Definitive Report - REPORT_NO130, 1972

1. 17. The complaint presented by the Association of Independent Trade Unions of Belgium is contained in a telegram dated 18 January 1971 and supplemented by a communication of 23 March 1971. The complaint and additional supporting information having been transmitted to it for observations, the Government replied by two communications dated respectively 2 August and 19 November 1971.
2. 18. Belgium has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 19. The complainants alleged that the Government proposed to set up a system of political control of the trade unions in the public services. Subsequently, the complainants stated that Bill No. 889 to organise the relations between the public authorities and the unions of the staff employed by these authorities had been presented by the Government to the Chamber of Representatives and that this Bill violated freedom of association.
2. 20. In the view of the complainants, there were basically two aspects of the Bill in question that were unacceptable. Section 7(3) provided that, in order to be representative on the general public service committees, the workers' organisation must be affiliated to a trade union organisation represented on the National Labour Council. But, stated the complainants, " if we examine the factual situation in Belgium, we see that the only workers' organisations represented on the National Labour Council are three whose links with the three traditional parties (Socialist, Christian Social and Liberal) are common knowledge ". The complainants added that serious as the situation was in the private sector, it was even worse in the public sector. In fact, stated the complainants, by stipulating membership of the National Labour Council, the Bill created discrimination between the unions linked with the traditional parties, i.e. the parties that generally constituted the Government or the local authorities, or in other words the employers of the public service officials, and the other workers' organisations, and in particular the Association of Independent Trade Unions of Belgium.
3. 21. The second principal grievance the complainants had in regard to the Bill was that it provided in sections 7 and 8 for the representative character of the trade unions to be assessed on the basis of the number of paying members in the unions. In the complainants' opinion it was only by holding union elections that the representative character of the workers' organisations should be judged.
4. 22. In a preliminary reply, the Government stated that, since the Bill had been published, a large number of amendments had been put forward, several of them having a direct bearing on certain of the allegations contained in the complaint; it stated further that it found difficulty in submitting its observations on the substance of the matter, since it had no means of knowing the final outcome of the amendments put forward or of the Bill as a whole.
5. 23. In a subsequent communication, the Government pointed out that, in view of the dissolution of the Belgian Parliament, Bill No. 889 had been abandoned.
6. 24. The last communication was signed by the Minister of Employment and Labour, who made the following comments: " May I take this opportunity to point out to you that your Office would be well advised to consider receivable only complaints lodged against measures giving rise to genuine grievances. Even if a Bill interprets a government decision, it is not a final Act. It is still subject to completely free discussion by Parliament, which can take the final decision it thinks most fitting. Consequently, I fail to see how the Committee on Freedom of Association can adopt a position on a particular matter without knowing the definitive situation. Whatever the position, therefore, the complaint lodged by the Association of Independent Trade Unions of Belgium was premature and I can only consider it irreceivable until further notice."

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 25. On this point, the Committee wishes to recall that in the past when dealing with precise and detailed allegations regarding a proposed enactment, it has taken the view that the fact that such allegations relate to a text that does not have the force of law should not itself prevent it from expressing its opinion on the merits of the allegations made. The Committee has considered it desirable that, in such cases, the Government and the complainant should be made aware of the Committee's point of view with regard to the proposed Bill before it is enacted, in view of the fact that it is open to the Government on whose initiative such a matter depends to make any amendments that may seem desirable.