Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO338, November 2005

822. The Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Côte d’Ivoire “Dignity” presented this complaint in a communication dated 10 July 2004.

1. 823. As the Government did not respond, the Committee had to postpone the examination of the case twice. At its May-June 2005 meeting [see 337th Report, para. 10], the Committee addressed an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that, according to the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it might submit a report on the substance of the matter at the next session, even if the requested information or observations had not been received in time. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
2. 824. Côte d’Ivoire has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 825. In its communication of 10 July 2004, the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Côte d’Ivoire “Dignity” presented the following allegations. In July 2000, Mr. Matou Thompson, an employee of the Autonomous Port of Abidjan, was elected General Secretary of the Port Workers’ Union. In this role, he inherited two files concerning portworkers: the first was about the management of social assistance funds and the second concerned the port agents’ mutual housing fund. These two structures were set up on the initiative of workers, who finance them through at-source deductions from salaries. The complainant alleges that these structures, managed by company directors, members of the autonomous port authority and leaders of the “rival” union SUTRAPA (the Single Union of Workers of the Autonomous Port of Abidjan), have allowed serious irregularities in their operation. Under these circumstances, Mr. Thompson made efforts to improve the management of these structures.
2. 826. According to the complainant, under the pretext that the press had reported these matters, the port authority decided, on 16 July 2002, to end Mr. Thompson’s contract, a decision following on from authorization granted by the sub-management of the Vridi labour inspectorate responsible for this area. At the end of a hierarchical appeal lodged on 2 August 2002 against the dismissal, the board of the labour inspectorate ordered that Mr. Thompson be reinstated. However, according to the complainant, even before the ruling had been made on the aforementioned appeal, the port authority of the Autonomous Port of Abidjan had immediately proceeded to evict, in violent and traumatic conditions, the union leader and members of his family from the staff housing that they were living in. The complainant states that the case has been submitted to the interim judge, who stated that he was not competent to hear the eviction case, as the final administrative decision was not yet known.
3. 827. The complainant believes, in the light of the foregoing, that the union leader was not accused of any professional misconduct but rather was dismissed for having denounced the bad management of the social assistance fund and the mutual housing fund by members of the autonomous port authority and leaders of the “rival” union SUTRAPA.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 828. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has passed since the complaint was presented, the Government has not responded to the allegations made by the complainant, although it has been invited several times, including by urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on this case. The Committee expresses its expectation that the Government will be more cooperative in the future.
2. 829. Under these circumstances, according to the applicable procedural rule [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee is obliged to submit a report on the substance of the matter without being able to take account of the information awaited from the Government.
3. 830. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization to examine allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognize the importance for their own reputation of formulating, so as to allow objective examination, detailed replies to allegations brought against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
4. 831. The Committee notes that the complaint is based on allegations of violations of freedom of association against the General Secretary of the Union of Workers of the Autonomous Port of Abidjan. The Committee also notes that, following a hierarchical appeal against the decision to dismiss Mr. Thompson, the board of the labour inspectorate ordered his reinstatement.
5. 832. The Committee recalls that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, including dismissal, and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 702 and 724]. The Committee also draws attention to the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), ratified by Côte d’Ivoire, and the Workers’ Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143), in which it is expressly established that workers’ representatives in the undertaking should enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as workers’ representatives or on union membership, or participation in union activities in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements [see Digest, op. cit., para 732].
6. 833. As the complainant indicates that the board of the labour inspectorate ordered Mr. Thompson’s reinstatement following a hierarchical appeal lodged in August 2002 against the decision to dismiss him, and in the absence of any observations from the Government, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that the union leader has been reinstated in his post without loss of salary or of any of the benefits to which he is entitled, including housing. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments and to forward copies of all judicial decisions made in this case.