Definitive Report - REPORT_NO40, 1960

1. 7. In two communications dated 14 March and 7 October 1957, the World Federation of Trade Unions and the Cameroons General Confederation of Labour lodged complaints with the I.L.O containing allegations of infringements of the exercise of trade union rights in the Cameroons. In two communications dated 7 May and 30 October 1957, the French Government made observations on the points raised in the complaints.
2. 8. At its 19th Session (Geneva, February 1958) the Committee requested the Director-General to obtain additional information from the French Government before it made its recommendations to the Governing Body, and decided that it would make its report on the case when it was in possession of the information in question. The Government communicated its reply in a letter dated 21 July 1958.
3. 9. At its 20th Session (Geneva, November 1958) the Committee made recommendations to the Governing Body concerning some of the complainants' allegations, namely those relating to measures taken against militant trade unionists and workers and those relating to refusal to bargain with the Cameroons General Confederation of Labour. The following paragraphs therefore refer solely to the only allegation still pending, relating to intervention in trade union meetings by the authorities. The most recent observations of the Government on this matter are contained in a letter dated 27 May 1959.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 10. The complainants allege in general terms that it is impossible to hold a public trade union meeting in the Cameroons without interference from the police. In a first series of observations the Government replied that the frequency of trade union meetings in the Cameroons was enough in itself to prove this assertion untrue, if any proof were necessary. In this first series of observations the Government, however, refrained from replying to the specific allegation by the W.F.T.U that a police official acting under orders from his superiors attended the meeting of the Administrative Committee of the Cameroons General Confederation of Labour on 12 January 1957 at Douala in order "to hear what the trade union leaders had got to say".
2. 11. In view of the fact that the complainants had on this point made a specific allegation, the Committee, at its 20th Session (Geneva, November 1958), considered it appropriate to request the French Government to submit observations on this particular aspect of the case, and, pending receipt of such observations, recommended the Governing Body to decide to adjourn consideration of this aspect of the complaint.
3. 12. Having been informed of the decision to this effect taken by the Governing. Body, the Government communicated its reply in a letter dated 27 May 1959. In this letter, the Government states that the information which it has obtained shows that no official of the police services attended the meeting of 12 January 1957, which was, the Government says, of a private nature and consisted of only seven or eight persons. The Government adds " the presence of an outsider at such a meeting was moreover physically impossible without the consent of the persons concerned ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 13. In a large number of cases the Committee has held that the right of trade unions to meet freely in their own premises without previous authorisation and without supervision by the public authorities constitutes a fundamental element of freedom of association, thus implying that an obligation placed on workers' and employers' organisations to accept the presence of a representative of the authorities at their meetings would beyond any possible doubt constitute a restriction on the free activity of such organisations.
2. 14. However, in the present case the Committee is faced with two contradictory and equally categorical statements. One of the complainants, the W.F.T.U, states that a police official appeared at a trade union meeting and stated that he had had instructions to attend it, whereas the Government states that on the contrary no official attended the meeting in question, adding that in view of the smallness of the meeting, which the Government states was attended by only seven or eight persons, it would hardly be conceivable for an outsider to have been able to attend without the consent of the persons concerned.