Interim Report - REPORT_NO218, November 1982

1. 751. In this case, the Committee has received complaints from various trade union organisations: the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International (27 April, 14 June, 1 August 1982), the World Federation of Trade Unions (13 May, 23 August 1982) and the Trade Union Confederation of Upper Volta (29 April, 24 May, 21 August, 30 August, 11 September 1982). The Government has replied in letters dated 13 May and 6 September 1982.
2. 752. Upper Volta 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. 981.

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 753. On 27 April 1982, the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International (PTTI) communicated information which it had received from its affiliated organisation in Upper Volta, the Autonomous Union of Postal, Telecommunications and Allied Workers of Upper Volta (SAPT), from which it emerged that the Government of Upper Volta had suspended postal and telecommunications employees and 23 other officials from their duties, 50 other Post Office employees also being threatened with suspension.
2. 754. According to the PTTI, these measures followed the dissolution of the Trade Union Confederation of Upper Volta to which the SAPT is affiliated at the national level, and the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of the Secretary-General of the Confederation, Mr. Touré Soumane. These measures had been taken in the context of a dispute between public servants organisations and the Government.
3. 755. As long ago as 29 April 1982, the Trade Union Confederation of Upper Volta (CSV), for its part, had sent a telegram relating to the case explaining that the six unions affiliated to it had held a three-day protest strike to demand the repeal of the Ordinance concerning the right to strike, the reestablishment of the dissolved Trade union confederation of Upper Volta, the lifting of the warrant for arrest issued against its Secretary-General Touré Soumane following the strike, and the lifting of the measures of suspension against public servants and other employees who had taken part in the strike. All these allegations were taken up by the World Federation of Trade Unions in a communication sent to the ILO on 13 May 1982.

B. The Government's first reply

1. 756. In a reply of 13 May 1982, the Government explained that the day after 25 November 1980 the President of, the Military Committee of Reconstruction for National Progress had initially guaranteed trade union freedoms in a proclamation, considering trade union organisations as privileged social partners in national reconstruction. However, taking advantage of this proclamation, some trade union officials had attempted to precipitate a serious crisis, distributing many tracts throughout the country and making violent attacks against the regime in power during trade union meetings and calling for a general mobilisation for unlimited strikes. Concerned to safeguard the overriding interests of the nation, the Government explained that it was forced to remedy matters by taking, for reasons of State, various measures designed to influence the economic situation, including Ordinance No. 81/0041/CMRPN/PRES of 1 November 1981 to suppress the right to strike.
2. 757. The Government then added that two months later it had repealed the Ordinance to suppress the right to strike and had adopted Ordinance No. 82/003/PEES/CMRPN of 14 January 1982 regulating the exercise of the right to strike.
3. 758. Unfortunately, the Government continued, under the pretext of denouncing this Ordinance, trade union officials had called for wildcat strikes in deliberate contravention of the texts. This was the case, according to the Government, of some State employees, in particular postal and telecommunications workers. The Government confirmed that the persons concerned had been suspended from their jobs for striking illegally, in application of the Ordinance of 14 January 1982.
4. 759. Furthermore, the Government attached to its communication a copy of the above-mentioned Ordinance regulating the exercise of the right to strike and Decree No. 82/0054/PRES/CMRPN of 12 February 1982 concerning the composition and functioning of the Committees and of the National Council for Negotiation responsible, at the departmental and national levels, for settling collective disputes between employees of public or semi-public services and the administration.

C. Further information sent by the complainants

1. 760. In a letter of 24 May 1982, the Trade Union Confederation of Upper Volta supplied further information in support of its complaint and made further allegations.
2. 761. It explained that it had indeed called for a general strike of all trade unions on 14, 15 and 16 April 1982 to protest against its own administrative dissolution on 24 November 1981 when it rejected the suppression of the right to strike decreed on 1 November 1981. It also wanted to protest against the warrant for the arrest of its Secretary-General which had been issued on 24 November 1981.
3. 762. Furthermore, the CSV attached to its letter copies of several administrative decisions taken between 23 April and 10 May 1982 and containing very long lists of names of employees dismissed or suspended for taking part in the strikes of 14, 15 and 16 April 1982. These decisions came in particular from the Minister of the Civil Service and Labour, the Ministries of Public Works, Transport, Town Planning, Finance and National Education, from the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, the Director-General of the Office of Posts and Telecommunications, the Minister for Rural Development, the Director-General of the Electricity Company of Upper Volta and from the international Bank for Trade, Industry and Agriculture.
4. 763. The PTTI, for its part, communicated the names of the 85 postal workers, all of whom had been dismissed, the threats of dismissal to which it had referred in its initial communication having materialised.
5. 764. More recently, all the complainants announced that the 154 workers already suspended or dismissed following the strike were to be brought before the courts as from 9 September 1982.
6. 765. Moreover, the CSV indicated in a communication of 11 September 1982 that its Secretary-General, Touré Soumane, had in fact been arrested on 9 September 1982 following the national and international warrant which had been issued for his arrest at the time of the administrative dissolution of the CSV in November 1981.

D. The Government's second reply

1. 766. In a letter dated 6 September 1982, the Government confines itself to stating that the recent measures taken by it and denounced by the complainants are in full conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance of 14 January 1982 regulating the exercise of the right to strike.

E. The Committee's conclusions

1. 767. The Committee notes with concern that the complaints contain serious allegations referring to the administrative dissolution of the Trade Union Confederation of Upper Volta, the arrest of its Secretary-General, the dismissal of and institution of judicial proceedings against 154 workers in various branches of the public service and national companies following a three-day protest strike by the persons concerned to obtain the lifting of the measures against the CSV and the repeal of a legislative text restricting the exercise of the right to strike. The Committee takes note of the explanations provided by the Government regarding the reasons which led it to take such measures.
   • (a) Allegation concerning the administrative dissolution of the Trade Union Confederation of Upper Volta
2. 768. With regard to the administrative dissolution of the Trade Union Confederation of Upper Volta at a time when the Confederation was protesting against the general ban on strikes proclaimed by the Government in November 1981 and since lifted, the Committee can only emphasise the very great importance it attaches to respect for Article 4 of Convention No. 87 ratified by Upper Volta, which provides that workers organisations shall not be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. The Committee is anxious to stress this point particularly since, in the present case, the dissolved Confederation indicates that the six unions affiliated to it supported its protest, which implies that the measure of dissolution affects a broadly representative trade union confederation and that it therefore has serious consequences for the defence of the occupational interests of a considerable number of the country's workers.
3. 769. Noting that the Government has not denied the allegation, the Committee must recall that only serious and duly proved offences should lead to a dissolution of trade union organisations by judicial authority. It therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will give priority to the lifting of the measure of administrative dissolution of the CSV and requests the Government to keep it informed of any measure taken in this respect.
   • (b) Allegation concerning the arrest of the Secretary-General of the CSV
4. 770. The Government makes no observation on the complainants allegation that a warrant for the arrest of Touré Soumane, Secretary-General of the dissolved Confederation, was issued on 24 November 1981 following a protest strike against the Ordinance suppressing the right to strike decreed on 1 November 1981. On the other hand, from the latest information available, the complainants announce that this trade union leader was in fact arrested on 9 September 1982.
5. 771. The Committee recalls that the detention of trade union leaders simply for carrying on activities in defence of the occupational interests of their members implies a serious danger to trade union rights.
6. 772. This seems to be what has happened in this case since, according to the complainants, the proceedings against the Secretary-General of the Trade Union Confederation of Upper Volta were instituted the same day (24 November 1981) on which the Confederation was dissolved by administrative authority for protesting against the ban on strikes proclaimed on 1 November 1981. In these circumstances, the Committee invites the Government to communicate information on this aspect of the case, including any judgement which may be handed down in the case and recalls that trade unionists ought not to be imprisoned for carrying out legitimate trade union activities.
   • (c) Allegation concerning the dismissal of and institution of judicial proceedings against 154 strikers
7. 773. The complainants refer to dismissal of and institution of judicial proceedings against 154 workers in various branches of the public service and national companies, including in particular the postal and telecommunications services, national education, public works, town planning, rural development, the National Electricity Company and an international bank. The workers in question have been penalised for going on a three-day protest strike against the Government's measures against the CSV and for seeking to obtain the repeal of legislation restricting the right to strike.
8. 774. The Government considers that it has acted in accordance with national legislation and, in particular, with Ordinance No. 82003 of 14 January 1982 regulating the exercise of the right to strike, as it indicates in its communication of 13 May 1982.
9. 775. In this respect, the Committee recalls that it has already examined Ordinance No. 62003 in Case No. 1089 relating to Upper Volta at its May 1982 meeting. During that examination the Committee had noted that certain provisions of the text called for reservations on its part.
10. 776. In particular as regards the workers objectives in exercising the right to strike, the Committee had emphasised especially, in paragraphs 239 and 242 of its 217th Report, that strikes are one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and protection of their occupational and economic interests in the broad sense of the term; these interests do not only concern collective claims of an occupational nature (section 12 of the Ordinance), but also concern the seeking of solutions to economic and social policy questions which are of direct concern to the workers. The Committee had thus called the Government's attention to the fact that limitations on the exercise of the right to strike and the requisitioning of persons to carry out jobs which have been vacated as a result of a labour dispute can only be acceptable in order to ensure the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.
11. 777. Furthermore, although in previous cases the Committee has accepted that in the case of the public service and essential services the right to strike could be subject to restrictions and even prohibited because strikes in such services might cause serious hardship to the nation, it has also considered that it did not seem appropriate to place all State undertakings on the same footing without the legislation making a distinction between those services which are really essential because their interruption endangers the existence or well-being of all or part of the population, and those which are not, according to this criterion.
12. 778. Finally, in cases where trade unionists and trade union leaders have been dismissed for exercising their right to strike, the Committee has indicated that it could not escape the conclusion that the persons concerned had been penalised on account of their trade union activities and that they were subjected to discrimination in contravention of Article 2 of Convention No. 98.1
13. 779. In the present case, the public service employees dismissed for taking part in a three-day protest strike against a legislative text which they considered too restrictive with regard to strikes belong to various branches of the public service and national companies, including, in particular, the postal and telecommunications service, national education, public works, town planning, rural development, the National Electricity Company and even the International Bark for Trade, Industry and Agriculture. In this respect, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has emphasised that the banning of strikes in the public service and essential services should he limited to officials acting as agents of the public authorities or to services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.
14. 780. The Committee can only take the same view as the Committee of Experts on this matter, particularly since, as it had itself pointed out in its previous examination, under the Ordinance in question restricting the exercise of the right to strike, participation in an illegal strike entails liability to a prison term of up to one year (section 20). Since, according to the complainants, the dismissed strikers are to be prosecuted, the Committee recalls that the imposition of excessively severe penalties for participation in a strike can only harm the development of good industrial relations. It therefore invites the Government to re-examine the situation of the persons concerned with a view to helping to ease the social climate.
15. 781. Finally, with respect to Ordinance No. 82003 of 14 January 1982 to institute a procedure for the settlement of collective labour disputes, the Committee recalls that it has already invited the Government to amend its legislation to bring it into line with the principles of freedom of association.