Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO326, November 2001

1. 363. The complaint in this case is contained in communications from the Democratic Trade Union Organization of African Workers (ODSTA), dated 3 and 22 January 2001.
2. 364. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 31 May and 12 July 2001.
3. 365. Mauritania 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 366. In its communication of 3 January 2001, ODSTA states that, following an ordinary constitutive congress, small-scale fishermen established a trade union organization, the Fédération nationale des travailleurs et professionnels de la pêche (FNTPP), affiliated to the Free Confederation of Workers of Mauritania (CLTM). Subsequently, the administrative authorities are alleged to have embarked upon a wide-ranging campaign of intimidation and dissuasion to encourage fishermen to withdraw from the CLTM. On 20 May 2000, the Secretary-General of the CLTM sent a letter of protest to the authorities but received no positive response. Indeed, it would appear that subsequently the Director-General of the Nouakchott fish market decided to forbid any trade union activity inside the market.
2. 367. The complainant organization further states that, although small-scale fishermen are not considered to be engaging in a liberal activity, the National Fisheries Federation required them to pay a sea access tax and to carry a census disk. Moreover, fishermen belonging to the CLTM are not entitled to maritime credit or to tax exemption on equipment and diesel or to the subsidies and aid from donors granted to the small-scale fishery sector. In protest against such measures, the fishermen organized a march during which four federation leaders were arrested, namely Messrs. Mohamed Nagem, Moctar Mohamed, Moctar Mohamed and Mbaye Ndiaye. They were subsequently released.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 368. In its communication of 31 May 2001, the Government states that small-scale fishermen are not prohibited from freely organizing or joining any trade union they wish. In regard to the situation in the Nouakchott fish market, the director of the market issued a notice to the public, and not to employees, regarding trade union activities. Given that the market is administered by a company and that fishermen are merely users, nothing is to prevent the latter from meeting, but they should do so in a place or elsewhere outside in order to avoid overcrowding within the market. The Government states that such was the purpose of the public notice of 7 June 2000. Moreover, following the controversy caused by the notice, a further public notice was issued on 16 July 2000 to clarify the original notice, specifying that “the ban on any trade union activities means that gatherings and other meetings in the work environment are not authorized for reasons of safety and inconvenience to visitors, but it is understood that company workers, in the same way as other workers, are free to exercise their trade union activities within the limits permitted by law”.
2. 369. In regard to the taxes levied on fishermen, the Government specifies that only vessel owners are subject to employers’ taxes, and not fishermen who do not own vessels who are considered to be workers. Therefore, the latter are not eligible for maritime credit or tax exemption on equipment and diesel since they do not own vessels.
3. 370. Lastly, the Government states that no march is forbidden in Mauritania, provided that it has received authorization by the competent authority in conformity with current legislation. In this connection, the Government states that no march or attempted march took place, even of an illegal nature, by fishermen.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 371. The Committee notes that this case involves allegations of obstruction of the exercise of freedom of association of fishermen, specifically at Nouakchott fish market, and the arrest of the trade union members following the organization of a protest march by fishermen.
2. 372. On the subject of the obstacles to free exercise of freedom of association of fishermen, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant organization, following establishment of the FNTPP, the public authorities are said to have engaged in a wide-ranging campaign of intimidation and dissuasion, seeking to encourage fishermen to withdraw from the CLTM. However, the complainant provides no specific details of such action. In regard to the situation at the Nouakchott fish market, the Committee notes the Government’s explanation that the public notice of 7 June 2000, clarified by that of 16 July 2000, does not prohibit free trade union membership or the exercise of any trade union activity by fishermen but specifies that gatherings and other meetings at the place of work are not authorized. In this connection, the Committee would like to point out that, under the principles of freedom of association, all workers, without distinction of any sort, including without discrimination in regard to occupation, should have the right to establish any organizations they so wish and to join them. Moreover, while trade unions should respect legal provisions which are intended to ensure the maintenance of public order, the public authorities should, for their part, refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of trade unions to organize the holding and proceedings of their meetings in full freedom [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th revised edition, 1996, para. 144].
3. 373. In regard to allegations concerning the levying on vessel owners of a sea access tax and census disk requirement, the Committee notes that available information does not justify the conclusion that such taxes have been levied only on members of the FNTPP. Therefore, this matter would not appear to relate to the exercise of trade union rights and the Committee is of the view that this matter does not call for further examination.
4. 374. In connection with allegations with regard to the fishermen’s protest march which allegedly led to the arrest of four trade union leaders, who were subsequently released, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, no march organized by fishermen, lawful or otherwise, took place. In the light of these contradictory accounts, the Committee considers it appropriate to recall certain principles. Firstly, the Committee has always been of the view that workers should be able to enjoy the right of peaceful demonstration to defend their occupational interests. Moreover, the Committee has emphasized in the past that the fact that measures depriving trade unionists of their freedom on grounds related to their trade union activity, even where they are merely summoned or questioned for a short period, constitute an obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights [see Digest op. cit., paras. 77 and 132]. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide clarification on the alleged arrest of the four trade union leaders mentioned by the complainant. In the event that the anti-union nature of these arrests is confirmed, the Committee requests the Government to take measures so that the appropriate instructions are given in order to prevent the danger involved for trade union activities by such arrests. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.