Definitive Report - REPORT_NO160, March 1977

1. 104. This case was examined by the Committee at its sessions in May 1972, February 1973, November 1973, and May 1974; at its session in May 1974 (144th Report), the Committee reached definitive conclusions in respect of the case.
2. 105. By communications dated 14 August 1974 and 24 September 1975, the Government transmitted certain further information concerning the matters at issue and in a communication dated 13 October 1975 the complainant organisation presented additional allegations relating to the case. At its meeting in November 1975 the Committee took note of the information which had been supplied by the Government and requested the latter to transmit its observations on the further allegations made by the complainants. The Government replied in a communication dated 10 May 1976.
3. 106. The Government of the United Kingdom has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), 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), and has declared these Conventions to be applicable without modification to Belize.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 107. The case concerned the question of representational rights for collective bargaining in the Citrus Company and the complainant union's allegation that, although it was the most representative union, the Government had refused to hold a poll among the workers of the company in order to determine which union should represent them in collective bargaining.
2. 108. In this connection, the Committee had recalled the importance which should be attached to the principle that employers should recognise, for collective bargaining purposes, organisations that are representative of workers in a particular industry. The Committee also expressed the view that if there was a change in the relative strength of unions competing for a preferential right or the power to represent the workers exclusively for collective bargaining purposes, then it would be desirable that there should be a possibility of reviewing the factual basis on which that right or power was granted. The Committee added that, in the absence of such a possibility, a majority of the workers concerned might be represented by a union which, for an unduly long period, could be prevented - either in fact or in law - from organising its administration and activities with a view to fully furthering and defending the interests of its members. The Committee further pointed out that in cases where the authorities have the power to hold polls for determining the majority union which is to represent the workers for the purpose of collective bargaining, such polls ought always to be held in cases where there are doubts as to which union the workers wish to represent them.
3. 109. At its session in May 1972 the Committee, on the basis of the information at its disposal, had recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to take appropriate action as soon as possible for the determination of the majority union in the Citrus Company. In February 1973 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to regret the fact that the Government had declined to take the necessary measures to remedy the situation which was both contrary to the principle of promoting collective bargaining and brought into question the right of workers' organisations to organise their activities. It also recommended the Governing Body to urge the Government, upon the expiration of the then current collective agreement, to take appropriate action for the determination of the majority union in the Citrus Company and to request the Government to keep it informed of any action taken in that connection.
4. 110. At its session in May 1974, the Committee, noting that another collective agreement had been signed under government auspices without prior determination of the majority organisation as requested by the Democratic Independent Union, recommended the Governing Body to inform the Government that it deeply deplored the situation and to request the Government to rectify matters by ordering, as soon as possible, a poll amongst the workers of the Citrus Company in order to determine which union these workers wished to represent them.
5. 111. Commenting on the Committee's conclusions, the Government, in its communication of 14 August 1974, stated that it had been unwilling to intervene where the machinery for the negotiation of a renewal of a collective agreement was in operation. The Government explained that the collective agreement then in force was due to expire on 2 November 1973 and that negotiations for its renewal had been undertaken since 3 October 1973. The holding of polls, added the Government was not a matter about which the Government had the inclination, nor the legal authority, to impose its wishes on the parties concerned. Polls were held when all the parties agreed on the need for the determination of representation and where the management agreed to abide by the result thereof. The Government stated that no such agreement was present in this case for the simple reason that the allegations of support for the Democratic Independent Union were not only inflated but fanciful. The continuous contentment of workers in the citrus industry and their acceptance of existing union leadership over so long a period seemed clearly to negate the contentions of the DIU. The Government saw no good reason to depart from its policy of respect for the sanctity of collective agreements by imposing a poll on the Citrus Company, nor had it any lawful authority to do so.
6. 112. In a further communication, dated 24 September 1975, the Government reiterated its readiness to conduct a poll whenever circumstances merited this action being taken. The Government supplied information concerning the recent holding of polls in the sugar and banana industries (in the latter of which the Democratic Independent Union obtained a clear majority). This information, stated the Government, should indicate the sincerity of its intention to uphold the principles of freedom of association.
7. 113. The complainant union, in a communication of 13 October 1975, referred to the continuing refusal of the Government to hold a poll in the citrus industry and to the fact that another two-year collective agreement had been signed.
8. 114. The Government, in a communication dated 10 May 1976, repeated that it was its policy to satisfy requests for polls, whenever a request was received from interested parties on behalf of the workers in a particular industry. No request, however, had been received from the Democratic Independent Union for a poll in the citrus industry.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 115. Having taken note of the additional information transmitted both by the Government and the complainants since it last examined this case, the Committee would recall that, on its first examination of the case in May 1972, it had found from the evidence available that a prima facie case seemed to have existed for the holding of a poll in the citrus industry, and that the management of the Citrus Company itself was not opposed to such a poll being held. In particular, in a letter signed by the Labour Commissioner on 29 September 1971, the Labour Commissioner had certified that, of the 1,500 employees in the company, some 1,035 were members of the complainant union. Again, in May 1974, the Committee had before it a letter, dated 17 October 1973, addressed to the manager of the Citrus Company by the complainant union specifically requesting that a poll be held when the collective agreement then in force had expired. A copy of this letter had been sent to the Ministry of Labour.
2. 116. Although the Government has supplied information that polls have been held in other industries, the Committee considers on the information available that no opportunity has been afforded to the workers in the Citrus Company to determine for themselves the union which will represent them in the collective bargaining process, thus calling into question the principles concerning the right of workers to organise their activities in full freedom and the promotion of free collective bargaining.