&htab;26.&htab;The Committee already examined this case at its February 1985 meeting, when it presented an interim report approved by the Governing Body. [See 238th Report, paras. 282-297.]

&htab;27.&htab; Since then, the Government has sent its observations in a communication dated 19 November 1985.

&htab;28.&htab;Costa Rica has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;35.&htab;In a communication dated 19 March 1985, the World Federation of Trade Unions presented a complaint against the Government of Sudan alleging violation of the principles of freedom of association. The Government replied in a communication dated 3 December 1985.

&htab;36.&htab;Sudan has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;37.&htab;In its communication of 19 March 1985, the complainant alleges that action had been taken to intensify the oppression of Sudanese workers and trade unionists and refers to information concerning the indefinite detention without charges or trial in different prisons by the Sudanese authorities of ten such persons, whose names are contained in the communication. Despite being requested to do so, the complainant supplied no specific information concerning the trade union activities for which these persons were said to have been detained.

&htab;38.&htab;In its reply of 3 December 1985, the Government states that the change in the political situation which took place in April 1985 has meant that no person is being kept in custody for political or trade union activities in the Sudan.

&htab;41.&htab;The Committee examined this case at its November 1985 meeting and presented interim conclusions which were approved by the Governing Body at its 231st Session, November 1985 [see 241st Report, paras. 846 to 856]. The Government subsequently sent further observations in a communication dated 24 December 1985.

&htab;42.&htab;Jordan has not ratified the Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Protection of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;43.&htab;In its previous examination of this case, the Committee noted that the allegations concerned the arrest - in February 1985 and April 1984, respectively - of Messrs. Hussein Qasem, former President of the General Federation of Commercial, Shops and Professional Trade Unions and Said Issa, General Secretary of the Trade Union of Workers in Banks and Insurance, and their subsequent sentencing to five years' imprisonment.

&htab;44.&htab;The Committee observed the Government's denial of the trade union connections of one of these persons and its statement that the arrests were based on their membership of an underground subversive body, the Popular Front/Jordan Branch. According to the Government, both individuals enjoyed due process during their trials and were sentenced by the competent courts.

&htab;45.&htab;The Governing Body, on the Committee's recommendations, approved the following interim conclusions:

(a) the Committee notes the contradictory nature of the complainant's allegations and the Government's reply concerning the arrest of two trade union leaders in February 1985 and April 1984 respectively; it recalls that it is incumbent upon the Government to show that the measures taken were in no way occasioned by the trade union activities of the individuals concerned;

(b) given the lack of information concerning the reasons for the arrest and subsequent sentencing to five years' imprisonment of the trade union leaders concerned, the Committee requests the Government to submit further and as precise information as possible on the incidents which led to the arrests and a copy of the judgement handed down in the subsequent proceedings, so as to enable it to reach a decision in this case.

&htab;46.&htab;To its letter of 24 December 1985 the Government attaches copies of the judgements of the courts martial and the Military Governor's decisions confirming the sentencing of the two persons in question on the grounds that they were members of an illegal organisation, namely "The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine", aimed at overthrowing the Jordanian regime. From the judgements (dated 30 March 1985 for Mr. Hussein Qasem and 8 April 1985 for Mr. Said Issa) it appears that both individuals were sentenced to five years' forced labour.

&htab;47.&htab;The Committee notes from the judgements that have now been transmitted by the Government that they contain no reference to the trade union status or functions of the persons in question. Nor, despite having been requested to do so, has the complainant organisation submitted any detailed information in support of its allegation that these persons were arrested and tried on account of trade union activities. In these circumstances, and on the basis of the information at its disposal, the Committee can only conclude that the persons concerned were tried and sentenced for activities unrelated to their trade union status or functions and it accordingly decides that this case does not call for further examination.

&htab;49.&htab;The Committee has examined this case on several occasions, the most recent being in November 1985 when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [See 241st Report, paras. 422-439, approved by the Governing Body at its 231st Session, November 1985]. The Government subsequently sent observations in communications dated 25 November and 4 December 1985.

&htab;50.&htab;Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;51.&htab;At its November 1985 meeting, the Committee expressed regret that the Government had not supplied the communiqué referred to in its reply of 30 May 1985, which, it stated, contained detailed information concerning the deaths and injuries which had occurred during the demonstrations of 20 June 1981. The Committee therefore requested the Government to transmit this document.

&htab;52.&htab;The Government states that the communiqué to which it referred was sent to the Committee on Freedom of Association by letter number 1126 from the Moroccan mission in Geneva dated 3 December 1981. It encloses another copy of the communiqué.

&htab;53.&htab;The Committee observes that it had already taken note of the Government's communiqué sent by letter number 1126 from the Moroccan mission dated 3 December 1981.[See 214th Report, paras. 656 to 665].

&htab;54.&htab;The Committee therefore observes once again that, in this communiqué, the Government alleged that the real motives behind the Democratic Confederation of Labour's general strike of 20 June 1981 were more to do with politics than with trade union matters and that an opposition party had issued the strike call along with this Confederation. The tracts distributed exhorted the activists to resist the Government, which was described as "reactionary" and "unlawful". According to the Government, the political nature of the strike had led other confederations (the Moroccan Union of Labour and the General Union of Moroccan Workers) to take a stand against it.

&htab;55.&htab;The communiqué stated further that the increase in prices invoked to justify the strike was not a sufficient ground, the Government having decided, after consulting the political parties and trade union organisations, to reduce the amount of the increase by 50 per cent and to raise the salaries of public servants by 13 per cent, following an increase of 20 per cent in the guaranteed minimum interoccupational wage and the guaranteed minimum agricultural wage.

&htab;56.&htab;The Government had stated that the strike of 20 June 1981 was not justified, as it had occurred only two days after a peaceful strike on 18 June which had been called by the Moroccan Union of Labour and with which the complainant federation had been associated.

&htab;57.&htab;According to the Government, the instigators of the strike of 20 June 1981 had realised that their strike had been a failure and had proceeded to threaten and to commit acts of physical aggression against persons and property, inciting children to commit acts of vandalism (throwing stones at buses, threats and pressure against shopkeepers, violence against people who refused to take part in the strike, setting fire to public buildings, etc.). The Government admitted that these acts had resulted in the death of 66 persons, mostly, according to the Government, among the police force, as well as considerable material damage.

&htab;58.&htab;The Government stated that, faced with the anarchy that had taken hold in certain quarters of Casablanca, the authorities had had to intervene to restore order and to bring before the courts the agitators and the instigators of the strike, who had proved to be incapable of controlling it.

&htab;59.&htab;Lastly, the Government stated that 2,800 persons had been arrested, that 1,700 had been released and the remaining 1,100 had been brought before various courts according to the nature and seriousness of the charges against them. The majority of the persons prosecuted (over 70 per cent) had been brought before the criminal courts owing to the criminal nature of the acts committed. It concluded by stating that the accused had enjoyed the guarantees provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular those relating to the rights of defence, that they had been tried in public hearings and in the presence of their lawyers, that appeals had been lodged against the sentences given at first instance, and that on review many of the sentences had been reduced or quashed and the persons acquitted.

&htab;60.&htab;The Committee observes that this reply does not shed any new light on the case. It must note with regret that the Government has not supplied sufficiently detailed information on the inquiries carried out into the deaths which occurred during the June 1981 demonstrations. It notes, however, that all of the trade union leaders arrested in this case were released in May 1983 by virtue of a Royal Amnesty [see 233rd Report, para. 337] and that the Democratic Confederation of Labour has resumed all of its trade union activities.

&htab;61.&htab;The Committee expresses the firm hope that this tendency will continue and appeals once again to the Government to ensure, by means of dialogue with all the trade union forces in the country, including the Democratic Confederation of Labour, that economic and social problems are henceforth resolved through industrial relations machinery which has the confidence of those concerned.

&htab;62.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee regrets that the Government has not supplied information in reply to the Committee's request concerning the inquiries carried out into the deaths which occurred during the June 1981 demonstrations.

(b) The Committee notes that the arrested trade union leaders were released in May 1983 by virtue of a Royal Amnesty.

(c) The Committee appeals to the Government to ensure, through dialogue with all the trade union forces in the country, including the Democratic Confederation of Labour, that economic and social problems are henceforth resolved through industrial relations machinery which has the confidence of those concerned.

&htab;262.&htab;The International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUFAWA) presented a complaint of alleged violations of trade union rights in a communication dated 14 August 1984.

&htab;263.&htab;The Government stated in a letter dated 24 September 1984 that the matter was before the Industrial Court. On 12 July 1985 the Government advised that no further developments had taken place in the matter which is still before the Industrial Court. In a further communication dated 16 December 1985 the Government stated that, since the matter is before the Industrial Court, it is not in a position to send any observations on the matter.

&htab;264.&htab;The Committee adjourned this case at its meetings in November 1984, February and May 1985. At its meeting in November 1985, the Committee addressed an urgent appeal to the Government for its observations and stated that it would examine the case at its next meeting even if the reply had not been received (see 241st Report, para. 8, approved by the Governing Body at its 231st Session, November 1985). No reply has been received from the Government.

&htab;265.&htab;Antigua and Barbuda have ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;266.&htab;In its communication of 14 August 1984, the IUFAWA alleges that over 100 hotel workers in Antigua were dismissed following a strike which conformed with the legal texts and local regulations. It and the Antigua Workers' Union consider that this jeopardises the freedom of association of the hotel workers. It calls for the re-establishment of a normal situation for the dismissed hotel workers.

&htab;267.&htab;The IUFAWA gives the following background to the case. The collective agreement concluded between the employers (Antigua Hotels and Tourism Association) and the legally authorised trade union organisation (Antigua Workers' Union) for the hotel sector was due to expire on 31 December 1983. Since the parties could not come to an agreement, the Minister of Labour met the two negotiators on 11, 13 and 22 December 1983, following which the Minister made certain recommendations. The union accepted and the employers' organisation rejected the proposals, so the Minister amended them. The union again agreed and the employers' organisation rejected the amended proposals. On 22 December 1983, the union informed the Antigua Hotel and Tourism Association that, if agreement could not be reached before midday 23 December, a strike would be announced.

&htab;268.&htab;In the absence of any reaction from the employers, the workers in the Jolly Beach and Hawksbill Beach hotels went on strike at midday 23 December and were followed on 24 December by the workers of three other hotels. At the same time the Minister of Labour instituted proceedings before the competent judicial body, the Industrial Court. The Antigua Workers' Union received no official notification from the Court about this measure. Since these judicial proceedings rendered the strike illegal for the employers, the hoteliers made it known that any wage earner who had not recommenced work by 7 am 25 December would be considered as having abandoned his work. The union called for a return to work on 26 December.

&htab;269.&htab;All wage earners who had not recommenced work by 7 am 25 December were informed that they were deemed to have resigned and that they had to sign a new recruitment contract relinquishing their seniority entitlements if they wished to obtain work. Most of the workers - who had an average of 12 years' service - refused to sign such a contract.

&htab;270.&htab;On 30 January 1984, the Civil Court, in proceedings instituted by the trade union, held that the case brought by the Minister before the Industrial Court was founded and thus, by virtue of s. 20(1) of the Industrial Court Act 1976, any participation in strike action after midday 23 December was prohibited. However, the Court also stated that participation in such action did not mean that the strikers had abandoned their work and there were no grounds for deeming the employment contracts to be broken; the employers were consequently prohibited from unilaterally breaking the employment contracts by using the pretext of participation in the strike of 23, 24 and 25 December 1983. According to the IUFAWA, the employers paid no heed to this and continued to insist upon the signing of a new contract, failing which the wage earner is deprived of employment without compensation.

&htab;271.&htab;In conclusion, the complainant stresses that the strike was called after recourse was had to all negotiation, conciliation and arbitration methods, including mediation through the Minister of Labour, and was in accordance with the legal texts in force in Antigua. The strike became illegal after the hasty institution of proceedings before the Industrial Court at midday 23 December. The employers made their own ultimatum (the morning of 25 December) and paid no heed to the appeal made by the trade union that evening for a return to work for the following day. Furthermore, the sanctions (break of employment contract without compensation) apply to strikers, thus only to unionised workers.

&htab;272.&htab;Apart from the brief communications of 24 September 1984 and 12 July and 16 December 1985 repeating that the matter was before the Industrial Court, there has been no reply received from the Government.

&htab;273.&htab;The present complaint concerns allegations of unjustified dismissal of over 100 members of the Antigua Workers' Union and the non-reinstatement of these hotel workers despite a civil court judgement on the matter declaring the dismissals illegal.

&htab;274.&htab;First of all, the Committee regrets that the Government - apart from repeating that the matter is before the Industrial Court - has failed to supply observations on this case despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was presented and despite the numerous requests made to it.

&htab;275.&htab;The Committee considers it necessary to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the purpose of the whole procedure concerning allegations of infringements of freedom of association is to ensure respect for freedom of association both in law and in fact. The Committee recalls that while this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, the governments should in turn recognise the importance of supplying, for objective examination, detailed replies to the allegations made against them.

&htab;276.&htab;The Committee recalls that strike action is one of the means of action which should be available to workers' organisations to defend the social and economic interests of their members. The dismissal of workers because of a legitimate strike therefore constitutes discrimination in employment, and is contrary to Convention No. 98, ratified by Antigua and Barbuda. Given that the national civil courts have already decided in this sense, the Committee regrets that the employers concerned have not implemented this judgement which held that the striking workers' contracts of employment had not been broken.

&htab;277.&htab;The Committee notes with surprise that the Industrial Court has been seized of this matter since 23 December 1983 apparently without rendering a decision. It also notes that this Court has been able to deal with the original dispute parallel to the civil court's examination of the dismissals (whose decision was rendered on 30 January 1984) under s. 19 of the Industrial Court Act, 1976 and that an appeal to the Court of Appeal is possible under s. 17 of the Act on points of law. It accordingly hopes that the Industrial Court will deliver its award without any further delay and requests the Government to send it a copy of the award on the matter.

&htab;278.&htab;The Committee observes that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations had been requesting information on the practical effects of ss. 19, 20 and 21 of the Industrial Court Act in comments on Convention No. 87 when Antigua was a non-metropolitan territory of the United Kingdom (most recently in 1981). It accordingly refers this case for information to the Committee of Experts to follow up in the context of Convention No. 87, ratified by Antigua and Barbuda after independence.

&htab;279.&htab;In these circumstance, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions: (a) The Committee regrets that the Government - apart from repeating that the matter is before the Industrial Court - has failed to supply observations on this case despite the time which has elapsed since the complaint was presented and despite the numerous requests made to it.

(b) The Committee recalls that strike action is one of the means of action which should be available to workers' organisations to defend the economic and social interests of their members. It therefore considers that the dismissal of the hotel workers on 25 December 1983 because of a legitimate strike linked to the renegotiation of their collective agreement constitutes discrimination in employment and is contrary to Convention No. 98.

(c) The Committee regrets that the employers concerned have not implemented the civil court judgement which held that the striking workers' contracts of employment had not been broken.

(d) Given that the Industrial Court has been seized of the original dispute since 23 December 1983, the Committee hopes that it will deliver its award without any further delay and requests the Government to send a copy thereof.

(e) The Committee refers the case as a whole for information to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

&htab;280.&htab;The Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT), on behalf of its affiliate, the National Union of Workers and Employees in the Equatorian Institute of Telecommunications (IETEL), presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights in a communication dated 14 September 1985. The Government supplied its observations in a communication dated 11 December 1985.

&htab;281.&htab;Ecuador has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;293.&htab;The World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) presented a complaint against the Government of Canada/British Columbia in a communication dated 8 October 1985 on behalf of its affiliate, the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It supplied further information in a letter dated 18 December 1985. The Goverment supplied its observations in a communication dated 20 January 1986.

&htab;294.&htab;Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) or the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

&htab;295.&htab;The WCOTP, in its letter of 8 October 1985, alleges that teachers employed by school boards in British Columbia are denied collective bargaining rights. It states that the Government has disregarded the Committee's recommendations in Case No. 1173 and has taken further measures to limit the revenue of school boards, to restrict the school boards' right to negotiate the salaries of their employees, to determine in advance the outcome of negotiations and arbitration, and to impose the principle of ability to pay as the sole determinant of the outcome of bargaining leaving arbitration boards powerless.

&htab;296.&htab;More specifically, the WCOTP refers to the following legislative restrictions:

(1) School Act 1979 (which governs teachers' collective bargaining) limits the scope of bargaining to monetary "salary and bonus" matters; (2) Education (Interim) Finance Act 1982, as amended, alters unilaterally the fiscal year of school boards so that a board must establish its final budget for approval by the Minister of Finance before collective bargaining can be concluded or the findings of arbitration boards are known;

(3) Treasury Board Directive No. 1/86 of 4 April 1985, issued under the Financial Administration Act, imposes severe penalties - in the form of grant reductions - on school boards which attempt to free funds for salary increases by reducing the number of teachers employed;

(4) amendments to the Compensation Stabilisation Act 1982, as amended, empower the Commissioner to over-rule any collective agreement or arbitration award that is considered not to be consistent with the outcome desired by the Government.

&htab;297.&htab;The WCOTP attaches to its complaint a copy of several arbitration awards ( Board of School Trustees of Vancouver District v. Vancouver Elementary/Secondary School Teachers' Associations , dated 28 June 1985, Sunshine Coast and Powell River Teachers' Associations v. Boards of School Trustees of Sunshine Coast and Powell River School Districts , dated 30 May 1985, and another) from which it appears that arbitrators, while recognising that they are bound by the ability to pay criterion of the Compensation Stabilisation Act, consider the present restrictions on the arbitral process unacceptable. The following extract from one of the awards sums up the complainant's criticism of the present situation of teachers' collective bargaining in the province:

&htab;We have referred earlier to the legislation, regulations and directives now in force. The fact is that it is pursuant to the scheme represented or created by this mishmash that the budgetary provisions outlined are now in effect, the hands of the [School Board] Trustees with respect to ability to pay are tied, and this Arbitration Board is powerless to do anything effective to award an increase otherwise justly due. The teachers have asked us to disregard these fetters and to make an award which will both recognise the merits of their position and assert our independence from such governmental restrictions and/or directives. Having in mind the traditional independence of arbitrators, and the desirability of making an award on the merits, the temptation to do so is strong, but the reality is that it would be but an empty gesture, resulting in further references to the Commissioner, references back, and expenditure of time and money by all parties to no practical effect.

&htab;298.&htab;In its letter of 18 December 1985, the WCOTP explains that the B.C. Teachers' Federation had challenged Treasury Board Directive No. 1/86 as being unauthorised by law. In the lower court the Chief Justice of British Columbia found the Directive valid. The Court of Appeal (whose judgement of 21 November 1985 is supplied) found it invalid since a directive cannot overturn the School Act, which alone gives school boards the right to decide on the number of teachers employed and governs the salary negotiation process. The judgement contains strong criticism of the legislative interference in the arbitration process.

&htab;299.&htab;In its communication of 20 January 1986, the Government recalls that the evolution of the compensation stabilisation programme - the subject of Case No. 1173 referred to by the WCOTP - is linked directly to the difficult economic conditions that have plagued British Columbia since 1981. It cites unemployment, loss of revenues and public-sector wage increase settlements running at 14.4 per cent in 1981. The Government's detailed reply to the allegations concerning the programme are reproduced in the context of Case No. 1329 at paragraphs 173 to 181 of this report.

&htab;300.&htab;In rely to the WCOTP's specific allegations concerning teachers' collective bargaining, the Government points out that the BCTF has recently challenged the provisions of the School Act governing the scope of collective bargaining before the courts. It consequently considers it inappropriate to discuss them until the court case is resolved. It does state, however, that the allegation concerning the Government's non-response to requests for amendment of the Act is misleading. These requests are quite recent and are linked to dissatisfaction that the teaching sector is covered by the compensation stabilisation programme. It points out that alternative - and wider - legislative coverage (e.g. under the Labour Code) was favoured by only a small majority of voting delegates at a 1983 BCTF convention. According to the Government, the School Act denies the right to strike but provides the alternative of compulsory arbitration of teachers' salaries where the parties are unable to reach agreement.

&htab;301.&htab;As regards the Education (Interim) Finance Act, the Government states that it was passed to restrain public spending on education during a period of reduced government revenues and serious recession. Through this Act, the provincial government has determined the budget for school boards, but it does not direct them to apportion their budgets in any particular manner. Consequently, the Act does not preclude the possibility of salary adjustments being negotiated. The Act will be automatically repealed on 31 December 1986 (section 61). Moreover, the Government has announced that local taxing authority will be returned to school districts as of 1 July 1986, six months before the expiry of the legislation.

&htab;302.&htab;The Government admits that there may be some confusion as to the intent and effect of Treasury Board Directive No. 1/86. It states that its purpose is to ensure the quality of education and the maintenance of teachers' jobs. According to the Government, the Directive does not preclude the negotiation of wage increases where those increases will not result in a loss of teachers' jobs. It cites statistics showing an annual average increase of 1.72 per cent in total compensation for full-time teachers over 1985-86. As regards the Court of Appeal's decision on this Directive, the Government considers that the majority decision is based on a legal technicality; it does not invalidate the Government's basic right to establish a formula which limits funding to local school boards which use teacher lay-off as a means of financing wage increases for other teachers.

&htab;303.&htab;As regards the alleged government interference through ministerial statements (set out in detail by the WCOTP in the context of Case No. 1329, see paragraph 172 of the present report), the Government states that the Minister of Education has merely written to school boards to put them on notice that any negotiated salary increases would have to be funded from the budgets already allocated to the school districts.

&htab;304.&htab;The Committee notes that it made a thorough examination of the 1982 Compensation Stabilisation Act and the 1982 Education (Interim) Finance Act in the context of Case No. 1173, reaching definitive conclusions at its May 1984 meeting [see 234th Report, paras. 75 to 91]. The new aspects introduced in the present case consist of (1) allegations that the permanency of the compensation stabilisation programme, in particular the concept of employers' ability to pay and the constraints on arbitration, have almost destroyed teachers' collective bargaining; and (2) 1985 amendments to the Act and Treasury Directive No. 1/86 have worsened the situation.

&htab;305.&htab;As regards the first of the new aspects listed above, the Committee has undertaken a detailed re-examination of the Compensation Stabilisation Act in the context of Case No. 1329 and would accordingly, in the present case, refer to the conclusions it has reached in that Case [see paras. 183 to 188].

&htab;306.&htab;Moreover, the Committee had occasion during its examination of Case No. 1173 to examine the Education (Interim) Finance Act enabling the Government to block - through its budget - wage increases which had been previously agreed by the parties to the negotations [see 230th Report, para. 573]. In the present case, the Committee can only endorse its previous conclusion that such action is not consistent with the principles of freedom of association. The Committee has stressed in the past the importance it attaches to the principle of the autonomy of the parties to the collective bargaining process, a principle generally recognised in the preparatory discussions that led to the adoption by the International Labour Conference in 1981 of the Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 154). It follows from this that the public authorities should not, as a rule, intervene in order to modify the contents of collective agreements which have been freely concluded. The Committee would also again recall that the exercise of financial powers, attributed to public authorities in a manner that prevents compliance wih collective agreements entered into by public bodies is not consistent with the principle of free collective bargaining. It notes that this Act will terminate, in practice, in July 1986 and, in law, in December 1986.

&htab;307.&htab;Given that Treasury Board Directive No. 1/86 has been overruled by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Committee considers that no purpose would be served in examining its compliance with the ILO principles of freedom of association. Likewise, the Committee is of the opinion that the complainant union's allegation of government interference through pressure placed on the employer school boards is insufficiently substantiated and does not call for further examination.

&htab;308.&htab;As regards the School Act, the Committee would first point out that this legislation, in denying, as it does, the right to strike of teachers is not in conformity with the principle that the prohibition of strike action, which is a legitimate means of defending the economic and social interests of workers, should be limited to civil servants acting on behalf of the public authorities or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In addition, where strikes are restricted or prohibited adequate protection should be given to the workers to compensate them for the limitation thereby placed on their freedom of action through the provision of adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties can take part at every stage and in which the awards, once made, are fully and promptly implemented.

&htab;309.&htab;The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will reconsider the legislative provisions that have been impugned in this case.

&htab;310.&htab;As regards the alleged limited scope of teachers' bargaining under the School Act, the Committee notes the Government's statements in relation to this Act and that it is subject to court challenge. It recalls that in past cases [see, for example, 139th Report, Cases Nos. 743 and 744 (Japan), para. 211], with regard to allegations concerning the refusal to bargain collectively on certain matters in the public sector, the Committee has repeated the view of the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association that "There are certain matters which clearly appertain primarily or essentially to the management and operation of government business; these can reasonably be regarded as outside the scope of negotiation." It is equally clear that certain other matters are primarily or essentially questions relating to conditions of employment and that such matters should not be regarded as falling outside the scope of collective bargaining conducted in an atmosphere of mutual good faith and trust. The Committee trusts that the court, in its examination of the case concerning the School Act, will take account of these principles. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the judgement in this case.

&htab;311.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) As regards the public-sector compensation stabilisation review programme, in force since 1982 by virtue of the Compensation Stabilisation Act, the Committee notes that it has re-examined the legislation at this present meeting in the context of Case No. 1329 and accordingly refers to the conclusions it has reached therein.

(b) As regards the allegations relating to the Education (Interim) Finance Act, it considers that the use of financial powers attributed to public authorities in order to block fulfilment of previously negotiated collective agreements is not consistent with the principles of freedom of association. It notes that this Act will terminate, in practice, in July 1986 and, in law, in December 1986.

(c) The Committee considers that the allegations relating to Treasury Board Directive No. 1/86 and the Government's interference through pressure placed on school boards do not call for further examination.

(d) The Committee draws the Government's attention to the principles stated in paragraph 308 above and expresses the hope that the Government will reconsider the legislation.

(e) The Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle stated in paragraph 310 above concerning the scope of bargaining; it requests the Government to transmit a copy of the judgement in the case concerning the School Act.

&htab;312.&htab;A number of complaints alleging violation of trade union rights in Greece have been presented by several trade unions, namely: a part of the administrative council of the General Confederation of Labour of Greece (CGTG) and the Panhellenic Federation of Accountants, initially on 8 November 1985, and subsequently the Panhellenic Union of Merchant Marine Engineers (PEMEN), the Panhellenic Union of Merchant Marine Seamen (PENEN) and the Panhellenic Union of Certified Third Engineers and "Stefenson" Firemen, in a communication dated 25 November 1985. Finally, several other Greek trade unions sent a standard letter dealing with the same issues in communications dated 6, 7, 15 and 16 December 1985. This standard letter was signed by the Panhellenic Federation of Municipal Employee Unions, the Trade Union Centre of Workers and Employees of Ioannina, the Panhellenic Federation of Non-Permanent State Workers, the Trade Union Centre of Karditsa, the Panhellenic Federation of Garment Workers, the Federation of Social Security Agency Pensioners, the Panhellenic Federation of Actors and Musicians, the Federation of Mining Workers of Greece, the Trade Union Centre of Agrinion, the Federation of Mill Workers of Greece, the Federation of Leather Workers, the Federation of Hospital Agencies, the Panhellenic Federation of Bakery Workers, the Federation of Undertaker Unions, the Trade Union Centre of Preveza, the Trade Union Centre of Arcadia, the Panhellenic Federation of Special Treatment, the Federation of Construction and Allied Workers of Greece, the Federation of Private School Teachers, the Panhellenic Federation of Accountants, the Workers' and Employees' Centre of Canea (Crete), as well as the Workers' Centres of Kavala and Larissa. PEMEN, PENEN and the Panhellenic Union of Certified Third Engineers and "Stefenson" Firemen sent another communication dated 23 December 1985.

&htab;313.&htab;The Government, for its part, replied in communications dated 3 and 18 December 1985 and 18 February 1986.

&htab;314.&htab;Greece has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;315.&htab;The communication received from the General Confederation of Labour of Greece (CGTG), signed by Mr. Papamichael, who claims to be the President of CGTG, begins by focusing on recent economic measures adopted by the Greek Government. In this connection, the complainant denounces the suppression of the automatic indexing of wages with reference to prices and the suppression of salary increases in the last four months of 1985, which allegedly result from a Presidential Decree repealing the right of collective bargaining until the end of 1987.

&htab;316.&htab;Secondly, the complainant explains that the President of CGTG, Mr. Raftopoulos, arbitrarily and without the prior approval of CGTG bodies accepted the two-and-a-half year freeze on collective bargaining, and in violation of the by-laws repeatedly refused to call a meeting of the CGTG administrative council in order to adopt the required resolutions. Mr. Papamichael indicates that, after several fruitless requests addressed to the President, the CGTG administrative council was then convened by the CGTG executive committee on 29 October 1985, in accordance with the by-laws and the law, and resolved to remove the President, Mr. Raftopoulos, from office.

&htab;317.&htab;The complainant goes on to explain that on 31 October 1985, the administrative council elected him President of the CGTG; he had previously been Vice-President of this organisation. He adds that it was resolved at the 29 October 1985 meeting that the CGTG enter into a discussion with the Government in order to review the economic measures in light of prospects for development and economic growth, and seek the repeal of the Presidential Decree ordering the freeze of existing collective agreements. At this same meeting, the administrative council also called a 24-hour general solidarity strike, to take place on 14 November 1985.

&htab;318.&htab;The complainant further states that Mr. Raftopoulos, the ex-President of the CGTG, supported by the Government, filed an appeal in the Greek courts through the Patras Labour Centre, which he controls, seeking to obtain the annulment of the administrative council's decisions and to forestall the reaction of the CGTG. According to the complainant, it is clear that this judicial coup will result in the removal of the union leaders legally elected by the 22nd Congress of the CGTG in December 1983, and that a pre-selected interim council will be appointed in order to ensure the majority required to support the Government's economic policies.

&htab;319.&htab;The complainant also states that, in accordance with its by-laws, the CGTG executive committee has decided to organise a special Panhellenic Congress in January 1986, for the purpose of electing a new administrative council, and that this decision has been approved by the great majority of its member organisations. However, continues the complainant, Mr. Raftopoulos, the ex-President, has forced 16 members of PASOKE, who are also members of the CGTG's administrative council, to resign, while he himself and the Treasurer, Mr. Breyannis, have not done so and have refused to yield their offices to their substitutes until such time as a judicial decision is rendered. It was at this time, the complainant explains, that the Patras Labour Centre requested that the courts appoint an administrative council.

&htab;320.&htab;In conclusion, the complainant requests the ILO to intervene with the Greek Government in connection with the Presidential Decree suspending the right of collective bargaining until 1987 and the risk of government intervention in the appointment of the CGTG administrative council by the Greek courts.

&htab;321.&htab;In its communication of 8 November 1985, the Panhellenic Federation of Accountants supports the complaint presented by Mr. Papamichael, and explains that following President Raftopoulos's repeated refusals to call a meeting, despite three separate requests presented by 26 of the council's 45 members, the executive committee and administrative council of the CGTG did in fact meet. With 12 of 15 members of the executive committee and 27 of 45 members of the administrative council voting in favour, these bodies decided to call a 24-hour general strike on 14 November, to undertake discussions with the Government prior to the strike, to postpone by 18 days, from 31 October to 17 November, the meeting to approve the CGTG General Council's financial report, to censure President Raftopoulos and Treasurer Breyannis, and to request their resignation. Despite these decisions, the complainant federation goes on to explain, the ex-President of the CGTG refused to yield his office to the new President, Mr. Papamichael. The Government then intervened through the courts, summoning the chief judge of the Court of Athens to the Ministry of Justice and demanding that he suspend the above-mentioned decisions of the CGTG administrative council by means of an interim order.

&htab;322.&htab;According to the complainant federation, this government intervention provoked a number of demonstrations; half of the labour centres (including the largest, such as those of Athens, Salonika and Piraeus), and 26 federations decided to support the new CGTG administrative council and to join the 14 November strike. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that the Government used the labour centre to seek an annulment of the CGTG decisions, in order to dismiss the newly elected CGTG executive under a number of pretexts. At the same time, the complainant alleges that the Government orchestrated the resignation of a minority of the CGTG's administrative council in order to bring about an administrative void and thus request judicial intervention.

&htab;323.&htab;The standard letter signed on 6, 7, 15 and 16 December 1985 by a number of trade unions repeats the substance of the above-mentioned allegations. The letter adds that the economic measures adopted by the Government will entail a reduction of over 20 per cent in the income of workers, employees and pensioners in 1986, that the Presidential Decree which came into force on 18 October 1985 is valid for six months until its approval by Parliament, and that it prohibits, until the end of 1987, wage increases which do not conform with the Government's wage and salary policies. This Decree applies to all workers without exception, and to all manner of increases; in other words, daily and hourly wages, allowances, financial benefits and all other benefits. Furthermore, all conflicting legal provisions, provisions of collective agreements, arbitration awards, ministerial decrees or other governmental decisions or individual contracts are abolished.

&htab;324.&htab;The letter further states that the anti-worker measures in question have provoked the reaction of trade unions and the working class as a whole. The letter confirms that the CGTG administrative council, elected at the 22nd Congress in December 1983, whose mandate expires in December 1986, voted by an overwhelming majority to condemn the governmental measures. It alleges that the general strike of 14 November 1985 was supported by 90 per cent of the organisations affiliated with the CGTG.

&htab;325.&htab;On the subject of the CGTG administrative council, the letter states that, despite the fact that the 22nd Congress elected 84 substitute members in addition to the 45 titular members and that a number of the substitutes have already been called on by the administrative council to fill the vacancies resulting from the resignations, and although the CGTG administrative council, elected at the request of 50 unions and federations (a number in excess of that required by the by-laws), decided to convene a national trade union congress on 10 and 12 January 1986 in order to find solutions to the problems created by ex-President  Raftopoulos and the Government's manoeuvres, the Athens court of first instance, under government pressure has annulled the election of the CGTG administrative council and appointed a new council of 45 members, composed of trade union leaders supportive of the Government.

&htab;326.&htab;As regards the court's decision, the letter alleges that this was influenced by the Government, and that the judge contradicted himself. In fact, even though the judge recognised that in order for the administrative council of a trade union organisation to be appointed by a judicial decision there must exist a compelling reason, such as the impossibility of obtaining a quorum in accordance with the law and the organisation's by-laws, he acknowledged that 28 titular members and eight substitute members of the administrative council, in other words, 36 active members, had been present. According to this letter, however, the CGTG by-laws require the presence of only 25 members to constitute a quorum. None the less, the judge subsequently rejected his own arguments, declaring that a quorum did not exist, and proceeded to annul the election of the administrative council and appoint another.

&htab;327.&htab;Furthermore, these organisations added in a second communication, the Government has recently attempted to undermine trade union rights by submitting a Bill to Parliament, the contents of which are identical to those of the President of the Republic's legislative act of 18 October 1985. These organisations state that in light of the Government's significant majority in Parliament, the Bill will certainly be adopted.

&htab;328.&htab;This second communication contains the text of the Bill in question, dated 25 November 1985. Section 1 of the Bill approves the legislative act of 18 October 1985 concerning "measures in the interest of the national economy", and reiterates the text of the legislative act, whose sole section forbids new agreements on wage and salary increases in excess of the limits established by the Government's incomes policy, until the end of 1987, exempting only such increases as are tied to family status or the development of the worker's career, which have been previously established by law, collective agreements, ministerial decisions, arbitration awards, labour regulations of an organisation or enterprise or any other regulations. Section 2 of the Bill describes the incomes policy mentioned in section 1 and stipulates that it shall consist only of the payment of the automatic adjustment for inflation (ATA). As of 1 January, the automatic adjustment for inflation will be paid to wage earners at the beginning of every four-month period, in accordance with the estimated percentage change in the consumer price index, after adjusting for imported inflation. Imported inflation is to be calculated with reference to the consumer price trends of imported products, as shown in the sales price index for all sales, calculated over the last four-month period. The rate of the automatic adjustment for inflation is to be determined by decision of the Ministry of the National Economy. Should there exist a difference between estimated inflation and real inflation at the end of fiscal year 1986-87, such difference is to be paid at the beginning of the following year. Under this system, the automatic adjustment for inflation for the first four months of 1986 is to be paid on 1 January 1986.

&htab;329.&htab;Wage earners whose income surpasses 150,000 drachmas per month are not entitled to the automatic adjustment during the first four months of 1986. The calculation and payment of the adjustment for these persons is to be effected by subtracting a sum of 5,000 drachmas for each child. Employees earning less than 150,000 drachmas, but whose income exceeds this sum after the addition of the adjustment for the first four months of 1986, are to receive a portion of the adjustment until they have reached this amount. The adjustment for employees who hold several jobs, or for pensioners who receive more than 40,000 drachmas per month and also hold a job, is to be paid only in respect of one of their sources of income, of their choosing. There is provision for a safety clause concerning agreements concluded prior to 18 October 1985, whereby employers have agreed to pay wages or other allowances in excess of those provided for by law; in other words, these employers may exceptionally pay such sums. The automatic adjustment is to be paid as follows: up to 50,000 drachmas, in its entirety; from 50,000 to 75,000 drachmas, one-half; from 75,000 to 100,000 drachmas, one-quarter; in excess of 100,000 drachmas, it will not be paid at all.

&htab;330.&htab;PEMEN, PENEN and the Panhellenic Union of Certified Third Engineers and "Stefenson" Firemen stress the unconstitutional nature of the legislative act which seeks to safeguard the national economy; in their opinion, it violates Article 4 of Convention No. 98. They contend that such restrictive measures are hypocritical and are only intended to allow capital, managers, businessmen and their servants to increase their profits and force the working class to bear the whole burden of the country's economic recovery. They contend that collective agreements and bargaining are in fact being restricted, if not completely abolished, and that the right to strike is terminated; consequently, the Greek Government is informally denouncing Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 without having the courage to comply with formal denunciation procedures and face up to its responsibilities before the international community.

&htab;366.&htab;At its February 1985 meeting the Committee on Freedom of Association was informed that the Government of El Salvador was ready to accept a direct contacts mission to examine the various aspects of Cases Nos. 953, 973, 1016, 1150, 1168, 1233, 1258, 1269, 1273 and 1281, noted this information with interest and expressed the hope that, upon receipt of confirmation from the Government, arrangements could be made at an early date for such a mission to take place [see 238th Report of the Committee, para. 21, approved by the Governing Board at its 229th Session (February-March 1985)].

&htab;367.&htab;During the visit of the Director-General of the ILO to El Salvador in May 1985, he proposed a direct contacts mission to His Excellency the President of the Republic, in conformity with the decision adopted by the Committee on Freedom of Association at its February 1985 meeting regarding the complaints pending against El Salvador. On this occasion the President stated that, although he had not requested an ILO mission, he did not reject the direct contacts mission proposed, and indicated that the country opened its doors to the ILO mission.

&htab;368.&htab;In its 239th Report (May 1985), approved by the Governing Body at its 230th Session (May-June 1985), the Committee took the following decision in connection with the cases relating to El Salvador: "As regards the cases relating to El Salvador (Cases Nos. 953, 973, 1150, 1168, 1233, 1258, 1269, 1273 and 1281), the Committee notes that following an official visit by the Director-General to the country, the Government is willing to accept a direct contacts mission with a view to examining the various aspects of these cases. The Committee hopes that the necessary arrangements will be able to be made shortly so that this mission can take place as soon as possible."

&htab;369.&htab;In a communication received on 8 November 1985 the Salvadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the ILO that the direct contacts mission could visit the country.

&htab;370.&htab;The Director-General of the ILO appointed Mr. Andrés Aguilar, member and former president of the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights and member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as his representative to conduct the mission. The mission took place in San Salvador from 12 to 16 January 1986. During the mission the Director-General's representative was accompanied by Mr. Alberto Odero, member of the Freedom of Association Branch of the International Labour Standards Department, and Mr. Luis Zamudio, Regional Adviser on Standards.

&htab;371.&htab;The mission was received by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, His Excellency Miguel Alejandro Gallegos, by Dr. Lázaro Tadeo Bernal Lizama, Vice Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, and Dr. Antonio Lara Gavidia, Head of the International Affairs Department of the Ministry, by the members of the Labour and Social Welfare Committee of the Legislative Assembly, by senior officials of the Ministry of Justice, and by representatives of employers' and workers' organisations.

&htab;372.&htab;El Salvador has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

* * *

&htab;373.&htab;In the first place, the Committee wishes to thank Mr. Andrés Aguilar for having agreed to carry out the direct contacts mission, as well as for his detailed report on the pending cases, which has allowed the Committee to examine them. The Committee considers that the report of the Director-General's representative attests to the usefulness of missions of this kind in clarifying matters arising from allegations by the complainant organisations.

&htab;374.&htab;Since the content of the allegations and the information supplied by the Government, as well as the information obtained by the Director-General's representative during the mission are contained in the mission report (see Annex), the Committee can proceed directly to formulate its conclusions on the various cases.

&htab;375.&htab;The Committee takes note of the report of the Director-General's representative on the mission carried out in El Salvador from 12 to 16 January 1986. The Committee also notes that the mission enjoyed full freedom of action and movement and that the authorities of the Ministries of Labour and Justice with which it came into contact gave it every facility and co-operated actively in obtaining the information requested by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

&htab;376.&htab;The Committee notes that, according to the mission report, although there has been a marked drop in the frequency of attempts on lives and physical integrity, and in the number of disappearances and arrests of persons connected with the trade union movement since the elections of May 1984, there is continued insecurity. The Committee also notes that the mission ascertained that a wide variety of trade union organisations representing all tendencies exist and operate in the country and that they play an active and militant role in national life and resort to strikes. The organisations having recourse to direct action include public-sector workers' organisations, despite the fact that such action is illegal for this category of workers. Nevertheless, according to the mission report, trade union activities are often conducted in an atmosphere of fear which has an unfavourable effect on their exercise, and according to the organisations interviewed, such activities are viewed with hostility in many employers' circles - particularly in the private sector - which oppose the formation of organisations and the exercise of their rights.

&htab;377.&htab;In general, the Committee concludes from the mission report that there is still a need to make much progress in El Salvador to achieve genuine respect for human rights in general and trade union rights in particular. The Committee notes that according to the authorities of the Ministry of Labour, this is one of the main objectives of Government policy, and concrete measures to this effect have been and are being taken.

&htab;378.&htab;While the Committee is aware of the serious difficulties El Salvador is facing, it calls on the Government to adopt appropriate measures to guarantee that trade union rights may be exercised in a normal fashion; this will only be possible in conditions in which fundamental human rights are respected and in a climate free of violence, pressures and threats of any kind.

&htab;419.&htab;The Committee on Freedom of Association at its meeting in May 1985, in considering the cases concerning Honduras (Nos. 1216 and 1271) requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission, given the gravity of the allegations and the lack of information available concerning Case No. 1216 (see 239th Report of the Committee, para. 258), and in order that the various aspects of Case No. 1271 might be fully examined (see 239th Report, para. 275). Moreover, at its November 1985 meeting, the Committee expressed the hope that the direct contacts mission would be able to obtain information on the allegation pending in connection with Case No. 1307 (see 241st Report, para. 749). Finally, an allegation made in the context of Case No. 1268 was still pending before the Committee (see 234th Report, para. 384).

&htab;420.&htab;At the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference (Geneva, 1985) the Government representative of Honduras formally requested that the direct contacts be carried out in order to elucidate the situation and to bring the country's legislation into conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

&htab;421.&htab;Subsequently, the Government of Honduras, in a communication dated 29 November 1985, agreed that the mission should take place from 7 to 11 January 1986.

&htab;422.&htab;The Director-General of the ILO appointed as his representative to carry out this mission Mr. Andrés Aguilar, ex-president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and a member of that Commission and the Committee on Human Rights. The mission took place in Tegucigalpa on the dates mentioned above. Mr. Alberto Odero, a member of the Freedom of Association Branch of the International Labour Standards Department, and Mr. Luis Zamudio, Regional Adviser on Standards, accompanied the representative of the Director-General during the mission.

&htab;423.&htab;The mission held talks with His Excellency Mr. Amado H. Núñez, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, and with senior officials of the Ministry, as well as representatives of the employers' and workers' organisations.

&htab;424.&htab;Honduras has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

* * *

&htab;425.&htab;The Committee wishes first of all to thank Mr. Andrés Aguilar for having agreed to carry out the direct contacts mission and for his detailed report on the pending cases, which made it possible for the Committee to examine them. The Committee considers that the report of the representative of the Director-General shows how useful missions of this kind are in elucidating the matters arising from allegations by the complainant organisations.

&htab;426.&htab;Since the content of the allegations and the information supplied by the Government, as well as the information obtained by the representative of the Director-General during the mission are contained in the mission report (see Annex), the Committee may proceed directly to formulate its conclusions on the various cases.

&htab;427.&htab;The Committee takes note of the report of the representative of the Director-General on the mission to Honduras from 7 to 11 January 1986. The Committee notes with interest the fact that the representative of the Director-General received every facility from the authorities of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare in carrying out the mission. In this connection the Committee notes that the information obtained during the mission on the disappearance of two trade union leaders referred to in the complaints does not contain any new elements.

&htab;428.&htab;When the Committee considered this case at its May 1985 meeting [see 239th Report, paras. 243-258] two matters were still pending. First, the Committee had requested the Government to supply information on the alleged murder of Jacobo Hernández, a trade union leader of the Honduran National Peasants' Association (ANACH), and had called attention to the need to carry out judicial inquiries in that regard. The Committee had also requested the Government to supply information on the latest developments in the proceedings concerning the murder of Dagoberto Padilla, Ismael Ulloa, Angel Alvarado and Carlos Alcides Mejía, and on the attempted murder of Pedro Chavarría, Jacobo Núñez and Eulogio Figueroa, all leaders or members of the Workers' Union of the Agricultural and Cattle Raising Company of Sula (SITRACOAGS). The Committee had stressed the seriousness of the allegation that the manager and owners of SITRACOAGS were involved in the murder and attempted murders and considered that since it was a penal matter it should be subject to a criminal investigation. It therefore urged the Government to provide information on this investigation. Finally, subsequent to the latest examination of the case by the Committee, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), in a communication dated 11 October 1985, presented new allegations concerning the disappearance of Mr. José Manuel Guerrero, President of the "El Mochito" Mineworkers' Union, who was reported by the ICFTU to have been detained by soldiers of the 105th Infantry Brigade.

&htab;429.&htab;Concerning the death of Mr. Jacobo Hernández, the ANACH union leader, the Committee notes that, according to the mission report, proceedings commenced on 28 March 1983 against Mr. Marco Tulio Pineda Torres (at present detained in the central penitentiary of Tegucigalpa) for the crime of homicide.

&htab;430.&htab;Regarding the murder of four SITRACOAGS leaders and the attempted murder of three other leaders of that organisation, the Committee notes that, according to the mission report, the relevant trial for murder or attempted murder is still at the indictment stage. The Committee also takes note of the various developments that have taken place in that trial: (1) of those who were earlier detained on charges of murder, Mr. Alfredo Villeda Henríquez and Mr. Moisés Orellana have been found not guilty of criminal liability; (2) those charged with the attempted murder of Pedro Chavarría, Jacobo Núñez and Eulogio Figuera are the subject of warrants of arrest; (3) Mr. Marco Antonio Molina and Mr. Fausto Isaúl García are still fugitives from justice and before escaping from prison they confessed to the judicial authorities that they had committed the murders, as may be seen from the court documents given to the mission.

&htab;431.&htab;As to the involvement of the manager (Mr. Carlos González) and the owners of the Agricultural and Cattle Raising Company of Sula (particularly, Mr. Jaime Echeverría) in the murders, the Committee notes that the judicial authorities have released these persons since there were no grounds for their continued detention.

&htab;432.&htab;Whenever allegations concerning the death or serious injury of trade union leaders or unionists have been submitted to it, the Committee has always insisted that a judicial inquiry be carried out with a view to elucidating the facts in full, determining responsibilities and punishing the guilty parties. In the present case, the Committee notes that trials are under way, and that it has been possible to identify the two alleged perpetrators of the murders or attempted murders, even though they are fugitives from justice. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the hope that the proceedings in question will be concluded as soon as possible and will enable the guilty parties to be punished; it requests the Government to keep it informed of the final results.

&htab;433.&htab;With respect to the disappearance of the trade union leader Mr. José Manuel Guerrero, the Committee takes note of the written communication given to the mission by the Minister of Labour, indicating that absolutely reliable sources have informed the security authorities that Mr. José Manuel Guerrero, President of the "El Mochito" workers' union, was trafficking in explosives and was involved in other activities tending to undermine the tranquillity of the nation, peace and democracy, and that he was therefore arrested on 2 October 1985. However, given that the necessary investigations proved his innocence, he was released immediately and continues to exercise his trade union functions; Mr. Guerrero is now engaged in politics and was elected a deputy to the Congress by the National Party.

&htab;434.&htab;In these conditions, in view of the fact that Mr. Guerrero was imprisoned because he was falsely accused of trafficking in explosives, and that he was freed once his innocence was proved, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the arrest or detention of trade union leaders or trade unionists in conditions such as those presently alleged may not only constitute a serious interference in union activities, but also may create a climate of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the normal development of trade union activities. When taken on trade union grounds, they are contrary to the principles of Convention No. 87.

&htab;435.&htab;When the Committee examined this case at its May 1985 meeting [239th Report, paras. 259-275, approved by the Governing Body at its 230th Session (May-June 1985)], two questions were pending. The first concerned the alleged interference by the Government in the constitution of an organisation and in the election of trade union leaders through the adoption, in 1983, of an Act governing the constitution of the teachers' organisation COLPROSUMAH. The Committee recalled with firmness that in ratifying Convention No. 87 the Government had undertaken to grant workers' organisations the right to draw up their constitutions and rules and elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee therefore requested the Government to indicate what measures it envisaged taking to repeal the provisions of the national legislation which are incompatible with the Convention and to enable the organisation in question to adopt its own rules in conformity with Article 3 of Convention No. 87. The second pending question referred to the non-reinstatement of 31 teachers, mentioned by name, who were dismissed on account of a strike in 1982. The Committee considered that dismissal on account of a strike constituted serious discrimination in employment for the exercise of a lawful trade union activity, and was contrary to Convention No. 98, ratified by Honduras; it insisted that the Government state what measures it envisaged taking to secure the reinstatement of the dismissed teachers.

&htab;436.&htab;Moreover, the complainant organisation in a communication of 19 December 1985 presented new allegations in which it stated that on 17 December Mr. Ambrosio Sabio, former President of COLPROSUMAH, had been arrested. The complainant added that it appeared that the arrest had been made at the request of the rival group formed by the Government within this organisation.

&htab;437.&htab;The Committee notes that the Minister of Labour told the mission that it would be very difficult to take steps to repeal the 1983 Act which governs the constitution of the Professional College for the Advancement of Teaching in Honduras (COLPROSUMAH). The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, the 1983 Act was adopted by the National Congress at the request of the executive committee of COLPROSUMAH that is recognised by the authorities. The Committee observes in this connection that, according to the Government, COLPROSUMAH is not a trade union organisation but a professional college of teachers. A 1964 Act already governed the constitution of COLPROSUMAH before the adoption of the 1985 Act and according to the Government teachers are not barred from forming trade unions.

&htab;438.&htab;Apart from the fact that COLPROSUMAH is a professional college, the Committee wishes to recall that at its May 1983 meeting (see 226th Report, para. 342) it concluded that COLPROSUMAH was an organisation which should enjoy the guarantees of Convention No. 87 since its aim was to promote and defend the interests of teachers [see 226th Report, Case No. 1166 (Honduras), para. 342]. Moreover, with respect to the 1982 election of the executive committee which was later recognised by the authorities, the Committee had implicitly considered that acts of interference contrary to the principles of Convention No. 87 had been committed [see 230th Report, Case No. 1166 (Honduras), para. 111].

&htab;439.&htab;With respect to the 31 teachers who are still dismissed because of the 1982 strike, the Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government from which it concludes that a number of the teachers mentioned by the complainant organisation were teaching in State schools, and that the rest had given up teaching to take up other non-teaching jobs or activities of a political nature, or for legally sanctionable reasons not connected with the above-mentioned strike were not employed in the service. The Committee observes that the executive committee of COLPROSUMAH which was not recognised by the authorities told the mission that the problem of the dismissed teachers had not been resolved: one of the persons interviewed by the mission (Mr. Marcelino Borjas) said that he was still dismissed and that others were teaching in private schools.

&htab;440.&htab;Since the unrecognised COLPROSUMAH executive committee undertook, during the mission, to send the ILO a precise account of the position of the persons dismissed, the Committee adjourns examination of this allegation pending receipt of this information.

&htab;441.&htab;Regarding the arrest of Mr. Ambrosio Sabio (ex-President of COLPROSUMAH), the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the proceedings that began in 1983 against Mr. Sabio for the offences of forging private documents, usurpation of functions and persistent embezzlement of COLPROSUMAH, are at the indictment stage. The Committee also notes that according to the Government Mr. Sabio was arrested on 18 December 1985 and provisionally released on 4 January 1986, certain proceedings having been declared invalid and there being insufficient grounds for the issue of a warrant of arrest.

&htab;442.&htab;The Committee also notes the statement made by Mr. Sabio to the mission, particularly the fact that the accusation against him dates from 1983 and that already then the First Criminal Court found no grounds for his arrest. He was arrested some days after the regular congress of COLPROSUMAH which had been convened by the unrecognised board on 10 December 1985. Since 1983 four judges have been dealing with the matter without issuing a warrant of arrest for lack of grounds. Inexplicably, in the course of a very short substitution in December 1985, the warrant was issued by a judge, who, in total disregard for legality, certified that in November 1982 the officially recognised executive committee of COLPROSUMAH had been properly elected.

&htab;443.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee, noting that Mr. Sabio was released 17 days after his arrest since there were no grounds for his imprisonment, concludes that the measures taken to deprive Mr.  Sabio of his freedom were of an anti-union nature. The Committee deplores Mr. Sabio's imprisonment and at the same time draws the Government's attention to the fact that the arrest or detention of trade union leaders or trade unionists because of their functions or their activities as such are contrary to the principles of Convention No. 87.

&htab;444.&htab;The Committee had requested the Government to communicate the results of the investigation being carried out concerning the whereabouts of the trade union leaders Mr. Rolando Vindel González [see 234th Report, Case No. 1268, para. 384] and Mr. Gustavo Morales [see 241st Report, Case No. 1307, para. 749].

&htab;445.&htab;The Committee notes that, as mentioned in the mission report, the investigations are continuing, but that as yet the whereabouts of the leaders are still not known. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses its concern at the length of time that has elapsed since the disappearance of these leaders, and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the investigations being carried out to discover their whereabouts.

&htab;446.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee takes note of the report of the representative of the Director-General on the mission carried out from 7 to 11 January 1986 in Honduras. The Committee notes with interest that the representative of the Director-General received every facility from the authorities of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare in carrying out the mission.

(b) With respect to the murder of a leader of ANACH, the murder of four leaders of SITRACOAGS and the attempted murder of three leaders of that organisation, the Committee observes that trials are under way and that two of the alleged perpetrators have been identified although they are fugitives from justice. The Committee expresses the hope that the trials under way will be concluded as soon as possible and that they will enable the guilty parties to be punished; it requests the Government to keep it informed of the final results.

(c) As regards 31 teachers who are still dismissed because of the 1982 strike, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government but adjourns examination of this allegation pending receipt of information on the present position of the dismissed teachers which, during the direct contacts mission, the unrecognised COLPROSUMAH executive committee undertook to send.

(d) Concerning the arrest of two trade union leaders who have now been released (Mr. José Manuel Guerrero and Mr. Ambrosio Sabio), the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the arrest or detention of trade union leaders or trade unionists because of their functions or activities as such are contrary to the principles of Convention No. 87.

(e) The Committee expresses its concern at the long period that has elapsed since the disappearance of the trade union leaders Messrs. Roldando Vindel and Gustavo Morales, and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments of the investigations under way to ascertain their whereabouts.

&htab;Having examined the cases relative to Honduras (Cases Nos. 1216 and 1271) at its May 1985 meeting, the Committee on Freedom of Association requested the Government to consent to a direct contacts mission, given the seriousness of the allegations and the lack of sufficient information concerning Case No. 1216 [see 239th Report of the Committee, para. 258], and to make a full examination of the various aspects of Case No. 1271 [see 239th Report, para. 275]. Likewise, at its November 1985 meeting, the Committee expressed the hope that the direct contacts mission might obtain information concerning an allegation still pending relative to Case No. 1307 [see 241st Report of the Committee, para. 749]. Finally, an allegation presented in connection with Case No. 1268 [see 234th Report, para. 384] was still pending.

&htab;During the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference (Geneva, 1985) the Government representative of Honduras formally requested the direct contacts mission with a view to clarifying the situation and bringing the country's legislation into line with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

&htab;Subsequently, in a communication of 29 November 1985, the Government of Honduras consented to the mission being carried out from 7 to 11 January 1986.

&htab;I was appointed by the Director-General of the ILO as his representative entrusted with carrying out this mission, which took place in Tegucigalpa on the specified dates. During the course of the mission, I was accompanied by Mr. Alberto Odero, a member of the Freedom of Association Branch of the International Labour Standards Department and Mr. Luis Zamudio, Regional Adviser on Standards.

&htab;During the mission, we were received by His Excellency, Mr. Amado H. Nuñez, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, and by senior officials of the Ministry, as well as by representatives of workers' and employers' organisations. A list of all persons interviewed appears at the end of this report.

&htab;I wish to state that I received every assistance from the Ministry of Labour in carrying out the mission, for which I am extremely grateful. I wish also to thank all the persons interviewed for the information they supplied.

&htab;In its 1985 observation concerning the application of Convention No. 87 by Honduras, the Committee of Experts noted that the Government repeated its statements to the effect that the draft Labour Code under preparation, and currently before the Congress, should bring the legislation into conformity with the international standards laid down in the Conventions ratified by Honduras. In this connection, after recalling the points on which it had made comments, the Committee of Experts expressed the hope that legislation in conformity with the Convention would be adopted in the near future and asked the Government to keep it informed of any progress occurring in these fields.

&htab;The mission indicated to the Ministry of Labour that the draft Labour Code then before the National Congress, which dated back to 1981, included several major improvements that gave effect to the comments formulated by the Committee of Experts. In fact, the draft Labour Code does not deprive workers in small agricultural undertakings of the right to join trade unions, as does section 2 of the present Labour Code; it does not prohibit the existence of several trade unions within the same undertaking, as does section 472 of the present Code; it does not require trade union officers to have been engaged in the occupation or trade covered by the trade union for a minimum of six months, as does section 510 of the present Code; it does not expressly prohibit the exercise of the right to strike by federations and confederations, as does section 537 of the Code; it does not require the leaders of federations and confederations to have been engaged in the occupation or trade covered by the trade union for more than one year, as does section 541; it does not require a two-thirds majority to call a strike, as do sections 495 and 563; it does not require prior notice of six months to call a strike in a public service, as does section 558; nor does it confer on the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare powers to end a dispute between an employer and workers in services for the refining, transport and distribution of petroleum, as does section 555.2 of the present Code. Finally, section 568 of the draft Code expressly states that all provisions contrary to the Code are rendered null and void.

&htab;Nevertheless, the Minister was notified that the draft Code presented certain incompatibilities with the principles of Convention No. 87. In particular, the following provisions should be modified:

- section 295(a) of the draft, which prohibits trade unions from intervening in political matters. When it has rendered opinions on similar provisions, the Committee has considered that trade unions should be able to make public their opinion on questions of social and economic policy of interest to their members;

- sections 297 and 298 of the draft, read in conjunction, allow the Ministry of Labour to suspend trade union leaders in the case of misappropriation of trade union assets. The Committee of Experts has always considered that the suspension of trade union leaders for a violation of the law or statutes is only admissible when such violation has been duly proven during the course of judicial proceedings, and when the suspension results from a judicial decision;

- section 289 II, which bans the participation of foreigners in trade union executive committees. This provision should be somewhat more flexible to allow for the election of migrant workers as trade union leaders after a reasonable period of residence in the host country;

- section 289 IV, which prohibits trade union leaders who have been dismissed from office from belonging to the union's executive committee. This provision should be limited to dismissals for reasons that compromise the integrity of the person concerned;

- section 350 contains too broad a list of essential services and activities; section 351 allows the Ministry of Labour to submit disputes involving public services or essential activities to a labour court; and section 354 allows the executive power, in the case of the suspension of essential services, to assume the administration and responsibility for such services for such time as is necessary, in order to avoid hardship to the community. In similar situations, the Committee of Experts has admitted that limitations may be imposed on the right to strike in essential services, on condition that such services are essential in the strict sense of the term, namely services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

&htab;The Minister replied that although the draft Code had been submitted to the National Congress, no sector had shown interest in promoting its adoption, and that he personally considered that it would be more appropriate to proceed by means of partial amendments.

&htab;The employer sector indicated to the mission that its lack of interest in the draft Code was due to the fact that it had not been consulted during its preparation. Most of the trade union organisations interviewed were aware of the existence of the draft Code, but did not have a clear idea of its contents.

&htab;Two final comments should be made. In the first place, all sectors interviewed agreed on the need to amend the existing Labour Code. Secondly, the new Government will take office on 17 January 1986 and it would thus seem appropriate for the new Government and the employers' and workers' organisations to express their opinion on the draft Labour Code of 1981 within a tripartite context, since there do not appear to have been the appropriate consultations to date.

&htab;(Signed) Andrés Aguilar.

Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare

- His Excellency, Mr. Amado H. Núñez, Minister of Labour and Social Welfare;

- Haroldo López Herrera, Assistant Secretary of Labour;

- Mercedes Sevilla, Chief of International Relations.

Honduran Council of Private Enterprises (COHEP)

- Joaquín Luna Mejía, Executive Secretary. National Association of Industries of Honduras (ANDI)

- Dorcas de González, Executive Secretary.

Tegucigalpa Chamber of Commerce and Industry

- Saúl Carrasco, Executive Secretary.

Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CTH)

- José Israel Paredes, Treasurer of the CTH;

- María Verónica Núñez, Records Secretary of the CTH;

- Juan Estaban Carbajal, Vice-President of FECESITLIH;

- Altagracia Fuentes, Treasurer of FECESITLIH;

- Micaela Duron, Women's Affairs Secretary of FECESITLIH;

- Erasmo Flores, Co-operatives Secretary of the CTH.

General Workers' Union (CGT)

- Felicito Avila Ordoñez, General Secretary;

- Oscar Armando Escalante, Deputy General Secretary;

- Julio César Umanzor, Records Secretary;

- Ventur Alvarez Molina, member of the Tribunal of Honour;

- Antonio Hernández, member of the Tribunal of Honour.

United Federation of Workers of Honduras (FUTH)

- Héctor Hernández, President;

- Ramón Varela, Auditor.

Professional College for the Advancement of Teaching in Honduras (COLPROSUMAH, recognised executive committee)

- Roberto López Tinoco, President;

- Margarita Elvir de Lanza, General Secretary; - Idalia Argentina Portillo de Zelaya, Internal Affairs Secretary;

- Mauricio Espinal Osorto, Finance Secretary;

- Froilan Antonio Medina Cáceres, Secretary of Public Relations;

- Oscar Rigoberto López, Secretary for trade and occupational disputes;

- Julián Portillo, Auditor;

- Rolando Espinal Galo, Cultural and Education Secretary;

- Emigdio Pineda, External Affairs Secretary.

Professional College for the Advancement of Teaching in Honduras (COLPROSUMAH, unrecognised executive committee)

- Rosario Avila de Domínguez, President of the central executive committee;

- Carlos Zúñiga, Ex-president of the central executive committee;

- Ambrosio Sabio, Ex-president of the central executive committee;

- Marcelino Borjas, Ex-president of section No. 1;

- Reinaldo Erazo, Ex-president of section No. 1;

- Carlos Mauricio López, Ex-general secretary of the executive committee.

&htab;447.&htab;The Committee examined this case at its February, May and November 1985 meetings, when it presented interim reports to the Governing Body. [See 238th Report, paras. 330 to 364; 239th Report, paras. 298 to 340; and 241st Report, paras. 750 to 805, approved by the Governing Body at its 229th, 230th and 231st Sessions respectively (February-March, May and November 1985).]

&htab;448.&htab;Since then, the ILO has received the following communications from the complainants: International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU): 23 October and 6 November, 2 December 1985 and 6 February 1986; National Federation of Trade Unions of Crews and Similar Branches of Chile: 30 October 1985; Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industry: 1 November 1985; World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP): 6 November 1985; World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU): 6 November 1985, 17 and 28 January 1986; World Federation of Teachers' Unions (FISE): 6 December 1985. The Government, for its part, sent its observations in communications of 21 and 28 November 1985, 16 and 19 December 1985 and 10, 20 January and 4 February 1986.

&htab;449.&htab;Chile has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;450.&htab;The complaints presented in the present case concerned a number of events that have taken place in Chile since September 1984. The allegations referred to the intervention of the forces of order on the occasion of the Protest Day held on 4 September 1984, which is said to have resulted in the death of ten persons, many injuries and over 1,000 arrests. The complainants referred in particular to the case of Juan Antonio Aguirre Ballesteros who, they said, had been arrested and tortured and whose body had subsequently been found. In this connection, the Government indicated that inquiries were being carried out by the competent criminal courts.

&htab;451.&htab;It appeared, in the light of the allegations made, that the headquarters of certain trade union organisations (in particular the Confederation of Building Workers, the Professional Association of Teachers of Chile (AGECH) and the Chilectra Trade Union) had been attacked by the police and that material had been destroyed, documentation confiscated and trade unionists arrested. The Government denied that it had given orders for the trade union premises in question to be searched. Furthermore, on the day following the attack on the AGECH premises, Messrs. Manuel Guerrero, President of the Metropolitan Sector of this organisation, and José Manuel Parada, an official of the Vicariate of Solidarity, were kidnapped in the street. Their bodies were subsequently found horribly mutilated. The Government stated that a judicial inquiry had been opened.

&htab;452.&htab;The complainants also referred to numerous arrests and the banishment of trade unionists. According to the Government, some of these trade unionists had not been arrested, others had been released and the reasons for the banishment were not related to trade union activities. More recent allegations mention the indictment and provisional arrests of trade union leaders following the Protest Day held on 4 September 1985.

&htab;453.&htab;The Committee also had before it allegations concerning infringements of the exercise of the right of assembly, in particular measures taken against a works union of the National Copper Corporation.

&htab;454.&htab;Finally, it was alleged that trade union leaders had been dismissed in the teaching, ports and mining sectors.

&htab;455.&htab;At its November 1985 Session, the Governing Body approved the following conclusions of the Committee:

(a) The Committee notes that, since its last examination of this case, several matters which have been the subject of allegations before the Committee have not been dealt with by the administrative authorities, but have been placed before the judiciary.

(b) As regards the inquiries carried out into the death of Messrs. Aguirre, Parada, Guerrero and Natina, the Committee notes that proceedings are still at the investigatory stage. While observing the excessive duration of these investigations, it expresses the firm hope that these inquiries will be concluded rapidly and will result in the determination of responsibilities so that the guilty parties can be punished. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in these matters.

(c) As regards the attacks against trade union premises, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the forces of order did not enter these premises. The Committee stresses the importance of protecting trade union premises. It urges the Government to initiate judicial inquiries into the matter so that the responsible parties may be identified as soon as possible and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

(d) As regards the arrest and banishment of trade unionists, the Committee notes that the persons mentioned in the Annex to its previous report have regained their freedom of movement. It observes, however, that despite the lifting of the state of siege, several allegations refer to new arrests and banishments concerning which the Government has supplied certain information. The Committee requests the Government, with a view to restoring social peace and normal trade union activities, to take the necessary measures to end the banishments as soon as possible. It also asks the Government to keep it informed of all steps taken to this end.

(e) As regards the indictment and preventive detention of trade union leaders, the Committee points out that the arrest by the authorities of trade unionists against whom no subsequent charges are brought may involve restrictions on freedom of association. The Government should take measures to ensure that the authorities concerned receive appropriate instructions to prevent the dangers involved for trade union activities by unjustified measures of arrest. The Committee reminds the Government that trade union organisations should be able to have recourse to protest strikes with a view to defending the economic and social interests of their members. It requests the Government to supply information on the outcome of the judicial proceedings under way against those responsible for and the organisers of the day of protest held on 4 September 1985. (f) As regards the right of assembly, the Committee recalls in general that freedom of trade union assembly is one of the fundamental aspects of trade union rights and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which is likely to limit this right or impede its lawful exercise.

(g) As regards the dismissals of trade union leaders, the Committee points out that the dismissal of a trade union leader is liable, by reason of the fact that dismissal causes him to lose his status as a trade union officer, to infringe the freedom of association of his organisation and its right to elect its representatives in full freedom and may even leave the way open for acts of interference by the employer. The Committee requests the Government to furnish its observations concerning the dismissals of trade union leaders in the teaching and port sectors.

&htab;456.&htab;In its communication of 23 October 1985, the ICFTU gives details of the measures taken by the Government following the Protest Day of 4 September 1985. It explains that, on the following day, the Government, acting through legal counsel of the Ministry of the Interior, lodged complaints against many trade union leaders on presumption of their responsibility in the violent acts which took place during the protest. According to the ICFTU, there were no grounds for the legal proceedings which resulted. It points out that the persons concerned included Sergio Troncoso, who had been banished to Melinka, Humberto Arcos, who was undergoing medical treatment in France, and José Ruiz di Giorgio, who was at that time in Magallanes taking part in a collective bargaining session. In the view of the ICFTU, this proves that the aim was not to arrive at the truth and to seek justice, but merely to break up trade union organisations by immobilising their leaders and keeping them out of the way.

&htab;457.&htab;The complaint lodged against 95 trade union leaders was rejected in the first instance, continues the ICFTU. The Ministry of the Interior then lodged an appeal with the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Appeal. On 23 September the Court decided to charge Messrs. Rodolfo Seguel and Manuel Bustos for contravention of the State Security Act (participation in meetings for the purpose of conspiring to destabilise the legally constituted Government, holding of unauthorised demonstrations on the public thoroughfare, attempts to paralyse national activities). The ICFTU states that the Court refused to hear the counsel for the defence on the pretext that they were not parties in the case. On 27 September 1985 many trade union leaders were heard by the courts, arrested and later charged.

&htab;458.&htab;In their communications of 6 November 1985, the ICFTU and the WFTU once again draw attention to the situation of Rodolfo Seguel, Manuel Bustos, Arturo Martínez, Eduardo Valencia, Mario Araneda and José Ruiz di Giorgio, still under arrest. The ICFTU also mentions the arrest on 31 October 1985 of Adrián Fuentes, Acting President of the Confederation of Building Workers, and María Rozas, President of the Women's Department of the National Trade Union Co-ordinating Body. The WCOTP refers to the arrest of the latter in its communication of 6 November 1985.

&htab;459.&htab;In its communication of 30 October 1985, the National Federation of Trade Unions of Crews and Similar Branches of Chile reports that, on 8 August 1985, a leader of the Inter-Enterprise Port Workers' Union of the Province of Concepción, Mr. Manuel Jerez Alvarado, was summoned to attend the Maritime Governor's Office in Talcahuano the next day to answer an accusation made by the "Viento Sur" Fishery Company regarding his differences with the management due to his defence of certain workers. The Governor's Office withdrew his work booklet, and the undertaking dismissed him three days afterwards, requesting the courts to waive his trade union immunity. Moreover, the Governor's Office fined him about 22,000 pesos, a sum which he is unable to pay.

&htab;460.&htab;The Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industry, in its communication of 1 November 1985, refers to the arrest of two leaders of the Confederation of Workers in the Metal Industry (CONSTRAMET), José Ramón Avello Soto and José Enrique Nuñez Estrella, on 4 August 1985 and their subsequent banishment to the island of Melinka. It also mentions the arrest, on 5 September 1985, of another official, Ana María Miranda Urbina, Director of the Cultural Department of CONSTRAMET.

&htab;461.&htab;In its communication of 2 December 1985, the ICFTU alleges that, on 29 November 1985, a number of trade union leaders in the maritime and port sector were arrested by the police while protesting against the Government's economic and social policy. The persons named are Sergio Aguirre, an official of the San Antonio Port Workers' Union; Salatier Sánchez, President of the CONGEMAR Union; Walter Astorga, a seamen's leader from the bay of San Antonio; Víctor Guerra, an official of the CONGEMAR Union; Héctor Aguayo, General Secretary of the Maritime Confederation of Chile (COMACH); Luis Salas, President of COMACH; Heriberto Jara, President of Dockers' Union No. 1 of Valparaiso; Mauricio Riquelme and Pedro Morales, officials of COMACH. These persons and nine other trade unionists are now alleged to be in custody at the First Police Commissariat of Santiago. The ICFTU points out that the CONGEMAR Union and COMACH have been on strike for a month.

&htab;462.&htab;The FISE, in its communication of 6 December 1985, mentions the arrest of Father Renato Hevia, director of the review Mensaje and member of the Professional Association of Teachers of Chile.

&htab;463.&htab;In its communication of 17 January 1986, the WFTU estimates that 5,000 persons were arrested and 67 killed in 1985. In addition, 590 trade union activists are said to have been banished to other parts of the country by government decision. Since in its view the Government is continuing to ignore the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body, the WFTU requests that a commission be sent to Chile.

&htab;464.&htab;In its communication of 28 January 1986, the WFTU alleges that on 5 and 6 November 1985 during a protest demonstration organised in solidarity with the arrested trade unionists, four persons were killed. According to witnesses, three of them were killed by military personnel and one by civilians who fired shots from a van. In addition, on these days, 26 persons were banished to the north of Chile.

&htab;465.&htab;The WFTU also mentions the case of three teachers of the No. 182 School "Puerto Navarino", who were dismissed for having protested against being paid with worthless cheques.

&htab;466.&htab;The WFTU refers to the arrest on 4 December 1985 at Rancagua of Rodermil Aranda Flores, leader of the Trade Union of the Caletones Mines. His house was searched and a poster, a cassette and a publication were seized. He was, however, accused of stocking abundant material for subversive activities, such as explosives and paramilitary type equipment.

&htab;467.&htab;In addition, the WFTU alleges the dismissal of the President of the Metropolitan Medical College, Dr. Ricardo Vacarezza, as a reprisal for his stance against the Government's health policy. A solidarity meeting organised by doctors was allegedly prohibited.

&htab;468.&htab;In its communication of 6 February 1986, the ICFTU alleges that, on 20 January 1986 following a request from the Ministry of Labour, a Santiago court annulled the elections which had been held during the last congress of the Copper Workers' Confederation in January 1986. In addition, the elected officers (including Rodolfo Seguel, re-elected President by a majority vote) can neither express opinions nor represent their union on pain of imprisonment. On 31 January, Labour Ministry officials, supported by the police, confiscated the Confederation's assets and froze its bank accounts, thus preventing the Confederation's 29 employees from being paid.

&htab;555.&htab;The Moroccan Federation of Labour presented a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in communications dated 27 and 29 June 1985. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 27 November 1985 and 23 January 1986. The Office requested the Government to supply additional information on this case in communications dated 4 December 1985 and 20 January 1986.

&htab;556.&htab;Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;557.&htab;The National Co-ordinating Committee of the Mining Sector, an affiliate of the Moroccan Federation of Labour (UMT), alleges that trade unionists in this sector have been arrested in the following circumstances.

&htab;558.&htab;On 4 June 1985, a labour dispute arose between the miners of Al-Hamman, the management of the mine belonging to Omnium Nord Africain, whose head office is located on Hassen II Boulevard in Casablanca, and the local authorities. Five miners were accused of having lost explosives and were immediately arrested. Shortly afterwards, the explosives having been found, they were released. After this incident, the trade union executives of the mine proposed to the management to set up a special branch responsible for supervising the circulation and handling of explosives, but the management simply turned down this proposal.

&htab;559.&htab;Considering that this was the management's responsibility and that the latter wished to shift it on to the miners and use it against them, the miners, in view of the management's refusal to assume its responsibilities, decided to hold a strike starting on 6 June 1985. Negotiations with the management and approaches to the authorities by the leaders of the local trade unions of Khemisset and Meknès produced no results.

&htab;560.&htab;The management, on the other hand, proceeded to have several members of the trade union executive of the mine and certain activists arrested by the local authorities. The following persons were arrested: Ray Mohamed, Serhain Ben Aïssa, Sioda Mohamed, El Oujdi Ahmed, Madan Akechir, Rabah Hassan, Cheikh M'Barek, Hassi ou Abdou Saalah and Ben Azzouz.

&htab;561.&htab;The complainant further alleges that the management also recruited new workers to replace the strikers.

&htab;562.&htab;In its reply dated 27 November 1985, the Government states that the dispute between the miners of Al-Hamman and the management of the mine in question was definitively settled following an agreement concluded between the two parties, and it encloses with its reply a copy of the agreement drawn up on this occasion.

&htab;563.&htab;In its communication of 23 January 1986, the Government admits that 11 strikers mentioned by the complainant have been sentenced to prison terms of two to four months. It explains that the Al-Hamman mine was attacked by the striking miners, in particular those involved in the complaint, so as to force the other miners, who were continuing to work, to join the strike; to end this disturbance, to restore public order and to maintain freedom to work, the forces of order intervened and brought before the courts those who were mainly responsible for the situation. The Government adds that those sentenced have appealed to the Rabat Court of Appeal which, on 13 August 1985, confirmed the decision of the first instance. It repeats that the dispute has now been settled by the signing of the agreement referred to above.

&htab;564.&htab;The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not comment on the allegation that the management recruited new workers to replace the strikers. On the other hand, it confirms that the striking miners referred to by the complainant have been sentenced to prison terms ranging from two to four months.

&htab;565.&htab;In addition, it appears from the agreement that the miners' claims have been satisfied. The agreement of 22 July 1985, signed after a meeting held at Khemisset between the Samine company and the UMT staff representatives, states that it was decided to introduce practical and theoretical training courses for mining personnel involved in the storage, distribution, transportation and use of explosives, with a view to improving the conditions in which such materials are used and to eliminate the risk of accidents. The company is to organise the training courses at its own expense, under the aegis of the Ministry of Energy and Mining. The company will study ways of strengthening control over the use of explosives and the management is to reward deserving workers according to the qualifications they obtain. Both parties are to ensure strict application of the safety regulations in force.

&htab;566.&htab;In order to facilitate the return to work, the agreement provides that the company is to grant an advance to any worker who claims it, that such advance shall amount to 1,000 dirhams and that it shall be repayable before 31 December 1985. It also provides that both parties undertake to settle disputes by holding meetings periodically or whenever the situation requires, and that work should be resumed on 23 July 1985 at 6 a.m., or on 29 July in the case of workers who were absent at the time.

&htab;567.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee observes that the dispute in question has been settled. It considers it necessary, however, to recall that workers and their organisations should be able to have recourse to strike action as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests, that the use of labour drawn from outside the undertaking with a view to replacing striking workers entails a risk of derogation from the free exercise of trade union rights. The Committee would also recall that, in cases of strike action, the authorities should resort to the use of forces of order only in serious situations where law and order are seriously threatened.

&htab;568.&htab;Given the information presently in its possession, the Committee regrets that 11 persons were sentenced to terms of imprisonment after a strike. So as to be able to reach conclusions in full knowledge of the facts, it requests the Government to transmit the text of the judgements handed down in these matters. The Committee would also like to have information on the consequences that this sentencing may have on the employment situation of these strikers.

&htab;569.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the labour dispute which gave rise to this complaint has been settled to the satisfaction of both parties.

(b) Given the information presently in its possession, the Committee regrets that 11 persons were sentenced to terms of imprisonment after a strike. So as to be able to reach conclusions in full knowledge of the facts, it requests the Government to transmit the text of the judgements handed down in these matters.

(c) The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consequences that the sentencing of these strikers may have on their employment situation.

(d) It recalls the importance it attaches to strike action as a legitimate means of defending the economic and social interests of workers. It stresses that the use of labour drawn from outside the undertaking to replace striking workers entails a risk of derogation from the right to strike, and that in cases of strike action the public authorities should resort to the use of the forces of order only in situations where law and order are seriously threatened.

&htab;570.&htab;The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) presented complaints of violations of trade union rights against the Government of Colombia in communications dated 8 July and 3 December 1985. The Trade Union Confederation of Colombian Workers (CSTC) presented additional information in a communication dated 20 August 1985. The Government sent its observations in letters dated 9 and 30 August, 23 October and 18 December 1985.

&htab;571.&htab;Colombia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;572.&htab;In its letter of 8 July 1985, the WFTU alleges that on 20 June 1985, following the National Day of Protest, government forces detained hundreds of workers, a great number of whom are still being held in prisons. Furthermore, the Government arbitrarily suspended the legal personality of the following trade union organisations: CSTC, the National Federation of State Employees (FENALTRASE), the National Federation of Colombian Bank Trade Unions (FENASIBANCOL), the Federation of Workers' Unions in Public Undertakings (FENASINTRAP) and the National Union of Workers in the Registrar's and Notary's Offices . It also states that the trade union USITRAS is being persecuted by government forces. It claims that the administrative suspension of the legal personality of the trade unions organising the National Day of Protest is a flagrant violation of Convention No. 87.

&htab;573.&htab;In its communication of 20 August 1985, the CSTC attaches copies of the Resolutions issued by the Ministry of Labour on 24 June 1985 suspending the legal personality of the CSTC, FENALTRASE, FENASIBANCOL and the Trade Union of Workers of the National Administrative Statistics Department SINDANE (Resolutions Nos. 01922, 01923, 01924 and 01926, respectively) and copies of the appeals presented by these unions to the Minister of Labour against the Resolutions. It also attaches copies of Resolutions Nos. 02205 and 02129 issued by the Ministry of Labour authorising the dismissal - on grounds of participation in the illegal strike of 20 June - of workers in, respectively, the Vianini Entrecanales undertaking (on which were based letters of dismissal concerning Messrs. Rafael Mauriao Mendoza Aguilar, Pedro Antonio Rodriguez Rojas and Pablo Emilio Leal Cruz) and in the Colombian Tobacco Company (on which were based the dismissal of Messrs. Jairo Bernal, Rolando López, Alirio Useche, Reinaldo Medina, Jorge Rey, Jaime Cepeda, Orlando Camacho, Jorge Nelson Murcia, Fernando Acosta, Jairo Lesmes Bulla, Humberto Riano and Justo Calderón).

(b) &htab;Allegations concerning the death &htab;of two trade union leaders

&htab;574.&htab;In its communication of 3 December 1985, the WFTU alleges that on 28 November 1985 the police forces assassinated in Manizales City the trade union leaders Hernando Llata Bonilla, President of the Municipal Council in San Juan de Arma, and Rubin Dario Castaño, President of the Trade Union Federation of Caldas.

&htab;575.&htab;In its letter of 9 August 1985, the Government explains that the suspension of the legal personality of the organisations concerned was due to conduct contrary to the law when they called a strike on 20 June to disturb public order. It also emphatically denies the allegation that hundreds of workers were detained.

&htab;576.&htab;In its communication of 30 August 1985, the Government states that on 20 June only one (CSTC) of the four workers' confederations in the country called for a national strike while the other three had been for some time in direct dialogue with the President with a view to finding solutions to the delicate economic situation and had been involved in joint commissions. According to the Government, the studies undertaken by the commissions had already recommended measures for immediate adoption e.g., the price freeze on some essential products. Thus Decree No. 1658 of 19 June 1985 (in force for one year) set out sanctions (six months' suspension of legal personality) to be applied to the unions involved in any way in the work stoppage, in accordance with the Government's constitutional obligation to preserve public order. Six unions ignored this Decree and organised the stoppage which, according to the Government, was not related to labour issues (CSTC, FENALTRASE, FENASIBANCOL, FENASINTRAP, SINDANE, National Union of Workers in the Registrar's and Nortary's Offices).

&htab;577.&htab;The Government points out that in normal circumstances, section 380 of the Labour Code prohibits the administrative suspension of the legal personality of trade unions. However, in exceptional situations of states of emergency, such as described in this case, the President is empowered to act to preserve threatened or real disturbances of law and order. The warning issued by the Government in its Decree aimed at protecting trade unionism from being used by subversive groups for non-occupational aims, such as damage to the economy and paralysis of transport.

&htab;578.&htab;According to the Government, only these six organisations were penalised since the vast majority of private and public employees continued to work normally on 20 June. It states that the public supported the Government's measures with exemplary solidarity. It concludes by reiterating that this was not trade union activity properly speaking, but serious subversion rejected by the population and the majority of Colombian workers' confederations; the events accordingly fall outside the Committee's mandate.

&htab;579.&htab;In its communication of 23 October 1985, the Government reiterates that Decree No. 1658 was passed in a state of emergency brought about by the strike which was clearly aimed at disturbing public order. It states that the sanctions on the six organisations have now been lifted and their legal personality restored. In addition, the vast majority of the persons detained on 20 June have been released and only ten are serving prison sentences after having been tried.

(b) &htab;Reply concerning the death of two trade union leaders

&htab;580.&htab;As regards the alleged murder of Messrs. Llata and Castaño in Manizales City, in a communication dated 18 December 1985, the Government expresses its deep regret at the death of these persons and states that the military authorities of the Department of Caldas have been requested to supply information urgently on the circumstances of these deaths which apparently took place on 28 November 1985. It undertakes to transmit this information to the ILO immediately upon receipt by the Ministry.

&htab;581.&htab;The Committee notes that the administrative suspension of the six trade union organisations which called and participated in the National Day of Protest on 20 June 1985 was lifted in October 1985, two months earlier than the expiry dates of the suspension Resolutions.

&htab;582.&htab;While noting the Government's explanation of the necessity for such measures at that time (emergency situation, threats to public order, subversive nature of the work stoppage, lack of popular support, fruitful on-going dialogue between the Government and the other three major union confederations), the Committee would recall the importance which it attaches to the principle that workers' and employers' organisations should not be subject to suspension or dissolution by administrative authority [see, for example, 230th Report, Case No. 1194 (Chile), para. 291]. Moreover, in similar cases, the Committee has considered that suspension by the Ministry of Labour of the legal personality of a union - legal personality being one of the conditions enabling the union to function legally - is contrary to the above principle [see, for example, 214th Report, Case No. 1075 (Pakistan), para. 691].

&htab;583.&htab;Even when special circumstances have been cited by governments, the Committee has maintained that any measures of suspension or dissolution by administrative authority, when taken during an emergency situation, should be accompanied by normal judicial safeguards, including the right of appeal to the courts against such dissolution or suspension. Measures taken to withdraw the legal personality of a trade union should be taken through judicial and not administrative action. In the present case, the Committee notes that the six affected unions appealed to the Minister of Labour against the withdrawal of legal personality and that no judicial appeal was available. It accordingly considers that the action taken was contrary to Article 4 of Convention No. 87, ratified by Colombia.

&htab;584.&htab;As regards the alleged detention of hundreds of workers during the National Day of Protest, the Committee observes that the Government first denies this, then (in a later communication) states that of the persons detained on that day, the vast majority have been released and only ten are serving prison sentences after having been tried. The Committee regrets that neither the complainants nor the Government have supplied sufficiently detailed information concerning these alleged arrests or the circumstances in which they are said to have occurred.

&htab;585.&htab;The Committee notes that the Government makes no comment on the dismissal, by virtue of Resolutions Nos. 02205 and 02129, of 15 named workers in the Vianini Entrecanales undertaking and the Colombian Tobacco Company, respectively. It accordingly requests the Government to send its detailed observations so that the Committee may be able to examine this aspect of the case in full knowledge of the facts.

(b) &htab;Death of two trade union leaders

&htab;586.&htab;As regards the alleged murder by the police of Messrs. Llata Bonilla and Dario Castaño in Manizales City on 28 November 1985, the Committee notes that the Government has undertaken an investigation and will transmit further information immediately it is available. The Committee accordingly adjourns this aspect of the case to await the Government's further observations.

&htab;588.&htab;The Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives' Associations of India (FMRAI) presented a complaint of alleged violations of trade union rights in a communication dated 29 August 1985. The Government supplied its observations in communications dated 1 November and December 1985.

&htab;589.&htab;India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;590.&htab;In its communication of 29 August 1985, the FMRAI states that its 12,000 members are employed by pharmacies and other manufacturing, marketing and distributing companies in both the private and public sectors. It is registered and formally recognised by the Government as evidenced by its participation in tripartite meetings and at ministerial level discussions. It complains about the situation which has arisen in the Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. undertaking.

&htab;591.&htab;According to the FMRAI, after the presentation by the union of a charter of demands to the Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. on 14 June 1983, the management resorted to unfair labour practices to break the union and has refused to negotiate its request for revision of working conditions. For example (1) 27 leading trade union officials who had supported the charter of demands by a personal deputation to the management were dismissed (four names are listed: S.K. Juvale, Sudhir Kumar and D. Sengupta, all zonal convenors, and T.C. Mehta, General Secretary of the Kerala State Medical Representatives' Association). (2) On 22 November 1983 the management called ten medical representatives to a meeting to form its own union, called "Raptakos Brett Medical Representatives' Association", which immediately presented a charter of demands agreed to by the management on 3 December 1983. This new association was registered as a trade union only on 22 December 1983. According to the FMRAI, most of the persons who attended the meeting have since been rewarded by promotion to management posts. (3) Since December 1983 the management has been coercing medical representatives to join the new union by such methods as cessation of payment of wages or non-reimbursement of expenses, the calling up of individuals to threaten them with dismissal and unjustified termination of contracts throughout the country (a list of 128 names in 14 states is supplied). (4) The management hired gangsters to attack FMRAI leaders and filed false police complaints against it.

&htab;592.&htab;The complainant quotes the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended in 1982, in particular section 25U which punishes unfair labour practices by imprisonment and/or fines. It states that the company reinstated some of the dismissed medical representatives and compelled them to join its union and withdraw their claims under the national legislation. The FMRAI has, nevertheless, continued its efforts against the victimisation of its members by direct approaches to the management and to the Government of the State of Maharashtra to instigate conciliation and/or adjudication proceedings, but in vain. Finally, on 14 and 22 August 1984 it organised 48-hour sit-ins (dharnas) before Parliament which led to discussion of the issue in the National Labour Ministry and submissions to the Prime Minister by 60 members of Parliament and a press release by eight central trade union federations. According to the complainant, at present only 33 workers remain dismissed (see Annex).

&htab;593.&htab;In a communication dated 1 November 1985, the Government states that it has requested a detailed report from the Government of the State of Maharashta which is the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act.

&htab;594.&htab;In a communication dated December 1985, the Government states that the dispute between the management and the workmen concerned was referred, on 4 November 1985, to the Bombay Labour Court for adjudication and is currently sub judice . It undertakes to supply information on subsequent developments as soon as the Court's decision is handed down.

&htab;595.&htab;This case concerns allegations of anti-union discrimination (dismissals, creation by management of a rival union, coercion by management to join the rival union, physical attacks on leaders of the complainant union) against the complainant and its members at the Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. undertaking since June 1983.

&htab;596.&htab;The Committee notes that in December 1985 the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Bombay Labour Court. It requests the Government to send it a copy of the court's decision as soon as it is handed down.

&htab;597.&htab;Meantime, the Committee notes with concern that 33 workers remain dismissed, apparently since the events of late 1983, for reasons - according to the complainant - connected with their union membership. The Committee would consequently draw the Government's attention to the principle that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, transfer or other prejudicial measures. [See, for example, 30th Report, Case No. 174 (Greece), para. 229.]

&htab;598.&htab;As regards the allegation that the employer rapidly agreed to the charter of demands of a newly formed rival union while refusing to negotiate the complainant's charter of demands which had been presented six months earlier, the Committee would recall generally that the question as to whether one party adopts an amenable or uncompromising attitude towards the demands of the other party is a matter for negotiation between the parties within the law of the land. [See, for example, 16th Report, Case No. 107 (Burma), para. 54.] On the other hand, the Committee has stated in past cases that both employers and trade unions should bargain in good faith and make every effort to come to an agreement. [See, for example, 236th Report, Case No. 1275 (Paraguay), para. 457.] The Committee therefore expresses the hope that the Labour Court's decision will clarify the status of the newly formed union in the company and that of the agreement signed with the employer.

&htab;599.&htab;Given the lack of detailed information concerning the allegation of management-backed physical violence against the complainant's officers, and the lack of any comment on this by the Government, the Committee considers that it is not in a position to come to conclusions on this point. It requests both the complainant and the Government to supply sufficient details to enable the Committee to decide in full knowledge of the facts.

&htab;600.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee notes that the allegations of anti-union discrimination in the Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. undertaking are before the Bombay Labour Court; it requests the Government to send it a copy of the Court's decision as soon as it is handed down.

(b) The Committee notes with concern that 33 workers remain dismissed by the company apparently since late 1983 allegedly because of their trade union membership; it recalls the principle that workers should enjoy adequate protection against anti-union discrimination in their employment.

(c) As regards the signature of an agreement between the employer and a newly formed rival union, the Committee expresses the hope that the Labour Court's decision will clarify both the status of the new union and the agreement it signed.

(d) The Committee requests the Government and the complainant to supply more detailed information concerning the allegation of physical attacks against the officers of the complainant union.

&htab;601.&htab;In communications dated 2 October and 7 October 1985 respectively, complaints of violation of freedom of association were submitted by the International Federation of Free Teachers' Unions (IFFTU) and the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP), on behalf of their affiliate, the Malta Union of Teachers (MUT), against the Government of Malta. Additional information was supplied by the WCOTP in communications dated 8 Octo ber1985, 15 and 22 January 1986 and in a communication from the MUT dated 15 January 1986. The Government replied in two communications dated 30 January 1986, one of which incorporated a reference to a communication dated 8 July 1985 in connection with another case before the Committee (No. 1335), and the other to another communication (of 22 April 1985) containing information relating to an observation which had been made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in its 1985 Report.

&htab;602.&htab;Malta has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It has not ratified the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

&htab;603.&htab;In their communications of 2 and 7 October 1985, the IFFTU and the WCOTP refer to the background to the industrial action which the general conference of the MUT in May 1984 decided to take, and to 13 directives which had been issued in this connection by that union on 19 September of the same year at a rally of teachers which it had called. These directives (the text of which was annexed to the communication) amounted to a work-to-rule whereby teachers were instructed not to carry out duties other than teaching duties or which were not stipulated in teachers' contracts; and it is stated that this form of industrial action was chosen so that pressure was put on the Government in a manner which disrupted the schooling of children as little as possible and so that they could be spared the adverse effects of the dispute.

&htab;604.&htab;It is further stated that, at a meeting with the Minister of Education on 21 September 1984, union officials who were government school teachers were asked to sign a declaration that they would not obey the union's directives and, when they refused to do so, they were informed in another document that they were locked out without pay so long as they observed the MUT directive. (The texts of both of these documents were also submitted with the complaint.) The Minister of Education is said to have presented each teacher individually with an ultimatum either to sign the declaration or to be locked out; and it is claimed that this measure constituted coercion, under threat of punitive suspension, of individual teachers who did not give in to governmental pressure.

&htab;605.&htab;The complainants state that the response of the union to the threat of a lock-out was the announcement at a rally of teachers on 23 September of a two-day strike, which was observed by over 90 per cent of the union's members and even by non-members of the union. The strike was extended every two or three days by the union over a period of seven weeks; it also received the support of the Confederation of Trade Unions (CMTU) which declared a one-day strike in solidarity with the MUT on 10 October 1984.

&htab;606.&htab;The complainants allege that, during the course of the strike, the Minister insisted that teachers would not be allowed back at schools until they signed a declaration that they would continue to carry out their duties; and that a campaign was mounted by the Government against the teachers after the MUT had issued its directives. Parents were told that the teachers were "waging war against their children", volunteers were recruited through the use of government media to replace teachers and these volunteers were promised financial rewards.

&htab;607.&htab;In a communication dated 8 October, the WCOTP invites attention to information received from the MUT stating that on the evening of 5 October the nine teachers who had not reported for work on Gozo island were forcibly taken to the Government Hospital by amubulance for medical examination, some being asked to stay overnight and others to return on the morning of 7 October. Six of the teachers had already been on extended sick leave with medical certificates from their doctors and had asked to be retired from service on medical grounds. The MUT stated that it had protested against this illegal and arbitrary arrest.

&htab;608.&htab;On 10 November 1984, the MUT announced that, following communications with the Prime Minister, it was withdrawing the directives it had issued and that it was calling off the strike as it was conscious of the deleterious effects these measures were having on schoolchildren. It was also announced at the same time that the Minister of Education was to withdraw all claims for any form of declaration from teachers.

&htab;609.&htab;The complainants allege that, on the following day (11 November 1984), the Minister of Education announced in a speech (a report of which is annexed to the complaint) that none of the teachers on strike, except those deemed irreplaceable, would be allowed to resume teaching in the same schools as before the strike; and that this was being done to protect them against the wrath of the parents.

&htab;610.&htab;According to the complainants, MUT officials pointed out at an urgent meeting with the Minister that transferring teachers to other schools was a punitive measure directed at workers who had exercised their right to follow a legitimate trade union directive, and also violated section 18(4) of the Industrial Relations Act of Malta; they went on to state that the attitude of the parents had been engendered by the systematic campaign conducted by the Minister against the teachers during the seven weeks of the strike.

&htab;611.&htab;The complainants state that the transfer of over 1,400 teachers to different schools entailed severe hardship involving, inter alia, the need to travel long distances (including travel between different islands of Malta), being separated from their families and having to teach subjects in which they were not trained.

&htab;612.&htab;In their communications of 15 and 22 January, the WCOTP and the MUT provide information concerning the award of medals by the Government to teachers who did not participate in the strike.

&htab;613.&htab;Other forms of victimisation are alleged to have taken place, including the forcible bringing of teachers to schools during the course of the strike by pro-government thugs and the receipt by striking teachers of threatening telephone calls.

&htab;614.&htab;Reference is also made by the complainants to the victimisation of worker-students (which is the subject of Case No. 1335).

&htab;615.&htab;In addition, it is alleged that inadequate provision is made for the protection of union premises. The complainants refer to an incident which occurred on 25 September 1984 when thugs broke into and ransacked the MUT headquarters and that a few days later an attempt was made to set the headquarters on fire. It is further stated that on 5 November 1984 a bomb exploded outside the residence of close relatives of the MUT, causing considerable damage. The complainants point out that, before these incidents occurred, the MUT had requested round-the-clock police protection, which was refused until 4 October; they allege that none of these incidents was investigated sufficiently, and that no proceedings were instituted in regard to them.

&htab;616.&htab;In its complaint, the WCOTP alleges in addition that the Government evaded negotiations in the period from January 1983 through 1985 by using a salary freeze of unlimited duration which thus limited free collective bargaining; it was this freeze, announced on 21 December 1982, which had put an end to negotiations and which had given rise to the directives issued by the MUT.

&htab;617.&htab;The WCOTP goes on to refer to the failure to establish the joint negotiating council for which provision had been made in the Industrial Relations Act No. XXX, 1976, which it states is a basic problem in the present conflict. This failure had in the complainant's view deprived the MUT of speedy recourse to impartial machinery for conflict resolution when disagreement was registered in negotiations. The complainant expresses the opinion that the fact that one of the trade union centres (the General Workers' Union) refuses to come to an agreement with the other trade union centre (the Confederation of Trade Unions) concerning the joint negotiating council does not excuse the Government for not setting up this council, but on the contrary constitutes favouritism vis-à-vis one union.

&htab;618.&htab;The last allegation of the WCOTP relates to threats which have been made to declare education an essential service and thus prohibit industrial action by teachers, most recently in a speech by the Prime Minister and Minister of Education on 20 February 1985.

&htab;619.&htab;In its communications of 30 January, the Government refers to the judgement of the Civil Court of Malta which had been sent with its reply to the allegations in Case No. 1335; and goes on to deal with other aspects of the complainants' allegations.

&htab;620.&htab;The judgement was given in an action brought by the President of the MUT personally (i.e. as one of the teachers affected) and in his official capacity, together with the Secretary General of the Union, against the Minister of Education. The Court held in a judgement of some 18 pages that the Union had no legal interest which would entitle it to appear as a litigant; the right to lock out had been properly exercised under the law of Malta; and that there had not been discrimination in terms of section 18(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, as the lock-out was a legitimate act of retaliation by the Government against industrial action taken by the teachers and that the prohibition against discrimination in the Act referred only to measures taken after, not during, the course of action in pursuance of directives received from a trade union. It is stated in the Government's communication of 8 July 1985 that the Court took into consideration the harmful effect of the Union's directives, one by one and in their totality, on the running of the schools and the jeopardy to the interests and safety of schoolchildren.

&htab;621.&htab;On the subject of the alleged punitive transfer of teachers in the public service, the Government states its view that the complaint is not justified for the following reasons: (a) like other members of the public service, teachers are liable to transfer according to the exigencies of the service; (b) the circumstances prevailing in November 1984 as a result of the actions initiated by the MUT meant that a number of transfers were necessary in the public interest and in the interests of the teachers themselves; (c) the Department of Education had received reports of threats to teachers after there had been notice that they were to resume their duties, and immediate action was taken to ensure that those concerned were not molested; (d) the Department had in the summer of 1985 invited applications from teachers who wished to be transferred, and had attempted so far as possible to meet the requests of the 454 (out of 3,000 in the public service) who had responded, a substantial number of whom had indicated that they did not wish to return to their previous schools. The Government states that this indicates that the vast majority of teachers welcomed the transfers; (e) a number of teachers who had been transferred had been posted back to their previous schools, either at their request or in view of the exigencies of the service.

&htab;622.&htab;The Government does not accept that there was any infringement of trade union rights in respect of the allegations concerning the treatment of volunteers or teachers who worked during the strike. It states that, well after the end of the strike, it had showed its appreciation to those who had done their duty or volunteered without any promise of advantage or payment during a strike which, it says, was motivated by reasons other than an industrial dispute and which placed schoolchildren at risk.

&htab;623.&htab;The Government states that it regards as puerile and irrelevant the argument in the complaint linking allegations regarding the evasion of effective negotiations to the wage freeze and the non-establishement of the Joint Negotiating Council. It expresses the view that neither of these had precluded negotiations taking place between the Department of Education and the MUT over a period of three-and-a-half years: the negotiations had been inconclusive for reasons other than those put forward by the MUT, and the wage and price freeze had been accepted by the representatives of the majority of the employers and workers.

&htab;624.&htab;As regards the Joint Negotiating Council, the Government referred to a letter of 22 April 1985 in which it had provided information for consideration by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, to the effect that it was in the interests of all unions representing employees in the various sectors of the public service - including the CMTU and the General Workers Union - to set up a common representative body which would nominate members to sit on the Joint Negotiating Council and so ensure representation of the interests of all employees by a common body rather than competing organisations.

&htab;625.&htab;Finally, the Government states that the allegations concerning the lack of protection of trade union premises are baseless as full protection had been given to the MUT premises when this was necessary; police protection had been provided for the MUT president and other officials at the request of the Department of Education; and all incidents connected with the MUT strike had been investigated by the police according to the same procedures adopted in similar cases.