Interim Report - REPORT_NO158, November 1976

1. 271. The complaint of the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) is contained in a communication dated 12 September 1975. In further communications, dated 22 September 1975 and 20 October 1975, the WCOTP transmitted additional information in connection with the complaint. Allegations relating to the complaint were made by the World Confederation of Labour in a communication dated 28 November 1975.
2. 272. The complaints and additional information were duly transmitted to the Government, which sent its observations thereon in a communication dated 30 January 1976.
3. 273. Benin has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organisation Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 274. In its communication of 12 September 1975, the WCOTP states that its complaint concerns its affiliate, the National Union of Public School Teachers of Benin (SYNEPDA), which is a member of the National Union of Workers of Benin (UNSTD). The WCOTP explains that the SYNEPDA had called a strike on 21 and 22 April 1975 - which was followed by 98 per cent of public school teachers - following the systematic refusal of the Minister for National Education to discuss claims which the union had been making for over two years.
2. 275. On 29 May 1975, continues the WCOTP, five members of the UNSTD decided to dismiss the Secretary-General of that organisation, Mr. Timothée Adanlin, who is also Secretary-General of the SYNEPDA, on the pretext that SYNEPDA had violated the rules of the UNSTD in not informing the UNSTD in advance of the decision to strike. This accusation, according to the WCOTP, was false since one of the persons making it had actually signed the document by which the UNSTD had been informed of the decision to strike.
3. 276. The WCOTP adds that the unions affiliated to the UNSTD took a strong stand against this illegal decision to dismiss the Secretary-General, and the Government, which did not like the stand that was being taken, decided to deal severely with the five members of the UNSTD who had taken the decision. It was in this atmosphere of tension that the Minister of the Interior was assassinated, an event which, according to the complainants, aggravated the situation.
4. 277. The WCOTP states that the unions, shocked by the brutal murder of the Minister, called a general unlimited strike on 24 June 1975 as a protest against the assassination and the manner in which the President of the Republic had set himself above the law in administering justice. According to the WCOTP, the unions had also been revolted by the communiqué issued by the President in which the people were invited to come and see the body of the Minister exhibited in public. The complainants allege that the decision to strike had been transmitted to the Minister of the Interior 48 hours in advance in accordance with the law.
5. 278. During popular demonstrations which took place spontaneously during the strike, continues the WCOTP, the President of the Republic ordered his soldiers to open fire on the demonstrators, and several trade unionists could be counted among the dead and wounded. Following this, the trade union leaders who had called the strike were arrested and transported to the military camp at Dodja where they were beaten. Further, on 9 July 1975, the Council of Ministers adopted a number of measures whereby all those who took part in the strike from 24 to 27 June 1975 would suffer deductions from their pay in respect of the duration of the strike; all those who were not back in their jobs their jobs on 30 June 1975 would be dismissed from the public service or from the jobs they held; likewise, all those who had signed the decision to strike, the leaders and activists arrested before 30 June or at their posts on 30 June, or arrested after 30 June, would be suspended from their jobs and sent to an agricultural production centre until 31 December 1975; and all workers in the public and private sectors would require authorisation before leaving the country. In addition, adds the WCOTP, the trade union leaders who had been properly elected by the congresses of their unions were replaced by persons chosen by the Government. Teachers and other workers were deprived of basic freedoms such as freedom of assembly and of the press. All information material (roneo, typewriters) belonging to the SYNEPDA was arbitrarily confiscated.
6. 279. The WCOTP appends to its communication a list of 26 trade unionists who, it alleges, have been interned in military camps and subjected to torture. A further list of 13 trade unionists who are said to have fled is also appended. The persons detained are not allowed visits from their families.
7. 280. In its further communication of 22 September 1975, the WCOTP stated that Mr. Akan Hilaire, an official of the SYNEPDA, had died on 5 September 1975 in the military camp of Dodja where he had been interned for having gone on strike. Mr. Akan Hilaire, stated the WCOTP, had been suffering from asthma and his death was due to the bad treatment be had received whilst in detention.
8. 281. In a communication dated 20 October 1975, the WCOTP transmitted the text of a written protest by the SYNEPDA against an attempt by the Minister of National Education to impose a national executive on the union. In this text it is alleged that shortly after the arrest of the above trade unionists, the Government imposed executive Committees on the unions to replace the imprisoned leaders. On 3 October 1975, when the Minister attempted to impose an executive Committee on the SYNEPDA, the teachers protested vigorously and forced the Minister to receive those legally appointed members of the executive who had not been arrested. According to the complainants, the Minister demanded that a more representative executive Committee be appointed.
9. 282. The World Confederation of Labour, in its communication of 28 November 1975, referred to the serious events which had taken place in Benin and to the arrest and torture of trade unionists, including Mr. Timothée Adanlin, Secretary-General of the UNSTD.
10. 283. The Government, in its communication dated 30 January 1976, emphatically denies any violation of trade union rights and, stresses the impartiality observed by it in the course of the conflict within the trade union movement in May 1975. Referring to the obligation on primary trade unions to inform the Single Central Union (UNSTD) in advance of any intention to take strike action, the Government states that the decision of Mr. Timothée Adanlin to call a strike of secondary school teachers for 29 May 1975 was transmitted to Romain Velon Guezo, Deputy Secretary-General of the UNSTB, in the form of a roneotyped document on 27 May 1975, that is to say, at the same time the authorities were informed. The UNSTD, which has to cc-ordinate all trade union activity in the country, was therefore, according to the Government, not informed in advance of the strike, but presented with a "fait accompli". It was, states the Government, as a result of this act of insubordination and lack of discipline that the National Executive Committee of the UNSTD, at an ordinary meeting on 29 May 1975, decided to suspend Mr. Adanlin from office. The Government emphasise that out of the 25 members of the National Executive Committee, 18 were present at the meeting on 29 May 1975, three were outside the country and four were absent without reason. The decision to suspend the Secretary-General was, accordingly, not taken by only 5 members of the Executive Committee as alleged by the complainants.
11. 284. The Government explains that there exists a deep disagreement between the views of the former Secretary-General and those held by the Central Trade Union. Mr. Adanlin, states the Government, only accepted the post of Secretary-General for strategic reasons. It was his object to enter a trade union organisation, whose political views he did not share, with the object of imposing his own ideas.
12. 285. It is important to recall, states the Government, that in the National Union of Workers of the People's Republic of Benin, created in November 1974, there are 85 basic unions. It is directed by a National Executive Committee of 25 members. It is also important to note, states the Government, that certain provisions of the statutes of this new Central Union provided for political and organisational autonomy and the non-participation of political bodies. On 30 November 1974, the people of Benin chose a socialist path of development in accordance with Marxist-Leninist ideology. The trade unions were thus called upon to participate in the political direction of the country. Accordingly, the workers considered that the statutory provisions of the UNSTD concerning political independence were contrary to the interests of the working classes, and, on 17 April 1975, the vast majority of all the secretaries-general of the unions in Benin adopted a resolution setting aside the provisions in question. A minority, led by Mr. Adanlin, opposed this change. The National Council, however, although questioning the attitude of the Secretary-General, decided not to dismiss him at that time.
13. 286. The Government points out that only a few days after the resolution of 17 April, Mr. Adanlin published a manifesto which cast doubt on the resolution, his tactics obviously being to use his position as Secretary-General to cause confusion as regards the policy defined by the Central Union. Mr. Adanlin employed the same tactics, states the Government, in calling the strike on 29 May 1975 without informing the Central Union in advance.
14. 287. The Government also points out that, of the 85 basic unions affiliated to the UNSTD, only about 20 protested against Mr. Adanlin's suspension, the remaining 65 actively supporting this measure. In any case, adds the Government, at least 8 of those unions which protested have never actually existed in Benin.
15. 288. The Government, recalling the terms of Convention No. 87, denies any interference in the trade union conflict which took place and states that the Minister for the Public Service and Labour prohibited any partiality towards any of the groups involved in this conflict. The Minister's suggestions and recommendations, made at the time, were an attempt to achieve a meeting of the general congress which seemed the only way of reaching a solution to the crisis by the workers themselves. Moreover, continues the Government, the Minister of Information refrained from diffusing officially the numerous communiqués transmitted to him by the various groups involved in the conflict.
16. 289. The strike of 24 June 1975, states the Government, was a political one which met with a political retaliation. The strike order called for the immediate resignation of the Head of State and of the Government of the President of the Republic, Lieutenant-Colonel Mathieu Kerekou, and his immediate inculpation for voluntary and premeditated homicide.
17. 290. The Government explains that, in accordance with the law of Benin, public officials do not have the right to strike except for the defence of their collective occupational interests; workers in the private sector are subject to the same requirements. The right to strike, when used legitimately, must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down in Ordinance No. 6914/PR/MFPRAT of 19 June 1969, under which a strike in the public sector must be preceded by negotiation with the Minister responsible for the Public Service or his representative. In the event of failure of the negotiations, notice of strike action must be given to the head of the body or undertaking concerned 5 days in advance. As for workers in the private sector, a strike may not be called without respecting the procedure laid down in the Labour code (sections 186 et seq.), which provides for conciliation and arbitration.
18. 291. Finally, the Government points out that, contrary to the allegations made by the WCOTP, no trade unionist was recorded as having been killed during the demonstrations of 24 June 1975.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 292. As regards the aspect of the case relating to the dismissal, on 29 May 1975, of the Secretary-General of the UNSTD, Mr. Timothée Adanlin, from his office in the National Executive of that union, the Committee would point out that it has always taken the view that a matter consisting solely in a conflict within the trade union movement itself is the sole responsibility of the parties themselves. In addition, it would appear to the Committee that the decision to remove Mr. Adanlin from office was taken by the majority of the unions affiliated to the UNSTD. In any event, the complainants have not supplied evidence to show that the Government intervened to influence the decision taken in this respect. For these reasons, the Committee recommends that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
2. 293. The Committee notes, however, from the information at its disposal that the majority of the unions in Benin are affiliated to the National Union of Workers of Benin (UNSTD), the single central trade union in the country which, according to the Government, has eliminated from its statutes the provisions guaranteeing its political autonomy. A certain number of unions - of which the National Union of Public School Teachers of Benin (SYNEPDA) is one - are opposed to this form of trade union structure and to the possibility of participation by the Government in internal trade union affairs. While the Committee is not called upon to examine cases involving conflicts between trade unions, it would point out that Article 2 of Convention No. 87, in providing that workers and employers shall have the right to establish and to join organisations of their own choosing, is in no way intended as an expression of support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union diversity. St is intended to convey, on the one hand, that in many countries there are several organisations among which the workers or the employers may wish to choose freely and, on the other hand, that workers and employers should be free to establish new organisations in a country where no such diversity has hitherto been found. In other words, although the Convention is evidently not intended to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does at least require this diversity to remain possible in all cases. In addition, it requires that the guarantees it provides should be enjoyed by all organisations of workers and employers.
3. 294. The Committee would also, in this connection, draw attention to the principle set forth in the resolution on the independence of the trade union movement, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 35th Session (1952), that governments should not attempt to transform the trade union movement into an instrument for the pursuance of political aims.
4. 295. As regards the strike which took place on 24 June 1975, the Government claims that this was illegal, and from the information available it seems clear that the strike was called mainly for reasons of a political rather than an occupational character. In this connection, the Committee would recall the view it has previously taken that the prohibition of strikes by reason of their non-occupational character, or where they have been designed to coerce a government with respect to a political matter and were not in furtherance of a trade dispute, does not constitute an infringement of trade union rights. However, in the present case, the strike in question and the demonstrations which accompanied it led to an intervention by the armed forces and the arrest and detention of a number of trade unionists. The Government denies that any trade unionists died as a result of this intervention although, according to the complainants, one trade unionist has died since his arrest for participation in the strike.
5. 296. The Government does not, however, deny the allegation relating to the 26 named trade unionists who are said to have been interned in military camps and subjected to torture. In view of this, the Committee would recall the importance which it has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions. In such cases, the Committee, taking the view that it is incumbent on governments to show that the measures taken were in no way occasioned by the trade union activities of the individuals concerned, has asked the governments concerned to communicate the texts of any judgments that have been delivered together with the grounds adduced therefor. The Committee, accordingly, would request the Government to indicate whether the trade unionists named in the complaint as having been arrested are still in detention and, if so, to state the nature of the charges that have been brought against them and the date on which they will be brought to trial. The Committee would also request the Government to transmit the texts of any judgments delivered by the courts concerning these cases.
6. 297. The remaining allegations made by the complainants concern the imposition on certain unions by the Government of executive Committees to replace those trade union leaders who had been imprisoned, and the attempt by the Minister of National Education to impose an executive Committee on the teachers' union (SYNEPDA). The Committee notes, in this connection, that the Government does not refer to these allegations in its reply to the complaint.
7. 298. The Committee would draw the attention of the Government to the terms of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 by which workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives "in full freedom" and "the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof". The nomination by the authorities of members of executive Committees of trade unions constitutes direct interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee, recalling that Benin has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and is, therefore, bound by its provisions, would request the Government to supply detailed information regarding the allegations made in this connection.