Interim Report - REPORT_NO135, March 1973

1. 196. The Committee has already examined this case at its May 1972 Session, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 84 to 102 of its 132nd Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 187th Session (Geneva, June 1972).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 197. The complainants alleged that the Government of British Honduras had resorted to unfair labour practices by taking certain action intended to interfere with the workers' freedom to join the organisation of their choice.
2. 198. When it last examined the case, the Committee found that the complainant union had requested the holding of a poll among workers of the Citrus Company, upon the expiry of the current collective agreement, to determine which union should represent them in collective bargaining. The Committee also noted, from a letter from the Labour Commissioner to the Company, that out of some 1,500 persons employed by the company, 1,035 were members of the complainant union. The Committee, therefore, considered that a prima facie case seemed to have existed for the holding of a poll. Moreover, the Committee noted the terms of a letter, addressed by the complainant union to the Company, in which it was clearly stated that the Company had taken up the Union's request with the Labour Commissioner and that, when the agreement expired, a poll could be held as suggested by the Union. In the Committee's opinion the terms of this communication were unequivocal and showed that there was genuine willingness on the part of the Company to meet the Union's request for the holding of a poll. The Committee also noted that, in a subsequent letter from the Company to the Union, the Company had stated that as a result of lengthy discussions with the officers of the Ministry concerning the representation question, it had been advised by the Ministry that it was not necessary to set up the machinery required for a change in representation to take place. The Company added that it had been instructed to continue negotiations with the Southern Christian Union, a rival of the complainant union.
3. 199. In view of the foregoing, the Committee concluded that the opportunity had not been afforded to the workers concerned to make a clear decision concerning the union which should represent them for collective bargaining purposes.
4. 200. The Committee consequently recalled the importance that 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 is 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 is desirable that there should be the possibility of a review of the factual basis on which that right or power was granted. In the absence of such a possibility, the Committee added, 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.
5. 201. The Committee also 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 purposes of collective bargaining, such polls should always be held in cases where there are doubts as to which union the workers wish to represent them.
6. 202. In its final conclusions, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the considerations set out in the two preceding paragraphs And, in the light of these considerations, to request the Government to take appropriate action as soon as possible for the determination of the majority union in the Citrus Company and to keep the Committee informed of any action taken in this connection.
7. 203. In addition, having noted that the Government had not submitted its observations on a further allegation relating to the dismissal of workers who went on strike in October 1971, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations on this aspect of the case .2
8. 204. These conclusions having been brought to the attention of the Government, the latter replied in a communication dated 3 November 1972.
9. 205. With regard to the questions referred to in paragraphs 198 to 202 above, the Government states that it has taken note of the views expressed by the Committee, but believes the suggestion that a poll should have been held in the case under reference to be due to a misunderstanding. The Government goes on to say that, at the time in question, negotiations for a new contract between the management and the Southern Christian Union were in progress, and that "the Government is not aware of evidence to support the claim by the Democratic Independent Union that there existed doubts concerning which union the workers wished to represent them". In conclusion, the Government states that it does not think it possible or necessary to institute a poll during the continuance of the contract "negotiated last year ... for two years".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 206. The Committee considers that the Government's reply provides no new information which would invalidate the conclusions it reached following its last examination of this aspect of the case, which were endorsed by the Governing Body.
2. 207. The Committee, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to reaffirm its previous conclusion that, in the present case, the workers were not afforded the opportunity of choosing the union which should represent them in the collective bargaining process, and to deplore the fact that the Government should have declined to take the necessary measures to remedy a situation which infringes the right of workers' organisations to organise their activities and is contrary to the principle of promoting collective bargaining. In addition, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to urge the Government, upon the expiry of the present collective agreement, to take appropriate action for the determination of the majority union in the Citrus Company and to request it to keep the Governing Body informed of any action taken in this connection.
3. 208. With regard to the questions referred to in paragraph 203 above (the complainants alleged that the Company had dismissed a large number of strikers, without any severance payment, despite the fact that many of them had been employed by the Company for a considerable number of years), the Government, in its reply, states that it is "unaware of any representation having been made to it by the Democratic Independent Union on this subject, nor is it aware of dismissals having been made due to victimisation".
4. 209. Faced with contradictory statements from the complainants and the Government, the Committee considers that it might be advisable to give the complainants an opportunity of commenting on the Government's observations concerning this aspect of the case; it has, therefore, decided to send a request to this effect to the complainants.