government in trade union activities. In the private sector of Cameroon there were presently two confederations which were composed of federations. In spite of the fact that two trade unions were functioning actively in the private sector, the legal provisions still authorized the Government to interfere in the activities of trade unions. In the public sector the interferences by the Government in the internal affairs of trade unions were very real. This was actually recognized indirectly by the Government during the 1994 session of this Committee. It declared that the Government had set up trade unions for civil servants. In addition, since 1991 the Government had systematically refused to recognize the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES).
The Workers' members also recalled that, in 1994, the Government had provided indications that an Act on civil servants' unions was under preparation. This year, the Minister of Labour of Cameroon had repeated only that the procedure was under way. However, since 1994 the Committee of Experts had not been able to note any progress. On the contrary, complaints had been submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning interference by the Government in trade union activities.
The Workers' members proceeded to highlight the principles which were at issue in this case. These included the vital elements which permitted the functioning of a fully autonomous and independent trade union movement. At issue were the principles which had been introduced in an increasing number of countries since the upheavals in 1989. The Committee of Experts referred to the progress made in its observations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87 in paragraphs 43-47 in the General Report. This was unfortunately not yet the case in Cameroon. The legal existence of a trade union, more specifically in the public sector, depended on prior authorization by the competent minister. Section 6 of the Labour Code, as amended in 1992, authorized legal action against the founders and promoters of unregistered trade unions, both in the public and private sectors. Finally, international affiliation was still subjected to prior authorization.
In conclusion, the Workers' members insisted that law and practice should be thoroughly modified in order to ensure an independent trade union movement both in the private and public sectors. The slowness of the Government in rectifying the situation was a cause for real concern. The Government should take action in this respect without any further delays and technical assistance could be a useful means to bring about changes more rapidly.
The Employers' members noted the information given by the Government representative which was nevertheless disappointing. They stated that the Committee of Experts had made comments on this case since 1991. Since the facts remained the same since the last examination of this case, they referred to the statement of the Workers' members in respect of the details concerning this case. Problems could be found in the following two areas. The legal existence of trade unions or occupational associations of public servants was subject to prior approval of the Minister for Territorial Administration leading to problems particularly in the teaching sector. Moreover, prior authorization was needed for affiliation to an international organization. Already in 1994, the Government representative had stated that the situation had changed substantially and that there had been only a lack of administrative measures in this respect. Government representatives had said that efforts would be undertaken progressively in order to comply with the requirements of Convention No. 87, as well as with those of other Conventions. However, the Employers' members considered that the steps were not sufficient or satisfactory. Noting the general information given by the Government representative they felt that all the previous problems still remained in legislation and in practice. The Government was responsible for establishing an appropriate framework which was apparently not the case here. In conclusion, the Government should be urged to undertake the necessary measures. Since legislative steps had already been announced in 1994, the Government should be asked urgently to provide a detailed written report. Moreover, technical assistance would be useful in order to make positive and real progress with regard to freedom of association and protection of the right to organize in the near future in the country.
The Worker member of France stated that during the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87, the fact that certain countries still did not apply the terms of that Convention was a political and not a technical problem. He recalled that there had been trade union cooperation between France and Cameroon for the past 35 years, and that this was intended to promote democracy. He felt that there was a serious paradox in that Cameroon had ratified Convention No. 87 in 1960, and already in 1969 it had adopted a law restricting seriously freedom of association. The speaker lamented that 35 years after the ratification of Convention No. 87 by Cameroon, two major problems subsisted. The first was that it still remained impossible to form a trade union without prior authorization. The second was that when a trade union was recognized, the interference of the Government was notorious, going as far as to create internal divisions in the trade unions. Finally, the speaker insisted that the Government's statements be translated into concrete action.
The Government representative emphasized the inconsistency of the allegations concerning governmental interference in trade union matters. He felt that since no concrete example of interference was given, this was a baseless accusation. As for fractures and divisions within the trade union movement, he stated that they were not the result of government manoeuvering, but rather the normal course of trade unionism moving toward union pluralism. In this respect, he stated that the Government had never intervened to create new central trade unions. He stated, moreover, that the present central trade unions functioned freely concerning elections and management, and that none of the alleged interference had been demonstrated. Concerning the ratification of Convention No. 87, the speaker felt the changes in each country had to be viewed according to the priorities to be dealt with and that, consequently, no time period should be imposed. In fact, conditions differed from country to country and a certain flexibility was necessary. He also recalled that no time-limit was set forth in the texts of the ILO and that the time-limits observed in his country were in conformity with the general practice. As regards complaints or violations of freedom of association, the speaker stated that the nature and the content of these complaints had never been communicated to the Government. Moreover, he recalled once again the forthcoming adoption of new legislation concerning the union activities of civil servants, which was in conformity with the new Constitution of 1996. He emphasized, however, that numerous other texts were in the process of being adopted and that this text was not the only priority with which Cameroon had to cope. Finally, he stated that despite the absence of legislation, at the present time approximately ten trade unions in the public service already carried out their activities and that the adoption of the forthcoming law would only serve to legalize that which was already the current practice.
The Committee noted the statement made by the Minister of Labour of Cameroon and the discussions which took place in the Committee. It recalled that the Committee of Experts had formulated comments for several years regarding the lack of application of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention in law and practice. It insisted on the need to amend Act 68/LF/19 of 1968 subjecting the legal existence of organizations of public servants and the possibility of joining a foreign occupational organization to the previous authorization of the administrative authorities. It also insisted on the need to repeal section 6(2) of the Labour Code which permitted the prosecution of persons forming a trade union, which had not yet been registered, but who had acted as if the trade union was registered. The Committee profoundly regretted that, despite previous discussions on this case before the present Committee, the Government had given only assurances that the legislation and practice would be brought into conformity with the Convention once the new Act on civil servants' unions was adopted. Noting with concern that no tangible progress had been made, the Committee urged the Government to take without delay effective measures in order to remove the obstacles to freedom of association which resulted from the requirement of previous authorization to set up a trade union organization and to guarantee for all workers, including civil servants, the right to form organizations of their own choosing. The Committee reminded the Government that technical assistance from the ILO would be useful. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to bring the legislation and the practice into conformity with the Convention.
Colombia (ratification: 1976). A Government representative, Minister of Labour, stated that his Government accepted the observations of the Committee of Experts, but deemed it necessary to present certain reflections about the labour legislation in force with respect to the mandate and the Conventions of the ILO.
Since 1991, with the adoption of the new political Constitution of Colombia by the National Assembly of the most pluralistic character, unprecedented progress had been made in all that pertained to the world of work. Suffice it to say that according to the Constitution, international labour Conventions duly ratified by the Congress of the Republic become part of the internal legislation, which meant that 51 Conventions ratified by Colombia were of direct application. In addition, according to the Constitution these Conventions have a priority in the internal order as regards the instruments concerning human rights, which was the case regarding ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Section 53, paragraph 4, of the political Constitution stipulates that “duly ratified international labour Conventions form part of the internal legislation”. Section 93 of the Constitution states also that “the international treaties and Conventions which recognize human rights and prohibit their limitation in exceptional situations, have a priority in the internal order. The rights and duties established in this charter shall be interpreted in conformity with international treaties on human rights ratified by Colombia”. These principles of labour law have been guaranteed also by means of a special judicial mechanism (acción de tutela) which permits any person affected by the violation of a fundamental right to approach any judicial authority and solicit protection through an expedited procedure. Through this mechanism, numerous cases of the violation of trade union rights were resolved and freedom of association received an effective guarantee of legal protection.
The Government remained convinced of the importance of the standard-setting activities of the ILO and of the social benefits which, by the incorporation of the international labour standards into internal legal order to the workers, were brought to workers, employers and the society at large. Recently, the Congress of the Republic had considered and approved Conventions (No. 144 on tripartite consultations, No. 151 on labour relations in the public service, No. 161 on occupational health services, No. 162 on the safe use of asbestos, and No. 174 on the prevention of major industrial accidents), which were now in the process of ratification. Before the Constitution of 1991, one could speak of certain limitations of the exercise of freedom of association in Colombia. This situation no longer existed: the right to free association provided in Convention No. 87 was elevated to a constitutional principle, as well as the right of workers and employers to establish unions and associations without government interference and with immediate legal recognition (article 38 of the national Constitution).
With respect to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning Convention No. 87, the speaker stated that measures to implement them were delayed due to the problems of legal order. In 1996, there was an important technical assistance mission on freedom of association which had jointly elaborated draft laws to bring national legislation into line with ratified Conventions which were submitted to the Congress of the Republic but which had not yet gone through the process of approval. Nevertheless, they have served as a model to adopt administrative measures and to prepare a draft implementing decree which regulates Acts 26 and 27 of 1976 concerning the ratification by Colombia of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It is important to inform this Committee that while certain laws, which were considered to be contrary to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, were still in force, the Government considered, in accordance with its previous arguments, that they were to be repealed and that with this in mind it would solicit the necessary action to proclaim their unconstitutionality. All possible means of action were explored: presentation of the draft law which took account of the Committee of Experts' observations, the adoption of an implementing decree and the beginning of the court action concerning unconstitutionality.
Referring to the observations of the Committee of Experts on Convention No. 87, the speaker indicated that the report mentioned the following Colombian labour standards which contradict the provisions of this Convention:
– Section 365(g) on the requirement that, in order for a trade union to be registered, the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union. This provision aimed at preventing parallel trade unions in the undertakings, and workers would no doubt agree with its implementation in order to strengthen the labour movement.
– Colombian legislation on the need to be of Colombian nationality to hold executive office in a trade union, on the requirement that in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian (section 365(g) and section 384 of the Substantive Labour Code). It would be hard to find another Constitution in the world which would be as generous in recognizing the rights of foreigners and giving Colombian nationality to foreigners as the present Colombian Constitution. Suffice it to look at some European constitutions to appreciate that the Colombian Constitution starts by proclaiming the possibility of obtaining a Colombian nationality on the basis of principles ius soli and ius sanguinis. It is also provided that foreigners could obtain Colombian nationality without being obliged to renounce their original nationality. Such provisions were unprecedented and few countries in the world could claim the same generosity. This legislative activity was not due to any specific motive, as there were no significant groups of foreigners engaged in employment in Colombia. The political Constitution of Colombia extended to foreigners the same civil rights which Colombians had, but for reasons of public order, the law could regulate those rights. However, the national legislation did not violate the Constitution or the Convention; foreigners could join trade unions but could not control a trade union or hold executive office in it.
– Section 486 on the supervision of the internal management of trade unions and meetings of unions by public servants. The presence of public servants had for its purpose to ensure respect of the qualified majority provided for in trade union statutes, for example in case of strikes. It was often members of the trade unions themselves who asked for the presence of public servants in case of internal conflicts, in such cases the mission of the public servant consisted in collecting evidence which would eliminate conflicts in the future. It was believed that such activities had no impact on the independence and autonomy of the trade unions.
– Section 380(3) which provided for the denial of the right of trade union association up to three years to any trade union executive who had been responsible for the dissolution of a union. Act No. 50 of 1990 abolished the administrative authority of the Government to deny the right in the above-mentioned cases; it lay now with the judicial authority when it was proved that the trade union executive was responsible for the dissolution or suspension of a union. Taking into account that such dissolution had to be declared legally, section 380(3) of the Code did not violate the Convention.
– Section 422(1)(c) on the need to have exercised the activity, occupation or position characteristic of the trade union in order to hold a trade union office. This provision did not carry a risk of jeopardizing trade union rights, because in the first place it was applied to the industrial trade unions and, secondly, one could belong to the activity, occupation or position characteristic of the trade union, without actually exercising this activity. The administrative authorities only required certification of the years worked in the undertaking and of belonging to the respective sector of activity. The nature of a trade union required that its executives had the same profession as members. Another serious question to be studied was the possibility of becoming a career trade union executive.
– The right to strike of federations and confederations. The Ministry of Labour consulted all social partners on the question of developing and strengthening the trade union movement by promoting industrial unionism, which would entail broadening the rights of federations and confederations. Also, the draft implementing decree extended the same rights which were attributed to basic unions to their associations of the second and third levels.
– The power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security and of the President of the Republic to intervene in case of conflicts (sections 448 and 450 of the Code). During the present Administration, this power had not been used, except at the request of the trade union. His Government acknowledged, however, that this provision effectively violated Convention No. 87.
– The possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Code). The ILO supervisory bodies recognized the legitimacy of dismissal in case of an unlawful strike and the Convention requires workers' organizations to respect the law. Therefore, this provision did not violate the Convention. With respect to the right to strike and certain administrative restrictions applied to it mentioned on page 187 of the Spanish version of the Committee's report, the speaker stated that the new political Constitution of Colombia of 1991 recognized the power of the Congress of the Republic to determine public services to be considered essential, and this legislative work was in process. For the time being the situation was covered by five laws: Act No. 100 of 1993, section 4: with respect to the general social security system in health and pensions, the essentials were the activities directly related to the establishment and payment of pensions; Act No. 142 of 1994, sections 1 and 4: applied to the public domestic services for the maintenance of water supply, waste disposal, electric energy, distribution of gas, and basic telephone services, both fixed and mobile in the local and rural sectors; Decree No. 407 of 1994, section 11: the functions pertaining to the national custodial services and prisons; Act No. 270 of 1996, section 125: administration of justice considered to be an essential public service; Decree No. 336 of 1996: public transportation by air, sea, railway and road. It appeared that the right to strike belonged to the category of constitutional rights in Colombia, which required corresponding adjustment of the labour legislation, making inapplicable certain sections of the code actually in force and giving the possibility to repeal those which contradict those rights.
He stated that taking into account the new legal situation in the country which determined the priority of the Conventions over the internal legislation and their direct application, the Minister of Labour and Social Security had convened a group of the specialists in the legal sciences under the head of the expert in labour law and interpretation of the ILO standards, in order that it initiated the procedure before the Constitutional Court of Colombia to declare unconstitutional the provisions of the Substantive Labour Code and other labour laws which were contrary to the letter and spirit of the ILO Conventions ratified by Colombia. In this way, the constitutional procedure avoided the complexity of the legislative debate or the risk that once the regulating decrees referred to had been adopted, legal obstacles could impede their future application. The situation was still not ideal with respect to the legislation and because of this, the Government would try to contact workers' organizations to reach agreement on better provisions.
Referring to the problems of violence in Colombia, he indicated that the situation with respect to the violation of human rights was neither desired, nor sought by the social actors represented here — government, workers and employers. This situation however had degenerated in a prolonged armed conflict from which there was no escape for the various social and human groups: the society at large was affected including trade union members and their leaders. In this complex and extremely delicate situation, the Colombian Government established and applied consistent policy in matters of peace, human rights and international humanitarian law, which pursued a double aim to find a negotiated solution out of the armed conflict and to protect and promote respect for human rights and for the humanitarian law in favour of the civil population. With respect to the peace policy, it was important to mention the creation of the National Peace Council composed of the state bodies and the organizations of civil society, including the catholic church, which had acquired considerable respect from the conflicting parties and the support from the Government to the network of initiatives of citizens for peace and against the war which had obtained the support of 10 million Colombians. Being conscious of the importance of the cooperation of the international community in facing the problem of violence, the Colombian Government had requested the establishment in Colombia of the office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, which started its activities in April 1997.
He referred to the declaration on Colombia adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights during its 54th Session celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights: “The Commission (of human rights) recognizes a set of important policies and measures adopted and implemented by the Government of Colombia in the area of protection and defence of human rights and its will to cooperate with the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogotá, with the special reporters and working groups of the Commission, as well as its readiness to continue and reinforce these relations.” Neither the international community nor Colombia could have arrived, in this respect, at a decision different from that adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights after a long period of study and consultation.
As regards the human rights of workers, the Colombian Government and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in particular have pledged their full support to the promotion of fundamental rights to life, personal freedom and freedom of association. The Colombian Government paid special tribute to this topic not only as part of the exterior image of the country, but rather as an effective political will to introduce corrections in the situation recognized as unacceptable and incompatible with the democratic and civil character of Colombian institutions. An advisory group in human rights was established directly under the minister with the mandate to assist and advise the Inter-Institutional Commission for the human rights of the workers. Since its establishment, progress had been made in the design of the information system on acts of violence against trade union leaders which would provide a foundation for the supervision and fight against impunity. Nevertheless, murders and horrible crimes against trade union leaders occurred and threats continued to be directed towards trade union leaders and activists. The Government condemned such acts and offered to take action to capture and punish the guilty. The Government considered that trade union organizations occupied an important place in society, and that the search for a more real and concrete peace and social justice should carry on. Finally, he indicated that he identified himself with the just cause of trade union organizations.
The Workers' members declared that the case of Colombia was a case which caused extremely serious concerns. The Committee had already discussed the application of Convention No. 87 in this Committee in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997. In 1989 and 1990 this case was mentioned in a special paragraph. It should be noted that the comments by the experts also referred to problems raised in relation to Convention No. 98. In 1996 a direct contacts mission to Colombia was conducted. Five cases were presently pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association.
The Workers' members recalled that last year, when this case was examined by the present Committee, two major concerns had been expressed: on the one hand, with the assistance of the ILO, the Government had prepared two Bills which would conform to the comments by the experts. The comments made in the report of this year concerned discrepancies between law and practice and both Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. On the other hand, this Committee had expressed its serious concerns regarding the condition of violence and lack of enforcement of laws which prevailed in the country and which was specifically directed against workers and trade unionists.
The Committee of Experts noted that the Government stated in its report that the Congress of the Republic had decided to shelve the Bill intended to ensure compliance with the Convention and that it was going to resort to other legal means to do so. Furthermore, the second draft bill concerning essential public services did not seem to have been pursued either.
As regards the second main concern, that is the measures the Government envisaged to undertake to curb the violence exerted against workers and trade unionists, the Committee of Experts made no reference to any new information. This seemed to imply that no such information had been reported by the Government. However, the news transmitted by Colombian trade unionists, as late as during the present session of the Committee, evidenced extremely serious conditions. Only last week, 26 workers had been captured and found assassinated. According to information provided by the UN Committee on Human Rights, 127 trade unionists had been murdered in 1997 for political reasons. Several trade unionists had been abducted and had disappeared; in addition, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had condemned the legal system and, in particular, the regional courts. According to the High Commissioner these courts had confirmed the arrests of trade unionists without respect for the legal procedures. These regional courts condemned the trade unionists solely because they exercised their trade union rights.
As in the previous year, it should be reiterated that an interaction between the ILO instruments and the principles contained in the Constitution was an indispensable condition for the creation of, to cite the direct contacts mission of 1996, “a climate of social peace and a progressive elimination of the social conditions causing injustice, poverty and deprivations”.
The Workers' members remarked that no progress had been noted regarding the bringing into conformity of legislation with the Convention. On the contrary, it seemed that this process had to be re-initiated. As regards the troublesome situation concerning anti-trade union violence, no information had been provided by the Government regarding the measures it intended to take in order to halt the anti-trade union violence and, more specifically, the attacks against trade unionists.
In view of this double challenge, the Workers' members proposed that the Committee in its conclusions invited the Government to accept a direct contacts mission in order to: (1) assist the Government of Colombia as well as other political decision-makers, such as the Congress of the Republic, with a view to eliminating, without delay, the obstacles which impeded the adoption of regulations which would bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention; and (2) obtain information on the serious acts of anti-trade union violence and, together with the competent authorities as well as worker and employer organizations, identify the measures required to halt the crimes committed against trade unionists to create a climate of social peace and to set up and maintain the rule of law.
The Employers' members recalled that this case had been examined eight times in the last ten years. In 1996, an ILO mission on freedom of association had taken place where a Bill had been elaborated which in the end was not adopted by Congress. The Employers' members pointed out that the 12 points which were the subject of the observations of the Committee of Experts would have been remedied to a great extent through the adoption of the Bill. Turning to the observation of the Committee of Experts on the legislative provisions concerning the right to strike, they referred to their position which was different from the position of the Committee of Experts. Despite the difference of opinion in this respect, they said that the other points which had been noted by the Committee of Experts had demonstrated that freedom of association was not being respected. Turning to the Government representative's suggestion to examine whether the proposals established under the Bill could be inserted into the national Constitution, the Employers' members felt that this procedure would not lead to a positive outcome in view of the fact that not a single Bill had been adopted thus far. However, the Government representative had provided a lot of information on a large number of points mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts. The Government representative had indicated that Conventions, once they had been ratified, were directly applicable at the national level and had priority over other laws. However, Convention No. 87 enshrined principles which should be adopted into national legislation and also implemented in practice which had been particularly difficult. Referring to the Government's intention to examine those legal provisions which were contrary to the requirements of Convention No. 87 and to declare these provisions to be unconstitutional, the Employers' members doubted that the executive body was empowered to do this. Furthermore, the Employers' members pointed out that the problem not only concerned Convention No. 87 but also the entire society which was characterized by an atmosphere of violence. In addition, trade union activists as well as managers of enterprises had been discriminated against, abducted or murdered. This situation showed that freedom of association did not exist in this country. The Employers' members concluded that this Committee should express its deep concern in its conclusions in which not all the individual points raised by the Committee of Experts needed to be reflected in order to illuminate the grave situation as a whole. The Government should be urged to take the appropriate action and supply a report in the very near future.
The Worker member of Colombia stated that this was not the first time that the Minister made promises and a year after broke his word. He hoped, however, that in this case full adherence would be given to the promises made to the workers and to the international community. He stated, with regret, that the situation with respect to human rights had not improved in Colombia. The proliferation of violence affected the whole of the Colombian society but particularly workers and the civil population, each time increasing concern for the impunity for the violence committed. The persistent policy of threats and attacks on social activists formed part of the strategy to demoralize and demobilize workers' organizations. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Colombians (more than 98 per cent) were good, peaceful, hard-working people, whose only objectives were to bring peace to the country, to establish freedom, democracy and development in which all Colombians would have access to education, basic needs, health, social security and employment. In reality, it was a tragedy to observe that more than 1 million people had fallen victim to the violence and that more sacrifices were still expected in the future. The issue of trade union rights was intimately related to the question of human rights, and the report of the Committee of Experts contained very detailed references to the very important violations of Convention No. 87. The present Minister of Labour, who had held office for only a few months had assumed the responsibility to respond today for those who had been irresponsible in harmonizing Colombian labour legislation with ILO Conventions and Recommendations, and who had not kept their word. The right to collective bargaining was nullified for public employees and the draft act referred to in this Committee had no effect and placed public employees in a very disadvantaged position; in this respect, it was very important that the Colombian Government said that real possibility exists for it to assume a serious commitment in this matter. On the other hand, the report of the Committee of Experts stated, as it had already stated a few years ago, that Colombia had promised to modify its labour legislation to guarantee freedom of association and today also mentioned the possibility of adopting a labour statute under the Constitution, but Colombian workers had no knowledge either about the draft of such a statute, or about the fate of the draft presented by the workers with more than 1 million signatures. Conversely, Colombian workers were concerned by the practice of some enterprises which were literally engaged in liquidating workers and their organizations by persecution, plans of “voluntary resignation”, temporary contracts and the enforcement of what was now being called “the statute of non-unionized” — a very dangerous instrument against the trade union movement which guaranteed different rights for non-unionized workers with the aim of decreasing the rate of unionization as in the aviation sector. There were other enterprises which resorted to this unacceptable practice as, for example, in certain social clubs which put pressure on their syndicalized workers to resign and replace them with small cooperatives working on a subcontractor basis, undermining the application of the labour law, the presence of the trade union movement and leaving the workers with no trade union protection and social security. In this context, it was also very important that the Government committed itself to defending trade union rights preventing the appearance of such anti-union practices. He also expressed his disagreement with the information provided on the significant progress in labour legislation and the system of health protection and social pensions, because the situation in reality was completely different. Finally, he requested the minister to state clearly what would be done for the thousands of workers dismissed during the past years, including those dismissed by the governors and mayors without the application of any sanction. He asked that this Committee establish and send a commission of inquiry which would be very useful in the actual situation.
Another Worker member of Colombia stated that the most important reason for which the Colombian Government was being asked to reply to this Committee, was the serious attacks on human rights in his country. More than 2,500 trade unionists had been assassinated in the last ten years without anyone being imprisoned for those crimes; a high number of displaced persons and refugees in the neighbouring countries and the profound cuts in the social, family and labour issue attested to the gravity of the situation. This Committee had repeatedly heard the accusations made by the representatives of Colombian workers of the practices called “penalization for the social struggle”. One could easily show how the legislation which pretended to suppress terrorism and drug-trafficking always ended up being used against trade union activists, social and political leaders. This legislation did not permit a due process, admitted secret evidence, witnesses with a hidden identity testifying against the same person, called “cloned witnesses”, and above all, which permitted the negotiation of light sentences to those who were truly responsible and the infliction of much more severe sentences on the innocent who had been declared culpable in an arbitrary and unjust way. While a debate had been opened concerning the application of this type of justice, with more and more people adhering to the demand of its dismantlement, the Workers were preoccupied with the fact that it had led to the wide use of all types of manipulations which “justify” or pretended to “justify” action threatening freedom and integrity of the trade union leaders, members of NGOs on human and political rights.
While Mrs. Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, launched an important call for the defence of human rights in the plenary sitting of the Conference with respect to the report concerning Colombia presented to the 54th Session of the Committee on Human Rights two months ago, certain security organs of the Colombian Government claimed that, 15 of 100 guerrilla groups continued to be active militarily and 85 provided a logistic and political support to the rebellion forces integrated in social and trade union organizations, legal political movements and organizations in defence of human rights. One could imagine the consequences of such an absurd appraisal of the situation on the part of the national security organs for a country with conditions such as in Colombia.
The speaker stated that about one-and-a-half months ago in Bogotá Dr. Eduardo Umana Mendoza was assassinated. He had been a resolute defender of human and trade union rights and had vehemently denounced the impunity and the lack of guarantees for the exercise of trade union activities in Colombia, and had ensured the legal defence of trade union leaders in the petroleum industry.
The Colombian workers thanked the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts and this Committee for the concern they had been expressing for more than ten years and for the action taken by various ILO bodies in order to make Colombia fulfill its obligation with respect to the observance of trade union rights. There had been so many trade unionists killed and forcefully displaced, so many victims of other violations, and impunity was so widespread that it made no sense to continue talking about statistics. The time had come for the international community and the ILO to take very concrete action to help the Colombian people to resolve the grave crisis of human rights in the country. In this respect he supported the request made by his fellow Worker member of Colombia, that a commission of inquiry be established with the mandate to consider everything related to trade union freedom in Colombia. In conclusion, in the memory of more than 2,000 trade unionists assassinated in Colombia in the last ten years, he invited the Committee to observe a minute's silence.
The Worker member of Argentina declared that, following demands by the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers (ORIT), his office had had to protect certain trade unionists who had been forced to leave their country because of reiterated death threats. He emphasized that the report of the Committee of Experts highlighted that the Congress of the Republic of Colombia had decided to shelve a legislative reform which was aimed at amending legislation in force with a view to bringing it into conformity with ILO standards and to guaranteeing freedom of association for Colombian trade unionists. The situation was all the more serious as workers and trade union leaders were presently deprived entirely of protection. In 1997, 156 workers and trade union leaders had been assassinated and approximately 100 had been forced to leave their homes because of the threats they had been subjected to. The authorities had not manifested any particular intention to investigate the innumerable killings, abductions and other attacks. Progress could not be noted either as regards the functioning of the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights that the Government of Colombia had undertaken to set up. No legislative developments concerning collective bargaining in the public sector could be noted. The trade unions which legitimately opposed employer abuses were subjected to legal repressions. Enterprises resorted to criminal pursuits against trade union leaders which were treated with a certain amount of complacency by the courts. The right to strike had been thwarted, although it was assured in the Constitution. Trade union leaders were dismissed following participation in strikes, and they were wholly unprotected. The Minister of Labour who was conferred with excessive powers that were used in a discretionary and arbitrary fashion, was authorized to declare a strike illegal. As was evident, the Government — contrary to its undertakings — had no interest in protecting the life, security and activities of workers and trade union leaders, nor in making any efforts to modify the legislation. The speaker therefore concurred with the proposals of the Colombian workers and insisted that the violence and the various attacks against human rights in Colombia be halted and that a commission of inquiry be accepted by the Government.
The Worker member of Germany said that he did not wish to go into the individual points since this case concerned the overall situation in Colombia. He pointed out that trade union leaders had been murdered or discriminated against in various ways, therefore this Committee should express its greatest concern about the situation in the country. He pointed out that not only trade union members but also attorneys representing them, had been victimised. This climate of violence was illustrated by the case of Dr. Mendoza, a well known attorney in the field of human rights, who had been murdered on 18 April 1998 in his office in Bogotá. Turning to the Government representative's statement he pointed out that no concrete measures had been taken but that the Government representative had restricted himself to calling the above acts “terrible and criminal”. For this reason the Government representative should be asked to indicate what concrete measures had been taken to remedy the situation in his country.
The Worker member of Iceland, speaking on behalf of the Workers' members of the Nordic countries, indicated that the Colombian Government seemed determined to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87 by taking no measures whatsoever to ensure the proper implementation of this instrument in its country. Once again this Committee had heard terrible stories of violence carried out against trade unionists. A few examples were as follows: in 1997, it had been reported that 156 trade union leaders and members had been murdered in Colombia. The climate of violence still appeared unchanged this year. The Government could say that these murders were isolated incidents of crimes committed by criminal groups and that it could not be held responsible. However, in order to be able to accept this as an explanation, evidence needed to be brought to this Committee to the effect that the Government was doing something to better the situation. Regrettably, nothing seemed to indicate that this was the case. On the contrary, evidence seemed to reveal that instruments of the Government were being used to undermine trade union activity. In March, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had condemned the regional justice system of Colombia for violating guarantees of due process and Amnesty International had expressed serious concerns of a similar nature in its recent report. Therefore the real problem in relation to the failure of the Government to abide by the obligations arising from the ratification of Convention No. 87 seemed to be the complete absence of political will. All over the world, democratic forces and respect for human rights were ensuring the peaceful overthrow of dictatorships and creating a better society for all. In order for such a development to occur, courage was needed; courage to let go of the old system of social repression and courage to allow the people of a country to enjoy their basic human rights. It was quite obvious that such progress and democratic developments could not occur under circumstances such as those that still prevailed in Colombia.
The Worker member of France emphasized the strong feelings that this case aroused and which justified the high number of interventions. He noted that the statement by the Government member of Colombia sought to be reassuring but the facts and realities stood in contradiction thereto. He considered that the basic problem was the absence of the rule of law and of traditional means of law enforcement. The speaker recalled that the promising developments in 1996 (which the ILO contributed to), aimed at amending various provisions in the major labour code had been rejected by the Congress of the Republic. The Minister of Labour was considering the possibility of re-submitting to Congress the above-mentioned provisions amending the labour law. The speaker questioned, however, the credibility of such a proposal, as the Congress of the Republic had already rejected the first draft. The speaker proceeded to recall certain statistics: in 1997, 156 trade union leaders had been assassinated. He noted that this figure included 61 teachers, in addition to the four who had disappeared which represented more than 50 per cent of the murdered trade unionists. He also cited the example of the events that took place on 7 March 1996 when the Secretary-General of the FENSUA-GRO was killed in his office. In addition, he mentioned that on 26 March, the Prosecutor General threatened to arrest eight trade union leaders on charges of forgery of documents and fraud. With reference thereto, the speaker considered that the non-application of Convention No. 87 could only help to serve the paramilitary groups which attacked trade unionists as even the public authorities did not seem to respect the provisions of Convention No. 87.
The Worker member of Spain stated that the principal problems did not concern the legislation or the Constitution, but resided in the absolute impunity enjoyed in relation to the crimes which were being committed. It had been pointed out that not one of those responsible for the offences had been convicted. The commission of inquiry that had been proposed during this discussion could be of use if it was committed, with valour, generosity and courage, to contributing to making peace possible. The ILO and the United Nations could not stand by passively when faced with the violence going on in Colombia. After deploring the massive murders of trade unionists that had recently occurred, he payed homage to the CUT for its struggle in favour of human rights and trade union rights.
The Government member of Norway made the following statement on behalf of 12 countries: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and his own country, Norway. He pointed out that the situation in Colombia had been discussed at the Committee's meeting the previous year. The Committee had expressed profound regret at the climate of violence which affected the lives and physical integrity of trade unionists. He stressed that in recent years Colombia's deepening human rights crises had been the focus of increasing international attention. The Government had not supported the necessary legislative measures in respect of bargaining, as reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts. He supported the Committee of Experts' call for the Government to provide reports clarifying the situation in this regard. However, as serious as these restrictions were, they existed in an overall context of extreme violence, which included many trade unionists among its victims. He expressed his firm hope that substantial progress would soon be noted concerning civil and political rights, which were essential for the exercise of trade union rights, inter alia, through the co-operation with the Office representing the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogotá and with the continued assistance of the ILO. Finally, he expressed the hope that the Government would soon take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention.
The Worker member of Guatemala stated that it was sad and worrying to note that the very year of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87 and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, these instruments remained wholly unapplied in Colombia. The Government did not ensure that the life of its citizens was protected although this was its prime responsibility. In this context, the repression and systematic persecution of the trade union movement in Colombia should be condemned. Impunity and social injustice prevailed in Colombia, without any prospects for improvement. The workers were tired of the unkept promises. The Government representative should clarify which policies it intended to follow, in order to resolve the problems mentioned, to ensure an effective application of Convention No. 87 and to guarantee peace as well as democracy.
The Worker member of the United States stated that given the systemic, structural and chronic violations of freedom of association in Colombia and given the continued barbaric and despicable violations of the physical integrity of trade unionists in Colombia, the United States Workers' delegation joined with the Colombian and other Workers' delegates in demanding the despatch of a commission of inquiry. Anything less would be shamefully inadequate.
The Government representative of Colombia thanked all the speakers who took part in the discussion. He supported the statements made by the workers of various countries when they expressed their solidarity as well as condolences with the Colombian workers and the people of Colombia in general regarding the recent murders of workers perpetrated by paramilitary groups. He also showed his appreciation for the observance of a minute of silence requested by the Workers who wanted to express their discontent with regard to the violence in Colombia. While he noted some inaccuracies in the statements of certain speakers regarding legislative matters, he decided not to comment on those statements since he felt that the main problems were of another nature. Concerning the statements regarding human rights violations, he reiterated that the special body of the United Nations for Human Rights recognized that the Government of Colombia had adopted a set of important policies and measures in the area and defence of human rights. Taking into account this declaration, he considered that the specialized bodies on human rights should be the competent authorities to deal with such issues. Nevertheless, he did not deny the existence of human rights violations in Colombia. In this respect, state agents who had committed such violations had been sanctioned. Moreover, he asked the question as to whether, facing such violence by paramilitary and guerilla groups, other countries would have been able to maintain the state of law as well as Colombia did. Concerning the possibility of declaring unconstitutional certain provisions of the Labour Code, he stated that this was proof of the good will of the Government to comply with the observations of the Committee of Experts. Regarding the Workers' request for the establishment of a commission of inquiry, he hoped that the appropriate procedures would be referred to the Governing Body of the ILO. If the Governing Body were to decide on such a course of action, after an examination of the government reply, he assumed that such a commission of inquiry would receive the cooperation of the Government.
The representative of the Secretary-General answered the Workers' members' request for information on the commission of inquiry. After reading out the relevant provisions of article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO, he indicated that a complaint had to be presented in writing or, in the present case, by a delegate to the International Labour Conference. The Secretary-General of the Conference would subsequently present the complaint to the Officers of the Governing Body, and then to the Governing Body itself for a decision on the receivability of the complaint and on the adoption of any measures considered useful or necessary. In any case, the complaint should identify the facts clearly and indicate which provisions of the Convention or Conventions were allegedly not being fulfilled. In conclusion, he pointed out that this Committee had no competence to pronounce on the admissability of complaints under article 26 of the ILO's Constitution.
The Committee took note of the oral information supplied by the Minister of Labour and the long discussion which followed. The Committee recalled with great concern that the longstanding and major discrepancies between law and practice and the provisions of the Convention had been discussed by the Conference Committee on a number of occasions. It deeply deplored that from the cases brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association it appeared that anti-trade union violence continued, including the death of a great number of union leaders and activists. The Committee expressed its deep concern that the rights regarding the freedom of association Conventions were violated in their very essential aspects. It noted, with regret, that no progress had been made in ensuring greater conformity with the Convention despite the assistance provided by an ILO mission on freedom of association in 1996. The Committee recalled that a Bill was then prepared to repeal and amend a number of provisions which were not compatible with the requirements of the Convention but that this Bill had been shelved by the Congress. The Committee once again urged the Government to take concrete steps to bring the provisions of the Substantive Labour Code and the corresponding decrees, which contradicted Articles 2, 3 and 10, into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It insisted, in particular, on the need to lift the wide powers of supervision over union affairs granted to the administrative authorities, the prohibition on setting up more than one union at the plant level, the excessively high number of Colombian workers required to form a trade union, the important restriction on the eligibility of trade union officials and on the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes for furthering and defending the interests of workers. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the concrete progress made both in law and in practice to ensure the application of this fundamental Convention ratified more than 20 years ago. It took note of the statement made by the Government representative that there was readiness to communicate with the Governing Body if a written complaint for a commission of inquiry was transmitted to the Governing Body.
During the discussion, the Committee observed a minute of silence in memory of those trade unionists who had been murdered in Colombia.
Ecuador (ratification: 1959). A Government representative, Minister of Labour, thanked the Committee for having the opportunity to speak in front of it and declared that there were no problems of violations of workers' rights in Ecuador. The State respected and guaranteed trade union rights and freedom of association could be seen through the existence of bodies devoted to negotiation. He mentioned the following points concerning the draft legislation prepared by the technical assistance mission (referred to in the report of the Committee of Experts) which visited Ecuador in 1997:
– concerning the amendment of the Civil Service and Administrative Act made so that civil servants could establish trade union organizations, he stressed that the workers concerned already had the right to organize. In Ecuador, there was a legislative overlapping between the Act and the Labour Code. The Civil Service Act gave a greater protection to those covered by it vis-à-vis the protection granted to other workers by the Labour Code. If one made the necessary amendments, this would imply in fact a regression. He invited a mission to go to the country to undertake a legal analysis which would confirm that there was an overlap;
– concerning the repeal of section 60(g) of the same Act which prohibited civil servants from striking or supporting or participating in strikes, and from establishing trade unions, he stated that the Ecuadorean Constitution guaranteed the existence of trade unions. There could only be one trade union for each state entity, which did not imply that workers did not benefit from the right to organize. Concerning the right to strike, he stated that if strikes were authorized in the public sector, a minority would endanger the rights of the majority since, unlike in the private sector, there was no question of balancing the forces between employers and workers. Workers enjoyed the right to strike within the existing framework and there was compulsory mediation to resolve problems. He considered that a mission could make a note of this reality and that in this case also, there was an overlapping of legal institutions;
– concerning the requested amendment of section 441 of the Labour Code so that in the event of refusal of registration, the trade union or association in question could appeal to the competent judicial authorities, he pointed out that the Labour Code stipulated that if the Labour Minister did not decide on a request for registration within 30 days, the trade union would be registered automatically. The amendment proposed was a violation of freedom of association;
– concerning the amendment of section 443(11) of the Labour Code to the effect that organizations of a higher level enjoyed the right to express their opinions on the Government's economic and social policies, he stated that there was no trade union which did not have a provision in this respect in their by-laws, and that in Ecuador everyone could express their opinions and provisions were not needed in this regard since this right was enshrined in the Constitution;
– concerning the requirement to be Ecuadorean in order to serve as a trade union official (section 455(4)), he stated that in Ecuador, the right to work was recognized for everyone and he did not know if that right was a labour or a political guarantee. A study needed to be carried out in this respect;
– concerning the amendment of section 461 of the Labour Code on the dissolution by administrative measures of a works committee, he indicated that it was not necessary to appeal to a judicial body. The administrative channels provided for had to be used;
– concerning the minimum service in the event of a strike (section 69 of Act No. 133), he stated that one had to find a clearer text than that which was proposed as an amendment;
– concerning the repeal of Decree No. 105 of 7 June 1967 on unlawful work stoppages and strikes, he pointed out that due to the wording of this Decree and the existing confusion between work stoppages and strikes, this Decree was not applied and was outdated. Being contradictory, it was never applied. There was no positive outcome of the steps taken before Congress to repeal this Decree. Consequently, an action should be instituted so that the judicial authorities declared this Decree to be unconstitutional;
– concerning the need to reduce the minimum number of workers needed to be able to establish associations or works committees, he indicated that it was necessary for a committee to carry out a quantitative statistical study to determine the number which should be fixed;
– concerning the need for civilian workers associated with or dependent on the armed forces to enjoy the right to join trade unions, he stated that a study would have to be carried out of the cases mentioned by the Committee of Experts;
– concerning the deprival of the guarantee of stability to workers who took part in a solidarity strike (section 65 of Act No. 133), he pointed out that in Ecuador, there was no possibility of dismissing workers who respected the provisions pertaining to solidarity strikes;
– concerning the implicit refusal of the right to strike for federations and confederations (section 491 of the Labour Code), he indicated that this refusal did not exist in the legislation. The possibility for works councils to declare a strike under the terms of the Labour Code did not constitute an implicit refusal. If there were no works councils, there was no violation of the right to strike; over 50 per cent of the workers in an enterprise could declare a strike.
Finally, he stated that the Ecuadorean Government was ready to comply with ratified Conventions.
The Employers' members noted that the Government representative had tried — in a strange way — to make this Committee believe that national legislation was in conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 87. The Government representative had not succeeded, especially in light of the report of the Committee of Experts which indicated the contrary. During an ILO mission in 1997, two Bills had been drafted providing for the repeal or amendment of certain legislative provisions which were the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts. The drafting of these two Bills constituted a positive approach to bringing national legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The content of these Bills had been described in detail in the report of the Committee of Experts and pertained essentially to the establishment and registration of trade unions, but also to the right of trade unions to organize their administration and activities as well as their right to express their opinions on the Government's economic and social policies in a peaceful manner. A control system should also have been established.
The question regarding the right to strike had been discussed. While the Employers' members differed from that of the Committee of Experts in this area, that did not prevent States from following the observations made by the Committee of Experts in this domain. In conclusion, it was clear that amendments to legislation should be carried out. For this reason it was surprising that these Bills had not been mentioned at all. On the contrary, the Government representative had tried to show that there had been no need for amendments to legislation which, in the view of the Employers' members, represented an improved situation. Apart from the Committee's stance concerning the right to strike, they endorsed the Experts' view that freedom of association and protection of the right to organize did not exist in Ecuador and that legislative changes were necessary. Therefore the Government should be urged by this Committee to review its current legislation urgently.
The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for the information he had provided. They recalled that this case had been discussed by the Committee on numerous occasions in 1985, 1987, 1988, 1992 and 1993. Several of the matters raised by the Committee of Experts had been dealt with in its report for a long time and had even been the object of special paragraphs in the past (in 1988 and 1989). Since then, several direct contacts missions and technical assistance missions by the ILO had been conducted in Ecuador in order to contribute to bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention. Very limited progress had been made in 1991 through the adoption of Act No. 133 amending the Labour Code. However, very substantial discrepancies between law and practice on the one hand, and the Convention on the other, subsisted. This was why this Committee discussed this case in 1993. Since then, a new mission of technical assistance of the ILO had been conducted in Ecuador from 4-8 September 1997. This mission contributed to the drafting of two Bills aimed at improving the conformity between legislation and the Convention. Since then, however, the Workers' members, as well as the Committee of Experts, had noted that the Government did not refer to these two Bills in its report. On a more serious note, the Government had informed the Committee in its report that Bills dating from 1989 had been taken up again and submitted to Congress. This definitely constituted a large step backwards. The Workers' members could not accept such an attitude. It demonstrated a lack of a true political will to cooperate with the supervisory bodies. The entire Committee had always reacted against such an attitude. Technical assistance and direct contacts missions of the ILO were not intended to serve as a means to gain time. They were intended to promote the application of the Conventions by a thorough examination of the problems and by a search for and implementation of efficient solutions. The Workers' members stressed that the discrepancies between law and practice on the one hand, and the Convention on the other, concerned very important issues. The Committee of Experts recalled them in its report. They included the following: the refusal to grant civil servants and employees in the armed forces the right to associate freely; the lack of efficient and independent remedies against refusals to register a trade union; the high number of members required to set up a trade union which raised concern in a system of enterprise trade unions; the substantial limitations for federations and confederations of the right to take action, including the right to call a strike; and administrative dissolutions of trade unions. Should the Committee of Experts not be able to note real progress before its next session, in particular, by the submission to and adoption by the National Congress of the Bills drafted in September 1997 and accompanying legislation, the present Committee would have to reconsider this case next year. During the Conference in 1999, the Workers' members would request that the conclusions be drafted and presented in a different way in the report. They demanded that the present conclusions reflected the concerns expressed and positions taken.
The Worker member of Ecuador indicated his full agreement with the comments of the Committee of Experts and thanked the Minister of Labour of his country for being present. For several years, observations, comments and direct requests had been addressed to the Government of Ecuador by the Committee and the supervisory bodies with a view to bringing law and practice into conformity with Convention No. 87. Following these demands, the Government had promised on several occasions to take the required measures to adopt the necessary legal reforms. Up until 1990, the comments by the Committee of Experts concerned the following legal provisions: the prohibition for civil servants to set up trade unions, to negotiate collective agreements and to go on strike; the prohibition for trade unions to involve themselves in political or religious activities; the obligation to be Ecuadorean in order to serve as a trade union official; the dissolution by administrative measures of works committees; the imposition of prison sentences on instigators of collective work stoppages and strikes; and the implicit refusal of the right to strike for federations and confederations. The fact that the Government had not honoured its undertakings caused the case of Ecuador to be referred to in special paragraphs in 1983, 1988 and 1989. For its part, the ILO had provided the assistance requested by the Government by way of conducting direct contacts missions in 1985 and 1989, and by way of providing the technical assistance mentioned by the Committee of Experts in its report. The Government had not followed up on any of the recommendations elaborated during these missions and, instead of the expected progress, new laws had been adopted which deteriorated the situation causing a questioning of the seriousness and credibility of the Government before the Conference Committee. In its report of 1991, the Government indicated that six Bills had been submitted to Congress including the Bills to amend the legislation with a view to bringing them into conformity with Convention No. 87. However, a few months after having submitted its report, the Government adopted Act No. 133 containing provisions which violated the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The provisions of this law resulted in comments by the Conference Committee in 1992. More specifically, the comments concerned: the increase of the number of workers required to set up a trade union at the enterprise level which was raised from 20 to 30 (in Ecuador 60 per cent of the enterprises have less than 30 employees); the requirement that strikes be declared 20 days ahead of time; and the obligation that a minimum number of workers should continue to work in the enterprises during strike, which minimum would be determined by the Ministry of Labour should the parties not reach an agreement. This implied that in the public sector the Minister of Labour was at the same time a judge and a party.
In subsequent reports the Government indicated that it would insist that Congress follow up on the relevant draft law. During the months of January, June and July, 1996, however, the restrictions imposed on public servants for the establishment of unions and the negotiation of collective agreements and the declaration of strikes were incorporated in the Constitution. At the same time, a provision stipulating that ”for industrial relations purposes in the public sector the workers will be represented by a unique trade union organization“ was incorporated in the Constitution. Moreover, during September 1997, the Minister of Labour once again asked Congress to study six drafts presented in 1990 including one draft providing for the repeal of Decree No. 105 cited above. Contrary to what was stated by the Minister of Labour, Decree No. 105 was applied to trade union leaders in November 1997. Moreover, on 21 November of the same year, this Decree — which allowed for the imposition of prison sentences in case of paralysis of activities — was raised to the level of a constitutional provision. All these facts demonstrated the absence of the Government's political will to respect the provisions of Convention No. 87 in spite of the recommendations, comments and observations of the Conference. Instead of progress, there had been regression, in spite of the fact that the International Labour Office had invested human resources without obtaining the desired results. The Conference Committee had shown patience and unlimited tolerance and the persistence of such a situation could harm the efficiency of the supervisory machinery of the ILO. The speaker demanded that adequate measures be taken by the Government of Ecuador to modify the constitutional laws which were contradictory to the provisions of Convention No. 87.
The Worker member of Argentina stated that the report of the Committee of Experts contained a detailed analysis of the bills aimed at amending the Act on the Public Service and the Labour Code. While the Government in its report insisted that it had reactivated the procedures concerning these drafts, in November 1997 at an extraordinary session, Congress had adopted an amendment to the Constitution proscribing strikes in essential public sectors, including schools. If one added to that: the fact that public employees were not permitted to form trade unions; and that those who could have, were affected by the Act of 1991 which introduced changes to the minimum number of workers required for the formation of a trade union, the removal of permanent status from workers who engaged in solidarity strikes and the implicit negation of the exercise of the right to strike of federations and confederations, it could be seen that there have been no improvements brought about by the changes to the legislation which limits the full exercise of freedom of association. He therefore supported the legitimate calls of the workers of Ecuador and their trade union representatives.
The Worker member of the United States pointed out that Ecuador had been cited in special paragraphs by this Committee for violations of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 105 in 1987, 1988 and 1989 and that the ILO had sent direct contacts missions to Ecuador in 1985 and 1989. As the most recent report of the Committee of Experts indicated, another ILO mission visited Ecuador on the issue of compliance with Convention No. 87 in September 1997. If one looked at the record as a whole, violations of Convention No. 87 appeared to be continuing and the situation could even be getting worse if one considered certain aspects of the Ecuadorean labour law system. The Committee of Experts stated in its report that two legislative Bills were drafted in Ecuador in September 1997. One of the Bills would have improved the organizational rights of civil servants and given them a right to strike by amending certain sections of the Civil Service and Administrative Career Act. The second Bill would have removed the requirement of Ecuadorean citizenship for trade union leadership eligibility and would have removed individual criminal liability in cases of allegedly unlawful strikes. However, neither of these Bills had been enacted and the Committee of Experts had already expressed its surprise at the failure of the Government to even mention these proposals in a report. Moreover, in his statement to the Committee, the Government representative had not mentioned the enactment of any new legislation.
In any event, even if these two Bills were to be enacted in the near future they would still not remedy some of the most fundamental violations of freedom of association principles. More specifically, the first Bill which would have amended the Civil Service and Administrative Career Act, still maintained a very broad and vague definition of essential services where the right to strike could be prohibited. Moreover, the second Bill's amendment of section 443(11) of the Labour Code which would allow trade union organizations and leaders to peacefully express their opinions on the Government's economic and social policies but not allow them to become involved in political campaigns, would deprive workers of one of the most fundamental forms of free expression and association. Finally, the two Bills, even if enacted, would be entirely overruled by other constitutional and statutory provisions which totally undermined rights of association. For example, in November 1997, the legislative branch of the Ecuadorean Government, in an extraordinary session of Congress, passed constitutional amendments banning strikes in key public services, including schools. Moreover, article 49 of the Ecuadorean Constitution specifically prohibited strike action in the sectors of electrical energy, water, health care, processing, the transport and distribution of combustibles, education, public transport and telecommunications. In addition, nothing in the proposed legislation would directly change the 1991 law which increased the minimum number of workers legally necessary to form unions and work councils from 15 to 30. This law was obviously passed to make unionization at medium and small enterprises even more difficult. The speaker concluded by urging the Government to take due account of what had been stated in the Committee and to ensure that necessary changes were made to the Constitution and legislation to remedy all of the violations of freedom of association which had been mentioned.
The Worker member of Spain thanked the Minister for his presence and for the explanations provided. He noted that the report of the Committee of Experts suggested that draft laws were being elaborated which contained certain improvements with a view to bringing the legislation of Ecuador into conformity with Convention No. 87, but the Government made no mention of these drafts in its report. He further noted that the Government referred to other draft laws, but that it finally decided to shelve them and to adopt a draft which made the situation even worse. He stated that such an attitude was an insult to the intelligence of the members of this Committee and constituted an enormous step backwards. In conclusion he considered that a special paragraph would be appropriate in this case.
The Worker member of Colombia stated that he was deeply concerned by the serious conditions the workers in Ecuador had to face as regards freedom of association. In spite of the efforts by the Minister, it was clear that the situation remained obscure and that legislation in this country was not in conformity with the relevant ILO Conventions. Even so, it would be useful if the ILO could provide the necessary technical assistance to Ecuador to seek to halt the conditions from deteriorating in the near future. It was not appropriate in this case to maintain that legislation in Ecuador was in conformity with the Convention while at the same time referring to Bills aimed at bringing it into conformity. Such statements inevitably evoked misgivings that the Government did not have any coherent policy in this matter. The speaker stated his support of the statement by the Worker representative calling for a re-examination of this case next year.
The Worker member of France noted that the declaration by the Government member of Ecuador was not at all convincing and he still believed that there was much to be done before Convention No. 87 was fully applied in Ecuador. He emphasized that the word for strike did exist in the Constitution of Ecuador and considered that the disdainful tone used by the Ministry of Labour constituted an attack on this Committee. He considered that the declaration by the Minister demonstrated that the violations of Convention No. 87 were real and that they seemed to be becoming more serious. The ongoing privatization in Ecuador provided a rationale. Finally, while he was inclined to ask for a special paragraph concerning this case, he agreed to accept the proposal by the Workers' members requesting a discussion of this case again next year, should no progress be made.
The Government representative of Ecuador thanked the speakers who participated in the discussion. He noted that some of them had referred to the constitutional provision concerning the prohibition of the right to strike. He observed that a reading of the Constitution should be undertaken with great care: it spoke not of strikes but of the paralysis of activities and there was no reference to the right to strike. Under the division of power in Ecuador the Government exercised executive power, and, in this role, it had asked Congress, in May 1998, to consider the draft laws mentioned in the discussion to bring legislation into conformity with the Conventions concerning freedom of association. This was the obligation of the executive branch which did not have the power to legislate. Referring to the draft laws elaborated during the technical assistance mission of 1997, he stated that they had not been adopted because of the legal situation existing in Ecuador. Finally, he stated that the Government of Ecuador was ready to comply with everything that the ILO had put forward for the benefit of the workers and that there were no problems in relations between workers and employers.
The Committee took note of the oral statement made by the Minister of Labour and of the discussion that took place thereafter. The Committee recalled with great concern that the Committee of Experts had been formulating comments on important discrepancies, between national legislation and the Convention, such as the denial of trade union rights for public servants and civilian members of the armed forces, the high number of persons required to form a union, the prohibition on unions from taking part in any form of political activity, the requirement of Ecuadorean nationality to be elected leader of a trade union, the severe restrictions on the right of workers' organizations to formulate their programmes of action for furthering and defending the interests of workers, under penalties of imprisonment, and the administrative dissolution of trade unions. The Committee recalled that this case had been discussed by the Conference Committee on a number of occasions and that a new ILO technical mission went to Ecuador in September 1997 to help prepare draft laws to improve the application of the Convention. It deeply regretted that no mention had been made whatsoever by the Government in its last report of the above-mentioned drafts and that no progress at all had been made. The Committee urged the Government to initiate measures in order to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention at a very early date. It expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a report to the coming session of the Committee of Experts which contained detailed and complete information regarding the measures taken to this effect.
Ethiopia (ratification: 1963). A Government representative of Ethiopia indicated that his Government had responded to all questions and comments made by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association. Hence, he would limit his comments to some of the highlights of his Government's replies. With regard to the request by the Committee of Experts to indicate how teachers' associations, employees of state administration, judges, prosecutors and other categories of employees enjoyed the right to establish and join organizations for the promotion of their occupational interests, his Government had clearly indicated in its previous reports that civil service employees were governed by laws other than the labour law. Moreover, the Constitution of Ethiopia guaranteed civil service employees the right to organize and conclude agreements with their employers. To this effect, civil service reform programmes and specific legislation were under consideration.
The Committee of Experts had also referred to Cases Nos. 1888 and 1908, currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government had also replied to questions raised by the Committee on Freedom of Association. With regard to Case No. 1908 his Government had indicated that the executive office of the Federation of Commerce, Technical and Printing Industry Trade Union (FCTP) had requested the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to provide identity cards for its newly-elected leaders who had replaced those who had left the Federation for their own reasons. The Ministry, as the body responsible for the registration and certification of trade unions and their leaders, issued identity cards after examining the relevant documents. Hence the allegations presented to the Committee on Freedom of Association were unfounded. The Federation had also provided separate explanations to the Committee on Freedom of Association in order to clarify the situation and had requested that the allegation forwarded on its own behalf be rejected. It should also be mentioned that the FCTP was one of the eight federations that reorganized the CETU and that there was no case pending before the court with regard to this matter. Therefore the allegations amounted to sheer fabrication and misrepresentation by former trade union leaders. In this regard, he wished to inform this Committee that the appeal made by the former president of CETU to the Labour Division of the Federal High Court in connection with the cancellation of the registration of the former CETU was rejected by the Court and the Government had already sent the English translation of the court decision to the Committee on Freedom of Association. With regard to Case No. 1888 his Government had also forwarded its observations on all the comments of the Committee on Freedom of Association. In its submission, his Government had mentioned that the former president of ETA and five other persons were detained not for their membership in ETA or other trade union activities but because they were accused of having established a terrorist clandestine organization known as “National Patriotic Front of Ethiopia” and had undertaken an armed insurrection and terrorist activities against the Government and foreign nationals to ferment terror and anarchy in the country. They were arrested and brought to court in accordance with due process of law and their cases were still pending before the Central High Court. With regard to ETA the Constitution of Ethiopia provided that “Every person has the right to freedom of association for any cause or purpose. Organizations formed, in violation of appropriate laws, or to illegally subvert the constitutional order, or which promote such activities are prohibited”. The Constitution also provided that all citizens, organs of state, political organizations, other associations as well as their officials had the duty and responsibilities to ensure observance of the Constitution and to obey it. However, associations set up for anti-social underground political commitments and for performing illegal activities were not accepted.
The most saddening situation was that the profession and the association had been abused by some members of ETA like Dr. Taye Woldesmiate. Since the Ethiopian Teachers' Association considered ETA to be the only organization of its kind and preferred to lead a hidden political agenda and terrorist activities, it was evident that legal action had to be taken. As such the Government of Ethiopia had neither the right, nor the interest to interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions or other associations. In addition, the question of funds and properties of ETA was before the competent court and his Government would inform the Committees when a decision was handed down. Similarly, the allegation that former ETA members were dismissed unfairly was totally baseless. The true state of affairs was that Ethiopian teachers took the initiative to reconstitute their association and elect new leaders. Normally, when newly-elected leaders take over the responsibility of an association, the former leaders had the right to go back to their former jobs. However, the former leaders of ETA did not choose to follow this pattern. As per their decision and choice, they remained out of jobs and the Ethiopian Government should not be blamed for such actions wilfully taken by these individuals.
With regard to the allegations, he explained that educational institutions functioned autonomously with the necessary authority, responsibility and accountability. Accordingly, universities and colleges could hire their teaching staff on merit and could fire them, when the need arose, for dereliction of duty, incompetence and other failures. These educational institutions had full-fledged academic freedom and had their own salary scale. Neither the Ministry of Education nor any other body could interfere in any decision made by the administrative body of the universities and colleges. Moreover, the teaching staff had full rights to be members of, or participate in, leadership bodies of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association (ETA). Their job security was maintained so long as they performed their duties and responsibilities. In closing, he reiterated the commitment of his Government to promote and fully respect the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the federal Constitution and the international treaties that Ethiopia had ratified.
The Workers' members pointed out that the last occasion on which Ethiopia was examined under Convention No. 87 in this Committee was in 1992. At that time, the representative of the transitional Government announced the very welcome news that the country was experiencing a new era of peace and democracy. The transitional Government had issued a Democratic Charter which guaranteed, among other things, freedom of association, and it was also in the process of preparing a new Labour Code. A draft had already been prepared providing that workers could organize without interference from the public authorities. In particular, a single trade union system was no longer imposed, and the right to strike was recognized. However, as the Committee of Experts noted in its report, teachers were excluded from the scope of the application of Labour Proclamation No. 42/1993. Furthermore, a new law governing employees of the state administration, judges, prosecutors and others, which was expected to come into effect, had not yet been introduced.
At the same time as the new legislation was adopted in 1993, and when it appeared that there was now space for democratic freedoms, the practice of freedom of association in Ethiopia began to suffer new, immediate and severe setbacks. Firstly, by the end of 1994, the Ministry of Labour had cancelled the registration of the national trade union centre, the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions, (CETU), because the Confederation had opposed the Government's harsh structural adjustment policy. CETU's offices were sealed, its bank accounts were frozen and its vehicles were immobilized. Although the High Court made two rulings ordering the Government to reopen the headquarters, unfreeze the bank accounts and reinstate Confederation property, the Government ignored the High Court rulings. The Government then began to encourage a breakaway faction in the national Confederation with a view to turning it into a pro-Government organization, and indeed it succeeded in this. In the second place and beginning in 1993, the Ethiopian Teachers' Association (ETA) began to face severe harassment and government interference in its affairs. The Government registered and recognized a breakaway group from the ETA which it could control, thereby effectively suspending the authentic ETA. It closed the ETA's bank account and the bank accounts of its regional offices. It closed down the regional offices. The Government transferred union dues to the breakaway group. Twenty ETA members, including all the union leaders were dismissed. Hundreds of teachers were transferred. In December 1994, the Government ignored a court ruling ordering it to recognize the democratically-elected ETA. The judge who made the ruling was dismissed shortly afterwards. The Government appealed against the decision — which was adjourned until July 1998. On 19 March 1996, security forces invaded and ransacked the ETA head office. An executive committee member, Abata Angore, was beaten and detained for over one month. The union's president, Dr. Taye Woldesmiate, was arrested on 29 May 1996. His home was raided and belongings were taken. Dr. Woldesmiate was imprisoned in solitary confinement and for several months his hands were shackled for 24 hours a day. He was not allowed to see a lawyer nor his family until August that year when he was charged with conspiracy against high-level government personnel. Dr.Taye Woldesmiate was still in prison today although two of the most serious charges against him were dismissed by the High Court in February 1997. The remaining trumped up charge concerned incitement to armed uprising. At a hearing of the case against Dr. Woldesmiate in July 1997, two other defendants with the same charges said that the police had tried to make them incriminate him. In October 1997, another co-defendant said that he had been tortured to force him into incriminating Dr. Woldesmiate. On 8 May 1997, the police killed a member of the ETA executive council, Mr. Assefa Maru, who, it seemed they had intended to arrest. The Government refused to hold a public inquiry into the killing. Shortly afterwards, the ETA office in Addis Ababa was ransacked by police and security forces and 34 union members were detained. State-owned television subsequently attempted to link ETA executive committee members with an illegal terrorist organization. The ETA general secretary fled the country, fearing for his life. During the next few days, some 70 ETA members and other teachers were detained around the country for signing a letter denouncing the Government's repression against trade union and human rights organizations. In its reply to the Committee on Freedom of Association, which examined two complaints against the Government of Ethiopia in November 1997, the Government was unable to make any specific comments on a number of grave allegations in respect to the ETA, in particular the allegation that Assefa Maru was killed by the police.
The third specific aspect of government interference concerned the Federation of Commerce, Technical and Printing Industry Trade Unions — a member of the CETU. The union had been experiencing constant harassment and interference from the authorities who wished to silence this and other federations affiliated to the national Confederation. In November 1996, members of the Government, backed by police and security officials, forced their way into the offices of the union. The union's treasurer, Mulatu Gurmu, was brutally assaulted. The elected leaders of the Federation were forcibly removed from office in 1996. The vice-secretary of the union was forced to flee the country in March 1997 after four attempts on his life and several police raids on his home during the night. By 1997, the national Confederation, CETU, was reorganized and held a congress on 22-24 April. Its headquarters and bank accounts were reopened. The Government registered the new organization in May 1997. It was curious, that on 24 April 1997, the last day of the CETU congress, the High Court confirmed the Ministry of Labour's 1994 decision to cancel the original CETU's registration. CETU's former president and other executive members fled the country in April 1997 fearing for their lives.
The Workers' members had many concerns in respect of this case. They included several aspects of the law, including the broad powers it appeared to give the Ministry of Labour, the application of the law in practice and the violent and repressive actions and attitude of the Government. Hence, the Workers' members wanted conclusions in the strongest possible terms in order to send the correct message in this case, and they wished to have the opportunity to come back to it next year for continued failure to implement the provisions of the Convention. They asked the Government to indicate whether it would be willing to receive assistance from the ILO in the above-mentioned matters unless there was substantial progress.
The Employers' members pointed out that this case contained problems in law and in practice. The Labour Proclamation of 1993 excluded teachers from its scope of application. In consequence, teachers' associations could not promote or protect their occupational interests. Moreover, on several prior occasions the Government had announced that new legislation governing employees of state administration, judges, prosecutors and the like would be enacted in the near future. However, the Government representative had not provided any information on when and to what extent this new legislation would be enacted. Turning to the exercise of freedom of association in practice, the Employers' members noted that trade union leaders had been removed and that the Government had appealed a judgement rendered by the High Court upholding the claims made by the leadership of the Ethiopian Teachers Association (ETA) that they represented Ethiopian teachers. This information illustrated the non-application of the principles set out in Convention No. 87. As a result, national legislation should first of all be reviewed and amended in order to comply with the provisions of Convention No. 87. Moreover, the Government should be urged to supply full and detailed information on the questions raised in the report of the Committee of Experts.
The Worker member of Swaziland indicated that this was a very serious case where fundamental rights were grossly violated: where the process of justice was obstructed; where the rule of law was not respected by the Government; where human life had no value; where job security had no meaning; where property rights were not respected; where there was no freedom of association; and where the operative word was adapt or die. The Government representative himself admitted guilt when he stated that the funds and property of CETU were in the custody of the competent authorities. This simply was not acceptable. When the CETU challenged the confiscation of its moveable and immoveable property, as well as the sealing of its offices before the High Court, a decision in its favour was obtained which was subsequently ignored by the Government. Consequently the speaker urged for the maximum condemnation of the Government within the authority of this Committee.
The Worker member of New Zealand wished to focus on the treatment of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association (ETA) which was an affiliate of Education International. What had emerged from the ETA experience parallelled what had happened to the Federation of Commerce, Technical and Printing Industry Trade Unions (FCTP) and the former Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions (CETU). It confirmed a pattern of systematic interference in trade union affairs and the use of state force against any trade union leader or activist who questioned any aspect of Ethiopian government policy.
In the past year, repression against ETA leaders had intensified. For example, on 8 May 1997, the Ethiopian police killed Mr. Assefa Maru, Assistant Secretary of ETA. This occurred at 8.20 a.m. as he walked to work. He was carrying no weapons, he put up no resistance and he did not try to run away. The Government had refused to hold a public inquiry into the killing. Another example related to ETA President, Dr. Taye Woldesmiate, who had been imprisoned for over two years. Two of the most serious charges against him had been dismissed by the Federal High Court on 28 February 1997. He remained in prison, however, pending the determination of the remaining charge relating to armed uprising. Dr.Taye Woldesmiate had always maintained his complete innocence of all charges. At the most recent hearings of his case, testimony was received from two co-accused about police efforts to get them to incriminate the ETA President, including the use of torture.
Furthermore, a rival group encouraged by the Government had instituted an appeal against the court decision which found that Dr. Taye Woldesmiate and the current Executive Council of ETA were the legitimately-elected leaders of ETA and entitled to access its properties and bank accounts. This appeal was constantly being adjourned with no decision. Moreover, she had been informed that the judge who had initially ruled in ETA's favour, was dismissed shortly after doing so. As a result, other judges were trying to avoid having to deal with the case at least until ETA had been completely crushed. Two months ago ETA's bank account was handed over to the rival group. Other acts of harassment of ETA members included the use of an evaluation system of teachers by non-professionals, and in particular, by members of the governing party who assessed teachers' work in the classroom. Refusal to talk with ETA, let alone consult or have negotiations on the issue demonstrated the extent of political interference throughout the education system. Despite all these difficulties, ETA still commanded considerable support from teachers throughout Ethiopia. In February 1998, a very successful executive council meeting and workshop were held with elected representatives from all but two of Ethiopia's provinces. The speaker emphasized that ETA did not, as claimed by the Government, support any terrorist organization. It simply wanted to be able to survive and organize its members and bargain with the appropriate authorities at the provincial and federal levels.
In conclusion, the speaker requested that the Committee urge the Government to first of all condemn the police killing of Mr. Assefa Maru and set up an independent and public inquiry into his death. Moreover, the Government should be urged to recognize the elected leadership of ETA; reinstate all dismissed ETA members with pay; give ETA access to its own bank account and return the funds that were handed over to the rival group; and cease harassment of ETA, its leaders and members. Finally, the Committee should urge the Government to reopen dialogue with ETA as offered by the Prime Minister and offer the services of the ILO to provide technical support on the implementation of Convention No. 87.
A Worker member of Germany agreed with the interventions already made on this case. Referring to the general discussion on the report of the Joint ILO/UNESCO Committee of Experts on the Application of the Recommendations concerning the Status of Teachers, he stated that one case in question, namely Case No. 1888 of the Committee on Freedom of Association, had also been presented in the ILO/UNESCO joint report. Quoting the main findings of the ILO/UNESCO Committee on this case, he asked the Government representative how an education system could develop, if its representatives, namely the teachers, had been dismissed, persecuted, abducted and murdered.
The Worker member of the Netherlands indicated that he had been in Ethiopia from 18-22 May, 1998 to participate in a large international conference responsible for establishing an Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and an Ombudsman which the Government was obliged to set up under the new Ethiopian Constitution. After making a general statement on violations of trade union rights in Ethiopia to this Conference, the speaker had drawn its attention to the conclusions and recommendations drawn up by the Committee on Freedom of Association at its meeting in November 1997 in respect of Cases Nos. 1888 and 1908 on Ethiopia. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Conference who was the Speaker of the Ethiopian Parliament, responded by dismissing the conclusions as unsubstantiated lies even when informed subsequently that these conclusions were contained in an ILO Governing Body report and not a trade union report. The speaker was curious to know what the Government representative had to say in respect of the above incident.
The Worker member of Ethiopia pointed out that Ethiopian workers had gone through a series of ups and downs for years to fight for their rights and benefits, especially in respect of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. Nevertheless, the Government had not been willing to pay attention to these pertinent issues till the collapse of the military regime and the establishment of the new Government in 1991. New labour laws were promulgated thereafter and the new Labour Proclamation of 1993 enabled workers to organize their unions freely and independently. Unfortunately, the then leadership of the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions (CETU) failed almost immediately after its formation. One reason for this crisis situation was that there was misunderstanding and lack of trust between the leaders of the former CETU. The most important reason, however, was that the then leadership violated the autonomy of its affiliated industrial federations. The presidents, secretary-generals and treasurers of six of the nine industrial federations, were illegally suspended from the General Council by the President of CETU and a handful of his collaborators. Hence the main reason for the failure of the former CETU leadership resided in its dictatorial nature. Decisions on many important labour issues had been made in the absence of consultation due to the serious problems encountered in CETU's leadership and Ethiopian workers had had to go without a national centre for almost three years. However, eight of the nine industrial federations subsequently formed a coordinating committee to reorganize CETU and this committee had carried out a series of campaigns throughout the country to reach out to all members at the grass-roots level. In addition, the coordinating committee had organized a conference for all trade union representatives to examine the root cause of the union's problems and to resolve them. Further to discussions, trade union leaders and members decided to reorganize the Confederation. The coordinating committee called the Eighth General Congress in April 1997. The Congress adopted a revised Constitution and the Confederation was reorganized democratically and independently in the presence of, amongst others, representatives of the ILO, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU). This newly-established Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions had prepared a series of training programmes and organized workshops to make workers aware of their rights and benefits. It had also tried to organize its members so that they could negotiate collective agreements with employers. Moreover, these workshops and seminars had assisted members of the newly-established Confederation in proposing amendments to existing labour laws. In particular, the Confederation had put forward an important proposal to amend the 1993 Labour Proclamation to extend the right to organize to teachers and public servants. Hence the Government had been requested to improve existing labour laws with the full participation of workers. The newly-established Confederation had also been fighting against the unfair dismissal of workers by certain companies. In conclusion, the newly-established Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions had been working and would continue to work to safeguard the interests of its members. In this regard, it would continue to cooperate with the ILO until workers' rights were fully respected and ILO Conventions applied fully in Ethiopia.
The Government representative thanked all the speakers who had intervened although only a few had presented the true state of affairs in Ethiopia. With regard to the charges pending against Dr. Woldesmiate he indicated that the outcome of the court decision in this respect would be communicated to the ILO as soon as it was handed down. With regard to the alleged incident between the police and Mr. Assefa Maru, he explained that the latter had refused to surrender and therefore had died in the ensuing exchange of fire. The circumstances of this incident had not been correctly established by previous speakers. The true picture was that the situation of human rights had improved in Ethiopia. He concluded by stating that his Government valued the respect of ILO standards and welcomed any future ILO assistance to his country.
The Government representative assured the Worker member of the Netherlands that the statement alleged to have been made by a Government official concerning a report of an ILO supervisory body was certainly not the view held by the Ethiopian Government.
The Committee noted the statement made by the Government representative and the discussions which took place thereafter. It recalled that the Committee of Experts had expressed its concern about allegations pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association which concerned the forced removal of elected trade union leaders and the direct nomination by administrative authorities of members of the executive committees of these trade unions, as well as the cancellation of registration of a trade union confederation. It further deplored from the discussion that the Government had not yet re-recognized a teachers' association leadership despite a court decision to do so, and recalled the Committee of Experts' request for information on the manner in which teachers' associations could promote their occupational interests given their exclusion from the scope of the labour proclamation. The Conference Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would reopen the dialogue with the Ethiopian Teachers' Association. Furthermore, the Committee observed with deep concern that the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association also related to detentions of trade union leaders without trial. The Committee strongly urged the Government to take without delay all the necessary steps to ensure that workers' organizations were able to elect their representatives and organize their administration and activities free from interference by the public authorities in accordance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee urged the Government to supply a detailed report for the next session of the Committee of Experts on the concrete measures taken to ensure full conformity with the Convention both in law and practice.
Myanmar (ratification: 1955). The Government has supplied the following information:
This report is to fulfil the Government's reporting obligation in relation to the above Convention for the past years ending 1 September 1997. With regard to the above Convention, the Government informs the Committee of Experts that the Draft Trade Union Laws have been reviewed at several sittings of the Central Laws Scrutiny Body. Further action will be taken after the draft legislation has been returned to the Ministry of Labour from the Central Body along with its views and recommendations. The existing labour law reviewing process should be totally demarcated from that of the Socialist era which took place from 1962 to 1988.
In addition, a Government representative drew the attention of the Committee to the progress report submitted by his delegation at the 85th Session of the Conference. He said that, in compliance with the remarks and recommendations made by the Central Laws Scrutiny Body on the draft trade union law submitted to it by the Department of Labour, the Labour Law Reviewing Committee of the Ministry of Labour had made the necessary modifications and redrafting over the past year. Moreover, as recommended by the Central Laws Scrutiny Body, the Department of Labour had extensively sought views and comments on the redrafted trade union law from the concerned parties, which included workers' welfare associations and employers' organizations, such as the Union of Myanmar Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and various representatives from public and private enterprises. The numerous technical points in the redrafted version of the trade union law evidently required thorough consideration by the concerned parties. The replies which had been received from some of these organizations had been compiled and collated. When replies had been received from all the organizations, a revised draft would be submitted by the Labour Law Reviewing Committee to the Central Laws Scrutiny Body. The review and redrafting process was being undertaken in anticipation of the emergence of a new state Constitution which would ensure the protection of workers through the enactment of the necessary labour laws. However, he warned that the process of adopting legislation took time, especially in the case of labour laws, which required tripartite consultations. He emphasized in that connection that the workers in the country were currently well protected by the existing laws, which had been enacted several decades ago but still reflected the provisions of the ILO Conventions ratified by the country. Although, as pointed out by the Committee of Experts, there existed a few discrepancies between the Convention and national laws, these could be rectified in the new labour laws. With regard to the right to freedom of association, there were more than 2,000 workers' welfare associations in the country, which were grass-roots level associations that looked after the general well-being and interests of the workers. In conclusion, he stated that the efforts to review and redraft existing labour laws were directed towards the observance of the provisions of the Conventions which had been ratified by the country.
The Workers' members noted with sadness that, in taking up this case once again on the 50th anniversary of the Convention, it dramatically illustrated the distance that still needed to be travelled in many countries throughout the world for freedom of association to be truly respected in both law and practice. It was hard to believe that the Committee had felt it necessary to review Myanmar's failure to apply the Convention on 12 occasions in the last 17 years, and now for the eighth year in succession. On five occasions, the Committee had been compelled to place its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report. Moreover, in 1996 and 1997, the Committee had cited Myanmar's continued failure to apply the Convention in a special paragraph. It should not be forgotten that Myanmar had also merited three other special paragraphs since 1982 for failure to apply other ratified Conventions, that an article 24 representation on forced labour had been accepted by the Governing Body in 1993, followed by the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry in 1997 to investigate an article 26 complaint concerning the widespread use of forced labour by Myanmar. This very dubious record set Myanmar apart as one of the most long-standing, widespread and egregious violators of basic workers' rights and international labour standards in the history of the ILO. Furthermore, the Government continued to show its utter disdain for the application of the standards machinery by its refusal to submit reports to the Committee of Experts, despite repeated requests. The Committee of Experts had expressed its “profound regret” at not having received a single report from the Government for over three years. In addition, a direct contacts mission, which was to have taken place in May 1996, had been cancelled by the Government at the last minute with no real explanation as to why. The Government had expressed no interest whatsoever in rescheduling the mission. The same lack of cooperation had been exhibited
by the Government earlier this year when it had refused to allow the Commission of Inquiry to enter the country to investigate the allegations of forced labour. Finally, Myanmar's continuing disdain for the proceedings of the supervisory bodies was in evidence once again today, given the total lack of sincerity and substance contained in the Government representative's remarks, which amounted to no more than a repetition of what it had said in the past.
The Committee of Experts had noted that for the past 40 years it had been urging the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the right of workers to establish, without previous authorization, and join first-level unions, federations and confederations of their own choosing for the furtherance and defence of their own interests, and to ensure that such union structures had the right to affiliate to international organizations. However, all this had been to no avail. The fact remained that, notwithstanding the comments of the Government representative, there was no trade union law in Myanmar and no legal structure whatsoever to protect freedom of association. Although the adoption of the necessary legislation evidently took time, as pointed out by the Government representative, no progress in this respect had been made for the past 40 years. The military junta had issued a decree in 1988, shortly after it had massacred several thousands of its own citizens, called the Law on the Formation of Associations and Organizations, under which unions had to obtain permission from the Ministry of Home and Religious Affairs before they could be established. The Law stated that the associations and other organizations that it covered would be disbanded if they attempted, incited, encouraged or assisted in undermining the prevalence of law and order, local peace and security, and the smooth and secure operations of transport and communications. The consequence for workers in the country was the total lack of any legal protection concerning freedom of association. Indeed, in June 1997, within days of the examination of the case by this Committee, two members of the Executive Committee of the Federation of Trade Unions — Burma, namely Myo Aung Thant and Khin Kyaw, had been arrested in the country, both of whom had been designated prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International. Myo Aung Thant, a member of the All Burma Petro-Chemical Corporation Union, formed during the 1988 pro-democracy movement, had been arrested at the airport in Rangoon, along with his wife and children. Amnesty International reported that it was not known if they were still in custody. Myo Aung Thant had been charged with high treason among other things. At a secret trial conducted last August, he had been convicted to transportation for life, plus ten years, three years of which was for violating the Law on the Formation of Associations and Organizations. Another trade unionist, Khin Kyaw, from the underground Seamen's Union of Burma, had not been seen since his arrest a year ago by his family or his lawyer, and his whereabouts were unknown. Amnesty International had written that it feared for his safety given the harsh conditions and high incidence of torture in Myanmar's prisons. The Workers' members called on the Government representative to provide the Committee with an account of the situation of Khin Kyaw. For many years, the Workers' members had been raising the matter of the seafarers of Myanmar and had been asking the Government to confirm that they were no longer forced to sign contracts obliging them not to contact international trade union organizations and that they would no longer be harassed and intimidated if they exercised their rights in accordance with the Convention. The response of the Government could be seen in the arrest of Khin Kyaw.
There were reports of growing worker unrest throughout the country, due to the increasing economic hardship and the absolute refusal of the Government to allow workers to organize unions, rather than workers' welfare associations, as mentioned by the Government representative. Attempts to organize unions had been made at a number of workplaces and the Workers' members had been shown a list of workers who had been dismissed for their efforts. However, this information could not be shared with the Committee out of concern for the safety of these courageous workers. In conclusion, the Workers' members warned the Government that changing the name of the military junta that ran the country from the State Law and Order Restoration Council to the State Peace and Development Council, hiring expensive public relations firms to improve its international image or retaining well-known lobbyists in Washington and elsewhere in an attempt to influence policy towards Myanmar would not end the country's pariah status as one of the world's worst abusers of human and workers' rights. What was needed was profound change without any further delay which recognized the will of the Burmese people, as expressed in the 1990 parliamentary elections, and which respected once and for all the right of workers to organize into unions of their own choosing in compliance with the Convention. Anything less would be simply unacceptable and the Workers' members urged the Committee, as it had in the past, to express this view in the strongest possible terms.
The Employers' members agreed with the Workers' members in noting the absence of any progress in a case which had already been discussed several times, had been the object of a special paragraph in the report of the Committee on several occasions and had been cited last year as a case of continued failure to apply the Convention. The facts remained unchanged and the Government's reporting had become increasingly meaningless, even when it provided a report which it had not done for the past three years. The Government had very clearly demonstrated its refusal to cooperate with the supervisory bodies. It had, moreover, cancelled a direct contacts mission which had been planned. The situation remained unchanged in law and in practice. The cases cited by the Workers' members amply demonstrated that the Government was not prepared to allow workers to join organizations of their own choosing or to let organizations affiliate to national or international federations. When reminded of the obligations set forth in the Convention, the Government responded in bad faith. The Government representative had referred to a draft law which it said had been distributed to many bodies for comments. It had already claimed many years ago that a draft law would correct the situation; such a statement now was very hard to believe. The Committee should therefore note once again that the situation remained very far from complying with the requirements of the Convention and regretted that it could not note any progress. It should once again require that measures be finally taken by the Government to honour its commitments.
The Government member of the United Kingdom, also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden, expressed his dissatisfaction with the written information submitted by the Government. The submission of such an inadequate document at such a late stage could only be seen as an attempt to frustrate the work of both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee and to delay a detailed and up-to-date examination of the case. This behaviour reflected the flagrant disregard of the Government for its international obligations and was one more symptom of the lack of democratic reform and respect for human rights in the country. He noted in this respect the recent resolution adopted by consensus in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (resolution 1998/63) which highlighted the widespread use of forced and child labour in the country. He therefore urged the ruling State Peace and Development Council to cooperate fully in allowing the ILO access to the country to monitor and advise on the labour situation. He strongly supported the conclusion of the Committee of Experts that the national authorities should take immediate steps to guarantee genuine freedom of association. Bearing in mind the special paragraph adopted by the Committee on the case last year, he asked the Government representative to account for his Government's continued failure to implement this fundamental Convention.
The Worker member of France regretted that it was possible to be brief on the subject of freedom of association in Myanmar since, as in the case of all other basic freedoms, it did not exist. Workers were extremely concerned at the systematic repression of the military regime. Its methods included forced labour, imprisonment, torture and disappearances. Under such circumstances, the Government representative referred to the consultations which had been taking place for one-and-a-half years for the elaboration of a new Constitution. However, those being consulted had been designated by the Government itself. Those elected in the 1990 elections were the only legitimate representatives with the right to adopt a new Constitution and the argument advanced by the military regime that a legislative process had been launched with a view to the observance of the ratified Conventions fooled no one. The statement of the Government representative had been vague and contained no new information. In view of the practices of the authorities, as described in the report of the Committee of Experts, these were not in good faith. Faced with massive and systematic violations of human rights and a non-responsive Government, it was undoubtedly necessary to look beyond the law and express solidarity with the peaceful and courageous people of the country, and help them recover the freedom which had been taken from them and put an end to their suffering.
The Worker member of Italy emphasized that no change, however slight, had occurred in the country, except in the name of the ruling Council. The situation in which the basic trade union rights of workers were constantly violated gave rise to great concern by trade unions throughout the world at the national and international levels. It was totally intolerable that a Member of the ILO refused to supply reports on the implementation of fundamental Conventions relating to freedom of association. Moreover, the country also violated other basic human rights through the persecution, arrest and torture of workers. The national authorities should therefore take immediate concrete steps to resolve the unacceptable situation. She recalled that trade unions at the European and international levels had been exerting pressure for practical measures to be taken and had succeeded in obtaining the suspension of the European system of preferences for the country. Governments and employers throughout the world should show consistency with the position adopted in this Committee and should take such concrete measures as discontinuing their business and other relations with the country. The European Community should also maintain the withdrawal of its system of preferences.
The Government member of the United States expressed strong support for the statement by the Government member of the United Kingdom and reaffirmed her Government's long-standing grave concern about the situation as regards freedom of association in the country. It was an understatement to say that this was a serious case. For years, the members of the Committee had been hearing from the Burmese Government about its commitment to uphold the principles of the ILO, its intention to revise its labour legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention or, on other occasion, its desire for ILO assistance. However, its commitment had not been translated into practice, its intentions had never turned into reality and it had largely avoided ILO assistance and monitoring. Once again, as on so many occasions in the past, it was necessary to note with deep regret that there was in effect no genuine freedom of association in the country. Those who wished to undertake independent trade union activities were kept under constant surveillance by the police and the military and lived in permanent fear of arrest and torture. It was sad to note that there was a fundamental absence of respect for human rights in the country which went well beyond trade union rights. The inevitable conclusion in these circumstances was that the Burmese authorities had complete contempt for their international obligations under the Convention, no concern for the recommendations of the ILO, the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and, worst of all, that they displayed utter disregard for the rights of their own citizens. It was difficult to conceive of a conclusion that could motivate the Government to take the sincere, concrete measures that had been recommended for over 40 years. She therefore trusted that the Committee would not fail to note in the strongest possible terms its profound concern at the Government's persistent and deplorable failure to implement the fundamental right of freedom of association in law and in practice.
The Worker member of Japan noted that, as in the past, the Government representative had provided no new information or examples to support its claims that action was being taken. Its statement amounted to no more than contempt for the ILO supervisory system. There was no freedom of activity for the trade union movement in the country and indeed the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma, set up in 1991, had no choice but to remain outside the country. Amnesty International and the ICFTU had confirmed that trade union activists were always under surveillance by the police and military intelligence services and that they lived under the threat of arrest and torture. Yet, when the Convention had been drafted 50 years ago, the Government had served as a member of the Committee which drafted the Convention and had at that time played a role of which it could be proud. In contrast, it was now one of the most serious violators of international standards. The Government therefore needed to regain its pride of 50 years ago and make far-reaching changes to the situation as rapidly as possible.
The Worker member of Pakistan recalled that Myanmar was a beautiful country with a hard-working people. Unfortunately, its denial of fundamental trade union and human rights was affecting the development of the country. On the many occasions that the Committee had discussed the case, the Government representative had stated that specific measures were being taken to give effect to ratified Conventions. However, these statements were placed in their proper context by the failure even to supply the necessary reports. Moreover, serious violations continued to occur in the country of other fundamental Conventions, such as Convention No. 29 on forced labour. The previous year, the Government representative had expressed the hope that amendments would be adopted to the relevant legislation, but trade unionists were still held in detention and their rights denied. At the end of the twentieth century, it was no longer possible for countries to deny public opinion and refuse to establish democratic systems. He therefore urged the Government to take the necessary measures to establish a democratic system which would enable the people of the country to participate in economic and social development.
The Government representative said that he had listened with great patience to the views that had been expressed. He appealed for the understanding of the members of the Committee. It took time to enact the necessary legislation, particularly where tripartite consultation was required, as in the present case. Laws which were passed hastily would not stand the test of time or changing circumstances. As he had stated, the draft trade union law had been submitted to the Central Laws Scrutiny Body. It was therefore going through the legislative process which had to be followed, as in every other country. Once adopted, the new law would take into account the provisions of the Convention and the principles of the new state Constitution that was currently being formulated. If the Government had had no intention of complying with the provisions of the Convention, it would not have undertaken the process required for the formulation of such legislation in consultation with the parties concerned. In response to a number of the specific cases raised by members of the Committee, he reaffirmed that, as in every other country, when persons were in breach of the law the necessary measures needed to be taken under the terms of the Penal Code, which had been drafted in his country in the late nineteenth century, before independence. He also stated that the issues relating to seafarers had been resolved in 1996. It should therefore be understood that the Government was doing its best, within the confines of national procedure, to comply with the recommendations made and should therefore be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It was undertaking major programmes, such as the development of a new state Constitution, in consultation with the representatives of all strata of society. Finally, he recalled that the official name of his country, as recognized by the United Nations, was the Union of Myanmar.
The Committee noted the written information communicated by the Government, the statement made by the Government representative and the detailed discussion which took place thereafter. It recalled that this case had been discussed by the Committee consistently for over a decade in 1987, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. The Committee could not but deplore the fact that no government report had been received by the Committee of Experts on the application of this fundamental Convention for over three years, despite the repeated calls upon the Government by this present Committee including, in the last two years, in special paragraphs for continued failure to apply the Convention. The Committee was once again obliged to express its profound regret that serious divergencies between the national legislation and practice, on the one hand, and the provisions of the Convention, on the other, continued to exist and deplored the absence of cooperation on the part of the Government in this regard. Extremely concerned over the total absence of progress in the application of this Convention, the Committee once again strongly urged the Government to adopt, as a matter of urgency, the measures and mechanisms necessary to guarantee, in legislation and in practice, to all workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever and without previous authorization, the right to join organizations of their own choosing to protect their interests and the right to affiliate to federations, confederations and international organizations, without interference from the public authorities. The Committee also strongly urged the Government to make, without delay, substantial progress in the application of the Convention in law and practice in the very near future and urged the Government to supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts this year. With the agreement of the Employers' and Workers' members, the Committee once again decided that its conclusions would figure in a special paragraph of its report and to mention this case among the cases of continued failure to implement Convention No. 87.
Pakistan (ratification: 1951). A Government representative indicated that Pakistan was a developing country with myriad problems. It was faced with an extremely difficult economic situation due to multiple factors including a difficult geostrategic situation. Despite such deep-rooted impediments his Government had made every effort to implement the obligations voluntarily undertaken by ratifying ILO Conventions. His Government wished to continue to cooperate with the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee and used the comments of both bodies to improve the implementation of existing laws. With regard to the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the Convention, he provided the following observations. In order to bring all the labour laws into conformity with this Convention through a process of consultation and consensus building among the social partners, a commission was being set up to carry out this important task. Moreover, as had been noted by the Committee of Experts concerning the right to organize for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTCV) and of the Civil Aviation Authority, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a decision dated 2 July 1997, had allowed union activities in the PTCV. In compliance with the Supreme Court decision, the PTCV was developing a parallel legal framework to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO) to regulate relations between the employers and employees of the PTCV on an equitable basis. In addition, although the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) had been excluded from the purview of the IRO in 1979, the Government was convinced that this restriction should be done away with and the issue was likely to be resolved in a new labour policy. Furthermore the Civil Aviation Authority had also framed regulations in pursuance of the judgement of the Supreme Court and they were at an approval stage. A referendum in the Civil Aviation Authority had already been held pending approval of these regulations. Regarding the amendments to the Banking (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1986, the speaker pointed out that this issue had been the subject of intense debate. Some bank employees' unions had challenged section 27-B in the High Courts since it did not allow a worker to become a member or officer of any union in a bank if he or she was not an employee of the bank in question. Two of these writ petitions had been decided by the High Courts. The Lahore High Court had held that the use of bank vehicles and telephones could not be claimed as a basic right under article 17 of the Constitution and as such section 27-B did not violate the Constitution and could not be declared as invalid. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition against section 27-B and did not find the amendment contrary to the Constitution. Judgement on the remaining petitions was awaited and the matter was thus sub judice. Nevertheless the Government was seized of the matter. In a recent meeting between the Ministers of Labour and Finance and workers' representatives, it was decided that a three-month period would be required to assess the performance of the banking sector in Pakistan. The matter would therefore be reviewed in a tripartite process after three months. With regard to the denial of some rights guaranteed by the Convention to workers in export processing zones, the Government had undertaken to withdraw all restrictions imposed by the IRO by the year 2000. Regarding the exclusion of public servants of Grade 16 and above from the scope of the IRO 1969 and restrictions on their right to strike, the speaker pointed out that public servants did not fall within the definition of “workman” under the IRO. Public servants were therefore governed by a separate set of laws. There was no discrimination against minority unions which enjoyed their rights in accordance with democratic principles. The right to bargain collectively and to raise grievances was the function of the collective bargaining agent. The Committee of Experts had commented on the exclusion from the definition of workers in the IRO — and thus of the right to join a trade union — of persons employed in an administrative capacity whose wages exceeded 800 rupees per month (when the national minimum wage had been fixed at 1,500 rupees in 1995). This amendment had been made in 1972 to include lower supervisory staff within the definition of “workman” under the IRO. A person who came within this definition enjoyed full trade union rights regardless of upper wage ceilings. With regard to artificial promotions as an anti-union tactic in the banking and financial sectors, the State Bank of Pakistan had confirmed that no artificial promotions had taken place in the five major banks, i.e. the National Bank of Pakistan, the Habib Bank Ltd., United Bank Ltd., Muslim Commercial Bank, and Allied Bank Ltd., as well as in the new scheduled banks in the private sector. All banks had confirmed that they were following the laid-down promotion policy. In addition, the rules provided that a worker who was given an artificial promotion had the right to refuse the promotion if it infringed on his right to organize. For reasons of public safety, security and health employees in public and private sector hospitals had been denied the right to form unions. The Government was considering lifting these restrictions. Amendments in the law would be required after ongoing tripartite consultations were completed. Regarding forestry workers, the Government had decided to review all existing laws through a tripartite commission in order to simplify and consolidate them. With regard to the railway employees, he pointed out that only 20 sections of railway lines had been classified as linked to the Ministry of Defence during peace and war. Staff employed on sections other than the Ministry of Defence lines had the complete right to organize within the ambit of the IRO.
Finally, regarding the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, the Government representative pointed out that the scope of this Act had been reduced to nine and then to only five of the initial 15 installations/organizations in the country. This was a significant step forward. The five organizations were: (i) the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation and Security Papers Ltd., Karachi; (ii) the Karachi Electric Supply Company; (iii) employment concerned with the generation, distribution and supply of electricity; (iv) Kot Addu Power Company; and (v) the Kahuta Research Laboratories. As was obvious, three of the five dealt with electricity generation and all five effectively were essential services. These services if hindered, would affect the life, security, health and well-being of the society.
In conclusion, the speaker hoped he had been able to address some of the concerns of this Committee regarding the implementation of the Convention. He reiterated his Government's commitment towards the protection and promotion of labour rights in Pakistan.
The Workers' members noted that this was a well-known case that had been discussed six times over the last ten years. This Committee had engaged in a dialogue with various different governments during that period, but each time the dialogue had been the same because promises were made and not fulfilled. They regretted that the Government was sloppy in its reporting to the Committee of Experts. They also noted the Government's strange practice of giving repetitious reports on the application of the Convention, copying each other time after time almost word for word. The situation of trade union rights in the country had been discussed in the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts and direct contacts had taken place in 1994. Following the last discussion of the case in the present Committee, in 1995, the Government had expressed interest in genuine change, but had not acted on this. The Government was clearly aware that the situation was not in conformity with the Convention, but the political will was lacking to remedy it. The Committee of Experts' observation noted that the Government's report merely repeated precisely the information provided in its previous report, but was able to note two new elements which arose from the comments made by workers' organizations: the Supreme Court judgement concerning the right to organize and to bargain collectively for employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation and of the Civil Aviation Authority; and the amendments to the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance. It should have been the Government which provided these details, and they considered that this would have been easy to do since it involved merely transmitting a copy of a judgement delivered by the country's Supreme Court. Referring to comments made during the debate of the Committee of Experts' General Report concerning problems with reporting due to lack of technical expertise in some administrations, they considered that this case was an example where no particular expertise was required in getting the new information to the Committee of Experts for examination. If the Government representative did not have a copy of the Supreme Court judgement with him to hand over to the Office, he could contact the authorities in order that the required copy could be faxed immediately. Regarding the first section of the observation, they recalled that the limitations on the right to organize and to bargain collectively in the Pakistan Television Corporation and the Civil Aviation Authority had been discussed in 1994 and 1995. This year they could note that the Supreme Court had restored these rights, but with two qualifications, namely that statutory backing was needed and that the Government could provide reasonable restrictions in respect of industrial action. This Committee should endorse the Committee of Experts' position in this respect and ask the Government to indicate the concrete measures taken to ensure that the workers involved enjoyed full rights under the Convention. Regarding the limitations introduced in trade unions in the banking sector, the Workers' members recalled the previous conclusions of this Committee and of the Committee of Experts to the effect that this contravened the Convention. The 1986 Act was not in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention and infringed the right to elect representatives in full freedom; this Committee should endorse the call of the Committee of Experts for its amendment.
In relation to the second part of the observation, they noted the seven points listed by the Committee of Experts where discrepancies existed between the national legislation and the Convention. No new information had been supplied by the Government representative. In 1995, this Committee had asked the Government to take concrete measures following the direct contacts mission. As the situation had not changed, this Committee could adopt the same conclusions today. They asked that the conclusions note that this was a serious case, that there was a lack of progress, and urge the Government to respond to the specific questions rather than transmitting repetitious reports; the conclusions could also note the lack of new information on the seven points listed while endorsing the comments of the Committee of Experts regarding the Supreme Court judgement and the banking sector legislation. They hoped that the conclusions would request the Government to engage quickly in tripartite consultations, along the lines of Convention No. 144, so as to arrive at concrete proposals for change and that there would be a report for examination at the 87th Session of the Conference.
The Employers' members stated that the Committee of Experts' report had listed several points indicating restrictions in the legislation and practice as regards the right to freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. Although in 1994 a direct contacts mission had taken place and a tripartite task force had been established with a mandate on labour and industrial relations issues, no information was provided as to whether it had been working on these matters and, if so, what the results of its work had been. The Employers' members noted the Government representative's statement, according to which all legal restrictions in export processing zones should be repealed by the year 2000. Although this seemed to be a positive approach which should be welcomed in this Committee's conclusions, the Employers' members pointed out that similar statements had been made on prior occasions when the case had been examined. Therefore, it was difficult to figure out whether a real political will on the Government's side existed in order to remedy the legal situation in the country. Following the statements of the Workers' members which already described the country's situation, the Employers' members noted that nothing had improved over the years. The Government's indication, according to which the number of services where strikes were prohibited by law had been reduced, represented only minimal progress. For these reasons, the conclusions should reflect the fact that the situation had remained the same over the years. Moreover, the Government should be urged to provide a detailed written report describing all the measures taken and envisaged in this respect.
The Worker member of Pakistan welcomed the part of the Government representative's report promising amendments to existing labour legislation. However, as the Workers' members had pointed out, such promises had been made since 1988. Moreover, a direct contacts mission had taken place in 1994 and a tripartite task force on labour issues had been set up soon thereafter. However, no follow-up action had been taken by the Government to amend its legislation in line with the recommendations of the direct contacts mission or those of the task force. In addition, although the Government representative had stated that discrepancies in legislation would be removed, this had never happened. On the contrary, the Government had now imposed new restrictions in the banking sector through the enactment of section 27-B of the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1986. This amendment allowed the Government to interfere in the free election of trade union representatives. Finally, section 2-A of the Civil Servants Act denied employees falling under its purview recourse to the labour courts. He stated that the workers' organizations had also had recourse to the Supreme Court and High Court and that was why trade union rights have been restored in the television and civil aviation industries. He also indicated that the trade union movement had been pressing the Government — by holding a Protest Day on the First of May as well as by calling a “Tools Down Strike” on 5 May — in support of their demands. The Government had held an Inter-Ministerial Meeting with the representatives of the trade unions on 20 January 1998 on labour law reforms, which was to be further followed up. The speaker hoped that the assurance given by the Government representative would be translated into concrete action through amending the laws which were contrary to the relevant ratified Conventions at the earliest date in order to eliminate unrest among the society. The said amendment was not only in contradiction with Artic
le 3 of the Convention but also against the principle enunciated by the Experts in 1994 in its General Survey. He expressed concern over this retroactive amendment which enables any employer to terminate the service of banking workers on account of trade union activities, and thereafter debarring the person from becoming a member or office-bearer of the union. Therefore, its immediate repeal was demanded. He also drew attention to the regulations repugnant to the relevant ratified Conventions in the area of the Export Processing Zones, Railways, Hospitals, Radio and supervisory staff drawing pay of 500 rupees per month as being contrary to the Convention.
The Worker member of Zimbabwe noted that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had handed down a judgement in July 1997 restoring the right to organize and bargain collectively for workers in the Pakistan Television Corporation and Civil Aviation Authority. He urged the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Supreme Court judgement. He further urged the Government to amend the Bank Ordinance of 1986 which currently required all candidates for trade union office to be an employee of the bank concerned. He pointed out that this was contrary to Article 3 of Convention No. 87 since it constituted an interference in the internal affairs of a trade union. Finally, referring to the other violations of Convention No. 87 which the Committee of Experts had noted in its observation, the speaker further urged the Government to ensure that these violations were removed by amending national legislation and practice accordingly; he requested the Government to keep the Committee of Experts informed of any developments in this regard.
The Worker member of Swaziland indicated that national labour legislation in Pakistan, instead of seeking to promote freedom of association, grossly violated the Convention and made its implementation impossible in various respects. For example, bank employees were denied the right to associate, workers in export processing zones were denied the right to organize, salary levels were used to discriminate against other workers and health workers were completely isolated from industrial relations protection. Moreover, according to an ICFTU survey, the right to strike was criminalized, the Government had arbitrary rights to classify any kind of worker under the essential services category, the authorities had wide-ranging powers to interfere in trade union affairs and the Government had an arbitrary right to impose an injunction on a strike that could last more than 30 days. In 1995 the Minister of Labour had informed an ICFTU delegation that the Awami Labour Union which had applied for registration in 1992, would be registered in two weeks. To date this had not happened. Since this case dealt with very serious violations of Convention No. 87, the speaker appealed for the highest possible condemnation within the means of this Committee to oblige the Government to comply with the requirements of this fundamental Convention.
The Government representative pointed out that his Government which had ratified five of the seven fundamental ILO Conventions was not a delinquent state. His country had been trying to abide by the requirements of all these Conventions and if there were violations here and there, this did not merit such strict condemnation of his Government. It was unfortunate that when assessing a case, only violations of the Convention were taken into account, but not the circumstances in which those violations occurred. While it was true that the recommendations of the tripartite task force on labour issues had not yet been fully complied with by amending legislation accordingly, there was a good reason for this. Since the establishment of this task force there had been many changes in Government. When a new Government came into power it undertook a review of all the policies, including labour policies, framed by the earlier Government. This was a reality which could not be ignored. In any event the recommendations of the task force were being reviewed by the new Government and a commission was also in the process of being set up to bring labour laws into conformity with ILO Conventions through consultation with the social partners. Responding to comments made by certain speakers, he insisted that his statement was not merely a repetition of what had been said by other Pakistani Government representatives to this Committee on previous occasions. With regard to the banking sector he explained that the amendment had been made to the 1986 Ordinance to prevent outsiders from being involved in union activities within a banking corporation. This was because prior to this amendment banks had not been operating normally due to the active involvement of outsiders in trade union activities. However, if the situation improved in a few months time, the Government would review this matter. Finally, with regard to alleged artificial promotions he stressed that no concrete examples had been given, but rather just general assertions made.
The Workers' members reacted to the statement of the Government representative who had inferred that the treatment of this case was unfair. The Committee of Experts itself noted in its observation that the Government's report merely repeated precisely the information provided in its previous report. The new information supplied by the Government representative to the present Committee had arrived too late; it would have been more useful for the work of both the Committee of Experts, in its technical examination of information available on the application of the Convention, and of this Committee, to have provided the new elements earlier. The Government's approach only frustrated the work of the present Committee. As to his statement that there had been many changes of government, the Workers' members recalled that they had heard such statements very often, and found it difficult, once again, to accept such excuses for the lack of progress. The Government representative had acknowledged that there were a few violations of the Convention, but the Workers' members stressed that this case involved many violations of a major Convention which had been the subject of attention for a long time. Many promises had been made on the part of the Government over the years, and they had not been kept.
The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion which took place thereafter. It recalled that this case had been discussed by the Committee on numerous occasions over the last decade. The Committee shared the serious concern expressed by the Committee of Experts and endorsed its observation as regards the numerous discrepancies in the legislation and practice in respect of the right to organize of several categories of workers, including public and private sector hospital employees, public servants Grade 16 and above, forestry workers, railway employees, workers in export processing zones, and administrative and managerial employees, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had further noted the restrictions on the right of trade unions to organize their activities, in contravention of Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee observed with deep concern that no progress had been achieved in this case, and in this regard reiterated its conclusions from 1995. The Committee took due note of the statement made by the Government representative that the discrepancies regarding the rights of workers in export processing zones would be removed by the year 2000. The Committee urged the Government to develop concrete proposals and to take necessary measures in the very near future in consultation with employers' and workers' organizations to bring its legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention which it had ratified over 45 years ago. It urged the Government to supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts this year on the concrete progress made in this regard.
The Worker member of Pakistan stated that he would have preferred the conclusions to have included a specific reference to the recent amendments to the legislation in the banking sector, which interfered in the internal affairs of trade union organizations contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
Swaziland (ratification: 1978). A Government representative, Minister of Enterprise and Employment, reaffirmed that, as a member of the ILO since 1975, Swaziland supported the good intentions for which the Organization had been established, as set out in the Preamble of the ILO Constitution. Swaziland also respected the mechanisms established by the ILO, including its standards-setting and supervisory machinery for the application of standards. Moreover, structures such as the multidisciplinary advisory teams and area offices played an important role in furthering the ILO priorities of social justice and human dignity.
In the Conference Committee in 1997 his Government had stated its commitment to dealing on an urgent basis with any discrepancies between national law and practice and the Convention, whether perceived or real. Moreover, a programme of action had been discussed with high-level ILO officials to address those discrepancies. Since then, a number of measures had been taken to develop consensus. Soon after the last Conference, the Labour Advisory Board (LAB), which had a tripartite structure, had convened a meeting to review the Industrial Relations Act, 1996. It had subsequently convened a meeting of stakeholders, including private individuals, employers' and workers' organizations, government officials, university academics, representatives of small businesses and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who had reached an understanding on the type of industrial legislation suitable for present-day Swaziland. A drafting committee had been set up and had worked with an ILO expert to produce a suitable document, based on ILO labour standards, including Convention No. 87, to regulate industrial relations and the socio-economic advancement of the country. In March 1998, the document had been presented by the LAB to the Ministry responsible for labour relations as a draft Bill, from where it was forwarded to the Attorney-General's Office and then submitted to the Cabinet, where it was under consideration by the Government. On the whole, the draft text should be acceptable and the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the Convention would therefore be addressed. It was to be regretted that the process had not been more expeditious. However, it was clear that the Government was keeping faith with its commitment and was rediscovering the value of tripartism. He therefore emphasized that, although it had been the intention of the Government, as stated in the Committee in the previous year, to submit amendments to the 1996 Act by August 1997, it had been seen with the social partners that so many changes were needed that it would be better to start afresh.
The draft Bill sought to bring the industrial relations legislation of Swaziland into close conformity with international labour standards by repealing the 1996 Act and by focusing on the promotion of harmonious industrial relations, fairness and equity, freedom of association, the establishment of new mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, the protection of collective bargaining and the entrenchment of international labour standards in national law and practice. In addition, in formulating the Bill, care had to be taken to address the comments of the Committee of Experts on the following points: the removal of prison staff from the category of services which did not exercise the right to organize and collective bargaining; the acceptance of a multiplicity of trade unions; the possibility for workers and employers to be able to undertake peaceful protest action; the extension of the activities of federations beyond the provision of advice and services to their members; and the power of the Minister to apply to the Court for an injunction in the national interest, where such interest was defined as only involving danger to life, health and property. The Bill did not prohibit sympathy strikes. Moreover, it had captured the point raised by the Committee of Experts that the strike ballot requirement should not be such as to deny the right to strike. It sought to decriminalize industrial relations to a large extent and revised the rules limiting non-occupational activities of organizations or federations, in accordance with the comments of the Committee of Experts. After the Bill was adopted, it should no longer be the case that the courts could cancel or suspend the registration of organizations for certain violations.
With regard to the concern expressed that the 1973 Decree on meetings and demonstrations placed restrictions on the rights of industrial organizations to hold peaceful demonstrations, he reaffirmed that the Decree was of no relevance to such organizations, whose rights and guarantees had been amplified in the labour legislation that had been adopted in both 1980 and 1996. In both cases, the intention of the legislation had been to separate traditional labour relations matters from purely political ones. He emphasized that there was no law or policy preventing any member of a workers' or other organization from calling for the repeal of the Decree. On the question of the repeal of the 1973 Decree or the introduction of legislation respecting the political arrangements of the country, the King had appointed a Constitutional Review Commission. The Constitutional Review Commission represented a cross-section of society and enjoyed the support of the international community, which had provided financing for its work. The impression that the 1973 Decree prohibited trade union activities was therefore misleading and incorrect.
In conclusion, he believed that Swaziland was progressively moving towards full compliance with the Convention and undertook to do his best to defend the proposed Bill in Parliament. He trusted that the ILO would continue to support the preparation of the Bill. He therefore believed that the question of the application of the Convention by his country should no longer appear in a special paragraph of the Committee's report. Like other countries, Swaziland might not be perfect, but its Government was doing its best to meet the conflicting demands of a growing population within increasingly diverse needs and expectations. He therefore expressed gratitude to the employers and workers of Swaziland for their enduring dedication to harmonious industrial relations which were in conformity with international standards. Their cooperation was greatly appreciated and he trusted that it would be continued until the Bill was finally adopted.
The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for his fine words. Unfortunately, the Committee had become accustomed to fine words of this type when it had examined the case in 1996 and again in 1997, when it had appeared in a special paragraph of the Committee's report. The Government had promised in 1997 that discussions on amendments to the 1996 Industrial Relations Act, which contained numerous discrepancies with the Convention, would take place with the social partners in June 1997 and that the amendments would be adopted by Parliament in August 1997. The Workers' members regretted that, despite this undertaking, no amendments had yet been adopted. However, a new Industrial Relations Bill had been drawn up with ILO technical assistance, on which the social partners had been fully consulted; and they found it acceptable. This gave some hope that the Government genuinely wished to reform the labour legislation. It was also to be hoped that this could signal the beginning of a new attitude on the part of the Government towards ensuring that democratic rights and freedoms were respected in Swaziland.
The 1996 Industrial Relations Act, which remained in force, imposed excessive restrictions on the right to strike and prohibited the right to strike of federations under the penalty of imprisonment. It denied the right to organize for prison service staff and granted the labour commissioner the authority to refuse to register a trade union if he or she was satisfied that there was already a registered trade union in that sector. It also provided the authorities with broad powers of supervision over trade unions, limited the activities of federations to providing advice and services to their members and required the Minister of Labour to be consulted before international affiliation could take place. The Act allowed the courts to dissolve federations or trade union organizations which had spent more time campaigning on public issues than protecting and advancing the rights of their members. In short, the Act clearly violated the right to organize and strike and was contrary to the Convention and the decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association.
Provisions of other laws also contravened the Convention. Section 12 of the 1973 Decree on meetings and demonstrations placed important restrictions on the right of organizations to hold meetings and peaceful demonstrations. The Decree also placed restrictions on freedom of opinion. Despite the statement of the Government representative, the 1963 Public Order Act, as the Committee had heard last year, was another tool which could be used by the authorities to oppress legitimate and peaceful strike action. Indeed, since the last Conference, the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) had held a programme of mass action to press for the reform of the Industrial Relations Act after the Government's promises to amend the law had come to nothing. The SFTU had also continued to press its other social, economic and democratic demands. The results were well known. The police and army had been deployed in force, and 17 union officials and leaders had been dismissed from the Simunyane Sugar Company, which was partly owned by the Government, for participating in a “stayaway”. Armed troops and artillery, including armoured vehicles, had subsequently been stationed in and around the factory. There had also been mass marches of SFTU members, professional associations, parents and students, one of which had gone to the airport when the King was returning from the Commonwealth Summit. Security forces had shot at the crowd with live ammunition and tear gas. Many people had had to go to hospital with serious injuries. Although the level of violence, harassment and victimization against the SFTU and its leaders had not been quite so severe as in the period leading up to the discussion of the case in 1997, the Workers' members remained seriously concerned about the lack of respect for civil liberties in Swaziland, and in particular the violence used by the police.
Against this background, the Constitutional Review Commission set up in 1996 to determine the way forward for the country had unfortunately come to nothing because it had not been accepted by the people of Swaziland. It had not permitted the participation of representative organizations and the 1973 Decree on meetings and demonstrations stood as a constant threat to any process of consultation of interest groups. For this reason, the Workers' members called for the Decree to be repealed. Moreover, instead of evaluating why the process did not work, the Government had called for elections to be held under the unrepresentative system in force. Many sectors of society, including the trade unions and the churches, were intending to boycott the election. It was therefore time for progress to be made on the issues discussed in the Committee for the past two years. It was imperative that the draft labour law be adopted. However, the Government had stated that Parliament would be dissolved at the end of July in view of the elections called for October. In this respect, it was somewhat curious that Parliament was being dissolved so much earlier than had been the custom in the past. Nevertheless, it appeared that there was still time for the Bill to be passed before Parliament was dissolved, if the political will existed. First of all, the Bill had to be adopted by the Cabinet, which was scheduled to discuss it in the middle of the month. After adoption by Cabinet, the draft had to be made public for 30 days before being submitted to Parliament for adoption. The Workers' members insisted on a firm commitment from the Government that the Bill would be adopted before the Government was dissolved at the end of July. They also called upon the Government to repeal section 12 of the Decree of 1973, amend the 1963 Public Order Act, and put a definite end to the harassment and victimization of trade unionists and to the use of force in industrial disputes and peaceful marches and protests. They also strongly recommended the Government to negotiate with the social partners in good faith over the remaining SFTU demands to allow freedom of the press and freedom of expression generally, to establish independent inquiries into the unsolved incidents which had taken place over the past few years and to fully respect democratic rights and civil liberties.
In conclusion, they recalled that Swaziland was a member of the Governing Body. It would appear to be logical and essential that members of the ILO Governing Body upheld the ILO Constitution. As the Worker delegate of Swaziland had stated in the general debate, if Governing Body members did not comply with the provisions of Convention No. 87, what incentive was there for other governments to do so? They therefore called on the Government to give a firm assurance regarding the adoption of the draft labour Bill before Parliament was dissolved.
The Employers' members recalled that this case had been discussed twice previously by the Committee and noted that the earlier interventions had adequately identified the principal issues involved. The Committee, as well as the Committee of Experts, had had the occasion to note the several inconsistencies between the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act and the Convention. These inconsistencies put substantial limitations on the exercise of freedom of association by, for example, limiting sectoral affiliation, restricting the registration of unions, providing many opportunities for the intervention of public authorities, and requiring prior authorization for international affiliation. The restrictions on the right to strike were a distinct problem into which they did not wish to delve except to note that the right to strike did not appear in the provisions of the Convention. As in other cases familiar to the Committee, the Government representative had used many arguments to show its goodwill in bringing legislation into conformity with the Convention: tripartite consultations had taken place, the recommendations of the direct contacts mission had been taken into account, and a draft law which would meet the requirements of the Convention was close to being adopted into law. The Workers' members had confirmed that the draft was acceptable and contained significant improvements. It had been submitted to the Ministry of Labour in March and the draft was now being examined by the Cabinet. The Government was urged to clarify where the draft stood in the legislative process in so far as changes in the Parliament could be expected after new elections. The Government representative had expressed the hope that the draft would become law before the dissolution of Parliament, but he was evasive about the prospect of adoption in the near future. The Employers' members observed that the absence of disagreement on the need to amend the legislation was a positive development. It should be the hope of the Committee that the draft would quickly be adopted into law.
The Worker member of Swaziland appreciated the assistance given by the ILO in drafting a new Industrial Relations Bill. Although it had not yet become law, the Bill met the concerns raised by the Committee of Experts. It decriminalized industrial relations, enabled freedom of association from the enterprise to the national and international level, including to prison staff and broadcasting personnel, gave the right to strike to all but those in essential services, removed the Government's right to unilaterally enjoin a strike or lock out, enabled federations to bargain collectively, and permitted protest march action on socio-economic issues. He warned, however, that the proposed reforms did not address broader issues related to civil liberties brought into question by the use of section 12 of the 1973 Decree on meetings and demonstrations. With this provision still in force, voices of dissent remained muted. The Government continued to be intransient to demands to reform sections of the Decree impinging on freedoms of expression, association, assembly and choice. Instead of keeping promises made to the Committee last year to bring legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention, the Government's harassment against workers had increased. On 27, 28 and 29 October 1997, mass protest marches of workers, teachers, students and parents were met by teargas, gunshots and batons. The destination of the first was Cabinet offices and that of the second was the arrival of the Swazi King returning from the Commonwealth Heads of States Summit. On 29 October, marchers attempted to demonstrate upon the arrival of Prince Charles of the United Kingdom. On the same day, a vehicle transporting trade union leaders and shop stewards was chased by police, stopped and its passengers searched and interrogated. Documents were taken as well. The armed forces stepped in as invigilators to supervise the writing of examinations during the teachers' strike then in progress. The continued vitality of section 12 of the 1973 Decree coupled with the provisions of the Public Order Act of 1963, continued to undermine trade union and civil rights and any democratic dispensation process set in motion.
The country was seized with mistrust arising from broken promises. Many touched directly upon results of tripartite negotiations. The products of tripartite consultations included the tripartite task force report and recommendations of 1994, a parliamentary select committee's report and recommendations of March 1995, a bipartite protocol of July 1995, a tripartite protocol of October 1995, and proposed amendments of March 1996 to the Industrial Relations Act of 1996 — all had not been given effect by the Government. Likewise, for a Bill amending the Industrial Relations Act of 1996, promised to the Committee to occur by August 1997. Empty promises and processes, particularly those with tripartite blessings, could no longer be accepted. In this regard it had recently been announced in Swaziland that the Parliament would be dissolved by the end of July 1998. This forebode the failure to adopt the new law before the end of the year. The announcement had to be taken in light of the fact that Parliament was normally dissolved in October before elections. He feared that if the draft bill was not adopted during the current session of Parliament, the new parliamentarians would not sufficiently appreciate the fine balances made in the draft to accommodate tripartite interests. This likelihood further threatened the possibility of the draft ever being adopted. The Government had ratified the Convention, received technical assistance, and repeatedly promised to take the necessary action. Moreover it was a member of the Governing Body and the Committee's conclusions needed to take into account the message that would be sent to other States if strong terms were not used. An unequivocal commitment was demanded which would guarantee that the draft Bill be made into law before the dissolution of Parliament.
The Employer member of Swaziland welcomed the progress which had been made since June 1997: a tripartite consensus had been reached on a draft Industrial Relations Act which would conform to the requirements of both Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. He thanked the Government and the trade unions for having cooperated in reaching this agreement and the ILO for providing the necessary technical expertise. The Government had been pressed to cooperate by the pending application of the American trade union federation (AFL-CIO) for the removal of Swaziland's preferential treatment in trade relations with the United States. He was saddened, however, by the circumstances in which his country found itself and regretted these circumstances. The Swazi Employers found the threat of the loss of preferential treatment to be unacceptable and therefore profoundly hoped that the draft Bill would be passed into law. In this regard, he emphasized the fact that the Bill was the result of careful tripartite negotiations and therefore had the support of both the workers and the employers.
The Worker member of Norway spoke on behalf of the Nordic Workers' group (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland). The Committee had been shocked to learn in 1997 of the gross violation of Convention No. 87 as well as of the Government's harassment and victimization of workers and their deprivation of the fundamental right to organize, to go on strike and to participate in public politics. A special paragraph had been assigned to the case. The Government had promised to amend the law by August 1997, but that promise had not been kept. A new Industrial Relations Bill had been drafted with the ILO's assistance and was finally going to be brought into law, but it still needed to be adopted by Parliament. The prospects for this action seemed gloomy as it seemed likely that Parliament would be extraordinarily dissolved by the end of July and not in October as usual so that the Bill could not be enacted in 1998. She asked whether this was true and observed that if it was, the trade unions would not be permitted to participate in election preparations. She requested a clear answer on when the Government would pass the law. The situation was serious and particularly so in light of the Government's membership on the Governing Body. She looked forward to a strong confirmation by the Government that the draft Industrial Relations Act would be adopted and Swazi workers given the right to function as democratic organizations.
The Worker member of Botswana forwent his comments on the case as he believed that other speakers had and would cover the points he wished to raise.
The Employer member of South Africa observed that progress had indeed been made but asked that it be translated into binding legislation. He observed the negative consequences of the turmoil occurring in Swaziland upon the surrounding countries, which should be brought to an end through the adoption of the draft Industrial Relations Act. A proper conclusion needed to be reached by the Committee in asking the Minister to use all the powers available to him to expedite passage of the draft by Parliament before its dissolution.
The Worker member of the United Kingdom expressed certain doubts as to the procedure that the Committee was expected to follow in this case. Although no new report had been provided by the Government to the Committee of Experts since the Conference Committee had examined the case last year, the members of the Committee were now being called upon to analyse a detailed verbal report by the Government representative. They were not in a good position to do so. He emphasized that the draft Bill formulated by the social partners would address needs of the country in the field of industrial relations. Although the Government representative had made no firm promises in this respect, the Government should be urged to make every effort to adopt the Bill in the very near future in order to release the country from a feudal regime and bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention. In so doing, it would be able to overcome the history of the workers' mistrust of the Government by guaranteeing the basic rights of freedom of association.
The Worker member of the United States confirmed to the Committee that, as mentioned by the Swazi Employer member, the AFL-CIO had submitted a petition to the United States Government requesting that certain trade privileges currently enjoyed by Swaziland under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) be suspended because of the Government's systematic violation of fundamental worker rights. This was in accordance with the GSP Statute which conditioned the provision of such trade privileges upon the respect of basic worker rights as defined by the ILO's core human rights Conventions. It had been made clear in the petition, and there were indications that his Government agreed, that the passage of the draft labour law this year was the primary measure which would be used to determine whether Swaziland was taking steps to respect worker rights and therefore should retain its GSP privileges. He hoped and expected that a new law would be enacted this year to bring Swaziland into legal compliance with the Convention.
The Employer member of Lesotho supported the statement previously made by the Employers' members and the Employer member of Swaziland that progress had been made in this case. He noted with keen interest that the draft Bill agreed upon by all tripartite partners was before Cabinet for approval before being tabled in Parliament, which was due to be dissolved in the next two months. He urged the Government representative to take all possible steps to ensure that the Bill was tabled before dissolution of Parliament. The significant contributions of the social partners needed to be consolidated through the adoption of the draft law before becoming subject to possible different views of a new government.
The Government representative thanked all the speakers for the interest they had shown in the situation in his country and their constructive suggestions and comments which would be reported to the Government for consideration and action. In reply to the points raised, he said that most of them had already been covered in his previous intervention. Although promises made in the past appeared not to have been honoured, he emphasized that there was a new atmosphere in the country concerning the claims of the workers and a common position had been reached by the social partners. Unfortunately, since he had no power to speak for Parliament, he was not in a position to say any more than that he would do his best to defend the adoption of the draft Bill. The workers and employers of his country would confirm his commitment in that respect. With reference to the comments made concerning the 1973 Decree, he denied that it had ever been used to suppress workers' activities. Moreover, he affirmed that the 1963 Public Order Act had not been meant to curb trade unions. It was merely a necessary piece of security legislation. In this respect, he regretted the incidents that had occurred during the demonstrations and marches referred to by a number of speakers, but warned that where important public figures were concerned, security measures needed to be taken and there was always a risk of something going wrong. He hoped that it would be possible to investigate the other cases referred to by the Workers' members of the Committee. He emphasized that a new chapter was opening in industrial relations in the country and that every effort needed to be made to ensure that the process was not derailed.
In response to a number of comments by the Workers' members concerning the inopportune dissolution of Parliament and their requests for a firm commitment that the Industrial Relations Bill would be adopted before its dissolution, the Government representative said that it was not certain that Parliament would be dissolved in July. The announcement had not been officially made and, even if it were dissolved, there were possibilities that it might be reconvened to address such an important matter as the adoption of the Bill. He undertook to do everything in his power to ensure that the Bill was submitted to Parliament during the current year.
The Committee noted the statement made by the Government representative and the discussions which took place thereafter. It recalled that the Committee of Experts had raised concerns about numerous provisions of the 1996 Industrial Relations Act which considerably limited the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities in contravention of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. It regretted that no amendment regarding this legislation had yet been adopted. It further recalled with regret that the Committee of Experts had observed that the 1973 Decree on meetings and demonstrations placed important restrictions on the rights of organizations to hold meetings and peaceful demonstrations and that the 1963 Public Order Act had been used to hinder legitimate trade union activities. The Committee welcomed the Government's indication that a new Industrial Relations Bill had been drafted, in consultation with the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO, with a view to bringing legislation into conformity with the Convention. It strongly urged the Government to make sure that this new Bill would be adopted before the possible dissolution of Parliament, and would ensure full implementation of the Convention. It further strongly urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the 1973 Decree and the 1963 Public Order Act did not interfere with the rights of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee urged the Government to respect fully the civil liberties essential to the implementation of the Convention and to apply very rapidly the recommendations of the direct contacts mission, particularly those already agreed upon by the social partners. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would establish independent inquiries into the abduction of the Secretary-General of the SFTU and the killing of a child during a demonstration. The Committee trusted that the Government would supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts this year on the concrete measures taken to ensure full conformity with the Convention, both in law and in practice.