Definitive Report - REPORT_NO1, 1952

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  63. 63 The Pan-Cyprian Federation of Labour, constituting itself the spokesman of the Arab Trade Unions Congress, Nazareth, alleges that the military authorities in Israel prohibited the Fifth Annual Congress of their organisations, which was to have been held in Nazareth. It is alleged that no reason for this prohibition was given except that the military authorities would not tolerate the meeting of the Congress.
  64. 64 This action, the complainant alleges, violates the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, is contrary to the resolution on trade union freedom adopted at the Assembly of the United Nations. The organisation requests the United Nations to make an investigation in the case and to defend the trade union rights of Arab workers in Israel.
• Analysis of the Reply
  65. 65 The Israeli Government states in its reply that it has made an investigation and sums up its conclusions as follows:
      • (a) The city of Nazareth, being located in a military zone and under the control of a Military Governor, all public meetings require the prior approval of the Military Governor. In order to secure this approval, a request containing information about the nature and purpose of the meeting must be made to the Military Governor well in advance. Where these formalities are complied with, approval is given unless there are special security grounds for withholding it.
      • (b) When presenting its request for permission two days only before the date proposed for the meeting of the Congress (23 September 1950), the trade union organisation in question refrained from disclosing the nature and purpose of the Congress. For this reason permission was withheld.
      • (c) The formalities required by the military authorities having subsequently been complied with, approval was given and the Congress was held on 14 April 1951.
  66. 66 In view of the fact that in every democratic trade union movement the annual congress of members is the supreme trade union authority which determines the regulations governing the administration and activities of trade unions and which lays down their programme, the prohibition of such congresses would seem to involve an infringement of trade union rights. In this connection reference should be made to Article 3 of the Freedom of Association Convention, 1948, which provides that " workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes ".
  67. 67 Article 8, paragraph 1, of the same Convention, however, provides that " in exercising the rights provided for in this Convention workers and employers and their respective organisations, like other persons or organised collectivities, shall respect the law of the land ". Paragraph 2 of the same Article provides that " the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention ". The question at issue is whether the restrictions prescribed by the Israeli military authorities in respect of the holding of meetings infringe the guarantee laid down in Article 3 analysed above.
  68. 68 In normal times, measures taken by the authorities in order to uphold the law should not in any way result in employers' and workers' organisations being prevented from holding their annual congresses. But it is clear from the very precise communication made by the Government of Israel that the measures taken by the military authorities were not in any way intended to prohibit the Congress but simply to make the holding of the Congress subject to certain clearly specified conditions-notice of the meeting given at a prescribed time, indication of the nature and object of the meeting-conditions which appear to be justifiable in a military zone. Moreover, the fact that it was possible to hold the Congress after complying with the formalities required would appear to demonstrate that the right to hold annual congresses in full freedom has not been infringed in the case in question.