Committee on Freedom of Association: Interview with Workers' group spokesperson Yves Veyrier

ACTRAV INFO: The Governing Body adopted the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association. In this 2012 report, are there any signs of progress on the protection of workers' rights?

Yves Veyrier: Yes, there has been progress! But unfortunately, most of the cases stem from complaints that are really serious. This time around, we were looking at many murders in Colombia and Guatemala. We had a new case in Colombia involving many murders, while we were still following up on a very old case linked to the violent situation in that country. Nonetheless, some progress should be noted: the Colombian government is paying more attention to the Committee's calls for investigations and penalties, and for the people who committed these murders to be tracked down and arrested. The aim here is to end the climate of impunity and take preventive action against those who are out to do physical harm to trade unionists. Those people should know that they will be punished. These situations cancel out the progress made.

On other cases, we have seen progress because governments have become more attentive about responding to the Committee's requests for information and the complaints lodged by trade unionists. The mere fact that a government feels obliged to respond and provide answers is progress in itself! But there are a few cases where governments do not respond – Cambodia, for instance, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. From Guatemala, we have had only partial replies. The responses from Djibouti have also been inadequate. So these are problematic cases, because the governments don't seem to be taking the International Labour Organization and its Committee on Freedom of Association seriously. It should be remembered that this committee deals only with cases that relate to Conventions No. 87 and No. 98 on freedom of association and collective bargaining. But those are the two pillars without which there would no longer be an ILO! Because they are the two pillars that underpin tripartism, in the sense that the unions involved are freely constituted and chosen by the workers and have the right to negotiate on an equal footing with the employers and governments. So when a government does not respond to the requests of the Committee on Freedom of Association, that government is slighting and belittling the organization as a whole. There have been cases in which the Committee's conclusions have made it possible to resolve situations, because an agreement has finally been reached at the national level. This means that the role played by the Committee has caused the parties to get down to negotiations and arrive at an agreement that solves the problem. We also have cases where we ask for additional information. Here, the length of the procedure is very important. For example, when it's about the dismissal of a trade unionist, the question of the speed of the procedure is very important, because securing compensation for the trade unionist is one thing, but getting him or her reinstated is essential. Then there are cases where we ask governments to modify their legislation. We have a case in Ireland, for instance, where Ryanair is clearly trying to sidestep collective bargaining with the unions, preferring instead to negotiate one-on-one with individuals, notably the pilots. So evidently, the Irish legislation contains some loopholes that enable the company to take this attitude. We have a similar case in Canada, where the Supreme Court has finally recognized agricultural workers' right to be heard by the employers, even though this still isn't enough. Legislation should not only ask the employers to listen to the trade unions and the workers, it should also include a requirement for the employer to open negotiations with the trade unions.

ACTRAV INFO: Overall, how many cases did the committee examine?

At the outset, we examined about 40 cases. A few were postponed because the information sent by certain governments was received at the last minute. In the end, 38 cases were examined in their entirety, as well as the cases featured in the introduction to the report, which are the ones on which the Committee is following up permanently.

ACTRAV INFO: The adoption of this report comes at a time of economic difficulties, when workers are being affected by austerity measures. Generally, have the economic and financial crises since 2008 had an impact on union rights’ violations, particularly in the rich countries?

Certainly, we've seen some complaints coming in from countries like Greece, which is currently experiencing enormous difficulties. In Greece, the measures taken by the IMF and the European Commission to tackle the crisis are calling the collective bargaining system into question. So the complaints received from that country were examined at the November 2011 session. But at the March 2012 session, we didn't have any complaints that were really directly linked to the impacts of the crisis itself, although the tenser economic and social situation does lead to those tensions being exerted on collective bargaining. We often have cases where the provisions on collective bargaining are not being respected.

ACTRAV INFO: Within the committee, do some issues submitted by workers' organizations keep cropping up?

Yes. For instance, the refusal to register a new trade union or the time taken in doing so. Often, throughout the period when a union isn't registered, certain employers take advantage of that to dismiss the people who founded the union. There are also cases of discrimination, such as transfers to other sectors or locations. And there are cases of threats, arrest, imprisonment, kidnapping and even, sad to say, murder. We also get complaints to do with the exercise of the right to strike, which is not set out explicitly but is a product of the case law created by the Committee on Freedom of Association. There are cases where governments do not permit the exercise of the right to strike in essential services that are vital to the safety and health of the population. But in such cases, the workers must have the means to express their demands. Governments tend to expand the list of essential services, in order to justify restrictions or bans on the right to strike.

ACTRAV INFO: Out of these cases, is there one that has particularly left its mark on you?

I have to say that the cases that have marked me most are those to do with the imprisonment and murder of trade unionists. Sometimes, there are also cases where the procedure is more difficult and drawn out, with the Committee adopting conclusions that invite governments to change their legislation. Obviously, cases involving a small firm are easier. But all in all, every case is important if it involves discrimination, because if minor discrimination goes uncorrected, it can become more serious. So when it comes down to it, all the cases brought before the Committee are important.

ACTRAV INFO: Most of the complaints registered by the Committee are lodged by workers' organizations in Latin America. How do you account for this regional disparity?

It may be that in some countries, unfortunately, the trade union movement is not well enough informed about, and trained in, the procedures for monitoring respect for the principles of freedom of association. This is often the case in some poorer countries where the unions do not have sufficient capacities. Sometimes, governments exert strong pressure that makes trade unionists afraid to use international procedures. Latin American governments complain about the very large number of cases from their countries, but this may to some extent be the price of success, as these countries are going through an economic and social transition and now have a relatively high level of democracy. So we have more cases coming from the Latin American countries that have a certain degree of democracy and a strong trade union movement. But these are countries in transition. The more they progress, the fewer cases we hope to see brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association.

ACTRAV INFO: Finally, since its formation some 50 years ago, this Committee has examined more than 2,300 cases. In your view, what measures need to be envisaged in order to get the Committee's decisions and recommendations applied?

First of all, the Committee's decisions and recommendations have to be known about. So do its existence, and its procedure. Then, it should be borne in mind that where a case can be resolved at the national level, those domestic procedures should be used first. If the case can't be resolved nationally, then it can be brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association. Sometimes, there are cases that can be resolved quickly at the country level, whereas the Committee's procedure would be longer and more expensive. But we never turn a complaint away, even though we're reproached with using a procedure that's too heavy and costly. Follow-up to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations also has to be ensured. It's very important that the unions who lodge a complaint know how to use the conclusions and recommendations. And they should actually use them and let us know about it. The Committee must be kept informed about how things develop. Also, the Committee's work gains in status from the knowledge that things have moved forward thanks to its conclusions et recommendations.