Interim Report - REPORT_NO114, 1970

1. 237. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 4 June 1969 addressed to the ILO by the National Workers' Union of Togo (UNTT), the text of which was communicated to the Government for comment. The Government replied by a communication dated 2 August 1969.
2. 238. Togo has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but not the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Action Taken by the Authorities against the National Workers' Union of Togo
  239. 239 Attached to the UNTT's communication of 4 June 1969-signed by its General Secretary, Mr. A. Salami-is a memorandum containing allegations of infringements of freedom of association. The complaining organisation states that since its foundation in 1945 it has represented wage earners in the public sector and private enterprise, and has always been exclusively responsible for representing the workers on all the state joint committees and for appointing staff delegates, except for the teaching profession. The state of affairs denounced by the UNTT has existed, according to the complaint, since the reappointment of its officers in May 1968, when the present General Secretary was elected at a congress. No sooner had Mr. Salami been elected, continues the complaining organisation, than he was arrested by the Army and banished to a town on the frontier. A general strike was, proclaimed which lasted until his release.
  240. 240 According to the complaint, the Head of State, who happened to be abroad at the time, returned to the country, attributed the incident to " sections of the Army which had acted without authorisation " and ratified the General Secretary's election, authorising the Congress to meet again and close its session. This was not the end of the affair, however, as since then the UNTT's contacts with the authorities have become more and more difficult, indeed impossible, because of dilatory procedures.
  241. 241 The complainants allege that freedom of association has been infringed in the following ways, among others: supervision of union meetings by police officers; refusal by high authorities to grant audiences to settle urgent matters referred to the UNTT by, its member unions, and the exertion of pressure upon the workers to get them to approach the Government direct, without going through the unions, the aim being to discredit the latter; direct intervention by the Army in labour disputes, as in the case of the Kpémé phosphates industry; the " unfortunate intervention " of the Head of State in the affairs of a particular undertaking " to ratify the illegal dismissal of staff delegates "; the arbitrary detention for four days of two members of the UNTT Executive on the pretext of the need to investigate something which had nothing to do with them; the humiliating treatment to which " the leader of one of our local sections " was subjected " for trade union activities which the authorities alleged were political "; the systematic prevention of journeys for study or information purposes or to represent the General Secretary (as on the occasion of the Regional Economic Conference at Ouagadougou organised by the Afro-American Labour Center).
  242. 242 The complaining organisation also alleges that the Government failed to take its claims into account with respect to the appointment of the Workers' delegate to the International Labour Conference.
  243. 243 In its communication to the Director-General dated 2 August 1969, the Government, referring to the transmittal to it of the text of the allegations, expresses its great appreciation of this procedure, " which offers yet further evidence of [the ILO's] unflagging efforts to safeguard the rights of all the parties associated with [the] Organisation ". The Government adds: "Your role being, however, essentially one of conciliation of these parties in the event of conflict, I can assure you that this case arose simply out of a misunderstanding between the UNTT and the Government and that a final settlement has already been reached with respect to the problems which were too hastily brought to your attention, as attested to by the attached communiqué from the UNTT ".
  244. 244 Attached to the Government's communication is a mimeographed copy of a document which reads in full as follows:
• National Workers' Union of Togo (UNTT), Lome, P.B. No. 163. The Officers of the Trade Union Council of the UNTT, meeting at the Labour Exchange on 4 June 1969, with the assistance of the General Secretaries, following a meeting with the government authorities, consider the dispute between the UNTT and the Government with regard to infringement of freedom of association to be settled, and request the ILO to deem its complaint of 3 June 1969 to be null and void. Lome, 15 June 1969. [There follow the signatures of the chairman and minutes clerk of the meeting and the General Secretary, Mr. Salami.
  245. 245 Bearing in mind a statement made by the Government as part of its observations, the Committee wishes to begin by pointing out to the Government that the text of the UNTT's complaint was transmitted to it in accordance with the procedure for the examination of complaints of infringement of freedom of association established by agreement between the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations, whereby the Committee on Freedom of Association, set up by the Governing Body of the ILO, examines such complaints in the first instance and reports back to the Governing Body. Under this procedure the purpose of the request to the Government of Togo for its observations is to give the Government an opportunity to express its views upon the allegations, so as to enable the Committee and the Governing Body to assess their merits to determine whether or not they are well founded.
  246. 246 The allegations made by the UNTT refer to specific acts by the authorities, such as interference with a trade union congress, the arrest and banishment of the newly elected General Secretary, the detention of two members of the Executive and intervention by the authorities in labour disputes in such a manner as to be deemed by the complainants to constitute an infringement of freedom of association. It is further alleged that the General Secretary of the UNTT was prevented from travelling abroad " on study, information or representation missions ". The allegations also refer, in more general terms, to other matters such as police supervision of union meetings and the policy allegedly followed by the Government to undermine the influence of the unions by refusing to receive their representatives and discrediting them in the eyes of their members.
  247. 247 The Government makes no comment upon these various allegations, but supplies a document stating tersely that on 4 June 1969 -i.e. on the very date the complaint was despatched-the Officers of the UNTT, following a meeting with the authorities, decided to drop the complaint. The document in which this decision is recorded bears the signatures of three UNTT officials, including the General Secretary, who had signed the complaint filed with the ILO. No communication in this respect has been received from the complaining organisation itself.
  248. 248 Consequently the Committee has no precise information as to the reasons which led the Officers of the UNTT to consider that the matter had been settled and accordingly to decide to withdraw their complaint.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 249. The Committee has always considered that the withdrawal of a complaint created a situation whose scope ought to be fully investigated. It has expressed the view that the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw its complaint, while constituting a factor to which the greatest attention should be paid, was not in itself sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. The same position was adopted by the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association when it was dealing in 1966 with a case relating to Greece. Both the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission and the Committee, basing their findings in particular on a principle established by the Governing Body as long ago as 1937, pointed out that they are free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to decide whether they warrant the belief that the withdrawal is made in complete independence.
2. 250. In these circumstances the Committee, wishing to be in possession of all the facts before submitting its recommendations to the Governing Body, deems it necessary to ascertain in greater detail the reasons why-according to information supplied by the Government-the complaining organisation has decided to withdraw its complaint.