Definitive Report - REPORT_NO177, June 1978

1. 73. By a communication of 18 June 1976, the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) submitted a complaint concerning alleged infringements of the exercise of trade union rights in Chad. The WCL submitted additional information on 11 July 1976. These communications were transmitted to the Government for observations.
2. 74. Chad has ratified 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. 75. As the Government had submitted no comments despite repeated requests, the Committee decided at its May 1971 Session, to apply to this case the special procedure of contacts with the Government representatives during the Conference. In accordance with this procedure, the Chairman of the Committee had a meeting on 11 June 1977 with Mr. Mahamat Abderahim Acyl, Secretary of State for Public Health, Labour and Social Affairs, in order to discuss the delay in the submission of replies. Following these discussions, the Government submitted its observations in a communication of 3 September 1977.
2. 76. The WCL had referred in its aforementioned letters to ordinance No. 001-PR-CSM of 8 January 1976, the text of which it had attached. Under this ordinance, the exercise of trade union rights is authorised exclusively in the private sector and is prohibited for public employees and persons with equivalent status.
3. 77. The WCL's allegations also related to measures taken against the National Union of Workers of Chad (UNATRAT). The complainants communicated the text of a statement made by the Minister for the Public Service and Labour on 21 November 1975. This statement referred to eight illegal strikes and nine strike threats between April and November 1975. The Minister referred to political manoeuvring by certain UNATRAT leaders and the fact that the trade union federation had not filed its rules. The trade union leaders had been asked to take all necessary measures to comply with the regulations in force. Pending compliance with those regulations, continued the statement, workers' interests would be defended by the labour administration. The WCL stated that UNATRAT had filed its rules on 25 November 1975 (it enclosed a copy, bearing that same date, of the acknowledgment of receipt of the rules, issued by the Chari Baguirmi Prefecture). According to the complainants, it was after that date that the Government prohibited UNATRAT activities and froze its bank account. The freezing of trade union funds was preventing the organisation from carrying out its financial obligations.
4. 78. The last point covered by the complaints related to a refusal by the Government to authorise Mr. Dombal, who was nominated by the ILO Governing Body, to attend the Tripartite Advisory Meeting on Collective Bargaining held in Geneva from 10 to 19 May 1976. He did not receive authorisation from the Ministry of the interior and Security to leave the country to attend this meeting. According to the WCL, the grounds for refusal were that, being a public servant, Mr. Dombal could not belong to a trade union organisation.
5. 79. In its reply, the Government described the circumstances in which some of these decisions had been taken. Following the change of government in April 1975, it explained, the Supreme Military Council restored freedom to the people of Chad. This decision enabled trade unionists having close ties with the former government to indulge in purely political activities, to cause disturbances and to undermine the country's economy.
6. 80. UNATRAT, continued the Government, was an artificial creation of the former government, which appointed its leaders against the will of the workers. After the change in government, and knowing that they were bound to be rejected by the members of UNATRAT, these trade unionists organised strikes and illegal demonstrations (the Government also referred to the statement made by the Minister of Labour on 21 November 1975). Apart from the economic consequences of these movements, internal security was jeopardised. Under these conditions, it added, the Government had been obliged to take temporary measures against that organisation, especially as it had not been freely formed, but had been organised by the former government as an organ of the party and its leaders had been nominated by the former President of the Republic.
7. 81. Nevertheless, concluded the Government, the Department of Labour was doing everything possible to bring the situation into conformity with ILO standards.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 82. This matter has three aspects: the suspension of trade union rights in the public service; the measures taken by the authorities against UNATRAT; and the Government's refusal to authorise Mr. Dombal to attend a meeting convened by the ILO.
2. 83. The Government makes no specific observations regarding Ordinance No. 001 of 8 January 1975 which suspends trade union rights in the public service. This matter was the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in its 1977 report, As the Committee of Experts pointed out, Article 2 of Convention No. 87 makes no distinction between workers, all of whom should have the right to establish or join organisations of their own choosing. Whilst stressing that recognition of the right of public employees to organise does not amount to granting the right to strike, the Committee notes that the aforementioned Ordinance creates discrimination between workers in the private sector and public employees, and that the prohibition on the latter forming associations is incompatible with Article 2 of Convention No. 87, which has been ratified by Chad.
3. 84. Regarding UNATRAT, the organisation had been set up on 10 January 1968 by the merging of the two Chad central trade union organisations existing at that time: the Chadian Confederation of Labour and the National Union of workers of Chad. Whatever the reasons for the measures taken against that organisation in 1977 (the ban on activities and freezing of trade union funds) these measures led to the suspension of that organisation by the executive authorities. On this point, the Committee has already pointed outs that although the suspension of a trade union organisation and freezing of its funds may, in certain circumstances, be justified, such measures should be taken by a court; if taken by the administrative or executive authorities, they may appear to be arbitrary. For this reason, and in order to ensure an impartial and objective procedure and the rights of the defence, such decisions, when necessary, should be taken by a judicial body having full independence. According to Article 4 of Convention No. 87, workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
4. 85. The Government makes no specific observation regarding its refusal to authorise Mr. Dombal to attend the meeting of the Tripartite Advisory Meeting on Collective Bargaining (organised by the ILO from 10 to 19 May 1976). At its June 1975 Session (197th Session), the Governing Body of the ILO designated certain trade unionists, after consultation with the Workers' group, to attend this meeting as workers' representatives. These included Mr. G. Dombal, General Secretary of UNATRAT. The Committee considers that, generally speaking, refusal by a State to grant one of its officials holding trade union office leave to attend an advisory meeting organised by the ILO does not constitute an infringement of the principles of freedom of association, unless this refusal relates to the trade union activities or functions of the person concerned. In the present case, the Committee does not have sufficient information to enable it to decide whether this decision was bound up with the ban on trade union rights for public employees and the difficulties of UNATRAT.
5. 86. The Committee also notes that, according to its statements, the Government is doing everything possible to return to a situation in conformity with ILO standards. The Committee hopes that this normalisation will take place very soon, as it notes, in particular, that the unions of Chad have been without a central organisation for two years already following the suspension of UNATRAT.