Definitive Report - REPORT_NO158, November 1976

1. 23. The complaint by the National Union of Technical and Vocational Instructors (SNETP-CGT) was made in a communication dated 23 June 1975. The Government communicated its observations in a letter dated 18 February 1976, which arrived too late for the Committee to study the case at its session of 23 February 1976.
2. 24. The French Government 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 also the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) and has stated that these Conventions are applicable, without modification, to the French territory of the Afars and the Issas.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 25. The complainants alleged that Mr. Lemoine, an instructor in the Technical Training College at Djibouti, had received notice from the Ministry of Education of his permanent transfer back to France, on the eve of his departure on administrative leave, on 6 June 1975. According to the SNETP-CGT, the notice, which was received through colleagues during the curfew and not from his superior, was tantamount to expulsion and breach of contract (the contract was to end at the close of the 1975-76 school year). Mr. Lemoine was not shown his file and was not given an official reason for this decision. The complainants believed that the real reason was his membership of the SNETP-CGT.
2. 26. The complainants added that Mr. Bruni, also an instructor in the Technical Training College at Djibouti, had been informed of the same decisions on 18 June 1975. He was the SNETP-CGT representative in his college and a few months ago the complainant had to inform the director of the college officially of Mr. Bruni's responsibilities so that they could be taken into consideration. The SNETP-CGT requested the reinstatement of these two instructors in the Technical Training College at Djibouti.
3. 27. In its reply, the Government pointed out that, under article 16 of Decree No. 50-1348 of 27 October 1950 (kept in force by article 56 of the General Civil Service Regulations), the compulsory repatriation of an official serving overseas is not a disciplinary measure in the same way as a compulsory transfer. Furthermore, under article 7 of the general Convention concerning the secondment of staff to the French territory of the Afars and the Issas (concluded under article 46 of the Act of 3 July 1967 which establishes the status of this territory), the president of the Council of Ministers reserves the right to end the term of office of an official at any moment during his stay. The Government stated that these provisions were known to those concerned, who had agreed to work under these particular conditions in a territory which already enjoyed a considerable degree of domestic autonomy.
4. 28. Without trying to avoid the responsibilities arising from its international obligations as regards labour matters in general and as regards the protection of trade union rights in particular, overseas territories included, the Government considers itself justified in pointing out certain conditions of service in a territory that is sufficiently close to independence for it to be impossible to insist on the continued service of public servants against the wishes of the local authorities who are by agreement and by law competent where both labour legislation and secondary and technical education are concerned. The Government added that Mr. Bruni and Mr. Lemoine had been reinstated in the departments which seconded them, without any difficulty, and had been given normal assignments at home. It also stated that if they considered that they had suffered moral or financial prejudice on account of their compulsory repatriation, they were legally entitled to sue for compensation in the appropriate French courts.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 29. The Committee notes that the complainants merely state that Mr. Lemoine and Mr. Bruni have been compulsorily repatriated because of their trade union affiliation, without giving any precise facts in support of this statement. The Committee, accordingly, considers that the SNETP-CGT has not supplied evidence that this measure, to which it refers in general terms, is related to the union membership of these two persons.