Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO233, March 1984

1. 137. The Committee has already examined this case on two previous occasions, the most recent being at its November 1983 meeting when it presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body.[230th Report, paragraphs 459 to 474, approved by the Governing Body at its 224th Session (November 1983).] Since then, the Capitol Employees Organising Group (CEOG) has sent additional information in communications dated 7 December 1983 and 18 January 1984. The Government transmitted further observations in communications dated 1 and 15 February 1984.
2. 138. The United States of America has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 139. The Committee recalls that this case concerns a claim made by the CEOG, a union formed in December 1979, for exclusive bargaining rights in respect of employees of the Senate restaurants, the majority of whom the CEOG claims to represent. The CEOG had alleged that not only had its petitions for recognition been systematically refused by those responsible for the administration of the Senate but that, in addition, its members had suffered harassment and discrimination.
   • The Committee had noted that a high-level Senate study into the situation had been undertaken and it expressed the hope that both this study, as well as a continuing dialogue between the parties, would ensure a situation in which the workers concerned might carry out normal trade union activities in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.
2. 140. When it last examined the case in November 1983, the Committee noted that the results of the Senate Committee study into the situation of the CEOG had led the Senate to call for a further examination of the question of turning the restaurant management over to private firms (which are subject to the general labour legislation) and to organise a ballot amongst the restaurant workers concerned. The Committee also noted that the complainant had supplied further information concerning management harassment of its members by inviting other unions to the place of work, by refusing to reply to petitions made by the complainant, by refusing time off to employees and by interfering in the polling of the employees.
3. 141. While appreciating the thoroughness of the studies carried out by the Senate Committee and the time taken to organise the ballot, the Committee recalled that the CEOG's original claim for recognition dated back to March 1980 and that the Senate had been examining the question since August 1982. The Committee pointed out that excessively lengthy proceedings to determine the status of employees and the bodies claiming to represent them can only result in a growing sense of injustice and it accordingly requested the Government to send a copy of the findings and recommendations of the Senate Rules Committee study of the question which, the Committee hoped, would be completed rapidly. Meantime, the Committee once again expressed the hope that a dialogue would continue between the parties and that the conclusions of the further study would result in a situation in which the workers concerned might be able to carry out normal trade union activities in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.
4. 142. As regards the alleged harassment of unionised staff, the Committee took note of the Government's explanations regarding the treatment of the petitions submitted by the union and the refusal to grant part-time off, and pointed out that if these explanations had been given to the staff involved at the various meetings that had taken place with the employer and the Senate Committee itself, the ongoing tension in the Senate restaurant might have been avoided.
   • The Committee recalled that no person should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership even if that trade union is not recognised by the employer as representing the majority of the workers concerned. It requested that, pending the outcome of the further Senate study, care would be taken to avoid any form of discrimination towards Senate restaurant workers who were members of the CEOG.
5. 143. As regards the opinion poll itself, the Committee, while making the preliminary observation that the running of the ballot, as well as the layout and content of the ballot form did not jeopardise trade union rights, observed that the Government had not yet had an opportunity to respond to certain allegations that had been made by the complainant in connection with the poll.
6. 144. In all the circumstances, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to reach the following interim conclusions:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the findings and recommendations of the Senate study into the situation of Senate restaurant workers, which will bear upon any possible recognition of the Capitol Employees Organising Group, and which the Committee hopes will be completed rapidly.
   • (b) The Committee again expresses the hope that a dialogue may continue between the parties, and that the conclusions of the study will result in a situation in which the workers concerned may be able to carry out normal trade union activities in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.
   • (c) As regards the alleged harassment of the members and leaders of the complainant union, the Committee, while appreciating the Government's explanations of these incidents, would point out that no person should he prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or activities, even if that union is not recognised by the employer as representing the majority of workers concerned. The Committee trusts that care will be taken to avoid any form of discrimination towards CEOG members.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to transmit as soon as possible its observations on the specific allegations of employer interference in the opinion poll that was taken amongst the restaurant workers in September 1983.

B. Further allegations

1. 145. In its communication of 7 December 1983, the CEOG alleges that its leaders were informed by the management that they could no longer use the room where they had held their monthly meetings over the last four years and that the harassment of employees who have any contact with the CEOG was continuing. In its communication of 18 January 1984, the CEOG states that one of its outspoken activists did not receive a Christmas gift from the management, when all other supervisors did, presumably because of her connection with the union.

C. The Government's reply

1. 146. In its communication dated 1 February 1984, the Government transmits observations that were prepared by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, together with the official minutes recording that Committee's discussion of the Senate restaurant employees' situation.
2. 147. The Senate Committee reports that, pursuant to public notice, it met on 1 November 1983, with the Honourable Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., Chairman, presiding. Seven other senators, members of the Committee, were also present. The meeting, being a public one, could be attended by any restaurant worker or member of the public. The Chairman submitted to the meeting the report of the poll taken of the restaurant workers on the question of organisation for the purposes of collective bargaining and noted that the preference of the employees was not to organise for such a purpose. The employees had also indicated a marked preference for maintaining the present system rather than the contracting out of restaurant operations to private firms. The Chairman stated that the results of the poll were not binding on the Committee or on the Senate and that no immediate action on the part of the Committee was required.
3. 148. The Chairman, noting that there was always room for improvement in the operations of the Senate restaurants, and stating that he had suggested to the Architect of the Capitol that an advisory committee be established to suggest improvements, asked the Committee to consider the idea of such an advisory committee and requested that this proposal be maintained on the Committee's agenda.
4. 149. Given the overwhelming preference expressed by the employees to maintain the present system of operation of the Senate restaurants, no further action by the Rules Committee on the question of giving recognition to any representatives of the restaurant workers for the purpose of collective bargaining was therefore contemplated.
5. 150. More specifically, with regard to the various detailed allegations made by the CEOG, the Government provides the following information or replies. The management of the Senate restaurants did not encourage a number of employees to prepare and distribute a leaflet attacking the CEOG. To the best of the management's knowledge, the leaflet in question was prepared and distributed by a group of employees but the management was not involved either in its preparation or its distribution. Nor did the management conduct any meetings with certain Hispanic-American employees regarding the ballot, although some meetings may have been held by the employees themselves. There was no instruction given by the management as to how the ballot paper should be marked. In the one instance mentioned by the complainant, in its letter of 21 September 1983, the management official reports that, at the request of the employees concerned, he was interpreting the ballot to those employees who could not read English.
6. 151. As regards the balloting procedures, the Government points out that the Rules Committee conducted the ballot as a third party and not as management or union. All the procedures were discussed and voted on in open session of the Rules Committee. The procedures for balloting were posted on the Senate restaurant bulletin boards on 26 August 1983 and an individual copy of the procedures was given to each employee on 2 September 1983. The ballot was conducted on 12 and 13 September 1983 in accordance with these procedures. The votes were counted on 14 September 1983 and certified as accurate by the Rules Committee staff and by the Vice-President of the CEOG, Ruth Bennett. The Government emphasised that at no time prior to the ballot, or subsequently, was any complaint made or question raised about the balloting procedures, either by the CEOG or any other restaurant worker.
7. 152. It is true, however, the Government points out, that the Architect of the Capitol has denied a meeting room to the CEOG. In the past, explains the Government, the Architect has made an exception to the rules which authorise meeting space in the restaurant rooms only for official business of the US Senate restaurant. That exception is no longer being made for the CEOG and only official business will be conducted from now on in US Senate restaurant space. It is also true, states the Government, that a supervisor did not receive a Christmas gift; this had no relation to membership of the CEOG as is clear from the fact that other supervisors who are active members of the CEOG did receive gifts, which are given on the basis of a positive contribution to the operation of the restaurants during 1983.
8. 153. More generally, the Government indicates that after the September 1983 ballot, the Architect of the Capitol met with all the restaurant employees in four groups. He expressed gratitude to them for the vote of confidence as shown in the ballot results and pledged to continue to try to see to it that employees are fairly treated. Employees have also been reminded through bulletin board postings of existing grievance procedures allowing individuals access to their manager, the restaurant director and to the office of the Architect of the Capitol. It should also be noted, adds the Government, that senators and staff of the Rules Committee are available at all times to talk to employees of the restaurants, and the employees often avail themselves of this opportunity to discuss employment issues and grievances.
9. 154. The Government emphasises that no form of discrimination exists towards CEOG employees. In fact, care has been taken by the restaurant manager not to discipline CEOG members so as not to provoke complaints of discrimination. According to the Government, at times this has worked to the detriment of restaurant operations since disciplinary action might have been justified.
10. 155. The Government adds that the action taken by the Senate Rules Committee is not binding on future congresses, and the Rules Committee or the full Senate could take different action in the future. According to the Government, legislation is pending in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to include the Congress under certain provisions of federal law relating to employment and workers' rights. It attaches copies of the three bills involved which are currently pending before the committees to which they were referred.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 156. The Committee notes that the Senate Committee study into the situation of the CEOG has concluded with the decision, based on the results of the September 1983 poll of the employees concerned, to maintain the present system with the possible establishment of an advisory committee to work with the restaurant management and employees. The Committee also notes that draft legislation is being examined to include Congress under certain provisions of federal law relating to employment conditions and workers' rights, which would apparently entitle Congress employees, such as the Senate restaurant workers, to coverage under the National Labour Relations Act.
2. 157. The Committee recalls that the results of the September 1983 ballot showed that 81 per cent of the employees concerned did not wish to become members of a union for collective bargaining purposes. Moreover, the Committee decided at its previous examination of this case that the layout and content of the ballot form that was used did not jeopardise trade union rights. The Government has specifically' denied the complainant's allegations of employer interference in the poll, pointing out that no complaint or query was made either before or after the poll about the balloting procedures, counting or organisation. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the employees concerned may soon be entitled to coverage under the National Labour Relations Act, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case calls for no further examination.
3. 158. As regards the recent allegations of continued harassment of unionised staff and the withdrawal of permission to use a meeting room, the Committee notes the Government's explanations that the employer (the Architect of the Capitol) is making every effort (meeting with all the staff, bulletin board postings, putting aside of disciplinary action) to accommodate the CEOG members but in the case of allowing meeting space in the restaurant rooms, must apply the rules which allow this only for official business. The Committee can only express its regret that, notwithstanding the question of recognition for bargaining purposes, such facilities have been withdrawn not only because freedom of assembly for trade union purposes constitutes one of the fundamental elements of trade union rights but also because it is precisely this kind of incident which contributes to the ongoing tension which has been complained of in this case. In view of the fact that the staff involved may soon fall within the scope of the National Labour Relations Act, the Committee would meantime express the hope that the Architect will re-examine the question of providing meeting space for trade union purposes on the restaurant premises.
4. 159. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the three draft laws that are currently being examined.