&htab;28.&htab;In a communication of 28 November 1985, the Panhellenic Union of Merchant Marine Engineers (PEMEN), the Panhellenic Union of Merchant Seamen (PENEN) and the Panhellenic Union of Certified Third-Degree Engineers and Stefenson Pumpmen presented a complaint alleging violations of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The Government sent its observations in a communication of 10 April 1986.

&htab;29.&htab;Greece has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;30.&htab;The complainants allege that section 238 of Decree No. 187/1973 to institute a Public Law Maritime Code violates freedom of association. According to the complainants, this provision prohibits Greek seamen from filing appeals concerning disputes arising from their employment contracts, without the prior authorisation of the Ministry of the Merchant Marine, and authorises penalties of up to three months' imprisonment and a five-year confiscation of the seaman's work permit. According to the complainants, the councils responsible for examining seamen's appeals regard as foreign authorities not only foreign courts, but also foreign trade unions and the international federations and confederations to which the Panhellenic Seamen's Federation (PNO) and seamen's trade unions belong.

&htab;31.&htab;According to the complainants, this provision constitutes a violation of Article 5 of Convention No. 87, since (1) it infringes the right of trade unions to maintain relations with international organisations, federations or confederations to which they may or may not belong; (2) it infringes the right to request intellectual, material and legal assistance from local, foreign and international federations and confederations, and to request their support in connection with seamen's trade unions' claims or appeals in court; (3) it infringes the right of branch unions to request the assistance of local and foreign international federations and confederations in their struggles or those of their constituents, as well as their right to request solidarity action to protect the common interests of workers and their individual and collective rights on an international level; (4) lastly, it infringes the right to protest against the interference of government authorities when they impose legal or material constraints on Greek seamen, ships, or the ports at which they dock.

&htab;32.&htab;In its reply of 10 April 1986, the Government explains in general terms that a highly developed maritime sector must be in a position to ensure normal and peaceful maritime traffic throughout the world, and that ships must not only carry out their commercial tasks, but also shoulder their responsibilities for protecting the safety and lives of seamen. The Government adds that all maritime nations of the West as well as the East have adopted codes of penal and disciplinary provisions governing relations between persons working on board ships, and that Greece adopted such a Code in 1923, which has been subsequently amended.

&htab;33.&htab;As regards Legislative Decree No. 187/1973 to institute a Public Law Maritime Code, the Government states that this text has not introduced any new provisions, but has merely codified the existing legislation. The Government explains, however, that, as the Code entered into force a number of years ago, it is to be updated, and that all interested parties, including seamen, have been invited to contribute their views. These amendments will be entrusted to a special committee, soon to be appointed, in which representatives of seamen are to participate.

&htab;34.&htab;According to the Government, the correlation which the complainants allege to exist between the disciplinary laws of the merchant marine found in all maritime nations and the provisions of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), has no foundation, since there is no relation between the two. However, seamen's organisations are authorised by law to set up disciplinary councils responsible for the disciplinary control of their members who infringe the regulations. These councils are not composed of a single person but of a group of people; furthermore, seamen have the right to appeal before a second-degree council. The first- and second-degree councils are composed of a seamen's representative and a number of other persons familiar with the conditions of life on board ships, the requirements for safety in navigation and the equality of disciplinary treatment. According to the Government, such disciplinary councils exist in Italy, France, Argentina, Brazil and the United Kingdom.

&htab;35.&htab;As regards the provision of Legislative Decree No. 187/1973 concerning the right of appeal before authorities other than those of the State of the ship's flag, the Government indicates that this is a very controversial point in international law. The issue has already raised a number of problems for Greek shipping, because the courts of the United States have decided to examine a number of complaints filed by Greek seamen.

&htab;36.&htab;In support of its argument, the Government provides two recent examples of such complaints. The first concerns an appeal for damages filed by a Greek seaman before a court in the city of New Orleans concerning an employment injury which took place in May 1984 on a Greek ship anchored in the French port of Boulogne-sur-Mer. The second involves the payment of a substantial indemnity to the widow of another Greek seaman, who died as the result of an accident which took place on a ship anchored in the Greek port of Patras; his widow has threatened to file suit in an American court of law.

&htab;37.&htab;The Government concludes that it could not remain indifferent to this type of situation and thus inserted section 238 in Legislative Decree No. 187/1973, with the consent of the representatives of seamen and shipowners' federations. This section provides that appeals concerning the work or rights of seamen, including those arising from illness or injury, may be judged on the basis of Greek legislation. Other maritime nations follow this practice, according to the Government. Such is the case, for instance, in Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Iceland.

&htab;38.&htab;Furthermore, the Government adds, Greece has taken all measures necessary to ensure that labour disputes involving seamen on board ships may be resolved fairly and promptly. The Greek maritime consular authorities are kept informed of all new provisions governing these matters as well as of the corresponding case law. Moreover, whenever a problem arises, seamen or shipowners may telex or write to the appropriate divisions of the Ministry of the Merchant Marine and obtain a reply within a matter of days. In cases in which a Greek seaman cannot benefit from the protection of the Greek authorities, for instance when he requests that a ship be confiscated in a foreign country, the Ministry of the Merchant Marine always grants its authorisation by telex, in accordance with section 238, subsection 3. The last subsection of section 246 provides that the ship's captain will be held liable if any crew member or passenger is unjustly prevented from filing a complaint with the Greek authorities.

&htab;39.&htab;Consequently, the Government considers that any appeal filed by a seaman before a foreign authority or organisation concerning a dispute arising from a maritime employment contract is unjustified, since seamen are protected by Greek legislation and have the right to file appeals before the Greek consular authorities (in application of section 238). Furthermore, the Government adds, such actions may hinder the normal operation of ships and damage the reputation of Greece abroad, and are therefore prohibited.

&htab;40.&htab;The Committee notes that the legislative provision impugned by the complainants concerns the prohibition of appeals by Greek seamen to a foreign authority to obtain the resolution of disputes arising from their employment contracts. In fact, section 238 provides that "any active or dismissed crew member who appeals to a foreign institution or authority to enforce his alleged rights or to obtain the resolution of a labour dispute arising from his maritime employment contract, in spite of the fact that he enjoys legal protection under Greek law and can appeal to a Greek consular authority, shall be punishable by imprisonment of up to three months. The following are aggravating circumstances: first, if the offender is the captain or an officer of a ship; secondly, if such appeal delays the departure of a ship which is ready to cast off. The foregoing provisions do not apply to cases where the Minister of the Marine, Communications and Transport has authorised appeals to foreign authorities or organisations, in consideration of the conditions of application of subsection (1)." According to the complainants, this provision violates Article 5 of Convention No. 87, inasmuch as it prohibits Greek seamen and their trade unions from contacting international trade union organisations to which they belong. On the other hand, the Government considers that this provision has no relation whatsoever with Convention No. 87; it explains that it is only intended to prohibit Greek seamen from appealing to foreign authorities, since they have the right to appeal to Greek authorities in disputes involving their employment contracts.

&htab;41.&htab;The complainants did not furnish specific examples in their complaint to support their contention that this provision is used to prohibit Greek seamen's trade unions from contacting international trade union organisations to which they belong or to request their solidarity; furthermore, they have supplied no additional observations despite being offered the opportunity to do so. The Government, on the other hand, has furnished concrete examples to show that this provision is intended to prohibit Greek seamen who are involved in labour disputes with their employers from bringing the matter before foreign jurisdictions, since they have the right to appeal such matters to the Greek authorities. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the provision in question does not violate freedom of association.

&htab;42.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that given the information at present available, this case does not call for further examination.

&htab;43.&htab;The Committee examined this case at its meeting in February 1986 when it presented conclusions to the Governing Body (see 243rd Report, paras. 209-247).

&htab;44.&htab;At its meeting in May 1986 the Committee took note that the complainant organisations had, on 19 May 1986, submitted further information in connection with certain matters relating to the case and that the Government, to whom this information had been transmitted, had replied in a communication dated 22 May 1986. The Committee accordingly decided to examine these additional matters at its next meeting in the light of all the information that had been communicated to it and in the light of any further developments that might take place (244th Report, para. 10).

&htab;45.&htab;Since its last meeting the Committee has received from the complainant organisations further communications dated 23 May, 15 August and 3 October 1986. It has also received from the Government communications dated 3 June, 24 September and 23 October 1986 in response to the matters raised in the aforesaid communications.

&htab;46.&htab;Denmark has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 1949 (No. 98) and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention 1978 (No. 151).

&htab;47.&htab;When the Committee examined this case in February 1986 it made the following recommendations which were approved by the Governing Body:

(a) the Committee trusts that the Government will, at an early date, give its full attention to the principles of free collective bargaining in the fulfilment of its obligations under Convention No. 98, ratified by it, and that it will take steps, where necessary, to ensure that all questions concerning wage-fixing may be resolved through negotiations between the parties;

(b) the Committee requests the Government to re-examine with the occupational organisations concerned the possibility of negotiating wage settlements in a manner which is free of interference by the public authorities;

(c) the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the nature and outcome of any discussions directed at promoting the voluntary appraisal and acceptance by the parties to negotiations of the economic policy considerations advanced by the Government in support of the measures relating to the suspension of wage indexation;

(d) as regards the 1985 Act on the renewal and extension of collective agreements which follows other government interventions in collective bargaining, the Committee points out that such action, involving as it does, statutory intervention in the collective bargaining process, should only be taken in cases of emergency and for brief periods of time. The Committee hopes that, in future, no similar measures will be taken to interfere with free collective bargaining or to restrict the right of workers to defend their economic and social interests through industrial action; (e) the Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to aspects of this case relating to the above legislation.

&htab;48.&htab;In their communication dated 19 May 1986 the complainants point out that, despite the recommendations made by the Committee following its examination of the case in February and, in particular, the recommendation that the Government examine with the social partners the possibility of negotiating wage agreements in a way not involving intervention by the public authorities, the Government had stated, on 16 May, without any prior consultation with the social partners, that it intended to abolish the provisions concerning wage indexation currently suspended from existing collective agreements. The complainants considered this measure to be incompatible with the Committee's conclusions and requested that consideration be given to sending an ILO representative to Denmark to examine the situation and in particular the interventions by the Government in the right to free collective bargaining.

&htab;49.&htab;In its further communication dated 23 May 1986 the complainants again urged that a direct contacts mission be carried out, since the Government intended to abolish the automatic cost-of-living indexation at the beginning of June 1986 and the Government's Bill was currently being examined by the Danish Parliament.

&htab;50.&htab;The complainants added that the Minister of Labour had given a written assurance on 2 May 1986 that the social partners could be consulted on the suspension of the cost-of-living indexation scheme but, on 16 May, representatives of the complainant organisations were convened to a meeting in the Ministry of Labour when they were informed of the Government's intention to submit the Bill in question. This could in no way be considered as consultation. The complainants added that the Government had not informed the Parliament of the conclusions reached by the Committee and adopted by the Governing Body in March 1986 and that it was only now at the request of Members of Parliament that this had been done.

&htab;51.&htab;In their communication of 15 August 1986 the complainants confirmed that the Danish Parliament, on 26 May 1986, adopted legislation to the effect that existing agreements in the Danish labour market concerning automatic indexation of wages and salaries would lapse on the expiry of the present suspension of the indexation scheme. In the view of the complainants the abolition of existing agreements or parts thereof by governments was inconsistent with the principles of the right to organise and collective bargaining. In addition, the complainants argued that this action had been taken without any consultation with the social partners despite written assurances by the Government that consultation would take place. Referring to the discussion of these matters by the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in June 1986, the complainants again requested that a direct contacts mission should take place prior to the next examination of the case by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

&htab;52.&htab;In their latest communication dated 3 October 1986 the complainants, referring to their meeting with the Minister of Labour on 16 May 1986, state that the social partners were convened to that meeting by telephone on the same day without even being informed as to the purpose of the meeting. At the meeting they were informed that the Government had prepared a Bill on the wage indexation scheme which would be introduced in the Danish Parliament as soon as possible. It was only at that meeting that the Bill was presented to the social partners, and despite protests by the trade unions no consultations or negotiations took place during that meeting. The Government added that it had secured a parliamentary majority for the adoption of the Bill. The complainants stated that if the trade unions had not made use of the opportunity to put forward their views in the Labour Market Committee of Parliament, this was because they considered that the submission of views could not be considered as being negotiations or consultations of the kind that the ILO has asked the Danish Government to initiate with the social partners. In any event, the Labour Market Committee of the Danish Parliament had been kept informed of the views of the trade unions. The complainants continued to believe that there was a need for a direct contacts mission. The complainants submitted that the Minister of Labour had made certain comments in the press which reflected the Government's lack of willingness to observe the recommendations made by the ILO.

&htab;53.&htab;In its communication dated 22 May 1986 the Government explained that when it came into office, one of the first things it did in the autumn of 1982 was to suspend the automatic cost-of-living indexation of wages and salaries. This was done by Act No. 575 of 27 October 1982. The suspension was later extended by Act No. 237 of 23 May 1984, the result being that indexation of wages and salaries can now at the earliest take place in September 1987. It was the Government's firm conviction that the automatic cost-of-living indexation scheme greatly contributed to maintaining a high rate of inflation. Rather than protecting low-paid workers against erosion of their wages, the automatic cost-of-living indexation scheme contributed to a deterioration of the economic problem and a continuing fall in real wages. The time which had elapsed since then had proved the Government's view to be correct. In 1982 the rate of inflation was more than 10 per cent whereas it was now expected to be about 2 per cent in 1986. Negotiations would take place between the labour market organisations on the renewal of collective agreements with effect from the Spring of 1987 and, as the Government points out, there has been a strong desire on the part of workers' organisations to know at an early stage what the future situation would be with regard to the automatic cost-of-living indexation. These negotiations were now under preparation and the Government had consequently found it appropriate to introduce a Bill in the Danish Parliament concerning the lapse of the automatic regulation of wages and salaries on the basis of the price index. What the Bill proposed was that existing agreements concerning automatic cost-of-living indexation of wages and salaries would lapse when the present suspension of the cost-of-living indexation scheme expired. According to the Bill, no regulations can take place on the basis of existing agreements and all questions concerning indexation of wages and salaries must therefore be made subject to new agreements between the parties. Thus the Act places no restraints on the agreements that may be concluded by the labour market organisations when they conclude future collective and other agreements. Nor does the Bill have any impact on wages and salaries in the present agreement period. By introducing this legislation, the Government considered that it had created a clear basis on which the parties could negotiate and had expected that the parties would on their own conclude new agreements in the spring of 1987. The Government pointed out that the labour market organisations had stressed that they did not want negotiations on a tripartite basis in connection with the coming collective bargaining situation.

&htab;54.&htab;The Government also pointed out that it had deemed it necessary to adopt legislation in order to cover the whole labour market and thus ensure that the situation would be the same for all employees whether covered by collective or other types of agreement. On 16 May 1986 meetings were held at which the Bill and its background had been explained to the social partners who would have an opportunity to present their views before Parliament in accordance with the traditional legislative procedure. The Government added that this legislation should also be seen as an element of the Government's general policy in the field of indexation. It was the Government's plan to introduce legislation in the Autumn of 1986 which would abolish the automatic indexation of prices. In the Government's view the provisions of the legislation were in full compliance with the principles laid down in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

&htab;55.&htab;In its further communication dated 3 June 1986, the Government supplied a copy of the Bill on the lapse of the automatic adjustment of wages, salaries etc. on the basis of the price index which was introduced by the Danish Government of 20 May 1986. The Government confirms that the Bill was adopted by the Parliament on 30 May 1986 without any amendments. The Law would come into effect on its publication in the Danish Law Gazette.

&htab;56.&htab;The Government wished, in particular, to stress again that this legislation did not have any impact on wages and salaries in the present agreement period, nor did it place any restraints on the agreements that would be conlcuded by the labour market organisations as regards future negotiations. It was the wish of the Danish Government to follow the recommendations made by the Governing Body and it expected that the parties would on their own conclude new agreements in the spring of 1987.

&htab;57.&htab;In its communication of 24 September, the Government provided a summary of the circumstances which led to the suspension in 1982 of the automatic indexation of wages and salaries and to the prolongation of that suspension in May 1984, the result of which was that indexation could now at the earliest take place in September 1987. Referring to the legislation on the lapse of automatic indexation, the Government again emphasised that this had been necessary in order to create a clear basis on which the parties could negotiate and conclude new agreements next Spring.

&htab;58.&htab;As regards the question of consultations, the Government stated that it would take the initiative for tripartite discussions with the social partners in the autumn of 1986 and added that it was expected that a meeting would be held in October 1986. The Government was prepared to comply with the wishes of the social partners for discussions. It added, however, that the labour market organisations had declared that they did not want tripartite negotiations.

&htab;59.&htab;The Government indicated that the legislation concerning the suspension of the cost-of-living indexation, that is the Acts of October 1982 and May 1984, meant that no automatic regulation of wages could take place as from the price index for January 1983 up to and including the price index for January 1987. The Government repeated that the suspension did not prevent increases in wages and salaries and evidence of this was the renewal of the collective agreement which had taken place in the spring of 1983 following collective bargaining between the social partners. Since the suspension of indexation, and up to the first quarter of 1986, wages and salaries had increased by up to 15 per cent and, as price increases had been considerably reduced, there had been an increase in real wages for the first time in many years. Thus, according to the Government, there had by no means been a freeze on wages and in addition there had been safeguards to protect the living standards of the workers on whom no restraints had been placed in the collective bargaining process. As regards the meetings which took place with the social partners prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Government pointed out that the Minister of Finance had met with representatives of both workers' and employers' organisations in the public sector and the Minister of Labour met with representatives of organisations in the private sector in order to explain the reasons for the introduction of the legislation. After these explanations there had been an opportunity for substantial discussion of the Bill and several organisations availed themselves of this opportunity. The Government added that it was the normal procedure that labour market and trade organisations and other interested parties approach the Parliamentary Committee dealing with a particular Bill - either in writing or by sending a delegation - in order to express their views directly to that Committee. As regards the Bill in question, neither of the complainant organisations had availed themselves of this possibility.

&htab;60.&htab;As regards the request of the complainants for the establishment by the ILO of a direct contacts mission to Denmark, the Government stated that it was convinced that the situation was simple and clear and that all the factual aspects and developments had been fully elucidated in the written material supplied to the ILO.

&htab;61.&htab;In its latest communication dated 23 October 1986 the Government points out that the statements of the Minister of Labour, referred to by the complainants, had been taken out of context and at no time had the Government stated that it did not intend to fulfil its obligations as a Member of the ILO. The Government wished to follow the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body. It also referred to a statement by the Prime Minister in Parliament on 7 October 1986 in which he mentioned the renewal of collective agreements through negotiations and stated that the Government had invited the social partners to tripartite discussions which would take place on 29 October 1986. The Prime Minister's invitation to these discussions states that the purpose of the discussion prior to negotiations with a view to renewal of collective agreements is a mutual exchange of information on, respectively, the collective bargaining situation and the Government's policy. The Government would also wish to discuss the general economic situation and labour market policy, as well as other matters.

&htab;62.&htab;The Committee has taken note of all the additional information supplied by the complainants and by the Government of Denmark. It recalls that, at its meeting in February 1986, it examined the original complaint submitted by the complainant organisations concerning these issues and reached definitive conclusions thereon. Since then, however, the complainant organisations have brought to the attention of the Committee further additional information and allegations relating to legislative action taken by the Government in May 1986 concerning the question of wage indexation and on which the Government has provided its observations. In accordance with the decision it reached at its meeting in May 1986, the Committee has examined these subsequent developments and has reached the following conclusions. The Committee has also noted the comments made in 1986 by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on the questions raised in the complaint as well as the discussion that took place in the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the 72nd Session of the International Labour Conference (June 1986).

&htab;63.&htab;The Committee recalls that the complaint initially presented by the complainant organisations essentially concerned the suspension in October 1982 of negotiated wage indexation clauses in collective agreements and the prolongation of that suspension, by an Act of May 1984, until 1987. The complainants also stressed the failure on the part of the Government to consult or negotiate adequately with the social partners on such matters. On these questions the Committee reached conclusions at its meeting in February 1986 and again draws attention to these conclusions.

&htab;64.&htab;The new elements which have since been brought to the attention of the Committee by the complainant organisations concern, in the first place, the placing by the Government of new legislation regarding the suspension of indexation before Parliament in May 1986 (which was enacted by Parliament on 26 May 1986) and, in the second place, failure on the part of the Government to consult or negotiate with the social partners before doing so.

&htab;65.&htab;As regards the legislation adopted by the Danish Parliament in May 1986, the Committee understands that the result of its adoption was to abolish the already suspended wage indexation clauses in collective agreements until the next round of negotiations which will take place in the spring of 1987. The new agreements negotiated at that time will be able to include indexation clauses which can take effect from the date of the expiry of the suspension of the cost-of-living indexation scheme in September 1987. The Committee also notes that the Act does not place any restraints on any agreements concluded nor does it have any impact on wages and salaries in the present agreement period.

&htab;66.&htab;The reasons advanced by the Government for introducing this new legislation are that it wished to establish clearly the basis on which the social partners could negotiate in the future; it also wished to establish that the entire labour market would be covered by the legislation and that the situation would be the same for all employees.

&htab;67.&htab;As regards the question of the suspension of wage indexation clauses in collective agreements, first introduced in the autumn of 1982, the Committee, when it previously examined this case, noted that this measure was not, at least until 1985, accompanied by other measures interfering in collective bargaining and that collective agreements were in fact negotiated and concluded for a two-year period in 1983. The Committee, however, noted that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, in comments addressed to the Government of Denmark in 1985, had emphasised the principle that the right to negotiate wages and conditions of employment freely with the employers and their organisations is a fundamental aspect of freedom of association and that any restriction on the free fixing of wage rates should be imposed as an exceptional measure, and only to the extent necessary without exceeding a reasonable period; and that such restrictions should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect the living standards of the workers. The Committee also recalled that the intervention of a government in areas which traditionally have always been negotiated freely by the parties, could call into question the principle of free collective bargaining recognised by Article 4 of Convention No. 98 if it is not accompanied by certain guarantees and in particular if its period of application is not limited in time.

&htab;68.&htab;Having regard to these principles, the Committee considers that, although it can be admitted that, in certain exceptional circumstances, restrictions may be imposed on the fixing of wages, free and voluntary collective bargaining should mean that collective agreements, once freely negotiated between the parties, should not be interrupted or interfered with by statutory or other forms of intervention. The Committee notes, however, that according to the Government, the prohibition of wage indexation will terminate in 1987 and that the social partners will be free, should they so wish - and as is the tradition in Denmark - to negotiate the insertion of such arrangements in the collective agreements that will be established at that time. The Committee would again draw the Government's attention to the conclusions it reached in May 1986 and would express the hope that the social partners will be able to negotiate these agreements in a manner that is in full conformity with the principles and standards on freedom of association, that is to say, in a manner that is free from interference by the public authorities.

&htab;69.&htab;With regard to the allegation that the Government introduced the new legislation in May 1986 without having first held appropriate consultations with the social partners, the Committee notes the Government's statement that explanations were given to the social partners about the intended legislative action and that, in accordance with the usual practice in Denmark, the social partners had the opportunity to present their views before the relevant parliamentary committee. While fully respecting the usual practice regarding the legislative process in Denmark, the Committee considers that it is essential that the introduction of draft legislation affecting conditions of employment and, in particular, collective bargaining should be preceded by full and detailed consultations with the appropriate organisations of workers and employers. The Committee would request the Government to give serious consideration to this possibility before taking any future legislative or other action that is of direct concern to the social partners.

&htab;70.&htab;The Committee notes with interest that, in anticipation of the next round of bargaining, tripartite discussions were planned to take place on 29 October during which the collective bargaining and general economic situation, as well as labour market policy, would be examined.

&htab;72.&htab;The complaint presented by the General Central Organisation of Workers (CGT) is contained in a communication dated 30 May 1985. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 25 September 1985 and 5 June 1986.

&htab;73.&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;74.&htab;The complainant alleges that on 4 May 1985, three days after the workers of the Pasteurizadora Rica C. por A. undertaking had set up a trade union, the executives of the undertaking requested the occupation of the premises by the military and dismissed 24 members of the trade union, including five recently elected leaders (Antonio Suárez, José A. Lagares, Francisco Sánchez, Elvin Herrera and José Antonio Pimentel).

&htab;75.&htab;The complainant adds that on 5 May 1985, the Ministry of Labour ordered a so-called investigation into the events; however, the persons appointed to carry out this investigation never visited the premises of the undertaking, a situation which was exploited by the employers to replace the dismissed workers by active members of the military.

&htab;76.&htab;The complainant adds that on 14 May 1985, Gregorio Reyes, Secretary-General of the trade union and Marino del Carmen Mejía, Secretary of Records and Correspondence, were forced to resign from the leadership of the trade union. On 21 May 1985 the trade union assembly met and elected Juan Osorio, Dianor Beltré Amador and Diloné Reyes as substitutes for the dismissed leaders. On the following day they were also dismissed. There are thus serious grounds for suspecting collusion between middle-rank officials of the Ministry of Labour and the employers at the undertaking.

&htab;77.&htab;Finally, the complainant states that the remaining trade union leaders (Pablo de Jesús Rosario, Manuel de Jesús, Pedro Bretón and Erasmo Vargas) were transferred to less well-paid workplaces with the express objective of forcing them to resign from the undertaking.

&htab;78.&htab;In its communication of 25 September 1985, the Government states that the complaint presented by the CGT does not correspond exactly to the events which occurred in the Pasteurizadora Rica C. por A. undertaking since no reference is made in the complaint to the serious circumstances which in fact led to a precarious economic situation which obliged this undertaking to make urgent readjustments and changes in its pace of production and which affected the level of employment.

&htab;79.&htab;The documentation furnished by the Government in the annex contains information from the undertaking explaining the economic difficulties which it had been experiencing since 1983, in particular following the increase in production costs and the freezing of milk prices by the Government. A communication from the undertaking dated 12 August 1985 points out that as a result of the precarious economic situation of the undertaking 63 workers had been dismissed in recent months.

&htab;80.&htab;In its communication dated 5 June 1986, the Government states that although the dismissed workers included 24 members of the trade union, the dismissals were made without reference to their status as trade unionists and at all times in accordance with the right granted by the Labour Code to remove workers; that they were motivated only by the serious and precarious economic situation of the undertaking; and that the persons concerned were not replaced by active members of the military to whom remuneration would have had to be paid, which would have meant a persistence of the same economic deficit.

&htab;81.&htab;With regard to the allegation concerning the transfer of trade union leaders to less well-paid workplaces, the Government states that this does not accord with the facts, since these workers are sales agents who are rotated on a temporary basis, irrespective of their trade union status, in various zones some of which prove more profitable than others. The Government adds that the allegation concerning the pressure brought to bear on two trade union leaders to resign from the trade union is unfounded.

&htab;82.&htab;Finally, the Government states that the Secretariat of State for Labour, in the interests of preserving industrial peace and in its role as friendly mediator between the parties, reached a satisfactory settlement of this dispute which was already assuming major proportions and creating a shortage of a nutriment which is vital to children and old people, since the Pasteurizadora Rica C. por A. undertaking is the main supplier of pasturised milk in the country.

&htab;83.&htab;The Committee notes that in the present complaint the complainant has alleged basically that acts of trade union discrimination were carried out in the Pasteurizadora Rica C. por A. undertaking following the establishment of a trade union. The complainant organisation has referred in particular to the dismissal of 24 trade unionists (including five trade union leaders and two substitutes) and the transfer of three trade union leaders to workplaces with poorer working conditions.

&htab;84.&htab;The Committee notes that, according to the Government, although the 63 dismissed workers included 24 trade unionists, no account was taken of their status as trade union members and that their dismissal was the result of the economic crisis which the undertaking was experiencing. The Government also affirms that the allegation concerning the transfer of trade union leaders to less well-paid workplaces does not accord with the actual facts since as sales agents they are rotated temporarily in different zones irrespective of their status as trade union members.

&htab;85.&htab;The Committee therefore concludes that the accounts of the complainant and the Government concerning the events are contradictory. The Committee would like to stress, nevertheless, that according to the allegations, the dismissals in question affected a large number of trade union leaders (at first five and subsequently two others) and trade unionists, and occurred days or weeks after the establishment of the trade union.

&htab;86.&htab;In these circumstances, although it takes note that the undertaking was in a situation of economic crisis, the Committee would like to recall the principle contained in the Workers' Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143) that one of the specific measures of protection should be the "recognition of a priority to be given to workers' representatives with regard to their retention in employment in case of reduction in the workforce".

&htab;87.&htab;The Committee notes furthermore that section 84 of the Labour Code of the Dominican Republic authorises dismissal "without just cause" on the condition that the employer pays the compensation prescribed by the law, and that section 679 imposes only small fines in the event of an infringement of the provisions which establish protection against acts of trade union discrimination. Therefore, on the basis of previous conclusions concerning the legislation of the Dominican Republic [see for example, 211th Report, Case No. 1053 (Dominican Republic), paras. 163 to 165], the Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that legislation which authorises the dismissal without just cause of trade union leaders and workers on condition that they are paid the compensation prescribed by law, does not give sufficient protection against anti-union discrimination, since it enables an employer, on condition that he pays the compensation prescribed by law, to dismiss any member of his staff, for trade union or other activities, the public authorities being powerless to prevent him from doing so. 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 must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from the trade unions.

&htab;88.&htab;Finally, the Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspect of the case and requests the Government to consider the adoption of legislation to give effective protection to trade union leaders and workers against dismissals made on the basis of their trade union activities.

&htab;89.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee recalls the principle contained in the Workers' Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143) that one of the specific measures of protection should be the "recognition of a priority to be given to workers' representatives with regard to their retention in employment in case of reduction of the workforce".

(b) On the basis of previous conclusions reached in relation with the legislation of the Dominican Republic, the Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that legislation which authorises the dismissal without just cause of trade union leaders and workers on condition that they are paid the compensation prescribed by law, does not give sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. (c) The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Recommendations and Conventions to the legislative aspect of the case and requests the Government to consider the adoption of legislation to give effective protection to trade union leaders and workers against dismissals made on the basis of their trade union activities.

&htab;90.&htab;The Pakistan Bank Employees' Federation (PBEF) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights in a communication dated 16 December 1985. The Government supplied its observations in a communication dated 6 May 1986.

&htab;91.&htab;Pakistan 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;92.&htab;The PBEF, in its communication of 16 December 1985, alleges that the American Express Banking Corporation has been pursuing a policy of hostility and harassment against its employees since its establishment in Pakistan. According to the PBEF, two of its union's general secretaries and a president were dismissed or forced to leave the Bank's service and, on 3 October 1985, a further 54 dismissals took place with no reasons being given and without any reference being made either to the employees' union or to the PBEF. Among those dismissed were the union's Lahore General Secretary and its Karachi Vice-President, Publicity Secretary, Treasurer and three executive committee members.

&htab;93.&htab;The PBEF states that this action not only violated the collective agreement between the PBEF and the Corporation, but also paragraph 26 of the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy. The complainant explains that written and personal representations have been made on this problem to the Ministry of Labour for a negotiated settlement and reinstatement of dismissed employees, and to the United States Consulate and Embassy in Pakistan with no success so far.

&htab;94.&htab;The background to the dismissals, according to the complainant, was a two-day trade union education seminar organised by the PBEF on 21 and 22 September 1985 on bank premises, the employer's permission only being given after the union threatened industrial action. The PBEF alleges that the jobs of the dismissed workers are now being assigned to temporary contract workers employed by the Bank on lower wages.

&htab;95.&htab;In its communication of 6 May 1986, the Government states that, according to information available to the Government, the management of American Express dismissed 54 employees solely because, after the computerisation of its operations in Pakistan, it no longer required their services. They were dismissed on a "last-in-first-out" basis and were given one month's wages in lieu of notice of termination of employment, as well as all legal dues such as gratuities and provident funds.

&htab;96.&htab;The Government states that all commercial organisations in Pakistan have the right to reorganise their operations according to their needs and to maintain the strength of their staff as warranted by their own economic and business strategy. The American Express Bank Corporation has modernised its activities according to its projected needs and in the process it terminated the services of some of the employees who were no longer required. The Government states that, in dispensing with the services of some of its employees, the management has followed the requirements of the law of the land, i.e. the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders), Ordinance of 1968. Accordingly, the complainant's allegation is not well-founded.

&htab;97.&htab;According to the Government, the Ordinance of 1968 protects the rights and privileges of workers and provides for redress of grievances arising out of wrongful dismissal of employees. From the copies of Standing Order No. 12 and section 25 A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, which are supplied by the Government, it appears that under Standing Order 12(a) a worker who is aggrieved on the ground of the termination of his employment has the legal right to challenge the termination order and seek relief from a labour court established under the law. Even where a case has been decided by a labour court, the aggrieved party has the right to approach the labour appellate tribunal. The orders of the appellate tribunals - which are headed by high court judges - are final. The Government thus maintains that, in the present case, if the workers considered that the termination orders of the American Express Bank Corporation were illegal or improper, they should have sought relief under the law of the land. It explains, however, that when the Ministry approached the complainant to ascertain the facts in this case its reply showed that, without exercising the above-mentioned rights and exhausting the remedies available under the law, the union had approached the ILO by way of filing a complaint against the Government of Pakistan which is in no way directly involved in this case. The Government thus concludes that the motive for filing the complaint is to bring pressure on the Government to force it to interfere in the matter, a step which it considers not to be warranted by the facts or by the law.

&htab;98.&htab;Before examining the substance of this case, the Committee considers it appropriate to draw the Government's attention to the approach it has previously taken in cases involving questions of internal procedures. The Committee has always considered that while the use of internal legal procedures, whatever the outcome, is undoubtedly a factor to be taken into consideration in its examination of a case, in view of its responsibilities its competence to examine allegations is not subject to the exhaustion of national procedures. [See, for example, 60th Report, Case No. 234 (Greece), para. 89.] On the other hand, the Committee has stated on several occasions that where national legislation provides for appeal procedures before the courts or independent tribunals, and these procedures have not been used for the matters on which the complaint is based, it should take this into account when examining the complaint. [See, for example, 14th Report, Case No. 88 (France-Sudan), para. 30.]

&htab;99.&htab;In addition, the Committee would remind the Government that although the facts of this case do indeed involve dismissals by an employer in the private sector, it is incumbent upon the Government, especially as a consequence of the ratification of the freedom of association Conventions, to ensure that the principles of freedom of association, including the guarantees contained in the Conventions, are fully respected in the country.

&htab;100.&htab;As regards the information available in the present case, the Committee observes that the reasons given by the complainant and by the Government for the dismissals in October 1985 are directly contradictory: the union claims that they were due to the involvement of those concerned in a union education seminar; the Government refers to computerisation of the Bank's operations which led to a reduction in staff. In addition, the Committee regrets that, in the Government's reply, no information is supplied nor explanations given regarding the two general secretaries and the president of the complainant union who were also alleged to have been dismissed.

&htab;101.&htab;In past cases the Committee has stated that acts of anti-union discrimination should not be authorised under the pretext of dismissals based on economic necessity. [See, for example, 234th Report, Case No. 1173 (Canada/British Columbia), para. 82.] In this case, however, the complainant makes no reference to the modernisation measures taken by the employer and only refers in general terms to "a policy of hostility and harassment" against its employees and to the reassignment of work to temporary contract workers at lower wage rates. Reference is made to the collective agreement between the PBEF and the Corporation but, despite being given an opportunity under the procedures to present additional information and details in support of its allegations, the complainant has not supplied a copy of the agreement. Such further detail might have enabled the Committee to assess more thoroughly the relations between the union and the employer and, more specifically, the approach agreed on by both parties towards dismissals and technological change within the Corporation.

&htab;102.&htab;The Committee, in the circumstances, can only reach the conclusion that insufficient information has been made available to it on the basis of which it can be determined whether or not any infringement of trade union rights has taken place. It, moreover, notes that in spite of the laws and procedures available to them, as described by the Government, the aggrieved persons do not appear to have had recourse to these at the national level in order to seek redress. In addition, the Committee notes that the 54 dismissed workers received all the financial and other benefits that were due to them.

&htab;103.&htab;The Committee would, nevertheless, recall that governments should, where necessary, take measures to ensure that workers are protected against acts, including dismissal, that are likely to provoke, or have as their object, anti-union discrimination in respect of the employment of workers.

&htab;104.&htab;In these circumstances, and regarding the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present report, and in particular the following conclusions:

(a) the Committee considers that insufficient information has been made available to it on the basis of which it can be determined whether an infringement of trade union rights has taken place;

(b) the Committee, nevertheless, recalls that governments should, where necessary, take measures to ensure that workers are protected against acts, including dismissal, that are likely to provoke, or have as their object, anti-union discrimination in respect of the employment of workers.

&htab;141.&htab;The Committee examined this case at its meetings in November 1984 and 1985 when it submitted interim reports to the Governing Body. [See 236th Report of the Committee, paras. 553 to 578 and 241st Report, paras. 649 to 687.]

&htab;142.&htab;Since the last examination of the case, in a communication dated 14 April 1986, the Government of Burkina Faso invited the ILO to verify on the spot the industrial relations situation in Burkina Faso. At its meeting of June 1986, the Committee welcomed the fact that the Government was willing to receive a mission in the country and decided to adjourn this case pending the results of this mission. [See 244th Report, para. 11.]

&htab;143.&htab;Arrangements were therefore made to send a direct contacts mission to Burkina Faso at the end of September 1986. The Director-General appointed Mr. B. Gernigon, Deputy Chief of the Freedom of Association Branch as his representative to undertake this mission. The mission visited Ouagadougou between 22 and 30 September 1986. During the direct contacts mission, the representative of the Director-General was accompanied by Mrs. A.J. Pouyat, an official of the Freedom of Association Branch. Mr. A. Malu, Regional Adviser on International Labour Standards, had previously made the necessary contacts to prepare the mission. The mission report is annexed to the present report. [Appendix I.]

&htab;144.&htab;Since the return of the mission, a further communication from the Government dated 1 October 1986, was received.

&htab;145.&htab;Burkina Faso 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;146.&htab;The allegations referred, firstly, to the internment, on the orders of the administrative authorities, of four trade union leaders of the National Union of African Teachers of Upper Volta (SNEAHV) and, secondly, to the dismissal of some 2,600 teachers for having participated, in March 1984, in a 48-hour strike carried out by teachers in solidarity with their imprisoned leaders. Furthermore, the Government had proceeded to recruit workers to replace the striking teachers and had published a circular prohibiting the recruitment of the latter by private establishments. Furthermore, it was alleged that the Government had encouraged the holding of an extraordinary congress of SNEAHV from 28 to 30 August 1984, during which an unlawful executive was allegedly elected.

&htab;147.&htab;The Government, in its written replies, had not denied having ordered the internment of trade union officials and the dismissal of striking teachers, but it had explained that the measures had been motivated by political rather than trade union activities and by the putschist and reactionary nature of the strike. As proof, it had sent a copy of the resolution of the SNEAHV congress of 7 August 1983, in which the union harshly criticised the action of the Government.

&htab;148.&htab;The complainants, in a communication of 28 March 1985, had pointed out that although the Government had begun to reinstate approximately 100 of the 2,600 persons dismissed, the teachers who were permitted to return to their posts had been made to undergo a political examination as a condition of their reinstatement, as was shown by a photocopy of the application form for readmittance in the public service of Burkina Faso, attached to the documentation. This documentation also referred to the prohibition applied to the dismissed teachers of exercising a trade union activity once they had lost the status of teacher and, thus, that of a member of the teachers' trade union.

&htab;149.&htab;The Government, in a communication of 29 May 1985, replied that self criticism had been expressed by 500 teachers who recognised that they had been manipulated by a leadership which had involved them without their knowledge or pressured them in a political struggle against the democratic revolution and that SNEAHV, meeting in a congress in August 1984, had changed its name and leadership and would henceforth be called the National Trade Union of Teachers of Burkina Faso (SNEB), since the militant workers had condemned the activities of the former leadership.

&htab;150.&htab;In a subsequent communication dated 18 July 1985, the complainants stated that two of the four trade unionists arrested had been released without being tried on 17 June 1985, after 16 months of detention. At the time, the two other trade unionists, namely Jean Pagnimda Bila, Secretary-General of the complainant trade union, and Batiémoko Kome, Secretary responsible for pedagogical problems, were still being held.

&htab;151.&htab;At its last examination of the case, the Committee noted that two of the interned trade union officials had been released and it urged the Government to release the two other trade union leaders who were still being held in administrative detention and to reinstate all the dismissed teachers. Furthermore, it urged the Government to restore and guarantee, both to the teachers who took part in the strike who had not yet been reinstated and to those who had been forced to sign declarations of loyalty, the right to participate fully in trade union activities in the defence of their economic and social interests. Finally, it requested the Government to supply it with the record of the extraordinary congress of SNEAHV held in August 1984.

&htab;152.&htab;In a telegram dated 1 October 1986, the Government states that, following the visit of the ILO mission, the Council of Ministers of 1 October lifted the prohibition on recruiting dismissed striking teachers in private and other teaching establishments.

&htab;153.&htab;The information gathered by the representative of the Director-General during the course of the mission which is contained in the mission report annexed to the present report, enables the Committee to proceed directly to formulate its conclusions on the various aspects of the case.

&htab;154.&htab;The Committee considers, first of all, that the detailed report of the representative of the Director-General demonstrates the usefulness of missions of this kind in making an in-depth and objective analysis of complaints.

&htab;155.&htab;The Committee welcomes in particular the spirit of co-operation shown by the Government which gave every assistance to the mission. In particular, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the mission was able to obtain all the information required and to meet all the persons whom it wished to interview to ensure the satisfactory accomplishment of its task.

&htab;156.&htab;As regards the substance of the case, which concerns the internment by the administrative authorities of four officials of SNEAHV, the Committee notes with interest that all these persons were released more than one year ago. However, the fact remains that these officials were held in detention in a military camp at Koudougou or at the Ouagadougou gendarmerie, that the conditions of their detention deteriorated during the seven months following the declaration of the teachers' strike and that they were released only after 16 or 18 months of detention in June or August 1985 respectively.

&htab;157.&htab;The Committee also notes that the Government stated to the mission that the arrest of these trade union officials was motivated by the politicisation of the trade union movement and, in particular, of the teachers' trade union movement. Indeed, according to the Government, when the National Council of the Revolution took power on 4 August 1983, the SNEAHV, meeting in its congress at Bobo Dioulasso, adopted a resolution condemning the new Government of Captain Sankara, accusing it of fascist activities and calling on the people of Upper Volta to distance themselves from the National Council of the Revolution. On the other hand, the arrested officials who have now been freed claim that they were arrested because they had retained a majority in the congress of Bobo Dioulasso against a minority which supported the new Government and that they had to defend themselves publicly against the attacks of this minority by signed tracts. The Committee therefore observes that the versions of the Government and the complainants are contradictory although it notes that the Government did not refer to specific subversive activities committed by the persons concerned before their detention, even though it considered that the strike of 20 and 21 March 1984 which occurred after their arrest was a demonstration of hostility to the regime of the National Council of the Revolution.

&htab;158.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recalls that any person against whom preliminary judicial proceedings are taken must be considered innocent until found guilty and it deplores the detention for several months of trade union leaders against whom no charges were brought.

&htab;159.&htab;As regards the dismissal of the striking teachers, the Committee notes that the Government admitted that 1,380 teachers, whose names were published in the Official Gazette , were dismissed following the two-day strike of 20 and 21 March 1984. It explained to the mission that on 13 February 1985, 100 teachers were reinstated and that on 20 October 1985, the National Council of the Revolution announced further reinstatements in application of a procedure to request readmission in the public service which included an information report card on the social behaviour of the applicants concerned. Following the implementation of this procedure, 800 requests were made by the teachers and 250 were accepted on 15 January 1986. The teachers who were thus reinstated were reappointed at their former grade but with their salaries being determined by the scale applicable to temporary teachers, whose salaries are significantly lower, for a trial period of three months. Finally, some 20 teachers were recruited as proof-readers in the information sector. The Government furthermore pointed out that some teachers had found other employment and did not wish to return to teaching.

&htab;160.&htab;The Government declared that it intended to continue to reinstate teachers who had made applications but it stressed that these persons were also expected to make an effort to correct their behaviour and integrate themselves. Furthermore, the authorities are faced with two major problems: difficulties of a budgetary nature and the impossibility of dismissing teachers recruited to replace the dismissed strikers.

&htab;161.&htab;Finally, the Committee notes with interest that following the visit of the mission the Council of Ministers lifted the prohibition on the recruitment of dismissed teachers in private and other teaching establishments.

&htab;162.&htab;The Committee observes, however, that it appears from the information gathered by the mission that a large number of teachers have not yet been reinstated, that reinstatements are made subject to the presentation of a declaration of loyalty, the approval of the Revolutionary Defence Committees (CDRs) and lower wage scales during the trial period. It also notes that the dismissed teachers and their dependants have lost their pension rights. The Committee, while taking note of the assurances given by the Government concerning its intentions as regards the reinstatement of the teachers, trusts that the Government will continue its efforts towards the full and complete reinstatement of all the teachers who wish to return to their posts. It insists on the importance which it attaches to the removal of the provision concerning the declaration of loyalty required for reinstatement. It also expresses the firm hope that, as the Government has stated, the situation of the dismissed teachers and their dependants as regards pension rights will be examined favourably. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments which may occur in this respect.

&htab;163.&htab;As regards the extraordinary congress of SNEAHV, which was held in Ouagadougou between 28 August and 1 September 1984, the Committee observes that the mission was provided on the spot with a copy of the record of this meeting during which the former leadership of SNEAHV was criticised. A new executive was elected comprising two officials of the National Bureau of SNEAHV who had disassociated themselves from the strike movement and the name of the trade union was changed to the National Trade Union of Teachers of Burkina Faso (SNEB). At their congress the leaders of SNEB expressed their intention of negotiating the reinstatement of the dismissed teachers with the Government. Subsequently, on 21 November 1984, the transfer of power from the outgoing leadership of SNEAHV to the new SNEB executive took place in the presence of a representative of the Inspectorate of Labour and Social Security.

&htab;164.&htab;The Committee however observes with regret that, according to the information gathered during the mission, only a small number of former members of SNEAHV participated in the work of this congress, since the dismissed teachers had been deprived by their dismissal of the right to participate. Indeed, under the terms of the statutes of SNEAHV, only active teachers are members of the trade union. Furthermore, when the congress opened, the Government informed the dismissed teachers that they could not pursue their trade union activities. It must therefore be concluded that the dismissed teachers could no longer join a trade union organisation which would defend and promote their interests. In this connection, the Committee recalls that the loss of a person's trade union status as a result of dismissal for strike activities is contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee therefore considers that all members and officials of SNEAHV who lost their status as trade unionists following their dismissal should have the right to participate in the activities of the trade union of their choice in the defence of their interests.

&htab;165.&htab;In this connection, the Committee notes in addition that some officials of SNEAHV who had been arrested were received by the Minister of Labour, Social Security and the Public Service and that the Minister, following a suggestion from the mission, had even accepted the principle of a meeting with them to discuss specific measures to be taken on behalf on the dismissed teachers.

&htab;166.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present report, and in particular the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee welcomes the spirit of co-operation shown by the Government in this matter and all the facilities provided to the mission which was able to obtain all the information which it required and to meet all the persons whom it wished to interview.

(b) The Committee notes with interest that the trade union officials who had been interned by the administrative authorities were released more than one year ago. However, since they were not charged with any specific subversive act, the Committee can only deplore that they were held in detention for a period of many months. The Committee therefore draws the attention of the Government to the principle that any person against whom preliminary judicial proceedings are taken should be presumed innocent until his guilt has been established. (c) The Committee also notes with interest that the authorities have publicly stated on several occasions that they intend to proceed to the reinstatement of the dismissed teachers. It notes, in particular, that in 1985 and 1986 350 teachers were reinstated and that 20 others were recruited in the information sector. It also notes with interest that the Council of Ministers has just lifted the prohibition on the recruitment of the dismissed teachers in private and other teaching establishments.

(d) The Committee notes that a large number of teachers have not yet been reinstated and that the reinstatements are made subject to a declaration of loyalty, lower wage scales during a probationary period and the cancellation of the pension rights of the teachers concerned. The Committee trusts that the Government will continue its efforts towards the complete reinstatement of all the dismissed teachers who wish to return to their posts. It draws the attention of the Government to the importance which it attaches to the removal of the provision concerning a declaration of loyalty as a prior condition to their reinstatement and to the need to re-examine favourably the situation of dismissed teachers and their dependants as regards pension rights. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments which occur in this regard.

(e) The Committee regrets that the congress of August 1984, which changed the name of SNEAHV to SNEB, included only a small number of former members of SNEAHV since the trade unionists who had been dismissed for strike activities could not participate in this congress. Noting that the Government had informed the dismissed teachers when the congress opened that they could no longer exercise their trade union activities, the Committee recalls that all the members and officials of SNEAHV who lost their trade union status as a result of their dismissal should have the right to participate in the activities of the trade union of their choice in the defence of their interests.

&htab;167.&htab;At its meeting in May 1986, after several reminders and an urgent appeal had been addressed to the Government for its observations on the allegations of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF), the Committee, in accordance with its procedure, examined this case in substance in the absence of a reply from the Government. Its conclusions (see 244th Report, paras. 64 to 77) were approved by the Governing Body at its 233rd Session (May-June 1986).

&htab;168.&htab;Immediately after the Committee's consideration of the case the Government's reply contained in a communication dated 12 May 1986 was received. The Committee, accordingly, decided to examine the case again at its next meeting.

&htab;169.&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;170.&htab;In its previous examination of this case, the Committee noted that the subject of the complaint - prohibition on the right to form unions and undertake trade union activities in the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) - had already been considered in an earlier case, where the prohibition had been imposed by Martial Law Regulation No. 52 of 1981. The Committee, in May 1986, observed that the Government had repealed the Regulation, but had replaced it by an amendment to the PIAC Act which, by declaring PIAC employees to be civil servants, has the same practical effect of denying them certain trade union rights.

&htab;171.&htab;A further allegation in the case related to a provision in the PIAC Amendment Ordinance which empowers the Corporation to dismiss employees without giving reasons and without appeal to the courts.

&htab;172.&htab;The Governing Body, on the Committee's recommendation, approved the following conclusions in May-June 1986:

(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 PIAC 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 PIAC 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 necesary 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;173.&htab;In its communication of 12 May 1986, the Government describes the background which had led to the introduction of Martial Law Regulation No. 52 in 1981 and its successive extensions until 30 June 1985. The Government points out that drastic measures had been necessary to counteract the fact that weak administration, financial irregularities and militant trade unionism had seriously affected the operational safety, efficiency and profitability of the airline. It states that, under Regulation No. 52, the PIAC management had been able to dismiss surplus employees with normal terminal benefits being paid and take other measures to restore discipline and efficiency which had so seriously deteriorated that, for example, there had been one case of hijacking and another of destruction of an aircraft with the connivance of PIAC employees.

&htab;174.&htab;According to the Government, the situation in PIAC was kept under constant review and, when it was decided to lift martial law in the country, it was considered that an alternative legal framework should be available as there was little prospect of healthy trade union activities in PIAC. The PIAC Act was therefore suitably amended to grant reasonable powers to the management to terminate the employment of undisciplined and unproductive employees and to exempt the Corporation from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Government states that, although the trade unions are banned under the amended law, the management of PIAC is keeping close contact with professional associations and welfare bodies of the employees. As regards the redress of grievances, the employees have been given the right to a personal hearing after a show-cause notice. The management is also required to serve three months' notice to an employee before terminating his services. The employees will be eligible to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal, and from there to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. They then have recourse to two high judicial bodies for redress of their grievances.

&htab;175.&htab;As regards the continuing ban on trade union activities on PIAC, even after more than five years the Government states that it firmly believes in the workers' right to freedom of association. It was this belief which prompted it to ratify Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. According to the Government, the law of the land - namely, the Industrial Relations Ordinance - gives full protection to this right, when it states that workers shall have the right to establish and join associations, of their own choosing, without previous authorisation. The extent to which this right is exercised by the workers of Pakistan is evidenced by the fact that, besides a number of unregistered unions, there are at present 6,170 trade unions in the country with a membership of 0.86 million. These workers are engaged in trade union activities and have other institutional arrangements such as shop stewards, works councils and collective bargaining agents (the latter numbering 1,400 in different establishments throughout the country). Out of the more than 6.5 million industrial workers in Pakistan, the present strength of PIAC employees is 18,678. According to the Government, of these, about 12,300 employees would be entitled to take part in trade union activities if the same were allowed to them. The Government stresses that it is due to the reasons stated above that the right of association has temporarily been withdrawn and restrictions placed on a tiny minority consisting of 12,261 PIAC employees. It concludes that since this is a forced measure taken in the supreme national interest, it may not be taken to constitute a gross violation of Convention No. 87.

&htab;176.&htab;In addition, the Government explains that in order to forestall terrorist action, it has undertaken a number of security measures to protect PIAC aircraft from hijacking, including the establishment of a security agency called the Airport Security Force (ASF). Trade union activities are not allowed in this agency. It states that, since the employees of both the ASF and the PIAC work on the same premises, the granting of freedom of association to one organisation (i.e. PIAC) and denial to the other (i.e. ASF) would greatly jeopardise the Government's efforts to protect the lives of the travelling public and to guarantee the safety of airports and aircrafts. Citing a recent bomb explosion at Peshawar airport, the Government maintains that it cannot forsake its supreme responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens for the sake of a few thousand employees who have been denied their right of association only temporarily.

&htab;177.&htab;Lastly, the Government also refers to the financial and political impact of more than 3 million refugees who have entered the country and the sabotage activities which are aimed at pressuring the Government to change its stance on certain political issues. It states that, in the circumstances, it would not be wise to leave loopholes in the Government's overall policy in dealing with anti-State elements.

&htab;178.&htab;In conclusion the Government confirms that Martial Law has been lifted as of January 1986 and that the civilian government composed of elected representatives hopes that the easing of external tensions and the working of democratic institutions will help create the circumstances in which bans on trade union activities in certain organisations will serve no useful purpose. It reaffirms that the PIAC employees will have full trade union rights once conditions in the Corporation so permit.

&htab;179.&htab;The Committee has taken due note of the Government's detailed explanation and reasons put forward for the continuing ban on the creation of trade unions and trade union activities in the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. In particular, the Committee takes note of the Government's affirmation that the prohibition, contained in the PIAC Act as amended, is only temporary and will be lifted once conditions in the Corporation so permit.

&htab;180.&htab;In the first place, the Committee considers that the Government has not substantiated the argument which it attempts to advance, that the serious problems which beset the airline (including weak management, inefficiency and sabotage) might have been due to the existence of a trade union or the exercise of trade union activity. The Committee can therefore only express its regret that for over five years the employees of the Corporation have been denied the possibility of exercising their trade union rights. In its previous examination of this case, the Committee recalled that in the earlier case on the same matter (Case No. 1075, in which definitive conclusions were reached in the 218th Report, paras. 273 to 285, November 1982) it had considered similar arguments put forward by the Government to justify this so-called temporary ban, but reached the conclusion that such restrictions, even if only of a temporary nature, constitute an infringement of freedom of association. It was also recalled that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations had found this prohibition under Martial Law to be contrary to Convention No. 87.

&htab;181.&htab;At the present juncture, the Committee considers that no new facts have been presented to justify a change in its earlier conclusions on this case, namely that, given the terms of Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 87, which provides that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever (including all public servants), shall have the right to join organisations of their own choosing and that these organisations shall be able to exercise their activities in full freedom. The Committee would, accordingly, urge the Government to initiate appropriate action to amend the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act so as to restore full trade union rights to the workers concerned and to permit any organisation which they may establish to freely exercise its activities in the defence and promotion of their occupational interests. In drawing this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the Committee would request the Government to keep it informed of the steps taken to restore full trade union rights to PIAC workers.

&htab;182.&htab;As regards the provision in the amended Act empowering the Corporation to dismiss employees without giving reasons and without appeal to the courts, the Committee now has the benefit of the Government's description of the grievance procedure. According to the provision in new section 10(2) (which was reproduced in the previous examination of the case), it appears that aggrieved employees will be eligible, as civil servants, to appeal to one of the Service Tribunals which are established by the President and chaired by a person qualified to be a High Court Judge. Although the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, makes no reference to the possibility of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Committee observes that, according to the Government, an appeal to the Supreme Court is possible thereafter.

&htab;183.&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 amendment to the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, which deems all PIAC employees to be State employees and, as a result they are denied the right to form unions or carry out union activities, violates Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 87.

(b) The Committee again urges the Government to initiate appropriate action to amend the PIAC Act so as to restore to the workers concerned the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing which can function freely to defend and promote their members' occupational interests.

(c) The Committee requests the Government keep it informed of the steps taken to restore full trade union rights to PIAC workers.

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

&htab;184.&htab;The Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights in a communication dated 1 October 1985. The International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) presented a complaint concerning the same incident in a letter dated 19 February 1986, on behalf of its affiliate, the National Federation of Sugar Workers. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 28 April and 22 September 1986.

&htab;185.&htab;The Philippines have ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;186.&htab;The KMU, in its communication of 1 October 1985, alleges that, on 20 September 1985 at Escalante Town, Negros Province, several sugar workers, members of the National Federation of Sugar Workers, were gunned down by the para-military unit of the Armed Forces. It alleges that 17 were killed, 30 wounded and 197 missing. It states that they had been exercising their constitutional rights to free speech, peaceful assembly, freedom of association and the right to strike in connection with demands presented to the employer for free rice subsidies, increased wages, etc. According to the KMU, at the time of the shooting the workers were conducting a peaceful picketline.

&htab;187.&htab;According to a report compiled by trade union lawyers who visited Escalante on a fact-finding mission five days after the killings, on 18 September about 5,000 people (including sugar workers, students, vendors and others) staged a noise barrage in the town centre; this was followed the next day by human barricades being set up in front of the public market and at the entrance to the Municipal Plaza. Eye-witness accounts stressed that these barricades only occupied one lane and did not obstruct the free flow of traffic. On 20 September a police car went to the barricades and invited the leaders to a negotiation conference in the Municipal Building; the leaders sensed that something was wrong and requested that negotiations be conducted at the barricade centres; the police left and did not return. That afternoon fire-trucks bombarded the protestors with high-pressure water, including water containing chemicals, and teargas canisters. When some protestors threw back some of the canisters, not at the fire-trucks, but into the empty plaza, para-military units of the Civilian Home Defence Forces (CHDF) opened fire. As most protestors were lying down on the road, they were shot in the back or side; there appeared to have been a machine gun posted in the tower of the Municipal Hall. After the protestors had dispersed in panic towards the cane fields or canals the military and para-military cordoned off the area and ordered on-lookers to bring the wounded to nearby hospitals.

&htab;188.&htab;This report lists the names and medical findings of 18 protestors who were killed: Rowena Franco, Clara F. Monares, Maria Luz Mondejar, Juvelyn Jarbilo, Rogelio, Michael Dayanan, Jahnny Suarez, Loloy Tan, William Alegre, Alex Lobatos, Edgardo Osalili, Nenita Orot, Ronilo Sta. Ana, Angelina Lape, Manuel Tan, Cesar Tejones, Norberto Locanilao and Rodolfo Montealto. It also gives the names and injuries suffered by 23 injured protestors: in Magdalene Hospital Lucia Ravanes, Eliza Zaraga, Henry Bernal, Felix Almoros, Nelson Cabahug, Celso Seborado, Joel Guiameo, Nono Jarabello, Leones Luvina, Eduardo Latoza, Julio Iwayon, Renato Saratobias; in Hinolan Clinic Virginita Mabuyao, Ernesto Caro, Nelly Artigo, Renato Tapel, Magdalene Hemolas; in Lopez District Foundation Hospital Hermogenes Elias, Alejandro Bucabal, Abundia Caraat, Federico Dogomeo, Globen Gabrido and Luzinda Genola.

&htab;189.&htab;The IUF, in its communication of 19 February 1986, describes the same incident of 20 September 1985 in Escalante, alleging that during the peaceful strike by sugar workers they were fired on by Filipino authorities and 27 workers were killed. From press clippings supplied with this complaint it appears that 17 of the 27 killed were members of the National Federation of Sugar Workers.

&htab;190.&htab;In its communication of 28 April 1986, the Government states that recent political developments have resulted in a complete change of government in the Philippines. It states that the promotion of human rights, social justice and improved working and living conditions shall remain the paramount objectives in the field of labour and employment. The President of the Republic has pledged the administration's dedication towards improving the workers' condition, and reforms aimed at restoring the once restricted rights of workers and trade unions are imminent.

&htab;191.&htab;As regards the present case in particular, the Government states that the Defence Minister's Fact-Finding Committee produced two reports, the minority report recommending the inclusion in the charge-sheet of several civilian authorities, as well as high-ranking military personnel who had been excluded from the majority report's list of indictable persons. It states that Ombudsman Justice Raul Gonzales has disclosed that he has already requested the President and Defence Minister for an evaluation of the case. He said that he will move for the prosecution of the accused before the civil courts if the military courts will not handle the case, adding that deposed President Marcos had waived jurisdiction of the military courts over the case.

&htab;192.&htab;In its subsequent communication of 22 September, the Government adds that the office of the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) is conducting investigations preliminary to the filing of formal charges against persons responsible for the Escalante massacre, and states that the investigation will rely substantially on the majority and minority reports (which it encloses) of the Fact-Finding Committee created earlier to probe the incident.

&htab;193.&htab;The Government goes on to say that prosecution is also expected to move at a faster pace now that more witnesses have signified willingness to testify in contrast to the general reluctance generated by fear during the previous administration. It points out that those recommended for prosecution have been relieved of official functions, confined to barracks or otherwise accounted for.

&htab;194.&htab;The Committee takes note with interest of the information communicated by the Government, and in particular of its statement that, following the complete change of government, the promotion of human rights, social justice and improved working and living conditions shall remain the paramount objective in the field of labour; and that the President of the Republic has pledged the administration's dedication towards, inter alia, the restoration, as soon as possible, of the once restricted rights of workers and the trade union movements. Noting that implementation of this pledge should involve legislative changes, it draws this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

&htab;195.&htab;The Committee has also noted the information concerning the inquiries being conducted preliminary to the filing of charges against persons responsible for the Escalante massacre, and that such prosecutions are likely to move at a faster pace than under the previous administration. It requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments in this matter and, in particular, to provide it as early as possible with information relating to the trial of persons alleged to be responsible.

&htab;196.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions: (a) the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement that it will ensure that human and trade union rights will be restored in the country;

(b) the Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the pledge by the President of the Republic of the administration's dedication towards, inter alia, the restoration, as soon as possible, of the now restricted rights of workers and the trade union movements;

(c) the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments concerning the investigation related to the Escalante massacre and, in particular, to provide it as early as possible with information relating to the trial of persons alleged to be responsible.

&htab;197.&htab;The Committee last examined cases 1129, 1169 and 1298 at its November 1985 meeting [see 241st Report, paras. 440 to 494, approved by the Governing Body at its 231st Session (November 1985)].

&htab;198.&htab;The Committee had already examined Case No. 1129 (presented by the Latin American Central of Workers and the World Confederation of Labour) at its November 1982 and February 1984 meetings. [See 218th Report, paras. 467 to 481, and 233rd Report, paras. 236 to 242 and 317, approved by the Governing Body at its 221st and 225th Sessions in November 1982 and February-March 1984, respectively.] The World Confederation of Labour sent new allegations in a communication dated 6 November 1985.

&htab;199.&htab;Case No. 1169 (presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the World Confederation of Labour) has already been examined by the Committee on four occasions: March 1983, March and June 1984 and March 1985. [See 222nd, 233rd, 234th and 238th Reports of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body.]

&htab;200.&htab;Case No. 1298 (presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions) was examined in February-March 1985 and was the subject of an interim report approved by the Governing Body. [238th Report, paras. 232 to 247.] At a later date, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) submitted new allegations in communications dated 14 and 23 January and 4 and 10 March 1986.

&htab;201.&htab;The complaints concerning Cases Nos. 1344 and 1351 appear in communications from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) of 16 July (Case No. 1344) and 17 October 1985 (Case No. 1351). With regard to the first case, the IOE sent additional information in a communication dated 5 August 1985.

&htab;202.&htab;The Government replied in communications dated 1 and 7 November 1985, 14 January, 12 February, 22 and 23 May and 21 October 1986.

&htab;203.&htab;Nicaragua 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;219.&htab;The allegations pending in the present case referred to the occupation of the headquarters of the Confederation of Trade Unions Unity (CUS) on two occasions, once by a group of 20 persons on 18 August 1984 and the second time after groups of persons have broken in on 25 August 1984. The Government considered that these incidents were the result of divided opinions within the CUS as to whether it should remain within or withdraw from an opposition political group. In the complainants' view, on the other hand, the incidents were caused by the interference of public officials with a view to obtaining the CUS's withdrawal from this opposition movement. The complainants also sent in support of their complaint a statement by a legal adviser to the CUS, sworn before a notary, in which he states that he was subjected to threats and pressure in order to induce him to commit acts that would be instrumental in doing away with the CUS. The person concerned stated that an official of the Ministry of the Interior had ordered him to seek out persons belonging to the CUS to support a group of persons not belonging to this organisation which had occupied its headquarters. He had been forced to go to the CUS on 25 August to support the occupants, and had there met members and non-members of the CUS. A general assembly had then been held at the CUS headquarters and, when the parties failed to reach an agreement, several persons had injured or harangued the true members of the CUS and partially destroyed its office. The complainants also stated that the police had done nothing to stop the attack on the CUS headquarters by certain groups on 25 August. Furthermore, the complainants had alleged the arrest of José Agustín Téllez, Secretary-General of the Federation of Peasant Workers in Carazo (FETRACAMCA).

&htab;220.&htab;The Committee noted with regret that the Government had not replied to the allegations still pending and repeated its earlier request for an explanation of the occupation of the CUS headquarters on 18 August 1984, led by two persons alleged to have links with the state security forces, as evidenced by the notarised statement of the former legal adviser to the CUS. The Committee requested the Government to reply to the allegation that on the occasion of the second occupation of the CUS headquarters on 25 August 1984, the police had done nothing to stop the attack and intervened only when everything was over, although they had been in the vicinity of the organisation's headquarters. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether José Agustín Téllez, Secretary-General of the Federation of Peasant Workers in Carazo, was still in prison and, if so, to indicate the grounds for his detention [see 241st Report, paras. 490 to 494].

&htab;221.&htab;In its communications of 14 and 23 January 1986, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleges that the Government is preventing the publication of Solidaridad (Solidarity), the review of the Confederation of Trade Union Unity (CUS). The Government's initial pretext for suspending the CUS's review, Solidaridad , was that it was unable to grant the necessary authorisation to continue publishing the review because it had to make an annual assessment of its activities; then, on a second occasion, on 17 December 1985, the review was made illegal. It should be pointed out that the review has existed for more than 12 years and its 19 issues have been distributed, from the beginning, amongst the same state bodies and the Sandinista Front. The ICFTU includes, as an Annex, a communication from the Directorate of Communications of the Ministry of the Interior, in which it is stated that the CUS disregarded Decree No. 619 and, specifically, the powers invested in the Directorate of Communications as regards grants and permits.

&htab;222.&htab;The ICFTU adds that the State Security forces had repeatedly made calls to and issued summonses on various trade union colleagues belonging to the CUS, and that these calls had been accompanied by pressure and strong threats. About 300 persons throughout the country have been issued summonses, including Xavier Altamirano Pérez (Cultural Secretary of the CUS Executive Committee and Chairman of the Chinandega Workers' Federation). According to the ICFTU, during the months of November and December 1985, various trade union organisations belonging to the CUS in the northern, southern and western areas of the country were visited by three persons who claimed that they represented the Ministry of Labour, the State Security Police Force and the Sandinista National Liberation Front. This "delegation" travelled in a white vehicle bearing the number plates POK 03388. During the various visits it made, emphasis was laid on the "seriousness and consequences of the Full State of Emergency" proclaimed on 15 October 1985; it was also pointed out that "it will be no joke; if anyone attends meetings in the future, they will go to prison and this ban also extends to the registration of any trade union or federation". These "visits" were also made, with the same object in mind, to the technical sewing schools run by the CUS.

&htab;223.&htab;In its communications dated 4 and 10 March 1986, the ICFTU alleges the arrest of 15 CUS trade unionists in the village of Posoltega (Chinandega) which is 120 kilometres from Managua. The names of those arrested are as follows: Eduardo Gutiérrez, Porfirio Gutiérrez, Pablo Roberto Gaitán, Juan Gaitán, Antonio Flores, Enrique Flores, Leoncio Flores and Enrique de la Cruz (arrested on 20 February 1986), Estanislao Flores, Rodolfo Flores, Alberto Argüello, Gonzalo Avendano, Antonio Vargas and Tomas Silva (arrested on 22 February and released on 3 March) and Domingo Espinoza Gómez (arrested on 25 February).

&htab;224.&htab;The ICFTU points out that these arrests were carried out by members of the Sandinista National Police Force, dressed in civilian clothing, and that they burst into the homes of the above-mentioned trade unionists at daybreak. At present, the whereabouts of these detained persons is unknown. The ICFTU adds that during an interview between an ICFTU representative and a commanding officer in Managua, the latter pointed out that those in custody were accused of murder, assault and cattle stealing; however, on the same day, the detainees' relations and inhabitants of Posoltega stated that there had been no murders or thefts in this area and that the charges against the detainees were merely a government invention. At the same time, the detainees' children, wives and mothers were threatened with imprisonment if their wives or children did not renounce their CUS membership; furthermore, they are constantly visited by policemen who, apart from threatening them, help themselves to toiletries and food in their homes.

&htab;225.&htab;In its communication of 7 November 1985, the Government states that having conducted an extremely careful investigation in the various prisons throughout the country, it ascertained that there was no mention of José Agustín Téllez's detention in any of the prison records.

&htab;226.&htab;In a later communication dated 14 January 1986, the Government states that in connection with the allegations pending concerning the occupation of the CUS headquarters, it believes it has given enough explanations on this matter and it is not going to reply, as requested, with details concerning allegations of such a suspicious nature. The Government insists that the events which occurred at the CUS headquarters were solely the outcome of internal conflicts between its officials and that, in intervening, the police were merely fulfilling their duty, as they would have done in any other part of the world. The fact that the CUS is continuing to operate freely is a proof of all this. It was not an aim of the Government, neither was it in its interest, to destroy or undermine the existence of any trade union organisation. The Government is an advocate of political and trade union pluralism. This has been understood by many organisations and important international figures visiting the country and it will always continue to be the Government's policy. The Government points out that it would appreciate it if the Committee of Freedom of Association would bear in mind the explanation it has given in the past, which it considers to be valid, adequate and true.

&htab;227.&htab;In its communication of 22 May 1986, the Government states that, on 19 March 1986, the First Criminal Court Magistrate of the Chinandega District handed down an interlocutory judgement on Porfirio José Gaitán Gutiérrez, Marco Antonio Flores López, Pedro José Gaitán Gutiérrez and Leoncio Eulogio Flores Santeliz and sentenced them to prison; they were charged for having stolen cattle from Raúl Rodríguez Sarria (who lost about 60 head of cattle). Domingo Porfirio Espinoza Gómez was sentenced to prison for having been an accessory after the fact for the same offence. Proceedings against Pablo Gaitán Gutiérrez, Estanislao Francisco Flores López and Enrique de la Cruz Gaitán Gutiérrez have been dismissed. The case against all the above-mentioned accused persons, concerning the theft of cattle from Carlos Herdocia Icaza (who lost about 40 head of cattle), is still under way. The Government adds that Marco Antonio Flores López was sentenced to prison for having robbed and intimidated Ofilio Peralta Vasquez and that proceedings against all those accused of having stolen cattle from Julio Espinales have been dismissed. From the beginning of the trial, the defendants were attended by their respective counsel and had full guarantees for their defence.

&htab;228.&htab;In its communications of 16 July and 5 August 1985, the IOE protests against the discriminatory measures taken by the Government against the private sector in general and the officials of the Council for Private Enterprise (COSEP) in particular, especially its President, Mr. Enrique Bolaños.

&htab;229.&htab;The allegations are the following:

- in 1982, confiscation of the assets and expulsion from the country of Mr. Frank Bendaña, Vice-President of COSEP and President of UPANIC;

- in 1983, confiscation of the lands belonging to Mr. Ramiro Gurdián, Vice-President of COSEP and President of UPANIC;

- in 1983, confiscation of the undertakings of Mr. Ismael Reyes, Vice-President of COSEP, President of the Chamber of Industry and Employers' delegate at the International Labour Conference;

- in 1983, imprisonment without trial and subsequent release of Mr. Douglas Reyes, son of Mr. Ismael Reyes, during the International Labour Conference, in June 1983;

- in 1983, confiscation of the agricultural undertaking of Mr. Benjamín Lanzas, Vice-President of COSEP and President of the Chamber of Building; - in 1984, instigation of disorder in the Bolaños-Saimsa undertaking, where there was no labour dispute, by outside workers employed by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, on 14 February 1984, and by workers of the INCA and CELCALZA State undertakings, on 16 February of the same year. It is alleged that the workers in question used vehicles belonging to the Sandinista armed forces for this purpose;

- in 1985, arbitrary confiscation, without respecting the legal regulations estabished by the Agrarian Reform Acts, of the lands of Mr. Bolaños on 14 June 1985 and defamatory and slanderous statements made against him by Commander J. Weelock, Ministry of Agrarian Reform, as well as by the official radio;

- de facto confiscation on 28 June 1985, without the issue of an expropriation order, of the industrial undertaking Bolaños-Seimsa and its equipment;

- prohibition by the Directorate of Communication Media (Minister of the Interior) of the publication in "La Prensa", the only independent newspaper in Nicaragua, of an open letter from COSEP dated 29 December 1984 to the co-ordinator of the Government Junta, entitled "And why not try freedom?";

- prohibition by the censorship authorities of the publication in "La Prensa" of the replies of Mr. Bolaños to Commander Weelock. Only the Sandinista newspapers, radio and television have been able to publish his account and comments on the expropriation of the lands belonging to Mr. Bolaños. The censored press articles referred to the abusive expropriation suffered by Mr. Bolaños and in which the latter maintained that the proceedings in the court which was competent to examine any appeal against the expropriation of his lands offered no guarantee of impartiality in his case since the President of the said court publicly recognised that the court based its decision (a decision which could not be appealed) on the opinion expressed by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, that is, the body which had ordered the expropriation measures;

- detention and torture by Commander Lenin Cerda, a subordinate official of the Minister of the Interior, of Mr. Tomás Borge, of the president of the parents' association whose families attend private religious schools, and which is affiliated to the Confederation of Independent Occupations (CONAPRO) and a member of COSEP, for having publicly expressed his opinions on the educational reforms recommended by the Sandinista National Liberation Front.

&htab;230.&htab;In its communication of 1 November 1985, the Government emphatically rejects the allegation that the confiscation of the lands belonging to Mr. Enrique Bolaños was politically motivated and designed to curtail freedom of association and that it constituted a discriminatory measure taken because he was a member of a specific organisation.

&htab;231.&htab;The Government states that the decision to expropriate the lands of the person concerned was exclusively due to the objective need of giving a satisfactory and urgent solution to the pressing problems faced by the department with the highest population density in the country and in which historically there had always been a heavy demand for land.

&htab;232.&htab;The Government states that, given this objective situation, the Minister of Agricultural Development and Agrarian Reform, Mr. Jaime Weelock, pursuant to his legal powers, issued Agreement No. 18, which declared Masaya an area of agricultural development and agrarian reform, in accordance with the fundamental objective of the Nicaraguan revolution which is to guarantee peasants the opportunity to live with dignity from their work on the land and to ensure their full integration into the national agricultural development plans.

&htab;233.&htab;The Government adds that historically the indigenous communities in the Masaya region have been the victims of a process of violent eviction which has led to the emergence of a number of precarious, marginal small farmsteads which are unable to guarantee the subsistence of rural families in the region in contrast to the large landholdings concentrated in the hands of a few owners.

&htab;234.&htab;The Government adds that Agreement No. 18 also stipulates that the lands in the affected region will be assigned to 1,700 peasant families who will thus be given the opportunity to increase their standard of living. According to the Government, this agreement resulted in the adjudication of 2,000 manzanas (1 manzana = 10,000 square yards) of farm land free of charge to the peasants under the administration of the State. This measure accords with the provisions of section 26 of the Agrarian Reform Act which establishes the following: "within an agricultural development and agrarian reform area the competent Minister may issue special regulations concerning the ownership of land and determine the exploitation and adequate use of the soil and other related natural resources and agricultural development in accordance with the specific plans and projects established for the region".

&htab;235.&htab;The Government also states that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by Nicaragua on 12 May 1980, recognises in its Preamble that "in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights". The Government adds that its national legislation, which is fully consonant with the international covenants on the promotion and protection of human rights, legally affected 15 private producers who agreed to negotiate mutually satisfactory agreements.

&htab;236.&htab;According the Government, Mr. Bolaños is the owner who has received the best set of options from the State, including the exchange of his land for holdings of equal or better quality, in the same Pacific region of Nicaragua. The size of the land offered to Mr. Bolaños is equivalent to twice that of his former holdings. However, Mr. Bolaños was the only person who rejected his right to compensation for the expropriation of his farm and he refused to lodge an appeal with the agrarian court.

&htab;237.&htab;Finally, the Government states that it reiterates its support for the principles of ideological pluralism and mixed economy which constitute the fundamental basis of the Government's actions, and that in accordance with these principles it has maintained a respect for employers' organisations (such as COSEP) within the framework of the law, despite the clear identification of the officials of this last-mentioned organisation with the plans being encouraged by a foreign government to destroy the Nicaraguan revolution.

&htab;238.&htab;The Government includes in its communication of 14 January 1986 the report of the Ministry of Agricultural Development and Agrarian Reform on this matter. This report confirms the contents of the information provided by the Government and points out that the population density in the Masaya department is 280 inhabitants per square kilometre, whereas the average for the country as a whole is only 25 inhabitants per square kilometre; that of a total of 13,296 families 8,730 need land, that more than 50 per cent of the land belongs to 2 per cent of the owners whereas 8,500 families are grouped in very small holdings, in addition to the 1,200 families who have no land; and that unemployment in this region affects 92 per cent of the economically active population.

&htab;239.&htab;The report adds that on the basis of the Agrarian Reform Act, 50 per cent of the territory of the Masaya department, i.e. 323 square kilometres, was declared an area of agricultural development and agrarian reform on 14 June 1985, thus making it possible to allocate plots of land to 2,000 families. The Government points out that the following measures were taken: the allocation without charge of 2,000 plots of land under the administration of the State and the negotiation on the assets with 15 private producers. According to the report, all the producers participated in these negotiations in a patriotic way, with the exception of Mr. Bolaños who rejected the exchange of land and compensation and has even renounced his right to lodge an appeal with the agrarian court.

&htab;240.&htab;In the same way, the Government includes in the annex to its communication the text of Agreement No. 18, as well as an estimate on the application of the Masaya Plan of 25 September 1985. The report shows that at the beginning 67 per cent of the Plan had been applied as regards land and 59.5 per cent as regards the families who were beneficiaries. However, although some families had agreed to negotiate, the land of others had to be expropriated since the conditions which they set were too onerous. Reference is also made to problems of the "invasion" of some lands during the period when the former negotiations had not yet been concluded. Despite the short period of time which has elapsed since the initial application of the Plan, it must be stressed that an acceptable level of implementation and organisation has been achieved, although it must be recognised that difficulties in the negotiations have made it difficult to control the unexpected invasions. Perhaps a more forceful attitude might have prevented them. Nevertheless, the arrival of the sowing season played a major role in encouraging the peasants to act.

&htab;241.&htab;The IOE alleges in its communication of 17 October 1985 that on Saturday 7 September 1985, 2,000 employers were due to meet in Managua at the invitation of the Private Enterprise Executive Council (COSEP). This meeting, which had been prepared by regional assemblies held in the weeks before in three major cities of the country, was convened so as to allow participants to define the policies of private enterprise in the industrial, commercial and agricultural sectors as a whole in the light of the serious economic problems affecting the country. COSEP declared 7 September a "Private Enterprise Day". On 6 September, the day before the meeting, the leaders of COSEP were obliged, manu militari , to appear before the Ministry of the Interior and were informed that the meeting had been prohibited. On the following day, all the access routes to Managua were blocked and the vehicles of delegates due to participate in the private enterprise day were prohibited from entering the city and the president of COSEP was placed under house arrest. In this way, the complainant adds, the Government of Nicaragua has once again violated the freedom of association of the employers of this country.

&htab;242.&htab;The complainant also alleges that on 15 October 1985 the Government, citing the hostile attitude of the "right", the "left" and the Catholic Church, "inspired by the United States of America", suspended or limited accordingly, by a decree to remain in force for one year, the right of assembly, expression, association, strike and habeas corpus , freedom of the press, the right of free movement, the right to appeal against the State (appeal for protection) and judicial guarantees.

&htab;243.&htab;This decree legalises in many respects the de facto situation which gave rise to the complaints made by the IOE and other complainants to the Committee on Freedom of Association and constitutes a further infringement of freedom of association in Nicaragua.

&htab;244.&htab;As regards the events of 6 and 7 September 1985, the Government states in its communications of 23 May and 21 October 1986 that COSEP has used the name of Jorge Salazar as a banner for the Nicaraguan Democratic Front (FDN), a counter-revolutionary organisation which is carrying out atrocious crimes and campaigns of terror against the Nicaraguan population. On the above-mentioned dates COSEP planned to render homage to the memory of the counter-revolutionary Jorge Salazar, who died whilst engaged in the traffic of arms for the counter-revolution. This homage was presented as a "Private Enterprise Day". On being informed of the COSEP plans, the Government decided to suspend this activity and instructed the Ministry of the Interior to inform COSEP of its decision, which was done during the course of a meeting which was attended by the principal directors of COSEP. During the course of this meeting, the Ministry of the Interior explained to COSEP that the Government could not allow public homage to be paid to the memory of a counter-revolutionary who participated in illegal and criminal activities designed to overthrow the legitimate Government of Nicaragua by the force of arms. In the same way COSEP was informed that the Government had no objection to the holding of a private employer's day on any other date subject to advanced notice being given and the observance of existing regulations. In any State an organisation must be endowed with legal personality before it can decide that a specific day should be commemorated at the national level in honour of a certain event or person. At no time did COSEP make such a request to the legislative bodies for the holding of a private employer's day. Finally, the Government points out that no one was arrested during these days for matters related directly to the above-mentioned situation.

&htab;245.&htab;As regards Decree No. 128 on the state of national emergency, the Government states that pursuant to the powers granted to it by national legislation and in accordance with the right which it enjoys as a sovereign State to defend its territorial integrity, independence and self-determination, it issued a decree establishing a state of national emergency. Decree No. 128 is a legal instrument for the adoption of certain measures designed to protect and defend the peace and security of the nation against the imminent danger of the interventionist plans of a foreign government which in addition to maintaining external aggression is also attempting to subvert the public order through terrorist action, such as attacks with explosives on production centres, transport services and all kind of sabotage with a view to establishing the necessary conditions for a direct intervention. Given this serious situation, the Government was obliged to order the selective restriction of a number of civil guarantees established in the charter of rights and guarantees of Nicaraguans to confront the war of external aggression which has been imposed on Nicaragua.

&htab;246.&htab;The Government points out that the period of application of the state of national emergency is strictly temporary and will remain in force as long as the conditions for which it was decreed persist. As regards the international commitments undertaken on the basis of various legal instruments, Nicaragua continues to respect and observe these commitments to the extent of its possibilities and with account being taken of the situation of war which it is facing. In the same way, it believes that the state of emergency is simply an exceptional situation which is used basically to protect the tranquility and stability of the Nicaraguan people. However, the people and the Government of Nicaragua regret that such circumstances instead of being resolved are being aggravated by the decision of a certain country to pursue the war at increasingly dangerous levels.

&htab;247.&htab;As regards the scope of the Decree, the Government provides the following details:

- Freedom of expression: the restrictions relating to the press will apply to all information which is contrary to the stability and security of the country, but in no way imply that the collective communication media must cease to operate (circulation of written communication media, operation of radio and television stations, etc.).

- Right of assembly and demonstration: with regard to this limitation, open-air meetings and public demonstrations of a political, social and religious character are not prohibited, but require advance authorisation from the competent authority, as is the case in most countries.

- Right of association and organisation: under this provision any new political organisation or association of any kind may be registered provided it has complied with all the formalities required by the law.

- Habeas corpus: this restriction is limited to actions brought before the Supreme Court of Justice concerning matters resulting from the exceptions decreed in the state of emergency. The other procedures on appeals against governmental action in other spheres remain in full force.

- Right to strike: the principle of the exercise of the right to strike is related to the achievement by the workers of a series of labour claims which apparently could not be obtained by any other means. In this sense, the international legal instruments which protect the exercise of this right are basically intended to reserve the use of this alternative to the workers as a legitimate means of defending their interests. In the specific situation which Nicaragua is experiencing, account should be taken of the following factors in assessing the exercise of the right to strike. At the present time, Nicaragua is facing an economic crisis which is fundamentally the result of the war of aggression and the commercial embargo to which it is subject; this situation has had a direct repercussion on production costs and resulted in other difficulties regarding the replacement of machinery, spare parts and inputs in our factories and industries. In the circumstances, the paralysis of activities in any given undertaking or branch of activity has a drastic and negative boomerang effect on the entire population, including the workers. The Government points out that the Nicaraguan workers, with the triumph of their revolution, have succeeded in concluding more than 1,200 collective agreements in the six years of the revolution, against 126 in 40 years of dictatorship and the establishment of 1,300 trade unions (more than during the entire period of the dictatorship). None of this has required the application of pressure or force by the workers who have benefited, because the Government has at no time opposed the justified demands of the workers. In the same way, even when as from the month of October 1985, the exercise of a series of constitutional rights related to the exercise of the right to strike or trade union guarantees has been effectively suspended because of the aggression which is affecting the country, in practice the application of these measures has not led in any way to a suppression of the acquired rights of the workers. Proof of this is the fact that from the same date, more than seven new trade unions have been registered in the different branches and more than 45 new collective agreements have been concluded. However, it is forbidden to organise strikes which seek the political destabilisation of the country. It should be noted that the right to strike, in accordance with the laws in force, is not an automatic right but is the culmination of a legal process which includes the participation of the Ministry of Labour.

&htab;248.&htab;As regards Case No. 1129, the Committee notes that, according to information provided by the Government, Arcadio Ortiz and Ricardo Cervantes Rivo were sentenced by the anti-Somoza people's courts for belonging to an armed counter-revolutionary organisation and for activities in support of the same organisation. The Committee regrets that the Government, in referring to the sentence handed down on the trade unionists Milton Silva Gaitán and Orlando Napoleón Molina Aguilera by the anti-Somoza people's courts did not mention the specific charges brought against them. The Committee also regrets to note that the Government failed to reply to the allegations concerning the raid on the CTN headquarters on 24 October 1985 involving destruction of its archives and concerning the arrest, sometimes accompanied by threats of death or torture, of the trade unionists Eduardo Aburto, Eric González González, Carlos Herrera, Sergio Rosa and Eugenio Membreño (in the case of the latter, the claimants had alleged his arrest on October 1985, whereas in the Government's reply reference is made to the release of this trade unionist in March 1983) and to the searching of houses accompanied by threats and intimidation to the families of the two last-mentioned trade unionists. In these circumstances, the Committee accordingly requests the Government to provide information on these aspects of the case as a matter of urgency, as well as the sentences which have been or will be handed down in respect of the trade unionists mentioned in this paragraph.

&htab;249.&htab;The Committee notes that the anti-Somoza people's courts were specifically created by the decree on the state of emergency in April 1983, and recalls that it has always attached great importance to the fact that all cases, including those in which trade unionists are charged with political or common law crimes, should be tried promptly by an impartial and independent authority. The Committee requests the Government to transmit the text of the legislation establishing the anti-Somoza tribunals.

&htab;250.&htab;As regards the allegations concerning the Ministry of Labour's refusal to issue registration certificates to the executive committees of four trade unions, the Committee notes that these allegations were submitted by the CNT in a communication dated 13 April 1984. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the Department of Trade Union Organisations issued certificates to the executive committees of three of the trade unions in question for the period 1984-85. The Committee also notes that, with respect to the fourth trade union (Trade Union of Managua Service Stations), the Government points out that as two opposing factions had arisen within this same trade union, the Department of Trade Union Organisations of the Ministry of Labour called upon both groups to convene a joint general assembly; this general assembly took place, but there were not enough or sufficiently representative members present on this occasion.

&htab;251.&htab;As regards Case No. 1169, the Committee notes the contents of the judgement handed down on the trade unionists José Angel Altamirano, José Mercedes Díaz and Eleazar Marenco, which was provided by the Government; it repeats previous statements made by the Government.

&htab;252.&htab;The Committee also takes note of the Government's statements concerning several trade unionists whose arrest had been alleged. The Committee notes in particular that Máximo Flores Obando was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for having committed armed assault. The Committee also notes that there is no record in any of the prisons throughout the country of the alleged arrest of Rito Rivas and Anastasio and Gabriel Maldonado.

&htab;253.&htab;However, the Government acknowledges the arrest of Iván Blandón, Víctor Ríos, Napoleon Aragón and Juan Ramón Duarte in April 1983, on the grounds that they had links with a counter-revolutionary unit of the mercenary group ARDE, and states that they were released the same month. In this respect, noting that there had been no grounds for charging these trade unionists, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that measures designed to deprive trade union officials and trade unionists of their freedom entail a serious risk of interference in trade union activities and that, when such measures are taken on trade union grounds, they constitute an infringement of the principles of freedom of association. [See, for example, 233rd Report, Case No. 1169, para. 292.]

&htab;254.&htab;Regarding Case No. 1298, the Committee notes the Government's statements concerning the occupation on two occasions of the CUS headquarters in August 1984, which resulted in hostilities and damage at the said headquarters. The Committee observes, in particular, that the Government maintained that these incidents were the outcome of divided opinions amongst the CUS officials themselves. However, the Committee regrets that, in spite of several requests, the Government has not specifically referred to the allegations of one of the complainants which, on the basis of evidence, accused public officials of having been involved in these incidents and the police of having done nothing to prevent the aggression against the members of the CUS and the destruction of its offices. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls that public authorities are bound, in accordance with Convention No. 87, to refrain from any interference in the activities and internal workings of trade unions.

&htab;255.&htab;Concerning the allegations of detainees, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, there is no record in any of the prisons throughout the country of José Agustín Téllez's arrest. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, the CUS trade unionists in the village of Posaldega were arrested in May 1986 in connection with investigations following the stealing of cattle. The Government mentions that the legal authorities are dealing with the case, that proceedings on several of these persons were dismissed and that five are in prison for having allegedly committed the offence or for being an accessory after the fact. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on the developments of the trial at present being conducted and to send its observations on the trade unionists to whom it did not refer and who, according to the ICFTU, were arrested (Eduardo Gutiérrez, Juan Gaitán and Enrique Flores). The Committee also requests the Government to reply to the allegation that the children, wives and mothers of the detained trade unionists were threatened with imprisonment if their husbands or children did not give up their CUS membership, and that they are constantly visited by the police who, apart from threatening them, help themselves to toiletries and food in their homes.

&htab;256.&htab;Finally, the Committee deplores that the Government did not reply to the allegations contained in the communications from one of the complainant organisations dated 14 and 23 January 1986 (banning of the CUS trade union review; the fact that CUS trade unionists are summoned to appear by the State Security Police Force, and are subjected to pressure and threatened; visits of a delegation of officials to organisations belonging to the CUS in the northern, southern and western areas of the country which warned that if there were any meetings in the future, those involved would go to prison and that this ban also extended to the setting up of new trade union organisations). The Committee urges the Government to furnish information on these aspects of the case.

&htab;257.&htab;With regard to Case No. 1344, the Committee observes that the complainant has alleged a series of discriminatory measures taken by the Government against the leaders of COSEP in particular and within the context of measures taken against the private sector. The Committee observes that the Government has replied specifically to only one of the allegations (the arbitrary confiscation of the lands of Mr. Enrique Bolaños, leader of COSEP, without respect for the provisions of the agrarian reform acts) but without supplying observations on each of the points noted by the complainant organisation as regards this allegation. In the same way, since the object of all the allegations made in this case is to show a discriminatory attitude by the Government against COSEP, the Committee postpones the examination of the case and requests the Government to provide a reply urgently on those aspects of the case to which it has not referred.

&htab;258.&htab;With regard to Case No. 1351, the Committee notes that the allegations refer to the prohibition of a meeting of 2,000 employers in Managua organised by COSEP on 7 September 1985 (called the "Private Enterprise Day"), the house arrest of the president of COSEP on the same day and the suspension or restriction of certain basic rights by a decree to remain in force for one year.

&htab;259.&htab;As regards the prohibition of the meeting of 7 September 1985, the Committee notes that according to the Government the above-mentioned meeting was suspended: (1) because since COSEP had planned to pay homage that day to Jorge Salazar in the form of a "Private Enterprise Day", the Government could not permit a public honour to be paid to the memory of the counter-revolutionary who had endeavoured to overthrow the legitimate Government of Nicaragua by the force of arms; (2) at no time did COSEP make a request to the legislative bodies to hold a national employers' day. The Committee also notes that COSEP was informed that the Government had no objection to the holding of such a day on any other date, subject to advance notice being given and compliance with the existing regulations.

&htab;260.&htab;In this respect, the Committee would like to refer to the fundamental principles which it has established with regard to the right to assembly of workers' organisations and which it considers applicable also to employers' organisations. The Committee considers, in particular, that the right of occupational organisations to hold meetings in their premises to discuss occupational questions, without prior authorisation and interference by the authorities, is an essential element of freedom of association [see, for example, 233rd Report, Case No. 1217 (Chile), paras. 109 and 110], and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede its exercise, unless public order is disturbed thereby or its maintenance seriously and imminently endangered. [See, for example, 211th Report, Case No. 1014 (Dominican Republic), para. 512.]

&htab;261.&htab;After taking into account the above-mentioned principles, the Committee is of the view that the question of the fixing of the "Private Enterprise Day" by a central employers' organisation is a matter which should be decided freely by the occupational organisation concerned and that there should be no need for an administrative authorisation of this kind of commemoration or the fixing of its date. The Committee believes in the same way that in the specific case of the homage to be paid by COSEP to the memory of a deceased official of this organisation falls fully within the scope of its activities as an employers' organisation provided that a ceremony of this nature in exercise of its right to assembly does not disturb the public order or seriously or imminently endanger it. As regards the Government's statement according to which J. Salazar Argüello, acting President of COSEP at the time of his violent death in November 1980, was a "counter-revolutionary" killed during the course of violence designed to overthrow the revolution. The Committee refers to the conclusions it reached previously concerning this matter. The Committee deplores that the authorities prevented the holding of the "Private Enterprise Day" on 7 November 1985 and expresses the hope that in future COSEP will be able to establish without any interference whatsoever the date and activities of the Private Enterprise Day.

&htab;262.&htab;The Committee also takes note that, according to the Government, on 6 and 7 September 1985 no one was arrested for matters directly related to the allegations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate specifically if the president of COSEP was placed under house arrest on 7 September 1985 ("Private Enterprise Day"), as alleged by the complainant and if so, the reasons.

&htab;263.&htab;As regards the suspension or restriction of certain basic rights for one year in pursuance of the Decrees which establish the period of application of the state of national emergency (Decree No. 128 of 15 October 1985 amended by Decree No. 130 of 31 October 1985), the Committee notes the reasons given by the Government for the declaration of the state of national emergency and its explanations concerning the practical scope of the restrictions on public freedoms and the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee also observes that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations at its meeting of March 1986 examined the above-mentioned decrees in connection with the observation which it made on the application of Convention No. 87 by Nicaragua. [See report of the Committee of Experts, Report III (Part 4A), pp. 169-170, International Labour Conference, 72nd Session 1986.] On this occasion, the Committee of Experts expressed the hope that the Government would lift, as rapidly as circumstances would allow, the restrictions on civil and trade union liberties resulting from the state of national emergency contained in the Decrees of 15 and 31 October 1985. The Committee also recalls that the Committee on the Application of Standards of the 72nd Session of the International Labour Conference regretted in paragraph 105 of its report that, despite repeated invitations, the Government of Nicaragua had refrained from participating in the discussions on the observations of the Committee of Experts.

&htab;264.&htab;Given the fact that these decrees and the state of national emergency were to have expired at the end of October 1986, and the serious nature of the restrictions on trade union and civil liberties, the Committee trusts that the situation will not be imposed again and requests the Government to furnish information on this subject.

&htab;265.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present interim report, and in particular the following conclusions:

(a) In the first place, the Committee expresses its concern at the gravity of the allegations made by employers' and workers' organisations concerning, in particular, the detention and sentencing of trade unionists and the interference by the authorities in the activities of the occupational organisations.

(b) As regards Case No. 1129 the Committee urges the Government to transmit information on certain aspects of the case, as well as the judgements handed down or which will be handed down by the People's anti-Somoza tribunals, concerning the trade unionists mentioned in paragraph 248 above. Noting that the People's anti-Somoza tribunals have been created specially by an emergency decree in April 1983 the Committee recalls the importance it has always attached to the principle that in all cases, including those in which trade unionists are charged with political or common law crimes which the Government considers are unrelated to trade union activities, the persons concerned should be tried promptly by independent and impartial judicial body. The Committee also requests the Government to transmit the text of the law instituting the People's anti-Somoza tribunals.

(c) With respect to Case No. 1169 , the Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that measures designed to deprive trade union officials and trade unionists of their freedom entail a serious risk of interference in trade union activities and that, when such measures are taken on trade union grounds, they constitute an infringement of the principles of freedom of association.

(d) As regards Case No. 1298 , the Committee regrets that, in spite of several requests, the Government has not specifically referred to the allegations of one of the complainants which, on the basis of evidence, accused public officials of having been involved in these incidents and the police of having done nothing to prevent the aggression against the members of the CUS and the destruction of its offices. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls that the public authorities are bound, in accordance with Convention No. 87, to refrain from any interference in the activities and internal workings of trade unions.

(e) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the developments of the trial under way against five trade unionists for having stolen cattle, and asks it to send observations on the trade unions to which it failed to refer and which, according to the ICFTU, were arrested (Eduardo Gutiérrez, Juan Gaitán and Enrique Flores). The Committee also requests the Government to reply to the allegation that the children, wives and mothers of the detained trade unionists were threatened with imprisonment if their husbands or children did not give up their CUS membership and that they are constantly visited by police who threaten them and help themselves to toiletries and foodstuffs.

(f) Finally, the Committee deplores that the Government has not replied to the allegations contained in one of the complainants' communications dated 14 and 23 January 1986 (banning of the CUS trade union review; the fact that CUS trade unionists are summoned to appear by the State Security Police Force, and are subjected to pressure and threatened; visits of a delegation of officials to organisations belonging to the CUS in the northern, southern and western areas of the country and warnings to the members that if there were any meetings in the future, those involved would go to prison and that this ban also extended to the setting up of new trade union organisations). The Committee requests the Government to furnish information on these aspects of the case.

(g) As regards Case No. 1344 , the Committee notes that the Government has sent certain information on only one of the numerous allegations. Since the object of all the allegations in this case is to show a discriminatory attitude by the Government against COSEP, the Committee postpones the examination of the case and requests the Government to provide a reply urgently on those aspects of the case to which it has not referred.

(h) As regards Case No. 1351 , the Committee regrets that the authorities prohibited the holding of the "Private Enterprise Day" on 7 November 1985, organised by COSEP, and expresses the hope that in future this employers' organisation will be able to determine without any interference the date and activities of the Private Enterprise Day.

(i) The Committee draws the attention of the Government to the principle that the right of occupational organisations to hold meetings in their premises without advance authorisation and without interference by the authorities is a fundamental aspect of freedom of association.

(j) The Committee also notes that according to the Government, on 6 and 7 September 1985 no one was arrested for matters related directly with the allegations. The Committee requests the Government to indicate specifically whether the president of COSEP was placed under house arrest on 7 September 1985 ("Private Enterprise Day"), as alleged by the complainant and, if so, the reasons.

(k) The Committee observes that Decrees Nos. 128 and 130 proclaiming a state of national emergency with the subsequent restrictions on civil and trade union freedoms should have expired at the end of October 1986. The Committee expresses the firm hope that these restrictions will not be reimposed and requests the Government to furnish information on the subject.

&htab;266.&htab;The Committee has examined this case on several occasions, most recently at its May 1986 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 244th Report, paras. 296-336, approved by the Governing Body at its 233rd Session (May-June 1986)].

&htab;267.&htab;Since then, the ILO has received the following communications from the complainants: the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU): 14 May and 9 September 1986; the Confederation of Copper Workers (CTC): 4 June 1986; the National Union of Telephone Company Workers: 11 June 1986; the World Federation of Teachers' Unions (FISE): 9 September 1986; Works Union No. 6 of the National Copper Corporation of Chile: 24 September 1986; the National Confederation of Workers' Trade Unions in Building, Wood, Building Materials and Related Activities, the Confederation of Unions and Federations of Workers in the Metal Industry (CONSTRAMET), the National Federation of Unions of Textile and Clothing Workers (FENTATREX), the Miners' Confederation, the El Surco Peasants Confederation, the Confederation of Catering Workers of Chile: 29 and 30 September 1986. The Government, for its part, supplied its observations in communications of 22 May and 2 and 22 October 1986.

&htab;268.&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;313.&htab;The Committee has already examined this case at its February 1986 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 243rd Report, para. 489 to 554, approved by the Governing Body at its 232nd Session (March 1986).]

&htab;314.&htab;Since then, the ILO has received the following communications from the complainants: the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP): 13 March, 15 April, 28 and 29 May, 16 June 1986; the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU): 5 May 1986; the World Federation of Teachers' Unions (FISE): 30 May and 18 June 1986. For its part, the Government sent its observations in communications of 20 May and 29 October 1986.

&htab;315.&htab;Tunisia 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;316.&htab;The origin of this case was a dispute between the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT) and the Government of Tunisia over the question of how wages were to be fixed. Subsequently, the dispute broadened and involved matters other than the initial collective bargaining problem and the situation deteriorated considerably following strikes organised by the UGTT and the repressive measures which, according to the complainants, were taken by the authorities, namely requisitioning of striking staff, replacement of strikers by people from outside the service, dismissal of strikers, arrests and prison sentences of workers, bans on trade union general assemblies in undertakings, obstruction of trade union meetings, suspension of the UGTT newspaper, abolition of the check-off system and the detachment of civil servants to the permanent services of the UGTT, the occupation of the premises of the UGTT by interim committees assisted by the police.

&htab;317.&htab;In view of the seriousness of the dispute, a meeting held between the Minister of Labour and the executive committee and other officials of the UGTT led to the conclusion, on 4 December 1985, of an agreement which provided for the following: (1) the release of those trade unionists who had been arrested, (2) the reinstatement of dismissed workers, (3) the restructuring of the unions, and (4) the resumption of negotiations on all the questions at issue. However, the complainants were of the opinion that the Government had taken no steps to implement the agreement that had been concluded.

&htab;318.&htab;Finally, new allegations reported the arrest and sentencing to a term of imprisonment of Mr. Habib Achour, Secretary-General of the UGTT, and six other trade unionists.

&htab;319.&htab;In addition, the Committee was informed that an ILO mission, led by Mr. Bertil Bolin, Deputy Director-General, had been carried out in Tunisia from 16 to 18 February 1986. Its purpose was to assist in seeking solutions to the problems to which the present complaint against Tunisia had given rise.

&htab;320.&htab;At its March 1986 session, the Governing Body approved the following conclusions of the Committee:

&htab;(a) In general, the Committee expresses its concern over the seriousness of the social tension which the measures referred to in the allegations, in particular the occupation of trade union premises, have created. In the Committee's view there can be a lasting and effective solution to the present problems only if the organisations participating in the social dialogue are strong, genuinely free and independent. This presupposes, in particular, that the UGTT can carry out its activities free from any constraint and within the framework of its statutes. &htab;(b) The Committee considers that it is of the utmost importance that negotiations between the parties to the agreement of 4 December 1985 be resumed with a view to implementing that agreement rapidly and in full. It also considers that the ILO could, should the parties so wish, continue to play a useful role in seeking a solution to the conflict that is based on those ILO principles of freedom of association referred to in its conclusions. &htab;(c) The Committee therefore requests the Government to consider the possibility of implementing these recommendations and to communicate information on any measures taken towards the reinstatement of the dismissed strikers, the release of imprisoned trade unionists, an amnesty for the sentenced workers, a lifting of the ban on trade union meetings and the suspension of the UGTT newsletter, as well as a re-examination of the questions concerning the check-off system and the secondment of civil servants to trade union organisations.

&htab;(d) The Committee requests the Government to transmit its observations on the recent sentences passed on trade unionists belonging to the UGTT, including Mr. Habib Achour, and on their conditions of detention.

&htab;(e) The Committee requests the Government to transmit its observations on the allegations concerning the occupation of the premises of the UGTT.

&htab;321.&htab;In its communication of 13 March 1986, the WCOTP furnishes a list of 51 unionised teachers and 14 primary school principals who, according to the complainant, were dismissed following the occupation of the premises of the UGTT and the General Trade Union of Primary School Teachers.

&htab;322.&htab;In its communication of 15 April 1986, the WCOTP states that the agreement of 4 December 1985 between the Government and the UGTT has not yet been implemented, and that the premises of the General Trade Union of Primary School Teachers (SGEP) and the National Trade Union of Teachers of Higher Education and Scientific Research (SNESRS) are still occupied and inaccessible to the members of these trade unions.

&htab;323.&htab;The WCOTP also points out that the Secretary-General of the SNESRS, Mr. Moncef Ben Slimane, was arrested on 18 February 1986. Subsequently, he was placed under house arrest until 1 March 1986. Before his arrest, according to the WCOTP, he was dismissed from his position at the university. Moreover, following a strike organised at the university to protest against the arrest of the Secretary-General of the SNESRS, a press release issued by the Ministry of Higher Education declared the trade union illegal. Consequently, no discussions or negotiations have been conducted with the SNESRS. Lastly, the WCOTP reports that all trade union meetings on university premises have been banned.

&htab;324.&htab;The WCOTP attaches to its communication a list of secondary school teachers who have been punished owing to the dispute between the Government and the trade unions: 12 dismissals, three suspensions, seven enlistments in the army and five transfers.

&htab;325.&htab;In its communication of 5 May 1986, the ICFTU states that the social situation in Tunisia is deteriorating. Several dozen UGTT unionists are been detained, including Habib Achour, who was sentenced to two additional years' imprisonment. According to the ICFTU, hundreds of militants are still dismissed for regular trade union activities. The legitimate leaders of the UGTT are under permanent or semi-permanent police surveillance and most of them have had their passports confiscated.

&htab;326.&htab;The ICFTU adds that on 29 and 30 April 1986, the provisional committees opposed to the legitimate leaders of the UGTT organised a special congress usurping the name of the UGTT, with the Government's full support. According to the ICFTU, the mere fact that this congress was held, not to mention the public authorities' recognition of this new leadership, clearly shows that the Government has interfered in the internal affairs of the UGTT, thereby violating the autonomy of this organisation and the principles of freedom of association.

&htab;327.&htab;In its communication of 28 May 1986, the WCOTP alleges that on 21 April 1986, Mr. Moncef Ben Slimane, Secretary-General of the National Trade Union of Teachers of Higher Education and Scientific Research (SNESRS), was arrested and detained by the police for a period of nine days. On 2 May 1986, the trade union's administrative committee issued a statement condemning the actions carried out by the police on university grounds. Although Mr. Ben Slimane was not present at the meeting, his signature was affixed to the statement and for this reason another indictment was brought against him on 24 May 1986, following a new arrest on 14 May. According to the WCOTP, this represents a violation of Article 1 of Convention No. 98 which protects workers against anti-trade union discrimination.

&htab;328.&htab;In its communication of 30 May 1986, the FISE also reports Mr. Moncef Ben Slimane's arrest which, in its opinion, represents yet another example of the Government's efforts to suppress the independent trade union movement.

&htab;329.&htab;In its communication of 29 May 1986, the WCOTP states that the delegates to the UGTT congress of 29 and 30 April 1986 were appointed at meetings called by the Destourian Socialist Party, the party in power. Its communication includes a copy of a notice of a meeting of this type, and states that no trade unionists participated in these meetings. It also states that the new Secretary-General appointed at the congress is the director of a large undertaking, the United Foundries, and thus represents management. Lastly, it alleges that the congress modified the statutes of the UGTT, deleting all references to "justice", "social", "autonomy", "independent" and "patriotism".

&htab;330.&htab;In its communication of 16 June 1986, the WCOTP furnishes additional details on the arrest and indictment of Mr. Moncef Ben Slimane. It also furnishes the text of the statement made by the executive committee of the SNESRS which led to the indictment. This statement criticises the violent tactics used by the police in the siege of the university, it requests an investigation of these acts of violence and asks that talks be held with the trade union with a view to finding a solution to the problems in the university. The WCOTP explains that this motion was presented to the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research by a trade union delegation. The statement was not published in the press; instead, the Ministry forwarded it directly to the Ministry of the Interior, and it was on the basis of this text that Mr. Ben Slimane was accused of defaming law enforcement and government authorities.

&htab;331.&htab;In its communication of 18 June 1986, the FISE reports that Mr. Ben Slimane was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year.

&htab;332.&htab;In its reply of 20 May 1986, the Government recalls that its difficulties with the UGTT began in April 1985, following a difference of opinion on the interpretation of certain legal provisions concerning the question of how wages were to be fixed. According to the Government, far from being unusual, this difference of opinion is rather commonplace in a country that has chosen the path of collective bargaining and full respect for the principles of freedom of association, and where trade union organisations are powerful and enjoy full guarantees of autonomy and independence in the exercise of their activities. A government note draws attention to the dangers inherent in the UGTT's request to link increases exclusively to price increases; in the light of the exceptional circumstances of the national economy and the impact of the international economic crisis, the Government proposed that all wage increases be linked, among others, to increases in production and productivity, appealing to the social partners to respond to the economic crisis in a spirit of solidarity and to accept a fair and equitable distribution of the sacrifices required by current economic difficulties.

&htab;333.&htab;The Government adds that, despite its appeals, its willingness to continue negotiations in an effort to reach agreement on the problems at hand and the fact that the country needs social peace now more than ever, certain leaders of the UGTT have categorically refused to consider the Government's proposals; instead, they have become increasingly adamant and continue to insist on unconditional wage increases, leading to to even greater social tension.

&htab;334.&htab;In addition, despite the problems caused by the massive expulsion of Tunisian workers from Libya, certain UGTT leaders refused to postpone a series of strikes planned for the month of August of 1985, even though negotiations with the Government continued; instead, they hardened their position and ignored the Government's invitation to call a truce in the light of external threats to the nation's security.

&htab;335.&htab;In spite of the negative attitude of UGTT trade union leaders and the continued aggravation of social tensions, the Government reaffirmed its commitment to open and responsible dialogue and reiterated its interest in overcoming the difficulties. It was in this spirit that the Minister of Labour held a meeting on 9 November 1985 with the executive committee of the UGTT. The meeting, which took place in a cordial atmosphere that was conducive to continuing dialogue, helped to relieve some of the tension and led to the release of certain trade unionists and the reinstatement of dismissed workers. A lull in social tensions followed this meeting.

&htab;336.&htab;In the meantime, the Government adds, UGTT trade unionists throughout the country began to criticise the rigid positions of their leaders and the excessive politicisation of their organisation; accordingly, they undertook a large-scale effort to correct the situation by establishing a number of provisional trade union committees. Faithful to its tradition of respect for trade union autonomy, the Government refrained from any interference in the matter, which it considered a purely internal matter within the UGTT rank and file. It stated that it was up to the trade unionists themselves to resolve the problems of their organisation and to set the course for their future free of any outside interference.

&htab;337.&htab;The Government adds that it continued to hold talks with the UGTT in spite of the latter's internal crisis. Thus, the Minister of Labour held a meeting with the executive committee of the UGTT on 4 December 1985, which was followed by the publication of a communiqué. This communiqué, which was received favourably by all parties involved, represents a solid foundation for an eventual solution to the parties' differences through a concrete and responsible dialogue. However, once the principles defined in the communiqué were implemented, certain difficulties arose. These difficulties are linked, in part, to the contents of the communiqué itself, which calls for close collaboration between all parties involved in defining the terms and conditions of its implementation. Furthermore, these difficulties are exacerbated by the absence of a consensus within the UGTT's executive committee on how to bring about a normalisation.

&htab;338.&htab;In fact, according to the Government, the disagreement among UGTT union leaders concerning the implementation of the above-mentioned communiqué led a number of them to question and eventually repudiate the communiqué of 4 December 1985. It was thus that the administrative committee at its meeting of 12 January 1986 called into question the decision taken by the executive committee and other officials of the UGTT to replace Mr. Habib Achour at the head of the UGTT by Mr. Sadok Allouche. The latter was appointed Secretary-General by the expanded executive committee, the only authority empowered to assign responsibilities within the executive committee. Furthermore, this meeting of 12 January 1986, which eight members of the UGTT executive committee failed to attend, created confusion among trade union officers, most of whom contested the decision of the administrative committee.

&htab;339.&htab;None the less, over a period of several weeks, contact was never interrupted and consultations continued to take place between the various parties interested in the trade union's normalisation. On the occasion of the UGTT's 40th anniversary (20 January 1986), the President of the Republic responded to the persistent threats to national security; looking beyond the simple issue of trade union normalisation, the President called for a spirit of solidarity and appealed to workers and trade unionists from all factions to consolidate trade union action within a "strong, glorious and representative organisation" capable of contributing with other national organisations to the cause of national development, as it had done in the past.

&htab;340.&htab;On the same occasion, the Prime Minister invited all worker confederations (the Tunisian National Labour Union and the UGTT), including the members of the UGTT executive committee, to reach a national consensus within the trade union movement that would guarantee progress and best reflect the Tunisian reality. The members of the executive committee refused to attend this meeting. None the less, consultations continued with the opposing factions in an effort to unify the Tunisian trade union movement.

&htab;341.&htab;In keeping with its commitment to dialogue and tripartism, the Government accepted the missions of the International Labour Office and the ICFTU, furnishing all pertinent information on the trade union situation in Tunisia in the hope of reaching a solution to these problems.

&htab;342.&htab;The persistence of the trade union's internal crisis led the trade unionists involved in the provisional committees to organise a special congress of the UGTT, which was held on 29 and 30 April 1986, and which elected a new executive committee.

&htab;343.&htab;The Government adds that it remains committed, as always, to a policy on collective bargaining that reconciles the defence of workers' occupational interests with the national interest, within the framework of a constructive agreement and with all due respect for the autonomy of trade union organisations. In this connection and on the occasion of Labour Day, the Government announced on 1 May 1986 a series of social measures (enhancement of family allowances, restoration of the SMIG and the SMAG, etc.) with a view to increasing workers' purchasing power despite the country's difficult economic circumstances. This is further proof that Tunisia's social policy is and will remain progressive and deeply committed to the establishment of lasting social peace built on a frank, constructive and responsible dialogue.

&htab;344.&htab;In conclusion, the Government declares that it is deeply committed to the existence of autonomous and responsible workers' trade union organisations and to the consolidation of the social dialogue at all levels and in all areas.

&htab;345.&htab;Concerning the allegations of the arrest of trade unionists whose names appear in a list appended to the Committee's previous report on this case, the Government states that none of these trade unionists are being detained and that none of them are being prosecuted. It specifies that all legal action in this case was taken by common law courts for infringements of common law having no relation whatsoever with the exercise of trade union rights.

&htab;346.&htab;Concerning the measures taken against teachers, the Government states that disciplinary measures were taken by the disciplinary council, in accordance with current legislation governing the teachers' statute, against persons found guilty of serious professional misdemeanours. It adds that several among those disciplined have been reinstated.

&htab;347.&htab;In its communication dated 29 October 1986 the Government points out that the President of the Republic, ever faithful to the principles of unity and solidarity, made an appeal to all the workers and trade unionists of all tendencies to unite their action within one "strong, glorious and representative organisation" which alone could permit the development process to continue successfully. The Government adds that it is also through its attachment to the principles of justice and the improvement of the welfare of Tunisians that it has adopted a series of social measures the object of which is to preserve the purchasing power of the workers and increase the wages of the less privileged workers. This has been done in spite of the economic difficulties facing Tunisia and which are the result of the economic crisis in the world.

&htab;348.&htab;The Government states that, since this appeal was made, meetings and consultations have taken place between the two central unions (UGTT and UNTT) and these have led, on 9 September 1986, to the declaration of the unification of the two organisations into a single General Tunisian Labour Union. This agreement shows the willingness of the large majority of trade unionists to work in one "powerful, united and independent trade union organisation" which combines all forces and trade unionists of good will. It also demonstrates the concern of trade unionists to "assemble conditions that are favourable" for the UGTT to devote itself to its new goal of trade union action based on conscious participation, attachment to what is authentic, and loyalty to the workers and their cause.

&htab;349.&htab;The two organisations have also decided to hold a National Congress on 27 January 1987 (the anniversary of the founding of the UGTT). In order to prepare the Congress the new provisional UGTT, consisting of members of the former executive boards of two workers' organisations, met on 24 September 1986 and examined the general question of establishing trade union unity, the trade union situation in the country and the elaboration of a national trade union charter.

&htab;350.&htab;As regards Mr. Habib Achour, the Government states that he was sentenced by the competent courts for common law crimes following a complaint filed by the Director of the workers' co-operative "Cosoup" where the premises were broken into by Mr. Achour and a group of his colleagues. He was also sentenced for mismanagement in terms of article 86 of the Commercial Code.

&htab;351.&htab;As regards Mr. Moncef Ben Slimane, the Government explains that he was recruited as an assistant on probation under the statute on higher education. He had to do a two-year probationary period before being confirmed permanently and titularised, or thanked for his services. During the probationary period, Mr. Ben Slimane committed a serious act of insubordination towards a high official of his Ministry, that is to say the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. As a result, the Government considers that the law applicable in Tunisia was scrupulously respected and his dismissal legally well-founded. In spite of this decision to dismiss him, and of which he was officially informed, Mr. Ben Slimane continued to appear on the campus and in a number of university institutions. On several occasions he was told to refrain from doing so, but he continued to appear in these places. In May 1986 he was discovered in possession of subversive pamphlets against the Government; since these had nothing do to with trade union activities, he was sentenced by the competent courts.

&htab;352.&htab;Having examined the Government's reply, the Committee can only note that no new elements capable of promoting a solution to the difficulites which gave rise to the complaint in this case have become apparent since the Committee last examined this case in February 1986. While it is true that the Government states that the trade unionists whose names appear on the lists submitted by the complainants are at present free and that some of the teachers who had been disciplined have been reinstated, other measures, such as the sentencing of Habib Achour to a new prison term and the sentencing of the Secretary-General of the National Trade Union of Teachers of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Mr. Moncef Ben Slimane, certainly represent major obstacles to the resumption of a constructive and peaceful dialogue with an important part of the trade union movement.

&htab;353.&htab;As regards these court judgements, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, Mr. Achour was sentenced for common law crimes and Mr. Ben Slimane for being in possession of subversive pamphlets. The Committee, however, notes that these sentences were passed at a time when the Government was in conflict with the leadership of the trade unions to which those persons belonged. According to the complainants, this explains why they were sentenced. In addition, the Committee must note that, according to the information before it, the accusations brought against Mr. Achour, which led to the first judgement against him, related to a former period, and that the pamphlets in the possession of Mr. Ben Slimane only, according to the complainants, demanded that inquiries be carried out into the acts of violence in the university. The Committee considers, in the circumstances, that the granting of an amnesty to these persons would assist in reducing tension.

&htab;354.&htab;In addition to these allegations, the Committee must emphasise that the solution to the social and economic problems of any country cannot possibly lie in the suppression of important sections of the trade union movement. On the contrary, only the development of free and independent organisations and negotiation with all those involved in the social dialogue will enable a government to confront these problems and resolve them in the best interests of the workers and of the nation.

&htab;355.&htab;In this perspective, the Committee once again urges the Government to make every effort to bring about the conditions required to re-establish a trade union situation that respects the principles of freedom of association, especially in the implementation of the agreement signed by the expanded executive committee of the UGTT and the Minister of Labour on 4 December 1985. Once again, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken in this regard.

&htab;356.&htab;In addition, the Committee notes that the Government, in its reply, does not mention the allegations relating to the violation of the statutes of the UGTT when the congress was convened and held in April 1986, or the occupation of the UGTT's premises. The Committee requests the Government to transmit its observations on these matters.

&htab;358.&htab;The Committee last considered this case at its meeting in November 1985 when it presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body; [See 241st Report, paras. 822 to 845, approved by the Governing Body at its 231st Session.]; it has twice adjourned consideration of the case, at its meetings in February and May 1986. [See 243rd and 244th Reports, para. 5.]

&htab;359.&htab;Additional information was received from the complainants in a communication dated 23 December 1985, and from the Government in communications dated 18 January, 31 May and 23 September 1986.

&htab;360.&htab;Guyana has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It has also ratified the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151) and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

&htab;361.&htab;When the Committee examined the case in November 1985, it made the following recommendations to the Governing Body: [See 241st Report, para. 845]

(a) The Committee requests the Government to supply it with a copy of the judgement of the court concerning the validity and the constitutionality of the Labour (Amendment) Act as soon as this becomes available, so that it can reach a conclusion on this aspect of the case in full possession of all the relevant information;

(b) The Committee asks the complainant organisations to supply details on their allegations concerning the dual governmental and trade union functions of members of the GTUC executive and, in particular, to indicate what consequences this has for trade union rights;

(c) The Committee draws aspects of the case relating to the Labour Amendment Act to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations;

(d) The Committee expresses the hope that, in relation to the recognition of sole bargaining rights, the Government will find it possible to give effect to the principle that it is not necessarily incompatible with Convention No. 87 to provide for certification of the most representative bargaining union in a given unit as the exclusive bargaining agent, but that in such cases there is a need to provide for certain safeguards which include (a) certification by an independent body and (b) the choice of the representative organisation by a majority vote of the employees in the unit concerned.

&htab;381.&htab;The Committee on Freedom of Association first examined this case at its meeting of February 1986 and presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 243rd Report, paras. 570-587], approved by the Governing Body at its 232nd Session (February-March 1986)). Having received new allegations from the complainants as well as various observations by the Government, the Committee once again examined the case at its meeting of May 1986 and presented another interim report [244th Report, paras. 357-383] to the Governing Body. This was approved by the Governing Body at its 233rd Session (May-June 1986).

&htab;382.&htab;The complainants had requested that an ILO mission visit Colombia and in its meeting of May 1986, the Committee believed that "in view of the seriousness of the allegations in this case (...), it would be of considerable use to have an ILO mission visit the country in order to obtain all the information necessary for a thorough examination of the case" [244th Report of the Committee, para. 383(d)].

&htab;383.&htab;In a communication of 12 June 1986, the Minister of Labour and Social Security of Colombia invited the ILO to "send a mission to visit the country and establish contact with the Government and the democratic employers' and workers' organisations with a view to duly clarifiying the situation". On 13 June 1984 the Chairman of the Committee met with the Minister of Labour of Colombia to discuss the case and make arrangements for the mission.

&htab;384.&htab;The Director-General of the ILO appointed as his representative to carry out this mission Mr. Geraldo von Potobsky and the mission visited Bogotá between 14 and 18 July 1986. The Director-General's representative was accompanied during the mission by Mr. Alberto Odero, member of the Freedom of Association Branch of the International Labour Standards Department, and Mr. Luis Zamudio, Regional Adviser on Standards. The mission report is annexed to the present report [Appendix II].

&htab;385.&htab;The mission was received by Mr. Jorge Carrillo Rojas, Minister of Labour and Social Security, the authorities and high officials of various ministries as well as representatives of workers' and employers' organisations.

&htab;386.&htab;Colombia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

* * *

&htab;387.&htab;The Committee would like to thank Mr. Geraldo von Potobsky for having agreed to undertake the direct contacts mission and for his detailed report on the case which has allowed the Committee to examine the complaint. The Committee considers that the report of the Director-General's representative attests to the usefulness of missions of this kind in clarifying matters arising from allegations by the complainant organisations.

&htab;391.&htab;Since the content of the allegations and the information supplied by the Government, as well as the information obtained by the Director-General's representative during the mission are contained in the mission report (see Appendix II), the Committee can proceed directly to formulate its conclusions on the various matters before it.

&htab;392.&htab;The Committee takes note of the report of the Director-General's representative on the mission carried out in Bogotá between 14 and 18 July 1986. The Committee notes with interest that the representative of the Director-General received every assistance from the authorities in carrying out the mission. The Committee also notes the written information communicated by the Government after the departure of the mission.

&htab;393.&htab;The Committee must draw attention firstly to the serious nature of the allegations which have been submitted and which refer in particular to attacks on the life and personal safety of a large number of trade union officials and trade unionists. Various persons pointed out to the Director-General's representative the complex nature of the present situation and the inter-relationship of trade union, political and subversive matters, sometimes related to drug-trafficking, which lead to acts of violence of different kinds and even illegal acts by some members of the armed forces and the police. According to the authorities, such behaviour has occurred only at the individual level. The Committee expresses its concern and notes that according to the mission report, so-called para-military groups and groups of mercenaries are operating in the country and that most of the attacks on the life and personal safety of trade unionists concern members of a specific affiliation.

&htab;394.&htab;The Committee also notes with concern that reference is made in various parts of the mission report to the difficulty of determining those responsible for crimes and the circumstances in which they were committed because potential witnesses are afraid of the reprisals which they might suffer, especially in some regions which are particularly affected by conflict. The Committee believes that all appropriate measures should be taken to guarantee that irrespective of trade union affiliation, trade union rights are exercised in normal conditions with respect for basic human rights and in a climate free of violence, pressure, fear and threats of any kind.

&htab;408.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

General conclusions

(a) The Committee takes note of the report of the Director-General's representative on the mission carried out between 14 and 18 July 1986 in Bogotá. The Committee notes with interest that the Director-General's representative received every assistance from the authorities in carrying out the mission.

(b) The Committee must stress firstly the serious nature of the allegations which have been made and which refer in particular to attacks against the lives and personal safety of a large number of trade union officials and trade unionists. Various persons pointed out to the Director-General's representative the complex nature of the present situation and the inter-relationship between trade union, political and subversive matters, sometimes related to drug-trafficking, which lead to acts of violence of various kinds, and even illegal action by some members of the armed forces and the police. According to the authorities these acts have been carried out on an individual basis. The Committee expresses its concern and notes that according to the mission report so-called para-military and mercenary groups are operating in the country and that most of the attacks against the lives and personal safety of trade unionists concern trade unionists of a specific affiliation. (c) The Committee also observes with concern that references are made in several parts of the mission report to the difficulty of establishing who is responsible for the crimes and the circumstances in which they have committed because potential witnesses are afraid that reprisals may be taken against them, especially in some regions particularly affected by conflict.

(d) The Committee believes that all appropriate measures should be taken to guarantee that irrespective of trade union philosophy, trade union rights can be exercised in normal conditions, with respect for basic human rights and in a climate free of violence, pressure, fear and threats of any kind.

Conclusions on the different allegations

(a) The Committee observes that in almost all the cases alleging the assassination, kidnapping or disappearance of trade union officials and trade unionists judicial inquiries have been opened in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee made at its meetings of February and May 1986. The Committee observes, however, that the Government points out that it needs further information from the complainant organisation concerning the alleged deaths of the agrarian trade unionists Leonor Marle, Omar Vergara, Solón López and Serafín Herrera and the physician and trade union leader Gabriel Anchique Gómez and concerning the disppearance of José Jairo López Cadena. The Committee requests the complainant organisations to provide any information available to them concerning these allegations to allow the Government to be able to reply exactly to these allegations.

(b) The Committee observes that according to the information provided the deaths of some trade union officials and trade unionists were not related to their status or trade union activity and that the whereabouts of some persons whose disappearance had been alleged has now been established.

(c) With regard to the other allegations concerning the assassination or disappearance of trade union officials and trade unionists (see Annex 1), the Committee notes that judicial inquiries and trials are now under way. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the different trials and expresses the hope that the whereabouts of the persons who have disappeared will shortly be established. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the recent allegations concerning death threats against various trade union leaders and on the allegation concerning the disappearance of 70 workers of the Malaria Eradication Service in April 1985. (d) The Committee requests the Government to inform it of developments in the trials concerning the injuries suffered by the trade unionists Meyer Rivas and Heriberto Ramirez Rengifo.

(e) The Committee awaits the observations of the Government concerning the allegations of interference in trade union activities to which it has not replied.

(f) The Committee requests the Government to state whether the three workers of the Vianini Entrecanales undertaking mentioned by the complainant (Messrs. Rafael Mauriao Mendoza Aguilar, Pedro Antonio Rodriguez Rojas and Pablo Emilio Leal Cruz) were in fact dismissed and if so, the reasons for the dismissals and the results of any judicial action which they have been able to undertake with a view to their reinstatement.

1.&htab;Leonel Roldán

2.&htab;Francisco Javier Correa Muñoz

3.&htab;Dionisio Hernüan Calderón

4.&htab;José Luis Ortega

5.&htab;Oscar Salazar

6.&htab;Hernán Yate

7.&htab;Jaime Quintero Cruz

8.&htab;Javier Sanabria Murcia

9.&htab;Rubén Castaño

10.&htab;Caarmelo Gelves Ortega

11.&htab;Rogelio Sánchez

12.&htab;Luis Jusús Leal Guerrero

13.&htab;Victor Manuel Leal

14.&htab;Eder Lascarro

15.&htab;Celso Rojas

16.&htab;Jesús Flores

17.&htab;Angel Amable Arroyabe

18.&htab;Luis Alberto Roa

19.&htab;Meyer Rivas

20.&htab;Pedro Contreras

21.&htab;Faeriel Santana

22.&htab;Jaime Bronstein

23.&htab;José Diomedes Cedeño

24.&htab;Héctor Perdomo Soto

25.&htab;José Rutilio Quintero

1.&htab;Miguel Angel Díaz

2.&htab;Faustino López

3.&htab;Gustavo Alcalde Ospina

&htab;409.&htab;The Committee examined this case at its February 1986 meeting when it reached interim conclusions, approved by the Governing Body at its 232nd Session (February-March 1986) [see 243rd Report, paragraphs 588 to 600]. The Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives' Associations of India (FMRAI) presented additional information in a letter dated 31 March 1986. The Government sent communications dated 9 May and 4 November 1986, in connection with this case.

&htab;410.&htab;India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;411.&htab;At its meeting in February 1986, the Committee examined allegations of anti-union discrimination (33 dimissals; creation by management of a rival union; coercion by management to join the rival union; physical attacks on leaders of the complainant union) against the complainant and its members at the Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. undertaking since 1983. It also considered the Government's reply.

&htab;412.&htab;The Governing Body, on the Committee's recommendation, approved the interim report on this case and, in particular, the following conclusions:

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

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

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

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