&htab;27.&htab;In a communication of 6 July 1983, the Union of Argentinian Teachers (UDA) filed a complaint against the Government of Argentina in connection with an executive Act that dissolved the Supplementary Old-age and Pension Fund for Teaching Personnel, which the Union had hitherto administered. It sent additional information in communications of 23 August 1983, 27 March l984, 22 January 1985 and 10 April 1986.

&htab;28.&htab;For its part, the Government then in power sent its observations on the matter in communications dated 13 October and 10 November 1983. The new Government sent its observations in communications of 11 October 1984, 4 and 18 February 1985, 21 August 1985 and 20 May 1986.

&htab;29.&htab;The parties had notified the ILO on several occasions that the whole issue was being examined by the judicial authorities and had forwarded copies of judgements that had been handed down.

&htab;30.&htab;Argentina 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;31.&htab;In its complaint, the UDA, which claims to represent all members of the teaching profession in Argentina, recalls that the Supplementary Old-age and Pension Fund for Teaching Personnel was set up by a corporate co-responsibility agreement of 27 May 1975 between the complainant organisation and the Ministry of Culture and Education, in its capacity as employer, in application of Act No. 20155 of 12 February 1973. The Fund operated for more than seven years under the administration and management of the UDA. In an accompanying note outlining the ups and downs of the Fund during that period, the complainant refers to instances of harassment and administrative mismanagement since 1976 that eventually ended with its dissolution by Act No. 22804 of 5 May 1983.

&htab;32.&htab;According to legal documents concerning the Fund's by-laws, forwarded by the complainant organisation, the central office of the Ministry of Culture and Education was authorised to withhold 3 per cent of teachers' salaries as their contributions to the Fund (Resolution No. 900 of 8 July l975) which was empowered to receive contributions from any source provided they were used only for the purposes stipulated in its by-laws, in other words as supplementary old-age and pension benefits. The Fund was managed by a six-member Board appointed by the UDA, while two representatives of the administrations involved acted as public trustees.

&htab;33.&htab;Section 33 of Executive Act No. 22804 annulled the corporate co-responsibility agreement of 27 May 1975 and thereby dissolved the Fund, confiscating its assets and incorporating them into a National Supplementary Fund for Teaching and Non-Teaching Personnel, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. The Act sets out all the administrative and management details of the new Fund which is run by a nine-member Board, three of whom are appointed by the Ministry of Education and six by the Fund's members.

&htab;34.&htab;The complainant organisation strongly protested these legislative provisions, especially as they were followed by repressive measures against the trade union that was holding the Fund's assets. On 13 May 1983, military forces occupied the Fund's premises and the military authorities appropriated its assets, as evidenced by a notary's official report. Following these events, the Fund's president commenced proceedings to recover the confiscated assets which were successful in the court of first instance, which approved the request, although its decision was later overturned on appeal when a higher court upheld the military take-over of the Fund. The assets therefore remained in the hands of the Minister of Education who entrusted them to a new Board which he appointed.

&htab;35.&htab;In its communication of 23 August 1983, the complainant states that, with the exception of section 33, Act No. 22804 is governed by Decree No. l419, that the military authorities continue to occupy the Fund's premises, that the judge examining the challenge to the constitutionality of section 33 had ordered the assets to be frozen but that his decision had not been respected by the administrative authorities.

&htab;36.&htab;Moreover, the complainant alleges that in order to consolidate the situation the Minister of Education called elections for the new Board which the judge ordered suspended at the request of trade union organisations. Furthermore, the UDA declares that the court ruled in its favour on the question of the constitutionality of section 33 of Act No. 22804, but that it has been unable to obtain the enforcement of this decision and the application of the corporate co-responsibility agreement of 27 May 1975 by the administrative authorities involved. Subsequently, on 13 August 1983, the complainants attempted to recover their assets but were prevented from doing so by the police. The UDA alleges that the case involves a violation of Convention No. 87 and requests the Committee to send a representative to Buenos Aires to investigate the facts and intercede with the Government of Argentina.

&htab;37.&htab;In a communication of 22 January 1985, the UDA states that no legal action has been taken regarding the constitutionality of Act No. 22804 and that the recently elected democratic Government has so far failed to keep its promise to redress the damages caused by the Act adopted by the military Government; thus, the situation remains at an impasse. The trade union organisation adds that the take-over of the Fund managed by the UDA has restricted the union's retired teaching personnel programme as a result of the confiscation of assets estimated at $25 million.

&htab;38.&htab;In a more recent letter dated 10 April 1986, the complainant indicates that its claim was dismissed by local judges for defects in form on account of legal flaws but that no opinion was expressed on its substance; the complainant then filed a law suit before a federal administrative disputes court, requesting its intervention at the ILO on grounds of non-compliance with Convention No. 87 (Article 3), but no action had been taken on this request.

&htab;39.&htab;In its several communications, the Government in power at the time the challenged Act was adopted did not explain why it had taken drastic action in respect of the Supplementary Fund for Teaching Personnel. The information furnished in its letter of 13 October 1983 concerned the legal proceedings initiated by the complainant organisation. Upon appeal, the administrative disputes court revoked the decision of the court of first instance and ordered the Executive to suspend section 33 of Act No. 22804. In other proceedings challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Act, the court prudently ordered the "suspension of the distribution of funds and assets belonging to the dissolved fund". The Government also noted that at the UDA's request the judge had annulled the elections to the Board of the Supplementary Fund, on the grounds that they would have entailed the implementation of section 33. The Government noted that the courts had examined the substance of the case and rendered judgement on the intrinsic merits of the administrative decision, but that the Ministry of Culture and Education had appealed the decisions handed down by the courts. Moreover, in the same communication the Government stressed that the UDA had not been prevented from advancing its claims and protecting its interests before the judicial authorities and that the Act had even been suspended until all legal appeals had been exhausted and a final ruling not subject to appeal had been handed down.

&htab;40.&htab;On 11 October 1984, the new Government submitted its observations on the case, suggesting that no action be taken until the courts handling the matter had rendered their decisions. The Government reiterated this request in communications dated 4 and 18 February 1985 and 21 August 1985.

&htab;41.&htab;The Government sent to the Committee a further communication, dated 20 May 1986, concerning the judicial proceedings under way. It states that in the case brought by the dissolved Supplementary Fund against the State before the National Judge of First Instance (Federal Administrative Case No. 5), the Union of Argentinian Teachers (UDA) has been accepted, at the request of the Fund, as a third party having an interest in the case.

&htab;42.&htab;This complaint involves the dissolution by Act No. 22804 of 5 May l983, adopted by the former military Government, of the Supplementary Old-age and Pension Fund for Teaching Personnel, hitherto administered by the complainant organisation, the UDA, under a draft agreement with the Ministry of Culture and Education dated 27 May 1975.

&htab;43.&htab;The Committee notes that the complainant employed all available legal means to defend and enforce its rights and interests, obtaining a stay in the enforcement of the Act and blocking the fund's financial assets.

&htab;44.&htab;The Committee recalls that in a previous case (23rd Report, Case No. lll, para. 227(3)) it had considered that it should not express opinions as to the desirability of entrusting the administration of social insurance and the supervision of social legislation to occupational associations rather than to administrative state organs, except in so far as such a measure might restrict the free exercise of trade union rights. In the present case, in the light of the elements taken into consideration, the Committee has not found conclusive evidence of any restriction on the exercise of the rights of the UDA or of any interference whatsoever by the administrative authorities in its management and trade union activities.

&htab;45.&htab;The Committee notes that neither the legal situation that gave rise to the complaint, namely the enactment of legislation that replaced the UDA trade union as administrator and manager of the Supplementary Old-age and Pension Fund for Teaching Personnel, nor the events that took place under the former military regime, namely the occupation of the Fund's premises by military forces and the confiscation of its assets, relate to trade union activities that come within the terms of the reference of the Committee, given the fact that no trade union premises or trade union assets are involved. The Committee considers that while the administration and management of a provident fund may fall within the competence of a trade union by virtue of an agreement with the Government, they are not part of its trade union activities as such but fall within the province of the social security or welfare schemes. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the new Act does not exclude teaching personnel from the management and administration of the new Fund, since six of the nine members of the Board are elected by the Fund's members, who are thus still represented. In the Committee's opinion, the assets which a pension fund may derive from social welfare contributions deducted from salaries cannot be looked upon as trade union funds.

&htab;46.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee considers that the disputed assets of the former Supplementary Fund are social welfare contributions and therefore not trade union funds.

(b) The Committee considers that this case does not fall within its terms of reference and that it therefore does not call for further examination.

&htab;47.&htab;The complaint of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions is contained in a communication dated 22 November 1985. The Government replied to the allegations made in this case in communications dated 22 January and 24 April 1986.

&htab;48.&htab;Senegal 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;64.&htab;The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) presented a complaint - on behalf of its various civil aviation affiliates in Pakistan - of violations of trade union rights in a communication dated 1 May 1985. Despite numerous requests to the Government for its observations on the allegations, no reply has been received.

&htab;65.&htab;At its February 1986 meeting, the Committee addressed an urgent appeal to the Government for its reply and drew its attention to the fact that the Committee would present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting even in the absence of the Government's observations [see 243rd Report, para. 10, approved by the Governing Body at its 232nd Session, February-March 1986]. The Government has not replied to this urgent appeal.

&htab;66.&htab;Pakistan has ratified both 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;67.&htab;In its letter of 1 May 1985, the ITF alleges that the violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 of which it complained, and which the Committee examined, in Case No. 1075 against the Government of Pakistan have continued through another government enactment. Case No. 1075, states the ITF, concerned the ban on trade unions activities by employees of Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) through Martial Law Regulation No. 52 of 1981. According to the complainant the Government repealed the Regulation in 1985 but replaced it by an amendment to the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, which declares employees of the Corporation to be civil servants. Trade union activities and the right to form unions are thus prohibited.

&htab;68.&htab;In addition, the ITF alleges that, under the Amendment Ordinance (a copy of which it supplies), any person employed by or serving under the Corporation can be removed or retired from service at 90 days' notice without any reason being given. It states that such an action cannot be challenged before any court or other authority.

&htab;69.&htab;Before examining the substance of the case, the Committee considers it necessary to recall the considerations it set out in its First Report [para. 31] and which it has several times had occasion to repeat: the purpose of the whole procedure is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and the Committee is confident that, if the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognise the importance of formulating for objective examination detailed replies to the substance of the allegations.

&htab;70.&htab;The Committee therefore deplores the fact that the Government has not sent any reply and that it is obliged, because of the time which has elapsed, to examine the case without being able to take account of the Government's observations.

&htab;71.&htab;The Committee recalls that the trade union situation of PIA employees was examined in Case No. 1075 (definitive conclusions in the Committee's 218th Report, paras. 273 to 285, approved by the Governing Body at its 221st Session, November 1982). In that case the Committee noted the Government's explanations concerning the continuing restrictions on freedom of association in the nationalised airlines sector imposed by Martial Law Regulation No. 52 and repeated its previous recommendations, namely that such restrictions, even if only of a temporary nature, constituted an infringement of freedom of association. It requested the Government to revoke as soon as possible Martial Law Regulation No. 52 of 1981 banning all trade union activity in this sector, and to send it the text of the revocation.

&htab;72.&htab;The Committee also observes that the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations have frequently criticised, in the context of Pakistan's application of Convention No. 87, the ban on trade union activities under martial law which had been in force since 1979 (but which the Committee understands was lifted as of 1 January 1986) and Martial Law Regulation No. 52 and the restrictions, in general, on the right to form unions of government employees. It, therefore, notes that the amendment to the legislation complained of in the present case (which came into force on 15 November 1984) does not remove the restrictions on the trade union activities of the PIA employees, but merely replaces the restrictions of martial law with those imposed under the public service legislation.

&htab;73.&htab;The Committee recalls that by virtue of Article 2 of Convention No. 87 workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever (including all public servants), shall have the right to join organisations of their own choosing. The Committee accordingly urges the Government to initiate appropriate action to amend the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act so as to allow the workers concerned to establish and join organisations of their own choosing and which can function freely in the defence of their members' occupational interests. It draws this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts for consideration under Convention No. 87.

&htab;74.&htab;As regards the provision of the Amendment Ordinance empowering the Corporation to dismiss employees without giving reasons and without appeal to the courts, the Committee observes that the wording of the section leaves no doubt as to the wide discretion given to the employer. The section reads as follows:

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or any law, settlement or award for the time being in force, or any rules or regulations framed under this Act, or any rules, regulations, orders or instructions issued by the Corporation, or in the terms and conditions of service of any person employed by, or serving under, the Corporation, the Corporation may at any time retire or remove from its service any person without assigning any reason, after giving him an opportunity of being heard and not less than 90 days' notice or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of 90 days; and, subject to subsection (3), no such order of retirement or removal shall be called in question before any court or tribunal or other authority.

&htab;75.&htab;The Committee considers that the provision is contrary to Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98 in that it effectively eliminates any protection for workers against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. The Committee has often stated that legislation should lay down explicitly remedies and penalties against acts of anti-union discrimination by employers in order to ensure the effective application of Article 1 [see, for example, 234th Report, Case No. 1242 (Costa Rica), para. 139]. Moreover, the Committee has stated that, in the case of national public enterprises, the national authorities have an additional responsibility in preventing acts of anti-union discrimination and should take appropriate measures to this effect, such as issuing a clear policy statement accompanied by specific instructions to be implemented at all levels of management [see 132nd Report, Case No. 686 (Japan), para. 81]. Given that the provision in the present case specifically excludes all possibility of remedying acts of anti-union discrimination, namely dismissal and compulsory retirement, by the employer, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures so as to ensure that the employer may not dismiss workers for trade union reasons and that an appeal to the courts is available to challenge the employer's unjustified actions.

&htab;76.&htab;The Committee draws this section of the PIA Corporation Act to the attention of the Committee of Experts in the context of Convention No. 98.

&htab;77.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee deplores the fact that the Government has not sent its observations on this case in spite of several requests to do so. The Committee has therefore been obliged to examine the case in the absence of these observations.

(b) The Committee considers that the amendment to the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, which deems all PIA employees to be civil servants and thus denies them the right to form unions or carry out union activities, violates Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 87.

(c) The Committee urges the Government to initiate appropriate action to amend the PIA Corporation Act so as to allow the workers concerned to establish and join organisations of their own choosing which can function freely to defend their members' occupational interests.

(d) The Committee considers that the amendment to the same Act which empowers the employer to dismiss or compulsorily retire PIA workers without giving reasons and without any appeal is contrary to Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98.

(e) The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures so as to ensure that the employer may not dismiss workers for trade union reasons and to provide for an appeal to the courts.

(f) The Committee draws this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

&htab;210.&htab;The Committee has already examined these complaints on two occasions, in November 1984 (see 236th Report, paras. 603-622) and in November 1985 (see 241st Report, paras. 688-707). Since then the Government has sent its observations in a communication dated 16 April 1986.

&htab;211.&htab;Brazil has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;212.&htab;The complaints arose out of a labour dispute and strike which developed in 1983-84 in Belgo Mineira, an iron and steel undertaking in the State of Minas Gerais, which led to the dismissal of workers and trade union leaders, the requisitioning of strikers and the recruitment of workers from outside the undertaking who were underpaid and forbidden to organise. The complaints referred in particular to the management's refusal to renew the collective agreement and its attempt to negotiate with the non-unionised workers.

&htab;213.&htab;According to the complainants:

- in May 1983 the enterprise dismissed 192 workers following the trade unions' refusal in February 1983 to accept a wage cut;

- in June the same year the management withdrew the payment of time off for trade union leaders, a right which had been acquired more than 20 years before;

- the management notified the Belgo Mineira Staff Welfare Association that the enterprise intended to cease paying its contributions and cancelled the mainly administrative facilities that it had been granting the trade union since 1974 to ensure the social protection of the staff, despite the fact that such protection is compulsory since the enterprise insists upon it when hiring staff;

- it refused to deduct trade union dues from the workers' pay as it had been doing since 1951, on the grounds that the cost of doing so would be too high;

- in October 1983 it refused to renew the collective agreement and the trade union was obliged to call a strike. Following the court ruling on the dispute and on strike compensation, the enterprise dismissed a number of foremen and strikers;

- the management suspended a number of benefits that the staff had acquired and, in order to exhaust the union's financial resources, obliged it to take many cases to court;

- the bonus for night work was reduced and payment of the annual 2 per cent bonus was suspended;

- the enterprise initiated legal proceedings against the leaders of the trade union based on information published in the trade union bulletins and used absurd excuses to impose penalties on them;

- 246 foremen were obliged to leave the union as a result of the direct pressure brought to bear on them;

- union leaders Wilson Bastiere and Alipio Inacio Ferreira were dismissed from their duties;

- outpatient, dental, hospital and pharmaceutical assistance, normally provided by the Belgo Mineira Staff Welfare Association, was suspended; - the enterprise closed certain sectors and recruited labour through subcontractors to replace its own staff;

- the enterprise decided unilaterally to increase its canteen prices by l,250 per cent.

&htab;214.&htab;According to the Government's replies, the last of which was received on 5 December 1984, the labour authorities of the State of Minas Gerais acted as mediators in the dispute. The Government declared that the right to organise and the obligation for employers to negotiate with the corresponding trade union were guaranteed by Brazilian law. It stated that no fewer than seven conciliation meetings had been held to no avail and that, as a result, legal proceedings were brought before the labour court. Furthermore, in 1984 the trade union took the enterprise to court on three counts and the Government recalled that under Brazilian law trade union leaders could not be removed for any reason whatsoever.

&htab;215.&htab;The complainants subsequently alleged in a communication of 6 December l984 that pressure had been brought to bear on the workers, who were called in individually by the management to sign an undertaking not to join any trade union, that the management refused to deduct union dues from the workers' pay, that a federal police superintendent had been dismissed by the Minister of Justice for daring to fine the enterprises and that "blacklists" had been circulated containing the names of workers who refused to yield to pressure by Belgo Mineira. These workers had allegedly been dismissed and prevented from finding another job. The complainants also explained that the enterprise, which had been negotiating with the complainant union for more than 30 years, had delegated its bargaining powers to the employers' associations in the iron and steel industry for the negotiation on its behalf of an agreement for this branch of activity within a global bargaining framework, including even small enterprises whose workers were negotiating for the first time; it hoped in this way to provoke a conflict between the workers of small enterprises and those of Belgo Mineira.

&htab;216.&htab;The complainants also pointed out that the Minister of Labour had refused to supply them with copies of the labour inspection reports on the enterprise, although he had promised to do so at a mediation hearing on 12 July 1984. The Minister had not applied the sanctions provided for under Legislative Decree No. 368/68. The enterprise was still refusing to deduct trade union dues even though required to do so by court order and the federal police had not solved the case concerning the criminal acts committed against the trade union by the management of Belgo Mineira, although the union lodged its complaint in 1983.

&htab;217.&htab;In November 1985, the Committee on Freedom of Association regretted that, despite the time which had elapsed since the complainants' latest allegations, no written information had been received from the Government since December 1984. It requested the Government to communicate the text of any judicial decisions handed down in respect of the labour dispute and to supply detailed information on developments in the dispute.

&htab;218.&htab;In its reply of 16 April 1986, the Government stated that on 4 October l985 it contacted Leonardo Diniz Dias, the President of the complainant trade union, who informed it that the situation had improved but was still not altogether satisfactory. No final judgement had yet been handed down on the 1983-84 and 1984-85 disputes. However, with regard to the matters raised in the latest communication of the complainants, the President of the trade union observed that wages were now paid punctually and that, after two months' interruption, trade union dues were again being deducted from pay. The appropriate deductions were not, however, being made for the cost of pharmaceuticals, ambulances, funeral services and other welfarefacilities. According to the President, the situation with respect to the criminal acts against the trade union was unchanged and no federal police file had been opened on the subject.

&htab;219.&htab;On the basis of available information and documents, the Government considers that a copy of the labour inspection report should be communicated to the trade union so that it can, if necessary, take appropriate action to defend the interests of its members and of non-members. It states, however, that Legislative Decree No. 368 of 19 December 1968 is not applicable as there has been no delay in the payment of wages. According to the Government, the enterprise decided unilaterally to reduce the working day and cut payment for overtime accordingly, from 40 to 37.5 per cent; it also stopped paying overtime for night work. However, there has been no holding back of wages which continue to be paid punctually, thereby rendering the said Legislative Decree inapplicable in the view of the Government.

&htab;220.&htab;The Government notes further that after two months' interruption union dues are being deducted from pay regularly. The deductions that the enterprise is refusing to make correspond to the cost of benefits which the trade union pays directly or makes available to its members. With regard to the union President's statement that he has taken the case to court, the Government states that the matter has been settled inasmuch as the decision now lies with the judiciary. With respect to the criminal acts committed against the trade union by the management of Belgo Mineira, the Government encloses a copy of a letter of October 1983 sent by the regional labour delegate of Minas Gerais to the regional labour court and regional prosecutor of Minas Gerais following the trade union's denunciation of criminal acts. It does not, however, comment on the matter.

&htab;229.&htab;The complaints were presented by a number of national trade unions: the National Confederation of Agricultural Workers (CONTAG), the Federation of Agricultural Workers of the State of Pernambuco (FETAPE), the Federation of Workers of the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industries of the State of Sao Paulo (FTIC), and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). They were originally submitted to the ILO prior to the change in the Brazilian regime in 1985. The Government has since sent information on these cases in communications dated 21 April and 6 and 8 May 1986.

&htab;230.&htab;Brazil has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;231.&htab;The allegations in these cases refer to acts of violence committed by employers against workers, trade union activists and union leaders in the sugar cane plantations and alcohol distilleries of several States of Brazil, and specifically in Pernambuco and Sao Paulo, and to the failure of the Government to put a stop to them.

&htab;232.&htab;In the case of the State of Pernambuco in particular, the allegations concern the banning of union leaders from sugar plantations, the hindering of trade union activities, the burning of trade union premises, the interruption of the check-off system for union dues, death threats and even the assassination of union leaders or their relations simply for having demanded the implementation or renewal of collective agreements. Moreover, the complainants claim that a situation bordering on slavery and forced labour has developed in these regions, with workers being recruited clandestinely from other parts of the country to break the strikes called by the regular workers belonging to FETAPE.

&htab;233.&htab;The complainants explained that following a general strike in 1979 the 240,000 rural workers of the sugar cane growing area secured a collective agreement on wages and labour standards and a guarantee that land would be made available to them for food crops. From 1979 to 1983 other collective agreements were signed under the aegis of the labour court and the workers became aware that they could take legal action to have them enforced. As from 1982, however, the employers began to sabotage the agreements by recruiting huge numbers of unemployed labour from the drought-stricken areas of Sertao and Agreste. They got rid of the regular workers and replaced them by large numbers of underpaid, non-unionised clandestine workers from those areas. After the harvest, these workers returned to their home districts and had no way of demanding that their rights be respected before a labour court.

&htab;234.&htab;According to the complainants, these illegal manoeuvres by the employers were facilitated by the inertia of the regional labour delegation which, after the 1982 elections, relaxed its supervision. In order to secure the departure en masse of the regular workers from the Meta area, the employers suddenly imposed a substantial increase in the workload, doubling or tripling the daily volume of work provided for in the collective agreements. They brought private militia onto the sugar plantations, armed with revolvers and rifles, to "pay a visit" on the inhabitants and "supervise" the payment of the workers. Some workers who had been granted land for their own use were no longer allowed to grow food crops on it; the land was laid waste and turned into cane-fields. The employers forbade the workers to mention the trade union and the labour standards stipulated in the collective agreements and ceased deducting union dues from their pay. The private militia denied trade union officials access to the plantations and punished workers who, as union delegates, attempted to keep in touch with their union. Some whose names were communicated by CONTAG and the ICFTU received death threats, were locked up in private prisons or were even assassinated, especially in the Goias area.

&htab;235.&htab;In the State of Sao Paulo the FTIC is unable to organise the workers of the state alcohol distilleries and is being prevented from establishing occupational associations that could subsequently become trade uninons. In Gantus , for instance, an agro-industrial enterprise with a distillery in Tupa, the employer has circulated a petition among the staff stating that the workers recognise that the enterprise is well run and rejecting the "inopportune" remarks of Pedro Gonçales da Silva, a union leader responsible for unionisation in the State of Sao Paulo. The remarks referred to were a call to strike, and workers who did not sign the petition were liable to be placed on a "black list". The vast majority of the workers of Gantus therefore signed the petition.

&htab;244.&htab;The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in a communication dated 28 January 1986. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 29 April 1986.

&htab;245.&htab;The Dominican Republic 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;246.&htab;The ICFTU alleges that, on 23 January 1986, the police violently disrupted the general assembly of the Trade Union of Workers of the "Catarey" Sugar Plantation which had been called to discuss and decide on action to be taken so as to obtain wage increases.

&htab;247.&htab;The ICFTU adds that the police intervention provoked clashes which resulted in 30 workers being injured and the death of one unionist, Mario Rosa Polanco, who was beaten by the police after being detained. The ICFTU states that 30 trade unionists were detained in connection with this incident.

&htab;258.&htab;The Committee examined Cases Nos. 1176, 1195 and 1215 at its November 1984, May 1985 and November 1985 meetings and, on these occasions, submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 236th Report, paras. 401 to 402, 239th Report, paras. 210 to 225 and 241st Report, paras. 495 to 521, approved by the Governing Body at its 228th Session (November 1984), 230th Session (May-June 1985) and 231st Session (November 1985), respectively.] The Committee also examined Case No. 1195 at an earlier meeting. [See 230th Report, paras. 289-699, approved by the Governing Body at its 224th Session (November 1983.]

&htab;259.&htab;At its meetings in February and November 1985, the Committee examined Case No. 1262 and, on both occasions, submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 238th Report, paras. 269-281, approved by the Governing Body at its 229th Session (February-March 1985) and the above-mentioned 241st Report.]

&htab;260.&htab;The Committee recalls that the cases pending concern the detention, kidnapping, assault or assassination of trade union leaders and other persons connected with the trade union movement whose whereabouts in several cases is still unknown, as some allegations date from January 1983.

&htab;261.&htab;When it last examined these cases, the Committee, in its recommendations, requested the Government to take various measures, to carry out investigations to elucidate the facts, and to supply the information still lacking.

&htab;262.&htab;In spite of these requests, the Government has not sent a reply concerning these cases; at its February 1986 meeting [see 243rd Report, para. 10, approved by the Governing Body at its 232nd Session, March 1986], the Committee therefore addressed an urgent appeal to the Government requesting it to send the required information and drew its attention to the fact that, in conformity with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of the Committee's 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report at its next meeting on the substance of these cases even if the Government's observations have not been received at that date. Since then, no reply has been received from the Government.

&htab;263.&htab;Guatemala 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;264.&htab;When the Committee examined Cases Nos. 1176, 1195, 1215 and 1262 at its meeting in November 1985, it made the following recommendations regarding the allegations still pending [see 241st Report, para. 521]:

"(a) The Committee recalls in general terms that when a climate of violence prevails in a country, this renders the exercise of trade union rights practically impossible and also recalls that the absence of civil liberties removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights, and that the rights conferred on workers' and employers' organisations must be based on respect for those civil liberties.

(b) The Committee expresses its profound concern at the seriousness of the situation in which a large number of trade union leaders and members have been assassinated or have disappeared, particularly since some of the allegations date back several years and there is no sign of any improvement in the situation or of the facts being elucidated.

(c) The Committee urges the Government once again to do its utmost to ensure that the investigations under way result in the establishment of the whereabouts of the trade union leaders and members listed in the annex to this report as having disappeared. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that these investigations cover all the trade unionists listed as having disappeared who have been cited by the complainants and to inform it of the outcome.

(d) With respect to the trade union leaders and members who have been assassinated or have suffered serious physical harm, the Committee notes that inquiries are being carried out by the administrative authorities. It urges the Government to carry out judicial inquiries in order to elucidate the facts in full, determine responsibilities and punish the guilty parties. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome. (e) With respect to the alleged closing down of operations at the Universal Textiles Factory in order to destroy the trade union, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the grounds for closing down operations at the factory.

(f) Lastly, the Committee observes that the Government has not replied to the alleged attack on the headquarters of the San Carlos University Workers' Union by National Army troops, and the serious damage caused and the seizing of trade union documents. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the matter."

&htab;265.&htab;In communications dated 16 October 1985 and 6 January 1986, one of the complainant organisations, the Autonomous Trade Union Federation of Guatemala (FASGUA), alleges that the demonstrations held in August and September 1985 to protest against price increases and call for a rise in wages led, in view of the governmental authorities' indifference, to strikes throughout almost all the country. According to the complainants, security forces and government officials kept a constant watch on the strikes and threatened the strikers; however, although the strikes did not result in public employees receiving a wage increase, they resulted in an increase in their bonuses. The complainant organisation mentions that the strikers were penalised at work and that, following these events, the teacher José Francisco Gonzales Moya was arrested at the home of his parents by five armed men and has since disappeared. It is pointed out that this teacher is a member of a teachers' trade union, the "National Council of National Education", which groups teachers of all levels throughout the country and was set up in September 1985. FASGUA mentions that teachers' trade union organisations have been banned since 1954 and that, from this year onwards, trade unions have been set up but each time forced to dissolve because their leaders have been assassinated; at present, only one trade union continues to act on the teachers' behalf. The complainant organisation deplores the fact that, generally speaking, claims concerning wages and working conditions and strike action lay workers open to repressive measures taken by the state security forces and that many leaders, such as Mr. Moya, have suffered from these measures.

&htab;266.&htab;In a further communication dated 17 February 1986, FASGUA states that the Financial Secretary of the Central Trade Union of Municipal Workers (SCTM) was kidnapped and held for several hours on 5 February last by armed men who subjected him to brutal treatment to try and make him give up his trade union functions. The trade union goes on to say that it is constantly intimidated by the municipal authorities, especially by the mayor of the capital and his armed guards, and that this even takes the form of murder; indeed, murders were recently committed two days after the trade union SCTM had denounced massive dismissals and unnecessary recruitments. FASGUA also alleges that workers from the municipality of Mixco are constantly harassed by the municipal authorities, especially by the mayor, Juan Guillermo Valdez, who has dismissed workers belonging to the trade union. According to FASGUA, the SCTM deposited its rules and constitutional documents one year ago in order to obtain the necessary authorisation to be recognised, but has still not been registered.

&htab;267.&htab;The Committee notes that the allegations relate to a period before the change of regime in Guatemala. However, the new Government has failed to send the information requested by the Committee in the urgent appeal addressed to the Government at its February 1986 meeting.

&htab;268.&htab;In its previous statements, the former Government had mentioned that a committee had been set up consisting of representatives of the Ministry of National Defence, the State Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of the Interior, to determine the whereabouts of the persons listed as having disappeared, and that that committee had conducted a nation-wide investigation with the collaboration of the civilian and military authorities. The Committee stresses that the new Government should take all possible steps to ensure that the investigations conducted by that committee are successfully carried to a conclusion.

&htab;269.&htab;The Committee recalls that the persons listed in parts A and B of the annex, who are trade union officials or trade unionists, are still missing, and that those listed in part C have allegedly been murdered or suffered physical harm. The Committee deplores the fact it has not received specific information on the fate of any of these persons and that it has not been provided with information on the administrative investigations previously mentioned by the Government which are taking place into the murders and serious physical assaults. However, the Committee stresses that, in cases of this kind, judicial inquiries should be carried out in order to elucidate the facts in full and to determine responsibilities; it requests the new Government to inform it of any such inquiries and of any sanctions that might be imposed on the guilty parties.

&htab;270.&htab;The Committee recalls in general terms that a climate of violence, such as that in which trade union officials are murdered or disappear, seriously hinders the exercise of trade union rights; actions of this nature call for strong measures from the authorities. It also recalls, as did the International Labour Conference in its 1970 Resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, that the absence of civil liberties removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights and that the rights conferred on workers' and employers' organisations must be based on respect for those civil liberties. The Committee is of the opinion that the Government should aim at a return to normal trade union activities since it has ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and is under an obligation to apply them in full.

&htab;271.&htab;As regards the trade union situation of teachers, the Committee especially draws the Government's attention to the wording of Article 2 of Convention No. 87, ratified by Guatemala, which stipulates that freedom of association should be enjoyed by "workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever", which implies not only workers in the private sector of the economy, but also public servants and officials in general. Consequently, teachers should have the opportunity to form occupational organisations in order to defend and promote their economic and social interests.

&htab;272.&htab;The Committee considers that the Central Trade Union of Municipal Workers (SCTM) should be able to operate without any interference, pressure or threats of any kind from the municipal authorities. The Committee stresses that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that this principle is respected. Furthermore, the Committee points out that this trade union has not yet received the authorisation it needs to be recognised legally, although it deposited the required documents, including its rules, one year ago. The Committee feels bound to recall that the formalities to set up a trade union should not be of such a nature as to hamper the freedom to form trade unions, nor be applied in such a way as to delay or prevent the setting up of these organisations. The Committee is of the opinion that the period of one year which has elapsed since the trade union rules were filed far exceeds the time needed by a registrar to ensure that all the legal formalities have been fulfilled before registering a new trade union organisation. This time lapse would seem to imply to the Committee that the procedure is tantamount to a requirement of previous authorisation, which is contrary to the principles of freedom of association. In view of the difficulties encountered by the SCTM, which might be due to the fact that it is not "recognised" as a trade union, the Committee stresses that, if this organisation has fulfilled the necessary formalities and these are in accordance with the law, it should be registered as soon as possible.

&htab;273.&htab;With respect to the alleged closing down of operations at the Universal Textiles Factory in order to destroy the trade union, the Committee recalls that the Government's previous statements did not refer specifically to the alleged anti-union nature of the closure of the factory.

&htab;274.&htab;Lastly, the Committee observes that the Government has not replied to the alleged attack on the headquarters of the San Carlos University Workers' Union by National Army troops, the serious damage caused and the seizing of trade union documents.

&htab;275.&htab;In these circumstances, and as far as these cases as a whole are concerned, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee notes that the allegations relate to a period before the change of Government in Guatemala. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the new Government will send the information needed by the Committee to enable it to reach its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts.

(b) The Committee hopes that the new Government will do its utmost to ensure that the investigations under way result in the establishment of the whereabouts of the trade union leaders and members listed in the annex to this report as having disappeared over a period of many years. The Committee stresses that these investigations should cover all the trade unionists who have been cited by the complainants as having disappeared and requests the Government to inform it of the outcome in the near future.

(c) With respect to the alleged murder of trade union leaders and trade unionists or serious physical harm inflicted on them, the Committee considers that the investigations carried out by the administrative authorities should be conducted by the judicial authorities. The Committee therefore urges the new Government to ensure that judicial inquiries are carried out in order to elucidate the facts in full and determine responsibilities; it requests the Government to inform it of any such inquiries and of any sanctions that might be imposed on the guilty parties.

(d) Generally speaking, a climate of violence makes it impossible to exercise trade union rights; such rights should also be based on respect for civil liberties. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure respect for civil liberties, which are vital for the exercise of trade union rights.

(e) In accordance with Article 2 of Convention No. 87, teachers should, as in the case of other workers, enjoy trade union rights. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that this category of workers may legally set up trade union organisations.

(f) The Committee recalls that the legal formalities for registering a trade union should not be of such a nature as to hamper the setting up of occupational organisations, nor be applied in such a way as to delay or prevent their establishment. The Committee stresses that the SCTM, which filed its rules one year ago, should be registered as soon as possible, if the legal formalities needed for this purpose have been fulfilled. (g) The Committee requests the Government to indicate the grounds for closing down operations at the Universal Textiles Factory a move which, according to the complainants, was intended to destroy the trade union.

(h) The Committee once again requests the Government to send its observations on the alleged attack on the headquarters of the San Carlos University Workers' Union by National Army troops, the serious damage caused and the seizing of trade union documents.

1. Julián Revallorio [According to the ICFTU, the body of this trade union leader was discovered on 23 December 1983 and bore signs of torture.] 2.&htab;Raimundo Pérez 3.&htab;Yolanda Urizar de Aguilar 4.&htab;Manuel Francisco Contreras 5.&htab;José Luis Ramos 6.&htab;Luis Estrada 7.&htab;Victor Ascón 8.&htab;Lucrecia Orellana 9.&htab;Graciela Samayoa (and her two children) 10.&htab;Fermín Solano 11.&htab;Antonia Argüeta 12.&htab;Sergio Vinicio Samayoa Morales 13.&htab;Felicita Floridalma Lucero y Lucero 14.&htab;Valério Oscal 15.&htab;Cecilio Tojax Coj 16.&htab;José Guillermo Bran 17.&htab;Miguel Angel Gómez 18.&htab;José Luis Villagrán 19.&htab;José Guillermo García 20.&htab;Alejandro del Cid Hernández 21.&htab;Amancio Samuel Villatoro 22.&htab;Misquisidet Miranda 23.&htab;Sergio Menfredo Peltetón 24.&htab;Sergio Aldana Galván 25.&htab;Edgar Fernando García 26.&htab;Alfredo Qguilar Tzoc 27.&htab;Alejandro Hernández González 28.&htab;Otto René Estrada 29.&htab;Rubén Amilcar Farfán 30.&htab;Julio César Péres Gálvez (24 August 1980) 31.&htab;Ileana Minera (24 August 1980) 32.&htab;Miguel Guerra Duarte (March 1981) 33.&htab;Abner Recinos Alfaro (11 August 1981) 34.&htab;Juan José Alvarado (24 December 1981) 35.&htab;Marta Lares Huitz (5 August 1982) 36.&htab;Carmen Yolanda Mayorga (10 August 1982) 37.&htab;Amanda de Díaz (27 September 1983) 38.&htab;Julio Carmeno (17 November 1983) 39.&htab;Alfonso Alvarado Plascenia (1 February 1983) 40.&htab;Victor Hugo Quintanilla and his wife (19 February 1983) 41.&htab;Jerónimo López Díaz (14 August 1983) 42.&htab;Edgar Morales Arias (13 January 1985) 43.&htab;Rita Josefina Pineda Aldana (4 September 1984)

44.&htab;Adalberto Juarez 45.&htab;José Ruiz 46.&htab;Juan Guerra Castro 47.&htab;Guillermo Turcios 48.&htab;Gustavo Adolfo Bejarano 49.&htab;Rafael Enrique Giron 50.&htab;Jordan Gilberto Salazar 51.&htab;Augusto Yach Ciriaco 52.&htab;Geronimo Alberto Moreno 53.&htab;Alfonso Molina Meridadeo 54.&htab;Julio Cesar Perez 55.&htab;Rosario Leal 56.&htab;Nery Robledo Espinoza 57.&htab;Edgar de la Crúz

58.&htab;Máximo Vásquez Melgar (union leader assassinated on 5 May 1980) 59.&htab;Gabriel Gusmán (union leader assassinated on 5 November 1981) 60.&htab;Israel Rodriguez (union leader assassinated on 5 November 1981) 61. Dimitrius Fuentes Guzman (trade unionist assassinated on 5 November 1981) 62. Julio Raúl Galito Ardón (trade union leader assassinated on 1 January 1982) 63. Edgar López Figueroa (union leader assassinated on 16 January 1982) 64. Rubia Dorina García (trade unionist assassinated on 9 March 1982) 65. Joaquín Darío Sagastume (trade unionist assassinated on 5 August 1982) 66. Vicente Ordónez (trade unionist assassinated on 13 August 1983) 67. Marcelino Velásquez (trade unionist assassinated on 14 August 1983) 68. Santiago López Aguilar (trade unionist assassinated on 17 February 1984) 69. Alvaro René Sosa Ramos (former trade unionist who was the victim of an attempted kidnapping and received three bullet wounds on 13 March 1984) 70. Silvio Matricardi (union leader whose body was discovered on 16 March 1984) 71. Carlos Humberto Carballo (trade unionist kidnapped, then found seriously injured on 17 January 1985) 72. Aurelio Coto Melgar (trade unionist whose body was discovered on 14 March 1985) 73. Sebastián Quino Guarcas (union leader seriously wounded by government security forces on 23 May 1985) 74. Essaú Barrera Martínez (trade unionist assassinated on 1 September 1985)

&htab;276.&htab;The Committee examined Cases Nos. 1190 and 1199 at its meetings in February and May 1985, and presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body. [See 238th Report, paras. 261 to 268, approved by the Governing Body at its 229th Session (February-March 1985) concerning Case No. 1199, and 239th Report, paras. 226 to 242, approved by the Governing Body at its 230th Session (May-June 1985) concerning Case No. 1190.] The Committee had previously examined Case No. 1190 at its May 1984 meeting [see 234th Report, paras. 500 to 520] and Case No. 1199 at its February 1984 meeting [see 233rd Report, paras. 565 to 579].

&htab;277.&htab;In the absence of a reply from the Government concerning the allegations that were still pending, the Committee, at its November 1985 meeting, addressed an urgent appeal to the Government for its observations. The Government subsequently sent a communication dated 24 February 1986 announcing that a reply concerning Case No. 1190 would be sent, and transmitting its comments on Case No. 1199.

&htab;278.&htab;As regards Case No. 1321, the complaint is contained in communications dated 20 and 26 February 1985 from the Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industry (UISMETAL). The Government replied in communications of 6 November 1985 and 24 February 1986. In a communication dated 13 November 1985, the Office requested the Government, in accordance with the procedure in force [see the Committee's 111th Report, para. 19] to send certain specific information on the allegations.

&htab;279.&htab;Peru 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;280.&htab;When the Committee examined Case No. 1190 at its May 1985 meeting, two allegations in connection with the national strike of 10 March 1983 remained pending. The first referred to the arrest of 84 persons as a consequence of that strike. The Committee asked the Government to supply information concerning the situation of these persons, in particular whether they were still under arrest, whether they had been tried and sentenced, or whether they had been released. The second pending allegation referred to the arrest of the three CGTP leaders (Messrs. Jorge Rabines Bartra, Hernán Espinoza Segovia and Juan Calle Mendoza) who were said to have been imprisoned following the aforementioned national strike. The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether these persons had in fact been arrested and whether they were free. [See 239th Report, para. 242.]

&htab;281.&htab;As regards Case No. 1199, the Committee, at its February 1985 meeting, made the following recommendations on the questions that remained pending [see 238th Report, para. 268]:

The Committee urges the Government to inform it of the results of the penal proceedings taken in respect of the death of the miner, Gelacio Bernardo Mendozo, and the assaults made on other workers of the Santa Luisa Mining Company. The Committee recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed. The Committee urges the Government to send its observations on the dismissal of Exhaltación Raymundo Valverde and Ceferino Santos.

&htab;282.&htab;Referring to the two last mentioned workers, one of the complainant organisations (the National Federation of Mining and Metallurgical Workers of Peru) had pointed out that the Santa Luisa Mining Company had dismissed them because of a public demonstration by the workers on 24 March 1983 protecting against the aggression to which various trade union leaders had been subjected the previous day by two civil guards. In the course of this demonstration, the miner Gelacio Bernardo Mendoza died and other workers were wounded. [See 233rd Report, paras. 568 and 569.]

&htab;283.&htab;The complainant alleges in its communications of February 1985 that the manager of the metallurgical enterprise Jenfar S.A. filed a criminal law suit against Mr. Oscar Macavilca, Secretary of the Federation of Peruvian Metalworkers, charging "defamation and slander" in connection with a disagreement with the owner of the enterprise in the course of an industrial dispute in the said enterprise. The complainant adds that the substitute judge of the First Examining Court of Callao sentenced Mr. Macavilca to two months' imprisonment and a fine of 500 Peruvian soles.

&htab;284.&htab;Regarding Case No. 1199, the Government annexed to its comments a copy of the reports of the National Public Prosecutor and the Public Prosecutor of the Province of Dos de Mayo on the incidents which had occurred on 23 and 24 March 1983 in the mining centre of Huanzalá (particularly a murder and injuries), and supplied a summary of the information given by the High Command of the Civil Guard on these incidents (some of these details had already been sent to the Committee and taken into account in its examination of the case at its February 1984 meeting [see 233rd Report, paragraphs 569 to 579]).

&htab;285.&htab;It is clear from the documentation sent by the Government that: (1) accusations were made to the Public Prosecutor of the Province of Dos de Mayo and the National Public Prosecutor regarding the incidents in question; (2) the National Public Prosecutor considered his intervention of 23 January 1984 as terminated and observed in particular that the impinged incidents had been investigated by the Office of the Provincial Public Prosecutor; (3) that the Office of the Provincial Public Prosecutor, having taken various steps, did not charge 37 workers (against whom criminal proceedings had been initiated) with the criminal offences of murder and bodily injury because the alleged perpetrators had not been individually identified; (4) that the Office of the Provincial Public Prosecutor asked the leaders of the Workers' Union of the Santa Luisa Mining Company for information concerning the accusation made to the National Public Prosecutor's Office by the leaders of the National Federation of Mining and Metallurgical Workers of Peru against the Civil guards, Luis Arribasplata Mendoza and Augusto Gariboto Nolasco, since they were not known to that Office. In reply to that request by the Office of the Provincial Public Prosecutor, the trade union leaders of the Santa Luisa Mining Company supplied a copy of the accusation presented by the said Federation; however, they stated that the leaders of the National Federation had made that accusation without having been asked to do so by the Workers' Union of the Santa Luisa Company, that the factual grounds of the accusation were untrue since the two civil guards accused were not at the mining centre on 24 March, the day on which the criminal offences of murder and bodily injury were committed; and finally that they had not requested or authorised any steps to be taken by the leaders of the National Federation of Mining and Metallurgical Workers of Peru who had signed the accusation.

&htab;286.&htab;As to the dismissal of the workers Exhaltación Raymundo Valverde and Ceferino Santos, the Government states that the Mining Workers' Union of the Santa Luisa Mining Company of Hunzalá lodged a complaint with the Huanaco Regional Labour District against that Company and requested reinstatement of the miners Exhaltación Raymundo Valverde and Ceferino Santos. On 1 December 1983, the Regional Labour District issued a District Resolution declaring the complaint to be unfounded, because there was evidence that serious offences had been committed (violence and serious lack of discipline by these workers on 24 March 1983 in taking as hostage, the director of the mine, the engineer Juan Turín Soto, and other officials). The legal basis for declaring the complaint unfounded was section 4(g) of Legislative Decree No. 22126. The case is now concluded and closed, since no appeal has been made by the workers.

&htab;287.&htab;In Case No. 1190, the Government states that it has requested the competent authorities to compile the necessary details concerning the questions pending and encloses a copy of the letters in this connection.

&htab;288.&htab;Regarding Case No. 1321 (arrest and sentencing of the trade union leader Oscar Macavilca), the Government states that the allegations themselves show that the case does not concern violations of freedom of association, but rather a criminal offence. Moreover, the administrative labour authorities (Executive Power) did not intervene, as is shown from the communications of the complainant organisation. The Government adds that Mr. Macavilca was arrested and required to pay a fine not for the exercise of a trade union function or right, but for a criminal offence ("defamation and slander") under Peru's Criminal Code. The sentence and fine were imposed on Mr. Macavilca by the substitute judge of the First Examining Court of Callao. Therefore, it is impossible to admit a complaint of this kind and build a case on it without casting doubt on the autonomy and, more importantly, the impartiality of a Peruvian authority, namely the Judiciary. The Government further states that Mr. Macavilca could have appealed against the sentence to a higher court of law. In this particular case such an appeal would have been filed before the relevant court of appeal which would then have issued an order revoking or confirming the sentence.

&htab;289.&htab;With regard to Case No. 1199, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the investigation carried out by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Province of Dos de Mayo into the death of the miner Gelacio Bernardo Mendoza and the physical attacks on other workers of the Santa Luisa Mining Company on 24 March 1983. The Committee notes in particular that it has been established that, contrary to the allegations of the National Federation of Mining and Metallurgical Workers of Peru, the civil guards Messrs. Luis Arribasplata and Augusto Gariboto did not take part in the said criminal offences since they were not at the mining centre on the day they were committed.

&htab;290.&htab;The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the investigation carried out by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Province of Dos de Mayo has resulted in criminal proceedings and, if so, to indicate the stage reached in the proceedings and, where appropriate, the results. The Committee recalls that in its communication of 13 October 1983 the Government had acknowledged that various members of the Civil Guard had been forced to use their firearms on 24 March 1983 against workers of the above-mentioned mining company [see 233rd Report, para. 571].

&htab;291.&htab;With respect to the dismissal of Messrs. Exhaltación Raymundo Valverde and Ceferino Santos, workers of the Santa Luisa Mining Company, the Committee notes that the Regional Labour Authority declared that there were no grounds for reinstating them because there was evidence that a serious offence had been committed, namely the taking as hostages of officials of the Company, including the Director, because of the incidents that had taken place on 24 March 1983. The Committee also observed that the persons concerned have not appealed against this decision.

&htab;292.&htab;Regarding Case No. 1190, since specific information concerning the pending allegations has not yet been received, the Committee reiterates its previous conclusions and again requests the Government to send its comments on these allegations, which concern the arrest of trade union leaders and trade unionists in 1983.

&htab;293.&htab;With regard to Case No. 1321, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the trade union leader Oscar Macavilca was arrested and required to pay a fine not for the exercise of a trade union function or right, but for committing the criminal offence of defamation and slander under Peru's Criminal Code, which was the subject of the relevant sentence. The Committee observes that the complainant organisation, on the other hand, considers that Mr. Macavilca's sentence arose from an argument with the owner of the metallurgical undertaking, Jenfar S.A., in the course of the industrial dispute in the said undertaking.

&htab;294.&htab;The Committee regrets that the Government has not given a specific reply to the Office's communication of 13 November 1985 in which, in accordance with the current procedure [see the Committee's 111th Report, paragraph 19], it requested the Government to send the text of the final sentence passed on Mr. Macavilca or to provide details on the statements made by that trade union leader which were the grounds for the proceedings against him for defamation and slander. However, since Mr. Macavilca has not appealed against the sentence handed down by the court of first instance (two months' imprisonment and a fine of 500 Peruvian soles) and since neither the complainant organisation nor the Government has provided the content of the statements for which Mr. Macavilca was sentenced, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

&htab;295.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) With respect to Case No. 1199, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the investigation carried out by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Province of Dos de Mayo into the death of the miner Gelacio Bernardo Mendoza and the physical attacks upon other workers of the Santa Luisa Mining Company on 24 March 1983. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the investigation carried out by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Province of Dos de Mayo has resulted in criminal proceedings and, if so, to indicate the stage reached in the proceedings and, where appropriate, the results.

(b) Regarding the allegations concerning the dismissal of Messrs. Exhaltación Raymundo Valverde and Ceferino Santos, workers of the Santa Luisa Mining Company (Case No. 1199) and the two-month prison sentence imposed on the trade union leader Oscar Macavilca (Case No. 1321), the Committee considers that these points do not call for further examination. (c) As regards the arrest of 84 persons as a result of the national strike of 10 March 1983 (Case No. 1190), the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on their situation and, in particular, to indicate whether these 84 persons are still under arrest, if they have been tried and sentenced, or released.

(d) With regard to the arrest of three leaders of the CGTP who had apparently been jailed as a result of the national strike of 10 March 1983, namely Jorge Rabines Bartra, Hernán Espinoza Segovia and Juan Calle Mendoza, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate whether these persons were in fact arrested, if they are at present under arrest or if they are free.

&htab;296.&htab;The Committee has examined this case on several occasions, most recently at its February 1986 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 243rd Report, paras. 447-488, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 232nd Session (March 1986).]

&htab;297.&htab;Since then, the ILO has received the following communications from the complainants: the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU): 12 February 1986; the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU): 17 February, 4 and 24 March 1986, 4 and 25 April 1986 as well as 2 May 1986; the Dockers' Union No. 2 of San Antonio: 31 March 1986; the Trade Unions International of Textile, Clothing, Leather and Fur Workers: 18 April 1986; and the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP): 5 May 1986. The Government, for its part, sent its observations in communications of 6 March, 9 April and 7 May 1986.

&htab;298.&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;299.&htab;The allegations still pending in this case concern the arrest and indictment of trade union leaders which occurred following a Protest Day held on 4 September 1985; the arrest of union leaders from the port sector during a demonstration; the banishment of trade union members and the dismissal of trade union leaders, particularly in the port and health care sectors. In addition, new allegations reported the death of four persons during the demonstrations of 5 and 6 November 1985, the arrest of Rodemil Aranda, leader of the Trade Union of the Caletones mines, as well as the annulment of the elections held within the Copper Workers' Confederation and the confiscation of its assets.

&htab;300.&htab;At its March 1986 Session, the Governing Body approved the following conclusions of the Committee:

&htab;(a) Regarding the arrests and charges made following the Protest Day on 4 September 1985, the Committee notes that 11 of the 12 trade union officials who were initially arrested and charged have been released on bail and that the charge against one of them has been dismissed. While noting that the charges were brought on the basis of provisions relating to the organisation of demonstrations on the public thoroughfare and illegal strikes, the Committee stresses that the prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations is incompatible with the principles of freedom of association. It recalls that the occupational and economic interests which workers defend by resorting to strikes concern not only better conditions of work or collective claims of an occupational nature, but also the search for solutions to economic &htab;and social policy questions. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on developments in the current trials and their outcome, as soon as judgements are handed down.

&htab;(b) Regarding the arrest of trade union officials in the port sector, the Committee notes that the persons concerned were released after the Minister of Labour stood bail for them. It requests the Government to supply information on developments in the proceedings initiated against them.

&htab;(c) Regarding the banishment of other trade unionists, the Committee firmly requests the Government once again to take the necessary steps to ensure that such measures, which do not provide for any judicial guarantees, are not taken again.

&htab;(d) Regarding the dismissal of trade union officials, the Committee notes that one trade unionist was dismissed for violation of the State Security Act and expresses its concern that workers can lose their jobs after being arrested or sentenced for having committed acts which the national legislation deems to be crimes, but which, according to generally recognised principles, could be considered as normal and lawful trade union activities. &htab;(e) The Committee requests the Government to supply, as soon as possible, its observations on the most recent allegations, namely the death of four persons during demonstrations on 5 and 6 November 1985, the arrest of Rodemil Aranda, leader of the Trade Union of the Caletones mines, the dismissal of trade union leaders in the port and health care sectors (Manuel Jerez Alvarado and Ricardo Vacarezza), the cancellation of the Copper Workers' Confederation elections and the confiscation of its assets.

&htab;301.&htab;In their respective communications of 12 and 17 February 1986, the WFTU and the ICFTU describe the measures taken against the Copper Workers' Confederation (CTC).

&htab;302.&htab;The WFTU states that the Government ordered the closing of the records centre of the CTC, an organisation with over 30,000 members. According to the WFTU, other measures taken by the authorities were intended to prevent the CTC president, Rodolfo Seguel, as well as other officials from exercising their trade union functions and using the Confederation's premises and funds. According to the WFTU, the Government claims that these officials may no longer hold trade union office since they are no longer employed in the mining industry, having been dismissed in 1983 following a strike they had organised to protest against the deterioration in the standard of living of copper miners.

&htab;303.&htab;According to the ICFTU, the measures taken by the Government have resulted in the immobilisation of the CTC following the court action barring its leaders from entering into contracts, performing administrative acts, holding meetings and making statements. With its communication, the ICFTU encloses a technical report prepared by a CTC legal adviser describing a number of summary measures taken by the 20th Civil Court of Santiago, at the request of the Labour Directorate. Such measures:

- forbid the present executive of the CTC from entering into contracts or performing administrative acts and any other operations involving all or part of the property and assets of the CTC;

- advise financial and banking institutions throughout the country to refrain from opening current or savings accounts and from paying cheques or making payments on behalf of the CTC;

- advise the public as well as public and private enterprises to refrain from entering into legal agreements with the present executive of the CTC; - advise the National Copper Undertaking not to accept or consider any demand, claim or resolution presented by the present executive of the CTC;

- forbid this executive from convening or holding trade union meetings, or participating in such meetings on behalf of the CTC;

- likewise, forbid the executive from claiming to represent the CTC in any public or private meeting, national or international forums, meetings of other associations, publication or in any print, radio or television interview;

- forbid the executive from removing from the CTC headquarters any document having a direct or indirect bearing on the Confederation's activities. For such purpose, seals will be affixed to all premises where such documentation is kept.

&htab;304.&htab;According to CTC's legal adviser, the CTC's activities have been brought to a standstill as a result of a judgement that is wide open to criticism for the following reasons: the use of civil proceedings, the existence of a legal irregularity in the Labour Directorate's request, the fact that the court action exceeds the competence of the Labour Directorate, the recourse to summary proceedings, the absence of any guarantee or bond furnished by the complainant, as required by law, and the lack of proportion between the effect of the measures resulting from the judgement and the legal interest protected.

&htab;305.&htab;In its communications of 4 and 24 March 1986, the ICFTU alleges that on 28 February 1986, Sergio Troncoso and Reinaldo Alvarez, President and Treasurer respectively of the Confederation of Building Workers were arrested, imprisoned and charged because the organisation's executive council had addressed a letter to the third chamber of the Supreme Court, protesting against the court's decision to leave the alleged killers of a teachers' union official at large. According to the ICFTU, these officials are liable to 61 days' to five years' imprisonment.

&htab;306.&htab;In its communication of 31 March 1986, the Dockers' Union No. 2 of San Antonio alleges that an October 1985 strike in the maritime sector was followed by repressive action against 200 workers of loading and unloading enterprises who have not been able to find work for the past five months. The Agunsa enterprise struck from its lists eight workers it considered dangerous to its interests. The COSEPORT agency notified the SIRMAPORT trade union that it would no longer hire workers belonging to the organisation unless three of its present leaders were dismissed from their posts. The workers then requested the resignation of these leaders, replacing them by persons who enjoy the employer's absolute confidence. The former leaders are now unemployed. Moreover, the President of the SIRMAPORT union, Carlos Carrasco, has been unable to find work for five months, since all enterprises have refused his requests for employment on the grounds of his having been a trade union leader. Such is also the case with 88 members of the Dockers' Union No. 2 of San Antonio, whose President and Secretary had been accused of being "union agitators".

&htab;307.&htab;In its communication of 4 April 1986, the ICFTU reports that Juan Bustos Araneda, an official of the Democratic Central Organisation of Workers (CDT), was abducted by armed civilians on 25 March. The ICFTU alleges that during his detention, Mr. Bustos suffered physical and psychological mistreatment and was questioned on the political and trade union activities of the CDT officials. He was found on 27 March in the Concepcion neighbourhood, in poor health and showing evidence of beatings and burn marks.

&htab;308.&htab;In its communication of 25 April 1986, the ICFTU alleges that on 18 April heavily armed police forces surrounded the MADECO trade union offices to prevent the holding of the first national conference called by the National Workers' Association.

&htab;309.&htab;In its communication of 18 April 1986, the Trades Union International of Textile, Clothing, Leather and Fur Workers alleges that by means of Decree No. 1360 of 29 November 1984, published on 19 March 1986, the Government transferred the assets of seven trade union organisations that had been declared illegal in October 1978, including the National Textile Federation, to a state body, the Training and Employment Service.

&htab;310.&htab;In its communication of 2 May 1986, the ICFTU reports that the 1 May celebration organised by the CNT was banned and that the police and the military had opened fire on the demonstrators. According to the ICFTU, l20 were injued and 585 people were arrested, among them Manuel Bustos (later released), Jorge Millan and Lucia Sandoral of the CNT. In addition, the offices of the CNT and its affiliates were searched. For its part, the WCOTP alleges that armed police entered the premises of the Professional Association of Chilean Teachers (AGECH) in which May Day was being celebrated; furniture, machinery and documents were destroyed and 56 persons were arrested. Nineteen people, including Luis Gutiérrez and Pavlisa Mora Drago (members of the AGECH Executive Committee) are still in detention.

&htab;311.&htab;In its various communications, the Government furnished its observations on several allegations pending in this case: the charges laid against trade union leaders, the arrest of Rodemil Aranda Flores, the dismissal of Manuel Jerez Alvarado, the measures taken following the elections held within the Copper Workers' Confederation and the charges brought against the leaders of the Confederation of Building Workers.

&htab;312.&htab;As regards the accusations levelled against the 11 trade union leaders following the protest day on 4 September 1985, the Government indicates that the case is at the stage of preparatory examination. All the accused are at present free.

&htab;313.&htab;On the subject of the measures taken against trade union leaders in the port sector, the Government states that no charges have been preferred against these persons. It explains that fines imposed for offences against public order correspond exactly to the amount paid to be released on bail. The Government recalls that the bail was in this case paid by the Ministry of Labour.

&htab;314.&htab;As regards the arrest of Rodemil Aranda Flores, the Government states in its communications of 6 March and 7 May 1986 that this person is not an employee of the El Teniente Division of the National Copper Undertaking. He was arrested on 4 December 1985 for having violated the Arms and Explosives Control Act, and more specifically, for the unlawful possession of explosives. This person is currently being held in the correctional centre of Rancagua. His application for release on bail was agreed on two occasions by the Military Prosecutor, but the Court Martial in both cases cancelled the decision.

&htab;315.&htab;As regards the dismissal of Manuel Jerez Alvarado, the Government states that on 3 April 1980 this person signed a contract for work as a deep-sea fisherman with the "Viento Sur" fishing enterprise. On 22 July 1985, Jerez Alvarado was elected trade union leader while the workers were lawfully on strike, although he was not a member of the union. He joined the union shortly after having been elected as a leader. The enterprise was not notified of his appointment until 20 August 1985. On 8 August 1985, the enterprise informed the maritime authorities and the labour inspectorate that this worker had insulted and threatened physical assault against the captain of the vessel on which he was employed. On 12 August 1985, the enterprise terminated Jerez Alvarado's work contract. On 6 September 1985, he filed an appeal against unjustified dismissal before the Second Civil Court of Talcahuano. The parties did not reach agreement and the enterprise has requested the court to authorise the dismissal.

&htab;316.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the dismissal of Mr. Ricardo Vacarezza, the Government indicates that the health services are autonomous and may engage personnel and terminate their employment in accordance with the law. This individual was a surgeon in the employ of the Eastern Metropolitan Health Service for 22 hours a week, under a contract for a limited period which expired on 31 December 1985. According to the Government, there was no arbitrary dismissal involved on the part of those in authority, but simply the coming to an end of a fixed term contract.

&htab;317.&htab;As regards the measures taken following the elections within the Copper Workers' Confederation, the Government explains that the Labour Directorate, acting on the authority granted to it by the law (section 5 of Decree No. 2 of 1967), requested the 20th Chamber of the Santiago Civil Court to issue a series of injunctions. The judge handling the case issued a number of injunctions with a view to protecting the Confederation's assets, as well as those of its member unions, as well as the validity of the act and contracts of the organisation's executive. Therefore, the Government concludes, the measures in question are not administrative but judicial in nature.

&htab;318.&htab;The Government states that the adoption of such measures is justified in view of the violations of current labour legislation. Thus, the Government states that by a resolution dated 6 November 1984, the Labour Directorate declared five officials of the No. 6 works union of the El Salvador Division of CODELCO to be legally incompetent to exercise trade union functions, since they had been dismissed by the enterprise in June 1983. Four union officials of the No. 1 works union of the El Salvador Division of CODELCO were likewise declared legally incompetent on the same grounds. The appeals filed by these persons were rejected by the Supreme Court on 2 December 1985, on the grounds that they were no longer members of the enterprise or of the union, conditions which, according to trade union law and union regulations, are required of persons holding office. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the persons who had received the next highest number of votes after those ruled ineligible were appointed to occupy the vacant positions as union leaders. Pursuant to trade union legislation, these persons should have been admitted to the Copper Workers' Confederation assembly as elected leaders of a member union: however, they were not allowed to participate in the Confederation's congress.

&htab;319.&htab;On 12 January 1986, the Copper Workers' Confederation elected a new executive, without permitting these lawfully appointed officials to participate in the voting. On the contrary, it was the former officials who had been declared legally incompetent who participated in the elections. According to the Government, these constituted grounds for the election to be declared null and void in a court of law.

&htab;320.&htab;Pursuant to section 19 of the by-laws of the Copper Workers' Confederation, its officials are elected by the executives of its member unions. Thus, the Confederation's by-laws were infringed. Such was also the case in connection with Rodolfo Seguel, who was elected President of the Confederation, despite the fact that he is legally incompetent to hold the post, having been dismissed by the CODELCO enterprise.

&htab;321.&htab;Lastly, the Government states that four of the persons elected to the national executive council of the Copper Workers' Confederation (Rodolfo Seguel, Manuel Rodriguez, Sergio Barriga and Raúl Montecinos) were not officials of member organisations, in violation of the organisation's by-laws and the law.

&htab;322.&htab;In summary, the Government concludes that the elections were tainted by a threefold infraction of current legislation and union by-laws; in the first place, persons not employed in the enterprise, and therefore declared incompetent to hold office, were allowed to vote; secondly, the lawful officials of member unions were not allowed to vote; and lastly, persons who were neither union officials nor workers in the enterprise were elected.

&htab;323.&htab;The Government adds that it is not true that these elections were void because their nullity must be declared by the courts, and the elections appear as valid until such nullity has been pronounced. Nor is it true that the Confederation's funds, accounts and assets were confiscated. The judge merely issued certain injunctions in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code. Furthermore, certain of these injunctions were rescinded by a decision of the First Chamber of the Santiago Court of Appeals, following an appeal filed by the Confederation's attorneys. This enabled the Confederation to meet its payroll and make other urgent payments.

&htab;324.&htab;Furthermore, Luis Alamos, official of the No. 1 company union of the El Salvador Division of the CODELCO enterprise filed a complaint before the 28th Chamber of the Santiago Civil Court against Rodolfo Seguel and the Copper Workers' Confederation alleging that he was not allowed to participate in or vote at the Confederation's congress, in violation of the by-laws and the law.

&htab;325.&htab;As regards the charges against two officials of the Confederation of Building Workers, the Government explains that towards the end of January 1986 the executive of this Confederation sent a letter to the judges of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, following a sentence passed by this chamber in a criminal matter. The Court examined the letter in plenary session and found that it slandered the judges. Consequently, it requested the Santiago Court of Appeal to institute proceedings for contempt of court, pursuant to sections 263 and 264 of the Penal Code. The judge responsible for investigating this matter ordered the arrest and indictment of Sergio Troncoso Cisternas and Reinaldo Alvarez, on the grounds that an offence had been committed and that the evidence indicated that these two persons had participated in the offence either as authors or accessories. An appeal filed by the defence against the indictment was rejected by the First Chamber of the Court of Appeal, but the accused were nevertheless released on bail. The Government stresses that it did not intervene in these proceedings since they were initiated at the request of the Supreme Court itself.

&htab;326.&htab;Lastly, the Government makes a general statement in its communication of 7 May 1986 on the subject of the concepts of demonstrations of protest and strikes to which the Committee had referred in its previous report. The Government is of the view that it is not possible to characterise as strikes demonstrations in public thoroughfares which paralyse all activities. It reaffirms that protests involving violence are not designed to seek solutions to questions of economic and social policy but to destablise Government by rendering the country ungovernable.

&htab;337.&htab;The World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights on behalf of its affiliate, the Nepal National Teachers' Association, in a communication dated 21 May 1985. It supplied additional information in communications dated 5 July and 8 October 1985.

&htab;338.&htab;Despite numerous requests to the Government for its observations, no reply was received and the Committee, at its February 1986 meeting, addressed an urgent appeal to it for a reply [243rd Report, para. 10, approved by the Governing Body at its 232nd Session, March 1986]. On that occasion, the Committee drew the Government's attention to the fact that it would present a report on the substance of this case at its next meeting, even if the Government's observations had not been received at that date. The Government has not replied to this urgent appeal.

&htab;339.&htab;Nepal 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;340.&htab;In its communication of 21 May 1985, the WCOTP alleges the following: (1) refusal by the authorities to register the Nepal National Teachers' Association (NNTA); (2) refusal by the Minister of Education to enter into negotiations with the NNTA on its demands concerning teachers' salaries and education provision; (3) repressive actions by the authorities, including detention of NNTA leaders, interference in the NNTA conference by the police, beating up of conference participants, mass arrests of demonstrating teachers and torture and ill-treatment of persons in custody.

&htab;341.&htab;The WCOTP states that, following its founding conference in December 1979 the NNTA submitted its constitution to the Minister of Education for approval in January 1980. After this, registration of the Association was sought from the Ministry of Home Affairs, but to date this has not been obtained and no reasons for the refusal have been given. According to the WCOTP, the NNTA represents 45,000 teachers of the 65,000 teaching force in 68 of the 75 districts of Nepal and has contacts in the other seven districts; both private and public school teachers are covered. The WCOTP points out that, until the organisation is registered, a formal convention is considered illegal. The NNTA nevertheless decided to hold a national convention in 1984 which was disrupted violently by police (kicking and beating delegates) within one hour of commencing. The WCOTP states that the medical, bar and engineers associations have also not obtained registration. It believes that only those organisations established by the Government have been registered.

&htab;342.&htab;According to the WCOTP, to put pressure behind the application for registration and to improve the status of teachers the NNTA staged strikes in March 1980 and April 1981 and undertook a non-cooperation campaign in 1984-85. It claims that the actions taken have been followed by more than 90 per cent of the membership in spite of government threats and repressive measures. It stresses that all NNTA action has been peaceful whereas the Government has reacted with harsh violence. For example, in February 1985 more than 40 teachers were demoted, transferred, deprived of grade facilities or dismissed as reprisals against the non-cooperation campaign. The WCOTP estimates that, in total, there have been over 10,000 arrests of teachers, students and guardians and that 1,000 teachers were still imprisoned at the end of March 1985. It reports the mass arrest in March 1985, of over 2,000 teachers during a "March to Katmandu" campaign which involved the closing of almost all schools for a week. Faced with these harsh measures, states the WCOTP, the NNTA staged new protests calling for the release of arrested teachers, e.g., a nation-wide strike was held on 9 January 1985 with strong support from transport, bazaar and other sectors; another 24-hour nation-wide strike was scheduled for 20 May 1985.

&htab;343.&htab;The WCOTP alleges the imprisonment of the following NNTA officials: President, Janek Pyakuryal, was arrested on 12 March and released eight days later; General Secretary, Devi Prasad Ojha, was arrested on 26 March; Vice-President, Bimal Koirala, was arrested on 12 March and released early in May; executive committee members, Yagya Murti Aryal and Mohan Norayan Shresta, were arrested on 2 and 9 March, the latter being released on 23 March; district Presidents were also arrested: R.P. Panday, A.P. Sapkota and K.P. Bhattarai. It claims that those arrested were sent back to their own districts by trucks at night and submitted to the district administrative officers; they were offered the choice between signing bonds against the non-cooperation movement or resigning or going to jail. According to the WCOTP, in some districts they were beaten in custody and released.

&htab;344.&htab;The WCOTP states that the NNTA has long sought negotiations on salaries and other matters related to their status and education provision. Negotiations with the Minister of Education broke down in January 1985 and teachers were excluded from salary increases of 40 to 60 per cent granted to other public employees. Teachers later received an increase which only amounted to 20 to 35 per cent.

&htab;345.&htab;In its letter of 5 July 1985, the WCOTP alleges that the following incidents took place in May 1985:

- on 17 May at 6 p.m. the police raided the NNTA office, removed files, pamphlets, handbills and also the key of the office. Mr. Jeven, a teacher from the Pata District, was arrested;

- on 18 May the Teacher Training College was surrounded by the police, a curfew imposed on the college premises, and some arrests were made;

- on 19 May schools, shops, restaurants and offices were closed; transport was at a standstill and very few people ventured into the streets; the day was also marked by mass meetings and demonstrations in many districts, which were disrupted by the police, and arrests were again made; there was some firing and one teacher (Mr. Gandiv Shrestha) was killed; - by 21 May more than 60 leaders and teachers were under arrest and at 17 June they had not yet been brought to trial. The WCOTP adds that the General Secretary of the NNTA, arrested on 26 March 1985, remains in detention and has not been charged or brought to trial. It believes that his continued imprisonment is based on discretionary powers accorded to police authorities for the maintenance of order, and not on any allegation of a breach of the law.

&htab;346.&htab;In its communication of 8 October 1985, the WCOTP states that, in retaliation for demonstrations and protests, 87 teachers have been imprisoned, 159 dismissed, 82 transferred and 6 demoted. It adds that the Government of Nepal has stopped the payment of salaries to the teachers who took part in the non-cooperation campaign although the school management committees are ready to pay them.

&htab;347.&htab;Before examining the substance of the case, the Committee considers it necessary to recall the considerations it set out in its First Report [para. 31], and which it has several times had occasion to repeat: the purpose of the whole procedure is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and the Committee is confident that, if the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognise the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies to the substance of the allegations.

&htab;348.&htab;The Committee therefore deplores that the Government has not sent any reply and that it is obliged, because of the time which has elapsed, to examine the case without being able to take account of the Government's observations.

&htab;349.&htab;The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern numerous violations of the freedom of association of a national teachers' organisation, ranging from refusal to register it through to the continued detention and torture of its officers. It also appears that during anti-union violence led by the police one teacher was killed, although his links to the trade union in question are not specified. The Committee expresses its deep concern over this situation and hopes that the Government, having taken note of the following considerations, will do its utmost to ensure that respect for the trade union rights of teachers is guaranteed in Nepal.

&htab;350.&htab;First, as regards the non-registration of the Nepal National Teachers' Association, the Committee would recall that an appeal should lie to the courts against any administrative decision concerning the registration of a trade union. Such a right of appeal constitutes a necessary safeguard against unlawful or ill-founded decisions by the authorities responsible for registration. In addition, judges should be able to deal with the substance of a case concerning a refusal to register to enable them to decide whether or not the provisions on which the administrative measures appealed against are based, constitute a violation of the rights accorded to occupational organisations by Convention No. 87. The Committee trusts that the NNTA, which has been applying for registration since early 1980, will be able to plead its case before the competent courts and be granted registration in the near future.

&htab;351.&htab;Linked to the above issue is that of the authorities' alleged refusal to negotiate with the teachers' union. On this point the Committee notes that - apparently following the industrial action of 1984-85 - teachers did receive a salary increase in 1985 although it did not match the increase granted to other public employees. From the information at its disposal, it is not clear to the Committee whether the NNTA was instrumental in achieving this improvement. It would nevertheless draw the Government's attention to the principle that the right to bargain freely with employers, with respect to conditions of work, constitutes an essential element in freedom of association, and trade unions should have the right, through collective bargaining or other lawful means, to seek to improve the living and working conditons of those whom the trade unions represent. The public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof [see, for example, 172nd Report, Case No. 877 (Greece), para. 92].

&htab;352.&htab;The second major allegation concerns repressive actions by the authorities, including the serious measures of mass arrests, torture in detention and continued detention of union leaders (five NNTA officers have allegedly been imprisoned without trial since March 1985: Devi Prasad Ojha, Yagya Murti Aryal, R.P. Panday, A.P. Sapkota and K.P. Bhattarai). The Committee observes with special concern that these measures were taken in retaliation against a peaceful non-cooperation campaign staged by the NNTA in support of its occupational claims. It stresses the importance of the principle that the detention of trade union leaders for activities connected with the exercise of their trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association. Moreover, it is one of the fundamental rights of the individual that detained persons should be brought without delay before the appropriate judge, this right being recognised in such instruments as the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. In the case of persons engaged in trade union activites, this is one of the civil liberties which should be ensured by the authorities in order to guarantee the exercise of trade union rights [see, for example, 236th Report, Case No. 1204 (Paraguay), para. 441]. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the charges against these union leaders and of their current situation. Given the lack of detail concerning the alleged torture in detention, the Committee can only recall generally that governments should carry out inquiries into complaints alleging ill-treatment of detainees so that appropriate measures, including compensation for damages suffered, may be taken.

&htab;353.&htab;As regards the alleged death of a teacher (Mr. Gandivr Shrestha) on 19 May 1985 during police disruption of a teachers' demonstration, the Committee recalls that when disorders have occurred involving loss of human life or serious injury, the setting up of a judicial inquiry by the government concerned is a particularly appropriate method of fully ascertaining the facts and determining the responsibility therefor. The Committee trusts that steps will be taken to punish those responsible and to prevent the repetition of such actions. It expects that such an inquiry will be carried out as soon as possible into this death and requests the Government to inform it of the results and of the other measures taken in relation to these matters.

&htab;354.&htab;The third major allegation concerns acts of anti-union discrimination taken by the authorities against teachers in their employment (as at October 1985, 159 dismissals, 82 transfers and 6 demotions). The Committee recalls that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom [see, for example, 236th Report, Case No. 113 (India), para. 130]. It requests the Government to inform it of the current situation of the teachers who were prejudiced in their employment because of their trade union activities or functions e.g., are the salaries of those teachers who participated in the non-cooperation campaign being paid; have there been any reinstatements, appeals against demotions or dismissals?

&htab;355.&htab;The fourth serious allegation concerns the police raid on the NNTA office at 6 p.m. on 17 May 1985, during which union effects were removed. The Committee recalls that the International Labour Conference, in its 1970 Resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, considered that the right to protection of the property of trade union organisations constitutes one of the civil liberties which are essential to the normal exercise of trade union rights [see, for example, 218th Report, Case No. 1066 (Greece), para. 145]. It trusts that the union papers have been returned to their owner and that such incidents will not recur.