Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO344, March 2007

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 15. This case was last examined by the Committee at its March 2006 session and concerns allegations of obstacles to the establishment of trade union organizations and a trade union confederation and to the exercise of trade union rights, anti-union dismissals, anti-union harassment by the public authorities, and the arbitrary arrest and detention of union members [see 340th Report, paras 15–20]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government: (a) to indicate whether appellate proceedings had been filed against the judgement of the Algiers Court of Appeal of 5 February 2006 concerning the internal dispute between the two factions of the SNAPAP and, if so, to provide it with a copy of the relevant decision as soon as it was issued; (b) to provide its observations on the complainant’s allegations concerning the payment of subsidies aimed at financing complaints against one of the SNAPAP factions; and (c) to keep it informed regarding the decision reached on the matter of the seven workers dismissed from the Prefecture of Oran. It noted also that several of its recommendations had yet to be implemented, and once again urged the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that decisions to determine the representativeness of a particular organization could be taken without the identities of members being revealed. The Committee also urged the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to amend the legal provisions preventing workers’ organizations from forming federations and confederations of their own choosing, irrespective of the sector to which they belong, and to keep it informed of the measures taken in that regard [see 340th Report, paras 18 and 19].
2. 16. In a communication of 2 April 2006, the complainant recalls certain alleged facts (concerning the SNAPAP Congress which took place on 7 and 8 April 2005, the alleged diversion of the SNAPAP subsidy, and the failure to follow up the Committee’s recommendations) and denounces the contradictory and inaccurate allegations contained in the Government’s communications of 23 December and 6 March 2006. The complainant alleges that: (1) with regard to the judgements concerning the SNAPAP headquarters, justice is not independent and the judges are subjected to pressure from politicians; the complainant also refers to procedural errors (the case should have been referred to the land rights magistrate before referral to the criminal court judge for examination of the substance of the case); the SNAPAP decided to appeal to the Supreme Court and to international tribunals; (2) the Government still refuses to recognize the representativeness of the SNAPAP unless this is backed up with a list of members’ names, and has extended that condition to all autonomous unions; (3) the SNAPAP comprises more than ten sectoral federations constituted in accordance with the law and, contrary to the Government’s claims, requiring no certificate of registration; (4) the Government refuses to register the CASA, although its constituent documents conform to legal requirements; (5) the seven workers from the Prefecture of Oran were not dismissed by a decision of the disciplinary committee, which has never been convened; the decision was taken by the Prefect of the Oran Prefecture. The Government maintains that it will communicate the judicial decisions taken on the matter, although the workers concerned have never sought recourse to the courts. A decision to reinstate the workers was taken following a decision by a commission established by the general directorate of the civil service following a three-year campaign by the SNAPAP; and (6) Mr Rabah Mebarki, President of the National Union of Civil Protection (UNPC), and Mr Khaled Mokhtari are still suspended without pay. They have sought refuge abroad in view of the various forms of pressure brought to bear on them, despite the judgement given with regard to Mr Khaled Mokhtari.
3. 17. In a communication of 30 August 2006 (which summarizes the communications of 11, 15 and 30 July and 2 August), the complainant indicated that (1) Mr Nassereddine Chibane a member of UNPC–SNAPAP) had been reinstated following his suspension for trade union activities, but with a transfer, by decision of the National Appeals Commission; (2) Ms Fatima Zohra Khaled (President of the trade union section of the SNAPAP at the Ecole nationale supérieure d’enseignement technique in Oran) had been subjected to intimidation and harassment following the national strike of 9 May 2006; (3) Mr Mourad Tchiko (Vice-President of UNPC–SNAPAP), who had been suspended and transferred by a decision of the disciplinary committee for his trade union activities, lodged an appeal with the National Appeals Commission, but the General Directorate of the civil protection authority blocked the appeal by filing a complaint against him; Mr Tchiko is now suspended, although he received no summons from the court; and (4) Mr Mohamed Hadjdjilani (National Secretary for Information), after suffering numerous attempts at intimidation and administrative harassment, has been relieved of his duties, transferred, and had his salary stopped for one month. The hospital administration has withdrawn recognition of his trade union status.
4. 18. The Committee notes that in a communication of 19 June 2006, Public Services International (PSI) expressed a wish to support the complaint, in view of the seriousness of the situation and the continuing and systematic violations of the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining suffered by the SNAPAP, which is affiliated to PSI.
5. 19. In a communication dated 17 March 2006, the Government responds to the allegations made by the SNAPAP. It maintains that the SNAPAP has been prone to internal disputes since 2003, disputes which have led to three general congresses within a period of two years. Settlement of these disputes is a matter for the competent courts, and the Minister of Labour cannot express a view on the matter until the courts have given their ruling on the dispute between the parties. The dispute between the three factions concerning the union’s premises has been referred to the courts.
6. 20. The ruling handed down by the El Harrach court on 13 June 2005, ordering the evacuation of the SNAPAP premises to the benefit of the executive body headed by Mr Felfoul, was upheld on appeal by a ruling given on 5 February 2006 by the Algiers Court. Both the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the ILO were informed of the ruling. The Government is anxious to ensure that the law is strictly applied and to honour its international obligations in this area. In a communication dated 19 June 2006, the Government informs the Committee that it will communicate any decision handed down in this case.
7. 21. In the above communication, the Government also indicates that: (1) as regards the allegations concerning the granting of the subsidy to the SNAPAP, financial incentives provided by the authorities to trade union organizations are granted without regard to any internal disputes or factions; (2) as regards the representativeness of trade union organizations, the criteria set out under Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990 have hitherto posed no problem; and (3) the constitution of federations and confederations is not prohibited by the terms of Act No. 90-14 but is subject to the same principles as apply to trade union organizations.
8. 22. The Committee notes this information. The Committee notes with concern that the complainant reports further violations of freedom of association in Algeria. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the allegations concerning Nassereddine Chibane, Fatima Zohra Khaled, Mourad Tchiko and Mohamed Hadjdjilani.
9. 23. As regards the judgements concerning the SNAPAP premises, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court and to provide a copy of the ruling as soon as it is handed down. In addition, the Committee notes once again that a number of its recommendations have still not been implemented. It recalls that the requirement imposed by the authorities, that a list be provided of a given organization’s members as well as copies of their membership cards, is not consistent with the criteria of representativeness established by the Committee. The Committee can only refer back to its previous conclusions regarding the danger of reprisals and anti-union discrimination inherent in a requirement of this type. It once again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that decisions regarding the representativeness of a particular organization can be taken without the identities of members being revealed.
10. 24. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the legal provisions preventing workers’ organizations from forming federations and confederations of their own choosing, irrespective of the sector to which they belong, and to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.