Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO367, March 2013

1. 213. The complaint is contained in a communication of 10 April 2012 signed by the following trade union organizations: the Workers’ Trade Union Confederation of Benin (CSTB), the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Benin (CSA–Benin), the General Confederation of the Workers of Benin (CGTB), the Confederation of Independent Trade Union Organizations of Benin (COSI–Benin), and the Confederation of Private and Informal Sector Trade Unions of Benin (CSPIB). The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 11 July 2012.
2. 214. Benin 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 complainants’ allegations

1. 215. In a communication dated 10 April 2012, the CSTB, the CSA–Benin, the CGTB, the COSI–Benin, and the CSPIB denounce the ongoing violation of trade union rights in Benin, in particular the right to strike.
2. 216. The complainants indicate that the education sector – at all levels (nursery, primary and secondary) – has been affected by a teachers’ strike since January 2012. The teachers demand that the authorities allow them to benefit from the public sector wage index increase agreed between the Government and trade union organizations in July 2011. According to the complainants, the exclusion of teachers from the coverage of the agreement, as well as the way in which the authorities handled the conflict, led to an escalation of the strike.
3. 217. The complainants report that a smear campaign and acts of intimidation and physical and mental violence have been carried out by the authorities against striking teachers. The complainants further denounce a text adopted by the Council of Ministers on 14 March 2012 providing for the systematic dismissal from the Benin public service of all teachers involved in work stoppages; the suspension and systematic dismissal of officials in a position of authority who “are guilty of gross misconduct by going on strike”; the dismissal of teachers “guilty of abandoning their duties”; and the opening of registration centres for candidate teachers in barracks and local police stations. The Council of Ministers is also reported to have decided to ban all demonstrations and strikes, citing a decision of the Constitutional Court. Lastly, the complainants add that the Government has carried out illegal pay deductions and decided to confiscate teachers’ wages for the month of March 2012.
4. 218. In addition, the complainants report specific cases of arrests and use of violence against striking teachers. In particular, they refer to the case of Mr Ganiou Yessoufou and his wife, both teachers at a school in Cotonou, who were arrested on 20 March 2012 on grounds of violating the ban on assemblies in the workplace. It is alleged that they were only released as a result of pressure from the trade unions and their pupils. The complainants also report that 14 striking teachers were harassed and arrested by the police in Cotonou on 21 March 2012 at the request of the headmistress of their school, and that two trade union officials, Mr Jules Amoussouga and Mr Cécil Ayadokoun, were arrested for having informed their colleagues of the continuation of the strike. They were reportedly only released as a result of pressure from other teachers.
5. 219. The complainants consider that the current situation is unacceptable and incompatible with the exercise of fundamental workers’ rights. Denying teachers the right to strike constitutes a clear violation of Convention No. 87, which Benin has ratified, and of the national Constitution, which guarantees the exercise of the right to strike.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 220. In a communication dated 11 July 2012, the Government provides background information on the context in which the dispute in the education sector began. After almost eight months of strike action by workers employed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, which significantly disrupted the functioning of the administration and paralyzed institutions, the Government entered into negotiations with the trade union confederations, resulting in a decree establishing a 1.25 per cent revaluation of index-related wages only for the employees of that ministry (Decree No. 2011-335 of 20 April 2011). However, ruling on an appeal, the Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 11-042 of 21 June 2011, declaring the decree unconstitutional on the grounds that the measures established preferential treatment for one sector of the public service and thereby violated the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), and the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Government adopted another Decree establishing a revaluation factor for the wage index of state employees (Decree No. 2011-505 of 5 August 2011). This Decree provides for a wage revaluation for workers employed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, as of January 2011, and its progressive extension over a period of four years to permanent and contractual employees in other ministries and state institutions on the basis of the indices established as at 31 December 2011. This progressive extension is due to the fact that the State does not have the sufficient resources to cover all the costs immediately. However, according to the Government, a revaluation factor had been applied to the wages of nursery, primary and secondary school teachers in the general, technical and professional branches in 2010, under Decree No. 2010-101 of 26 March 2010. The Government thus does not consider that teachers can be said to have suffered discriminatory treatment, and finds that their strike is surprising and unjustified given that they were the first to benefit from these wage revaluation measures.
2. 221. With regard to the allegations of acts of intimidation and physical and mental aggression against striking teachers, the Government refutes all the allegations and indicates that the intervention of the police was strictly limited to maintaining public order and protecting teachers who were not on strike. In addition, the Government states that none of the striking teachers were arrested, or suffered physical aggression or torture. Regarding the allegations of dismissal threats, the Government indicates that, to date, no teacher has been dismissed for taking strike action.
3. 222. With regard to the allegations of illegal pay deductions and salary confiscations, the Government recalls that, under Act No. 2001-09 of 21 June 2002 on the exercise of the right to strike, any participation in a strike will result in a proportional reduction of wages and benefits, with the exception of child benefits. According to the Government, this provision does not run counter to the principles of the International Labour Organization regarding the exercise of the right to strike.
4. 223. Lastly, the Government states that excessive recourse to the right to strike is not conducive to a country’s development and that trade unions should exercise their recognized right to strike without undermining the public interest.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 224. The Committee observes that, in this case, the allegations concern the violation of the right to strike of teachers and, in particular, acts of intimidation and violence by the authorities against striking teachers.
2. 225. The Committee notes the complainants’ allegations to the effect that nursery, primary and secondary school teachers began a strike in January 2012 to demand that the authorities allow them to benefit from the public sector wage index increase agreed between the Government and trade union organizations in July 2011. According to the complainants, the exclusion of teachers from the coverage of the agreement, as well as the way in which the authorities handled the conflict, led to an escalation of the strike. The Committee also takes note of the explanations provided by the Government on the context in which the teachers’ strike took place. In particular, it notes that the demands related to the right to benefit from the wage revaluation established under Decree No. 2011-505, of 5 August 2011, establishing a revaluation factor to the wage index of state employees. The Committee notes that this decree, issued following the revocation by the Constitutional Court of a previous decree that only covered workers employed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance, provides for a wage revaluation for these workers at a pre-established rate as of January 2011 and the progressive extension of the revaluation over a period of four years to permanent and contractual workers employed by other ministries and state institutions. The Government explains that this progressive extension is due to the State’s lack of sufficient resources to cover all the costs immediately.
3. 226. The Committee notes that the complainants denounce the way in which the authorities handled the strike, in particular their alleged use of a smear campaign, intimidation measures and violence against strikers. The Committee observes that the complainants report specific cases, in particular that of Mr Ganiou Yessoufou and his wife, both teachers at a school in Cotonou, reported to have been arrested on 20 March 2012 for violating the ban on workplace assemblies; and of two trade union officials, Mr Jules Amoussouga and Mr Cécil Ayadokoun, who were allegedly arrested for informing their colleagues of the continuation of the strike; as well as that of 14 striking teachers who were reportedly harassed and arrested by the police in Cotonou on 21 March 2012 at the request of the school management. The Committee notes that the complainants indicate that these persons were released as a result of pressure from the trade unions and the public. The Committee notes that the Government refutes all the allegations of violence and intimidation and indicates that the intervention of the police was always strictly limited to maintaining public order and guaranteeing the safety of the teachers who did not take strike action. According to the Government, none of the teachers involved in the strike were arrested or suffered physical violence or torture.
4. 227. Firstly, with regard to the right to strike, the Committee recalls that it has always recognized this right for workers and their organizations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests. And while workers and their organizations have an obligation to respect the law of the land in strike situations, the authorities should resort to the use of force only in grave situations where law and order is seriously threatened. Moreover, the Committee has always considered that no one should be penalized for carrying out or attempting to carry out a legitimate strike. Respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that workers should not be dismissed or refused re-employment on account of their having participated in a strike or other industrial action. Lastly, the Committee recalls that the authorities should not resort to arrests and imprisonment in connection with the organization of or participation in a peaceful strike [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 521, 644, 645, 660 and 671].
5. 228. In this particular case, the Committee takes note of the divergent accounts presented by the complainants and the Government as to the way in which the authorities handled the teachers’ strike. However, in view of the specific cases reported by the complainants of strikers having suffered acts of violence and arrests, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to investigate the allegations and, should they be found to be true, to take all appropriate steps and give the appropriate instructions to ensure that in the future the right to strike may be exercised in accordance with the principles recalled above.
6. 229. The Committee also notes the complainants’ allegations concerning a text adopted by the Council of Ministers on 14 March 2012 providing for the systematic dismissal from the Benin public service of all teachers involved in work stoppages, the suspension and systematic dismissal of officials in a position of authority who “are guilty of gross misconduct by going on strike”, the dismissal of teachers “guilty of abandoning their duties”, and the opening of registration centres for candidate teachers in barracks and local police stations. It is also reported that the Council of Ministers has decided to ban all demonstrations and strikes citing a decision of the Constitutional Court. Recalling that no one should be penalized for carrying out or attempting to carry out a legitimate strike, the Committee expresses its concern at the contents of such a text. Noting that the Government has failed to reply to these allegations, apart from stating that no teacher has, to date, been dismissed for strike action, the Committee requests the Government to provide its observations and to submit a copy of the text in question.
7. 230. The Committee notes that, according to the complainants, the Government carried out illegal pay deductions and decided to confiscate teachers’ wages for the month of March 2012. It notes the Government’s reply to the effect that, under Act No. 2001-09 of 21 June 2002 on the exercise of the right to strike, any participation in a strike will result in a proportional reduction of wages and benefits, with the exception of child benefits. According to the Government, this provision does not run counter to the principles of the ILO on the exercise of the right to strike. In this respect, the Committee recalls that salary deductions for days of strike give rise to no objection from the point of view of freedom of association principles [see Digest, op. cit., para. 654].