Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO340, March 2006

328. The complaint is contained in communications from the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Cameroon (CSIC), dated 20 July, 20 October and 2 December 2005, and 23 January 2006.

1. 329. The Government transmitted its reply in communications dated 1 and 29 November 2005.
2. 330. Cameroon 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. 331. The CSIC was set up on 25 November 2000, when the trade unions’ registrar issued a certificate of registration. The CSIC always operated alongside four other trade union confederations until the time it denounced the collective agreement and the protocol agreement, signed in breach of the law, between the AES-SONEL enterprise (Society of energy production and distribution) and the trade union organization FENSTEEEC, a trade union organization backed by the employer, which authorized the enterprise to dismiss 1,000 workers upon the signing of the agreement and to continue its restructuring for two years – a renewable period – thereby, according to the CSIC, circumventing the provisions of section 40 of the Labour Code and the concession agreement with the State of Cameroon.
2. 332. In its communication of 20 July 2005, the CSIC submits allegations pertaining to serious violations of freedom of association and regulations in force, as well as to cases of persecution and dismissals of trade unionists carrying out their activities, by AES-SONEL and the Government of Cameroon.
3. 333. In its communication dated 20 November 2005, the CSIC states that the persecutions of trade unionists had been stepped up: the list of candidates submitted to the employer on 11 April 2004, as well as the list of members, had been used to take repressive measures against those members supporting candidates from the National Independent Electricity Trade Union (SNI-ENERGIE) to the staff election; the transfer without prior notice of officials and members of SNI-ENERGIE had become commonplace; the payment of separation indemnities was non-existent; and the employer’s discrimination in the electoral process seemed to have been given the green light by the Ministry of Labour.
4. Serious violation of trade union freedoms
5. 334. As part of its engagement in all branches of activity, the CSIC undertook to organize the sector of electricity and water production, transport and distribution by establishing SNI-ENERGIE. It submitted its application for the certificate of registration to the trade union registry on 21 February 2005. As the trade unions’ registrar had not examined the application for registration of the trade union and its statutes after 30 days, the trade union was thus “deemed effective” in accordance with section 11(b) of the Labour Code. It was only in April 2005 that the employer, AES-SONEL, sent to the trade union, a correspondence from the trade unions’ registrar in which he stated that SNI-ENERGIE had not yet been legally recognized in the register. The CSIC adds that, jointly with SNI-ENERGIE, they requested the courts to prevent the illegal withholding of the registration certificate that SNI-ENERGIE should have had since 21 February 2005.
6. 335. Subsequently, the employer launched a vast campaign of repression and restriction of freedom of association rights, disinformation and manipulation against the workers, doing so to the advantage of the rival trade union organization, FENSTEEEC. The CSIC then referred the matter to the court of the first instance of Doula, ruling on the substance of the case, in order to declare the collective agreement, its annex and the protocol agreement between AES-SONEL and FENSTEEEC void. During the proceedings, FENSTEEEC voluntarily intervened to support the employer against the CSIC. The FENSTEEEC and the employer used the correspondence from the trade unions’ registrar as grounds for the case of the CSIC to be dismissed alleging that the trade union failed to registered. During the hearing, CGT/Liberté, an organization manipulated by the Government according to the complainant, openly gave its support to FENSTEEEC in a communication dated 6 April 2005 and made public a correspondence referring to the removal of Ndzany Olongo Gilbert, Secretary-General of the CSIC. Given the urgency of the matter, the CSIC also requested the interim relief judge to defer enforcement of these measures provisionally until the ruling on the substance of the case. Despite numerous representations to the employer and the courts, the outcome was a categorical refusal from the employer and a lack of response on the part of the authorities responsible for labour issues.
7. 336. The CSIC states that the electoral process has started out in a chaotic way in the enterprise. Only one trade union organization has been involved in the drawing up of electoral lists, a flagrant case of discrimination in favour of one trade union to the detriment of the other. Consequently, this other trade union has no competition and is organizing the primary elections. This matter was also brought before the courts of the first instance, ruling on grounds of urgency, which handed down two different verdicts. On 28 September 2005, the Court of the First Instance of Yaoundé ordered the participation of the CSIC in the electoral process; AES-SONEL appealed against this ruling. Conversely, on 3 October 2005, the Court of the First Instance of Douala stated its lack of competence ratione materiae (section 126 of the Labour Code); the CSIC and SNI-ENERGIE will appeal against this decision.
8. Violation of the regulations in force
9. 337. During the hearings of the interim relief judge, the representative of FENSTEEC, defending the collective agreement signed with AES-SONEL, referred to Order No. 46/MINETPS/SG/DT/SDRCIT/SNT of 21 August 2003, authorizing FENSTEEEC to negotiate an enterprise agreement. According to the CSIC, this order was drawn up in violation of Decree No. 93/578/PM of 15 July 1993 which stipulates, in section 3, that: “When a national collective agreement has been concluded, no further enterprise collective agreement may be negotiated in the same branch of activity. In this case, only company agreements shall be admitted under the conditions laid down in section 57 of the Labour Code.” It is also in violation of the Order of 20 July 1999 which lays down that, in line with constitutional legality, a Ministerial Order can in no event abrogate a Decree adopted by the head of the Government, even if the Order drawn up by his predecessor has not been nullified. According to the CSIC, the sectoral agreement binding the AES-SONEL and SNEC companies for many years must therefore continue to be upheld.
10. 338. The complainant organization also alleges that, in the concession agreement, the Government of Cameroon had taken care to exclude the social component. This is confirmed by a correspondence from the Minister responsible for the economy and finances, dated 30 March 2000, from the Minister of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, dated 17 October 2001, and from the Chairperson of the technical committee dealing with privatizations and liquidations. Although AES-SONEL undertook not to go ahead with any layoffs, as had occurred in other cases of privatization, it nevertheless dismissed workers without any objective grounds, thereby contravening section 40 of the Labour Code.
11. 339. According to the complainant organization, the fact that the trade unions’ registrar accepted the collective agreement and the protocol agreement proves that no progress has been made in the area of respect for trade union rights. Apart from the grounds referred to above, the collective agreement should be considered null and void for the following reasons: (i) section 6(4) allows for regulation on matters of public order by banning strikes and lock outs, whereas these are rights recognized by the Constitution of Cameroon and section 165 of the Labour Code; (ii) article 11(2) and (4) infringes freedom of expression and communication by stipulating that no text can be made public unless it has been previously submitted for authorization to the employer, while the law does not allow the employer to censor any trade union communications; and (iii) section 14 provides that trade union organizations themselves establish the rate of contributions to be deducted, whereas a decree from the Prime Minister sets the rate at 1 per cent of the employee’s wage.
12. 340. As regards the protocol agreement, this should also be declared invalid on grounds of public order because: (i) the Government of Cameroon has retained responsibility concerning staff, thus excluding any possibility for AEL-SONEL to go ahead with mass layoffs; (ii) the reasons for “negotiated separations” are linked to the internal organization of the enterprise and are not in compliance with the process of public order laid down in section 40 of the Labour Code which, among other things, provides for the presence of the Labour Inspector during these negotiations.
13. 341. The CSIC deplores that the Director-General of AES-SONEL had allegedly infringed the enterprise’s code of ethics which does not allow direct communication with the Vice-Minister responsible for justice, or indeed with the Ministry of Justice, the Prime Minister or the Secretary-General of the Presidency of the Republic, so that they might intervene in his favour with the courts to retain the collective agreement and protocol agreement concerned. These actions constitute an offence as they obstruct the course of justice and are in violation of the principles of separation of powers and the independence of the magistracy.
14. 342. The CSIC also invokes the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Social Security, who had allegedly played a role in the signing of the enterprise agreement between AES-SONEL and FENSTEEEC, in violation of section 3 of Decree No. 93/578/PM of 15 July 1993 establishing the conditions of substance and form applicable to collective labour agreements.
15. Persecution and dismissal of trade unionists
16. 343. Since the time the CSIC and SNI-ENERGIE submitted their case to the competent jurisdictions, the leading officials of these organizations have been persecuted and all obliged to live in hiding because of the many death threats and other threats they receive each day. For example, the list of candidates submitted to the employer on 11 April 2004, as well as the list of members, have been used to take repressive measure against those members supporting SNI-ENERGIE candidates to the staff election.
17. 344. The CSIC describes the case of the Secretary-General of SNI-ENERGIE, Mr. Julien Fouman, who received three communications, accompanied by written threats of reprisals, demanding that he give explanations for having addressed an open letter to the Minister. He was subsequently relieved of his duties as head of the customer division at Douala, demoted and sent to Garoua, in the north of the country, despite the fact that his six children are still in the middle of their schooling. Furthermore, no decision was taken as to the future of his wife, who also works for AES-SONEL in Doula. All these actions were taken without any previous consultations, as required in the enterprise agreement. In accordance with the legal procedure pertaining to individual disputes, he requested the intervention of the Inspector of Labour and Social Welfare of the coastal region which resulted in a memorandum of failure to reach agreement.
18. 345. The CSIC also alleges the dismissal of its Secretary General, Mr. Gilbert Ndzana Olongo, on the grounds that the notice of strike action that he gave for 11 and 12 April 2005 – and subsequently withdrew – constitutes a serious offence. According to the complainant organization, the cases of Messrs. Fouman and Ndzana Olongo are an infringement to freedom of association and also in violation of sections 4 and 30 of the Labour Code of Cameroon and ILO Convention No. 135. This repression has also been extended to other officials in the enterprise.
19. 346. In its communication of 20 November 2005, the CSIC sent a list of trade unionists, who have been persecuted, dismissed, transferred or demoted (see annex). Other officials in the enterprise who support SNI-ENERGIE have also been subjected to repressive measures.
20. 347. In its communications of 2 December 2005 and 23 January 2006, the CSIC states that freedom of association violations continue in Cameroon and mentions several acts of interference by the Government in legitimate trade union activities.
21. B. The Government’s reply
22. 348. In its communication of 1 November 2005, the Government states that the CSIC’s complaint raises numerous questions. It wonders, for instance, if its attitude is not intended to destabilize the only society of energy production and distribution that supplies the whole country, thereby undermining the economy as a whole and increasing both unemployment and poverty. According to the Government, this attitude deviates from section 3 of the Labour Code which states that trade unions are set up for the study, defence, promotion and protection of the economic, industrial, commercial, cultural and moral interests their members.
23. Serious violations of trade union freedoms
24. 349. As regards SNI-ENERGIE’s application for registration, the Government states that it was submitted to the trade unions’ registry at a time when the secretary-general, legal registrar, had not yet been appointed. According to the Government, Mr. Ndzana Olongo knew that the trade unions’ registrar had still not been appointed when he started, once the month allocated to the registrar for registration provided for under section 11(b) of the Labour Code had elapsed, his trade union activities in violation of section 6(2) of the Labour Code.
25. 350. The Government adds that, not satisfied with starting his activities without a certificate of registration, Mr. Ndzana Olongo, in his capacity as Secretary-General of the CSIC, issued a notice of strike action on 31 March 2005 with a view to: (i) denouncing the AES-SONEL enterprise collective agreement that had just been signed; (ii) refusing the separations freely negotiated between certain workers and the AES-SONEL general management; and (iii) accusing the Government of the offence of manifestly obstructing freedom of association.
26. 351. As a result of this action taken without the agreement of the other trade union organizations, the President of the CSIC, Mr. Mougoue Oumarou, informed the public, in a press communiqué dated 4 April 2005, that Mr. Ndzana Olongo had been struck off the list of this Confederation since 11 March 2005 and that consequently his actions no longer committed the CSIC. The Secretary-General of CGT-Liberté and FENSTEEEC, in a statement of 6 April 2005, stated that they were also withdrawing their support and disapproved this action which they considered based on unfounded claims.
27. 352. As regards Mr. Ndzana Olongo, the Government points out that, at the time he issued the strike notice, he had just been reinstated in his job at AES-SONEL with back payment of all wages due to him during the 14-year suspension period, which was only possible thanks to the Government’s intervention. According to the Government, Mr. Ndzana Olongo had been so involved in his trade union activities that he had neglected his role as a worker, a fact noted by a bailiff. Furthermore, Mr. Ndzana Olongo had been dismissed by his employer for incitement to rebellion, conditional threats and desertion of his post which, according to the Government, had nothing to do with his trade union activities.
28. 353. Concerning the election process, the Government states that the provisional results of the election of staff delegates would seem to indicate that only 0.70 per cent of the CSIC delegates had been elected during the social elections held from 1 February to 30 April 2005.
29. Violation of regulations in force
30. 354. As regards the signing of the collective agreement, the Government recalls that on 1 June 1970 the regional inspector of the coastal region had signed the enterprise collective agreement pertaining to the production, transport and distribution of electricity and water between the workers and officials of the electricity company in Cameroon. When the collective agreements had been revised, as they were no longer adapted to present economic conditions, the national collective agreement covering the water and electricity sector had been negotiated in a meeting dated 21 March 2000, at the office of the Ministry of the Economy, Labour and Social Welfare, but it had not been signed for reasons of state. The negotiations were subsequently resumed in this sector and resulted in the AES-SONEL enterprise collective agreement. Consequently, section 3 of Decree No. 93/578/PM of 15 July 1993 establishing conditions of substance and form applicable to collective agreements has not been violated.
31. 355. Furthermore, since the AES-SONEL enterprise collective agreement is valid, Mr. Ndzana Olongo, did not, under section 14 of the abovementioned Decree, have the necessary authority to denounce the collective agreement that had been signed as he was neither a signatory nor a contracting party of that enterprise agreement.
32. 356. Concerning the protocol agreement, the Government specifies that the “so-called disguised dismissals” of AES-SONEL workers were negotiated within the framework of section 40 of the Labour Code, after tripartite consultations. According to the Government, none of the 1,000 employees concerned had lodged a complaint or denounced the protocol.
33. Persecution and dismissal of trade unionists
34. 357. In its communication of 29 November 2005, the Government states that, since the AES-SONEL company is in the throes of a restructuring process, the claims connected to this reorganization must follow a legal procedure.
35. 358. In the case of Mr. Fouman, the Government specifies that the latter did indeed seek the intervention of the Douala labour inspectorate with a view to having his transfer annulled and that the proceedings resulted in a memorandum of failure to reach an agreement. The Government points out that these proceedings could continue before the courts.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 359. The Committee notes that this complaint concerns the following allegations: the trade unions’ registrar refused to register SNI-ENERGIE, the CSIC affiliate trade union for the electricity and water sector; the employer is using this refusal as a pretext to promote a rival trade union organization (FENSTEEEC); the officials and members of SNI-ENERGIE are the victims of harassment and the Secretary-General was removed from his functions without grounds; the Secretary-General of the CSIC was dismissed, without prior notice from the labour inspector, for issuing a notice of strike action; this harassment extends to 15 other trade unionists; the CSIC cannot participate in the trade union electoral process taking place in the enterprise; a collective agreement signed in irregular circumstances authorizes 1,000 layoffs as part of a restructuring/privatization of the National Electricity Company; and the Minister seems to have given his green light to let this happen.
2. Serious violations of trade union freedoms
3. 360. As regards the refusal of the trade unions’ registrar to issue the certificate of registration since 21 February 2005, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, it had been impossible to issue the certificate given that the post of legal registrar was vacant at the time the request was submitted. The Committee notes that it was only in April 2005 that the employer sent correspondence from the trade unions’ registrar in which he announced that the trade union had not yet been legally recognized in the register. The Committee recalls that, although the founders of a trade union should comply with formalities prescribed by legislation, these formalities should not be of such a nature as to impair the free establishment of organizations. The formalities prescribed by law should not be applied in such a way as to delay or prevent the setting up of occupational organizations [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 248-249]. In view of the fact that the Government is responsible for the late appointment of the trade unions’ registrar and taking note of section 11(b) of the Labour Code, which stipulates that a trade union is considered as having been registered one month after the request for registration has been submitted, the Committee requests the Government to issue without delay the certificate of registration to SNI-ENERGIE.
4. 361. Concerning the favouritism shown towards one of the trade unions in the enterprise over the other, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the employer, following the CSIC’s denouncement of the new collective agreement, launched a vast campaign of repression and restriction of trade union freedoms, disinformation and manipulation against the workers, turning everything to the advantage of the rival trade union organization, FENSTEEEC. The Committee recalls that both the government authorities and employers should refrain from any discrimination between trade union organizations [see Digest, op. cit., para 307] and requests the Government to ensure that this principle is respected in the future.
5. 362. As regards the ongoing trade union electoral process in the AES-SONEL enterprise, the Committee notes that only one trade union had been involved in the drawing up of the electoral lists and that, at present, FENSTEEEC is organizing alone the elections of staff delegates. In this respect, the Committee observes the Government’s information to the effect that the provisional results of the election of staff delegates seemed to indicate that only 0.70 per cent of the CSIC delegates had been elected during the social elections held from 1 February to 30 April 2005. The Committee notes that the matter had been brought before the courts of the first instance which handed down different verdicts. On 28 September 2005, the Court of the First Instance of Yaoundé ordered the participation of the CSIC in the electoral process; the AES-SONEL appealed against this ruling. On 3 October 2005, the court of the first instance stated its lack of competence ratione materiae; both the CSIC and SNI-ENERGIE announced that they would appeal this decision. The Committee recalls the fundamental principle of workers being able to join organizations of their own choosing and of the enterprise not interfering in favour of a trade union [see Digest, op. cit., para. 274] and trusts that the decisions of the judiciary authority will take full account of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these decisions.
6. 363. Concerning the notice of strike action considered by the Government to be in contravention of sections 157 and the following sections of the Labour Code, which stipulate that a strike can only take place once the procedures of conciliation and arbitration have been exhausted, and qualified by the employer as being an incitement to rebellion and conditional threats (sections 255, 301 and 302 of the Penal Code), the Committee takes note of the complainant organization’s information to the effect that despite numerous representations to the employer and the courts, the outcome was a categorical refusal from the employer and a silence on the part of the authorities responsible for labour issues. The Committee recalls that, although a strike may be temporarily restricted by law until all procedures available for negotiation, conciliation and arbitration have been exhausted, such a restriction should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage [see Digest, op. cit., para. 501]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that this principle is guaranteed in the future.
7. Violation of regulations in force
8. 364. The Committee notes that the CSIC referred the matter to the Court of the First Instance of Douala, ruling on the substance of the case, in order to declare the collective agreement, its annex and the protocol agreement between AES-SONEL and FENSTEEEC void, and that, given the urgency of the situation, the CSIC also requested the interim relief judge to defer provisionally the application of the protocol until the final ruling on the substance of the case. According to the complainant organization, the outcome was a total lack of response on the part of the authorities responsible for labour issues. The Committee requests the Government to send it the text of the judgements and to keep it informed of any developments of the situation in this regard.
9. 365. Concerning the protocol agreement, the Government specifies that the “disguised dismissals” were negotiated within the framework of section 40 of the Labour Code, by means of tripartite consultations, and that none of the employees had lodged a complaint or denounced the protocol. In view of all this, the Committee recalls that it can examine allegations concerning economic rationalization programmes and restructuring processes only in so far as they might have given rise to acts of discrimination or interference against trade unions. In any case, the Committee points out that rationalization and staff reduction processes should involve consultations or attempts to reach agreement with the trade union organizations [see Digest, op. cit., para. 936]. The Committee requests the Government to make sure that such consultations are held in the event of future restructuring processes.
10. Harassment and dismissal of trade unionists
11. 366. The complainant states that from, the time the CSIC and the national independent electricity trade union submitted their case to the competent jurisdictions, the leading officials of these organizations have been harassed and that this repression has been extended to other employees. The Committee particularly notes the cases of Mr. Fouman, Secretary-General of SNI-ENERGIE, and Mr. Ndzana Olongo, Secretary-General of the CSIC, and takes note of the list of 15 names of trade unionists who have been harassed, dismissed, transferred or demoted (see annex). In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that since the company is in the throes of a restructuring process, the claims connected to this process should follow a legal procedure.
12. 367. In this respect, 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, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. 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 from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and it must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 724 and 738].
13. 368. Noting that the case of Mr. Fouman has been referred to the labour inspectorate at Douala and that these proceedings might continue before the court, and that the case of Mr. Ndzana Olongo is before the courts, the Committee expects that the competent instances take account in their deliberations of the abovementioned principles. It urges the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings under way and to communicate to it the text of the final judgements handed down by the courts in this respect.
14. 369. With respect to the various allegations of anti-union discrimination against officials and members of the CSIC and SNI-ENERGIE (see list of 15 names in the annex), the Committee requests the Government to undertake immediately an independent inquiry into the allegations of anti-union discrimination against the officials and members of the CSIC and SNI-ENERGIE, taking full account of the judicial proceedings under way. If it turns out they have been subjected to harassment and persecution on account of their trade union activities, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that these trade union officials might freely perform their trade union duties and exercise their trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the situation. Taking into account that Cameroon has ratified the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), the Committee requests the Government to take rapidly the necessary measures so that the trade union officials dismissed in violation of the relevant national legislation might benefit effectively from all the protections and guarantees provided for under this legislation. If it is found that acts of anti-union discrimination have been committed, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee their reinstatement. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken to ensure this.
15. 370. On the basis of information provided from both sides, there seems to be a disagreement within the CSIC, the latter claiming that Mr. Ndzana Olongo had been struck off the list of the said trade union organization on 11 March 2005. Consequently, all the actions by Mr. Ndzana Olongo would no longer commit the CSIC. The Committee recalls that it is not competent to make recommendations on internal dissentions within a trade union organization, so long as the Government did not intervene in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal functioning of an organization. In cases of this nature when there have been internal dissentions, the Committee has also pointed out that judicial intervention would permit a clarification of the situation from the legal point of view for the purpose of settling the question of the leadership and representation of the organization concerned [see Digest, op. cit., para. 965].
16. 371. The Committee notes the supplementary information contained in the CSIC communications of 2 December 2005 and 23 January 2006 and requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Z. Annex

• Name
• Position
• Observations
• NDZANA OLONGO Gilbert
• Supervisor
• Chairperson of the National Committee and staff delegate
• Dismissed
• Matter before the court
• FOUMAN Julien Marcel Executive Business Economist
• Secretary-General of SNI-ENERGIE, candidate for staff delegates’ election
• Removed from post, transferred secretly and in an irregular manner to Garoua. Has already received and replied to three demands for explanations
• Likely at any moment to be dismissed, with the trade union movement continuing to be a monopoly at AES-SONEL
• NGUINI FOUDA A. Executive Engineer
  2. 2nd Vice-Chairperson, candidate for staff delegates’ election
• No mention of his post on his management’s organizational chart, following his refusal of an offer of forced separation.
• Threatened with being transferred outside Douala where he is a candidate for election
• BIENG Jean Jacques
• Executive Accountant and Financial Analyst
• Deputy Secretary for financial and economic affairs, candidate for staff delegates’ election
• No mention of his post on his management’s organizational chart, following his refusal of an offer of forced separation. Finally accepted to leave but the employer now refuses
• Posted to Bertoua, 600 km from Douala, as measure of reprisal. The matter is before the court at Douala; he is likely to be dismissed at any moment
• KELLE Jacqueline Administrative executive
• Secretary responsible for women workers and gender equality, candidate for staff delegates’ election.
• Her name was on the list of forced separations, despite her status as staff delegate.
• Has just been redeployed but demoted to a supervisor position. She is considering requesting her voluntary departure to avoid this humiliation.
• SOBGOU François Didi Executive Business Economist
  1. 1st Deputy Secretary-General, candidate for staff delegates’ election
• Was obliged to accept forced separation
• The matter is before the court on account of procedural irregularity as acceptance did not take place in presence of the labour inspector and transaction was fraudulent, as false promise of CNPS retirement was given.
• GWANDI Patricia Executive
  2. 2nd Deputy to National Secretary responsible for women workers and gender equality
• Refused offer of forced separation
• Has just been redeployed at Ombe, 60 km. away from her job in Douala
• OWONO Marie Thérèse Executive Business Economist
  2. 2nd Deputy to National Secretary for Social Affairs, head of group of HIV/AIDS-infected persons, candidate for staff delegates’ election
• Offer of forced departure was withdrawn after her observations
• Has just been redeployed at Ombe, 60 km away from her job in Douala and far from medical centres
• NDINGUE Philippe Executive Business Economist
  2. 2nd Deputy to National Secretary responsible for communications and press.
• Offer of forced departure was withdrawn after his observations
• Has just been redeployed at Maroua, 1,500 km away from his job in Douala
• SONDECK Gabriel Executive Engineer
• Candidate for delegates’ election at Douala
• Offer of forced departure was withdrawn after his observations
• Has just been redeployed at Lagdo, 1,400 km from his job in Douala. The matter is before the courts
• ONGUENE NOMO Pierre Executive Business Economist
• Candidate for delegates’ election at Douala
• Threatened with transfer 300 km from Douala, hence his fear of continuing his activities with the trade union
• NGAMBI Théodore Supervisor
• Candidate for delegates’ election at Douala
• See withdrawal document
• Despite his withdrawal, has been transferred outside Douala in a very isolated area where the enterprise has no job suited to his qualifications
• BALOG Benjamin Administrative executive
  1. 1st Vice-chairperson
• Gave up his activities long ago as a result of considerable pressures
• NGAMBO Jean-Baptiste Engineer
  2. 2nd Deputy to the National Secretary of the organization
• Offer of forced departure was withdrawn after his observations.
• Was transferred to Bertoua, 600 km. from Douala, headquarters of the trade union. The case is before the courts
• AKOA Placide
• Supervisor
  1. 1st Deputy to Secretary for inter- union cooperation
• Dismissed after refusing the offer of forced separation
• The case is before the courts