Definitive Report - REPORT_NO4, 1953

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  112. 112 The complainant makes the two following allegations:
       • (a) The police of the colony of Grenada, reinforced by police brought from neighbouring islands and by troops landed for the purpose, brutally suppressed an orderly strike in February 1951. Several persons were killed or wounded and others were arrested.
       • (b) The leaders of the unions, and in particular, the President and the Secretary of the Union of Mental and Manual Workers were deported to an island near Grenada.
  113. Analysis of the First and Supplementary Reply
  113. 113 The Government, in its reply dated 5 February 1952, put forward the following arguments.
  114. 114 With regard to the first allegation the Government states that a disturbing situation developed when the Grenada Mental and Manual Workers' Union objected to an agreement made between the employers and the Grenada Trade Union Council, which, up to that time, had been recognised as representing estate workers. The Government maintained close contact with the parties concerned but widespread strikes developed, accompanied by intimidation, interference with the repairs of communications and threats of violence. Public order being endangered, the Government was obliged to proclaim a state of emergency. Acts of violence, looting and arson none the less occurred. The police, reinforced by small parties of police from two other islands, having tried vainly to disperse one crowd by means of tear gas, were obliged to open fire. The naval personnel who were landed played no part in this other than taking over guard duties at key points. No troops were sent to the island during the strike. Three persons were killed, and three others wounded. On another occasion one of a crowd raiding an estate was killed ; two persons were wounded in another incident. Some persons were arrested and brought to trial for acts of violence, looting and arson. The Government concludes that the police did not intervene to break the strike, but only to restore order.
  115. 115 As for the second allegation, the Government affirms that the detention of the two union leaders was a precautionary measure taken by virtue of the Government's emergency powers assumed consequent upon the proclamation of a state of emergency, and that they were freed as soon as the state of emergency was ended when the disturbances ceased. The Union of Mental and Manual Workers continued to operate under its original leaders. There has been no restriction of the established rights of the unions, and both the unions primarily concerned resumed negotiations with the employers and concluded advantageous agreements.
  116. 116 Regarding the second allegation the Committee, at its second meeting in March 1952, reached preliminary conclusions which are contained in paragraph 125 below but, with regard to the first allegation, the Committee deemed it necessary, before making its recommendations to the Governing Body, to request the Government for further information concerning the circumstances in which persons were killed and wounded, any subsequent enquiry made into these events by the authorities and concerning the judgments delivered in the cases of those persons who were brought to trial for acts of violence, looting and arson after the Government's proclamation of a state of emergency in February 1951. The Director-General wrote accordingly to the United Kingdom Government, on 20 March 1952, requesting further information on these points, and the Government replied by letter of 23 May 1952.
  117. 117 In its further reply, dated 23 May 1952, the Government states that, as indicated in its previous comments, the strike was not orderly but was accompanied by a number of acts of violence, looting and arson, obliging the Government to declare a state of emergency. On 23 February 1951, a hostile crowd engaged in looting attacked a small police party which was compelled to open fire ; two persons were wounded. On 5 March a looter attacked a night watchman on patrol with a cutlass and was shot dead by a policeman in order to save the night watchman's life. On 15 March a number of people engaged in looting estates were arrested by the police and taken at once before the magistrate by whom they were sentenced to imprisonment. A hostile crowd gathered and marched on the courthouse, shouting threats that they would burn the magistrate inside it. Police barring the road were attacked with stones, bottles and cutlasses and, after unsuccessfully trying to disperse the crowd with baton charges and tear smoke, were compelled to fire once. Three persons were killed and three wounded. After this incident about half the police needed hospital treatment for injuries received. These were the only occasions on which persons were killed or wounded by police action. No general enquiry was held but the circumstances in which persons lost their lives were investigated by the normal coroners' courts. After the incident of 5 March the jury found that " deceased was killed by policeman in defence of the night watchman " and after the incident of 15 March the jury found that the " killing was a result of the dispersal of a riotous assembly ". In both cases the police were exonerated.
  118. 118 The total number of cases arising from the disorders was 230, details of which are as follows:
• Cases Cases Prosecutions
• Offence reported prosecuted leading to convictions
• Acts of violence, including shooting, wound
• ing, robberies, obstruction and assault . . . . 58 35 31
• Arson . . . .................... 16 1 1
• Theft, including housebreaking, cattle
• stealing, produce stealing, receiving and un
• lawful possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 40 36
• Other offences, including unlawful as
• sembling, carrying of offensive weapons,
• trespassing, damaging threats . . . . . . . . . . 45 41 31
• Total . . . 230 117 99
• In the 99 cases shown in the third column, a total of 197 persons were convicted. Of these 153 were punished by fine and 44 by imprisonment. Fines ranged from $20 upwards to $1,000 in one receiving case. Prison sentences ranged from one month to a maximum of five years, except for a ten-year sentence imposed in a case of attempted murder. Sixteen prison sentences were for periods not exceeding three months and the average sentences for the remaining serious offences were rather under two years.
  119. 119 These details clearly show, states the Government, the sort of situation prevailing at the time of the strike. Government and private buildings to the value of some £18,000 were destroyed by arson and many other unsuccessful attempts at arson were made. The total damage arising during the strike has been estimated at £65,000 but owing to the extent of theft of crops no firm estimate can be made. Towards the end of the strike, and many days after the termination of the state of emergency, large gangs of men armed with sticks and cutlasses, and reported to number as many as 70 persons, were openly thieving and demanding money or bagged goods for ready sale. Notwithstanding the great strain on the police force which this involved the local Government resisted appeals that military forces should be brought in to Grenada.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 120. The United Kingdom Government has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947, in respect of Grenada.
2. 121. With regard to the first allegation the versions of the events given by the complainant and by the Government are dissimilar. While the complainant states that consequent upon a strike " remarkable for its discipline" the police, reinforced by troops, treated the strikers " with unparalleled brutality " and that the troops opened fire on them with the results already noted, the Government in its first reply furnishes certain details concerning the circumstances under which the incidents took place.
3. 122. In its further reply the Government gives precise details of incidents of looting, one case of a crowd of looters attacking the police and another of a looter attacking a night watchman. In the latter case the looter was killed by a policeman and the coroner's jury found that the " deceased was killed by policeman in defence of the night watchman ". Later, when looters were sentenced in court, a hostile crowd threatened to burn down the court and the police defending it were attacked with stones, cutlasses, etc., and, when baton charges and tear gas failed to disperse the crowd, they were forced to fire and three persons were killed. The coroner's jury found that this killing " was a result of the dispersal of a riotous assembly ". In both cases of fatalities the coroner's juries exonerated the police.
4. 123. The Government also gives full details of the 230 prosecutions undertaken for acts of violence including shooting, wounding, robberies, obstruction and assault, for arson, theft, housebreaking, unlawful assembly, carrying offensive weapons, etc. One hundred and ninety-seven persons were convicted and fined or imprisoned. Damage to the value of at least £65,000, was done during the disorders, including damage through arson to Government and private buildings to the value of £18,000.
5. 124. While emphasising the advantages of an immediate and independent special enquiry into cases which may have a bearing on the exercise of trade union rights in which loss of life is involved, the Committee notes that, in the present case, the ordinary legal procedure was followed and the coroner's juries found that the action of the police was justified. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the complainants have not furnished proof of a violation of trade union rights which would call for further examination of the matter.
6. 125. With regard to the second allegation, the Committee noted that, according to the Government's reply, the two union leaders were temporarily detained, but not deported, under powers assumed upon the declaration of a state of emergency, and that they were released on termination of the emergency, but that the Government did not state that they were involved in the acts of intimidation, sabotage and threats of violence which caused a state of emergency to be proclaimed, simply stating that the detention was a " precautionary measure ". In these circumstances, the Committee, while considering that the facts alleged, and admitted by the Government, might have called for further examination if they still continued to exist, considers, in view of the restoration of normal conditions, that there is no longer occasion to recommend to the Governing Body any further examination of this part of the complaint.