Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO327, March 2002

1. 204. The complaint in the present case is set out in a communication from the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Cameroon (CSIC) dated 30 October 1998.
2. 205. Since the Government did not reply, the Committee, following an urgent appeal, examined the substance of the case at its meeting in March 2000, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 320th Report, paras. 363-373, approved by the Governing Body at its 277th Session in March 2000.] The Government sent partial observations on 29 January 2001. Since then, the Committee has been obliged to postpone its examination of the case on two occasions. At its meeting in November 2001 [see 326th Report, para. 8], the Committee issued an urgent appeal to the Government, indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting even if the information or observations requested had not been received in due time. To date the Government has sent no new observations.
3. 206. Cameroon 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 207. At its meeting in March 2000, the Governing Body approved the following interim recommendations of the Committee:
   • (a) The Committee regrets that the Government did not reply to any of the complainant’s allegations and expresses the hope that it will be more cooperative in future.
   • (b) Recalling that the Government has a responsibility to prevent any acts of anti-union discrimination and that it must ensure that any complaints of discriminatory practices of this kind are examined through a prompt and impartial procedure, the Committee urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Olongo receives full compensation if it appeared that his reinstatement in the Cameroon National Electricity Company (SONEL) was not feasible. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed promptly of any measures taken in this respect.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 208. In its communication dated 29 January 2001, the Government explains that justice in Cameroon is a matter for the judiciary, whose independence is guaranteed by the Constitution, and the Government is therefore justified in not intervening in this affair. However, in view of the time that has passed since the Supreme Court Order of 3 February 1993 without the Supreme Court ruling on the appeal, the Minister of Employment, Labour and Social Security has asked the Minister of Justice to take steps to obtain a definitive ruling on the matter from the Supreme Court.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 209. The Committee once again regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was first presented in October 1998, the Government has, and only on one occasion, provided partial information, although it has been invited on several occasions, including by means of two urgent appeals, to present its own observations and comments on the case. The Committee once again expresses the strong hope that the Government will be more cooperative in future.
2. 210. The Committee recalls that the case concerned allegations of the dismissal of Mr. Olongo, a staff delegate employed by the Cameroon National Electricity Company (SONEL), dating from 1988. The Committee notes that, since the complaint was first presented, the original complainant, the Cameroon Workers’ Trade Union Confederation (CSTC), has split up as a result of internal disputes, one of the entities resulting from that split being the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Cameroon (CSIC), which has taken up the complaint; this has no bearing on the examination of the substance of the case.
3. 211. The Committee noted previously that, following Mr. Olongo’s dismissal, the Yaoundé Court of Appeal on 17 November 1992 had ordered his reinstatement in his elected and contractual functions within SONEL, but that the Supreme Court ordered on 3 February 1993 that the ruling in question be suspended. In this respect, the Committee expressed its deep concern at the fact that, eight years after the Court of Appeal ruling, the highest court in the land had yet to give its ruling on the substance of the case. The Committee reminded the Government that it had a responsibility to prevent all acts of anti-union discrimination and ensure that any complaints of discriminatory practices of this kind are examined through procedures that are prompt and impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned; and, furthermore, that justice delayed is justice denied [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 105 and 738]. In addition, the Committee requested on several occasions in the past that measures be taken to ensure that trade unionists who so wish are reinstated in their functions if they have been dismissed because of their legitimate trade union activities and that appropriate legal sanctions be applied to the enterprises responsible. In this particular case, in view of the time that has elapsed since the dismissal, the Committee urged the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Olongo received full compensation if it appeared that his reinstatement within the company SONEL was not feasible.
4. 212. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, the Minister of Employment, Labour and Social Security applied to the Minister of Justice in January 2001 with a view to obtaining a final ruling on the case. However, the Committee notes that this does not appear to have been followed up, and Mr. Olongo is still awaiting some form of compensation 14 years after his dismissal. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Olongo, formerly a staff delegate at SONEL dismissed in 1988, receives full compensation, since it would appear that, in view of the 14 years that have elapsed since then, reinstatement at SONEL may not be the appropriate solution in this case. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.