Definitive Report - REPORT_NO56, 1961

1. 64. In a telegram addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 25 January 1961 and transmitted by him to the I.L.O the Gambia Workers' Union alleges that a union leader was arrested on the occasion of a recent general strike and requests intervention. In a letter dated 20 February 1961 the Director-General of the I.L.O informed the complaining organisation of its right, under the procedure for the examination of allegations of infringements of trade union rights, to furnish further information in substantiation of its complaint within a period of one month. The complaining organisation has made no reply.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 65. In a communication dated 13 April 1961 the Government of the United Kingdom states that on 14 January 1961 a wage claim by the Gambia Workers' Union was the subject of negotiations in the Commercial Joint Industrial Council. A stoppage of work on certain ships followed without warning three days later. On 24 January 1961 all daily-rated personnel in Bathurst stopped work. No notice of any intended strike action was given at any Joint Industrial Council meeting.
2. 66. The Government declares that on 25 January 1961 a procession, for which police permission had been refused for reasons of public safety, took place and entry was forced into the Marine Dockyard, where government staff were attacked and injured. Mr. Jallow, the union leader who took part in the procession, was arrested and charged with incitement to riot. He was released on bail but was subsequently convicted by the court and fined £75. The strike was called off on 28 January 1961.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 67. The allegations in the present case do not relate to the exercise of the right to strike as such. Although a general strike was called, according to the Government, without notice, no claim is put forward by the complainants that any attempt was made to break the strike. The events which apparently led to the arrest of the trade union leader concerned, Mr. Jallow, were incidents arising in the course of a public procession for which the police had refused permission for reasons of public safety.
2. 68. In many cases that have come before it the Committee has emphasised that the freedom of trade union meeting constitutes one of the fundamental elements of trade union rights and that the organisation of public meetings, for purely trade union objects, is certainly an important element in the activities of workers' organisations. With regard to the holding of public processions, however, the Committee has taken the view that the prohibition of a demonstration on a public highway, in a busy quarter when it might involve danger of disturbance, should not be regarded as an infringement of a trade union right a In Case No. 178 (United Kingdom-Aden) the Committee came to a similar conclusion. In the present case, where a procession forbidden by the police resulted, according to the Government, in entry being forced into a dockyard, where government employees were attacked and injured, it appears to the Committee that the prohibition of the procession should not be regarded as an infringement of a trade union right. Even in these circumstances, it would not appear that Mr. Jallow was arrested for having taken part in an unlawful procession but for having incited a riot.
3. 69. In a considerable number of cases, the Committee has emphasised the importance which it has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions. In Case No. 178 (United Kingdom-Aden), however, where the evidence showed that a trade union official had been found guilty by the competent court, after proceedings attended by all the guarantees of due process of law, of the offence of instigating riots and disorder in connection with a strike, the Committee took the view that the complainants had not offered proof to show that his prosecution involved any infringement of the exercise of trade union rights. In the present case in which the complainants have submitted no evidence whatever for the purpose of showing that the arrest was not justified, and in which it would seem from the Government's reply that Mr. Jallow was arrested, charged, released on bail and then convicted by the ordinary court of the offence of incitement to riot and fined, the Committee has come to a similar conclusion.