Definitive Report - REPORT_NO1, 1952

A. The complainants' allegations

1. Analysis of the Complaint

1. 38. The complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions alleges that trade union rights have been infringed in the following respects:
   • (a) By a Ministerial Order of 3 September 1949 the creation of federations of trade unions is claimed to be subjected to prior authorisation by the Ministry of Social Affairs.
   • (b) By the same Order, the activities of trade union federations, it is alleged, must be carried on " in the common interest of the whole profession ", the term " profession " being deemed to include both employers and workers.
2. Analysis of the Reply
3. 39. With regard to the first allegation, the Egyptian Government maintains in its reply that the Order in question does not make the establishment of a trade union federation subject to prior approval by the Department of Labour, but provides only for registration of the federation after the approval by the trade unions concerned of the creation of the federation. The Government adds that registration is automatically completed if the Department of Labour does not within one month take the necessary steps for the registration or presents no objections. The Department of Labour can raise objections only where all the information required by the laws and regulations governing trade unions has not been forwarded with the request for registration. Once the requested information is supplied, the Department of Labour must undertake the registration immediately.
4. 40. With regard to the second allegation, the Egyptian Government maintains that the Ministerial Order in question contains no provision requiring that a federation shall carry on its activities " in the common interest of the entire occupation " and that the term " occupation " applies both to employers and workers. The Government points out that the only text referring to the objective of trade union organisations is Article 3 of Act No. 85 of 1942 analysed below.
5. 41. The Government recalls that it informed the Office, at the time when the Freedom of Association Convention, 1948, was under discussion, that the restrictions contained in Act No. 85 of 1942 respecting trade unions were in no way intended to restrain freedom of association but had the sole object of establishing a certain supervision of trade unions in their own interest, in view of the fact that the trade union movement has only recently been introduced in Egypt.
6. 42. The Egyptian Government forwarded the Ministerial Order complained against together with its reply.

1. Conclusions

1. 43. In support of the two allegations formulated by the complaints, the latter have referred only to the Ministerial Order of 3 September 1949 analysed above. Hence, reference has to be made to the text of this Order for the purpose of forming an opinion as to whether the evidence is sufficient to justify further examination of the complaint.

1. Allegation relating to the creation of a federation being made subject to prior approval.

1. 44. It is clear from the text of the Order brought into question, which the Egyptian Government forwarded with its reply, that the creation of a federation is not made subject to prior approval but to the formality of registration as a result of which the federation acquires legal personality.
2. 45. Article 2 of the Ministerial Order of 3 September 1949 lays down two conditions for the registration of a federation.
3. 46. In the first place, the demand for registration must be accompanied by the documents enumerated in Article 13 of Act No. 85 of 1942 respecting trade unions of employees. This article is as follows:

1. 47. In connection with this text it is to be observed that, in its report to the 1948 Conference, the Committee on Freedom of Association and Industrial Relations declared that:
2. ...the States would remain free to provide such formalities in their legislation as appeared appropriate to ensure the normal functioning of industrial organisations. Consequently, the formalities prescribed by national regulations concerning the Constitution and functioning of workers' and employers' organisations are compatible with the provisions of that Convention, provided, of course, that the provisions in such regulations do not infringe the guarantees laid down in the Convention.

1. 48. The Committee has observed that, while the requirements contained in Article 13 of Act No. 85 of 1942 set forth above may appear to be very detailed, they do not appear to be of such a nature as to infringe the guarantees laid down by the Convention.
2. 49. In the second place, the demand for registration must be accompanied by a copy of the resolution of affiliation taken by the General Assembly of each of the unions which form the federation.
3. 50. This requirement, fairly frequently met with in practice because it reserves to the General Assembly of the members, in their capacity as the highest authority in the trade unions, the right to decide as to their affiliation with the federation, also does not appear to be contrary to the guarantees laid down in the Convention.

1. Allegation claiming that the freedom of action of federations is restricted

1. 51. With regard to this second allegation, the Committee has observed that the Ministerial Order contains no provision as to the activities which must be carried on by federations. As the Egyptian Government points out in its reply, the only text having reference to the objects of trade unions is Article 3 of Act No. 85 of 1942, respecting trade unions of employees. This article is as follows:

1. 52. In order to judge the scope of this Article it should be compared with the text of Article 10 of the Freedom of Association Convention which defines workers' and employers' organisations as follows:

1. 53. At first sight there does not appear to be any incompatibility between Article 3 of the Egyptian law and Article 10 of the Convention.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 54. The Committee therefore recommends that the Governing Body should decide that the present case does not merit any more detailed examination in view of the fact that the complainant has not offered sufficient evidence to justify further examination of the matter and the Egyptian Government has given a satisfactory reply to the allegations made.