DISPLAYINFrench - Spanish
- 29. The Committee examined the substance of this case concerning
anti-union discrimination against the Professional Trade Union of Train Drivers of
Cameroon (SPCTC) by the Cameroon Railway Company (CAMRAIL) at its meeting in June 2011
[see 360th Report, paras 291–323]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the
Government to obtain information from the company on the allegations, to indicate the
current situation of the trade union in the company, particularly with regard to the
deduction of the union dues of its members, the premises made available to it and its
activities, and to inform it of the outcome of the complaint lodged against the company
for the unjustified dismissal of seven members of the SPCTC.
- 30. The Committee notes that, in a communication dated 31 October 2013,
the complainant organization, the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), indicates
that the Government has taken no action to give effect to the Committee’s
recommendations. It also indicates that only one of the seven union members dismissed by
the company has obtained a ruling in their favour convicting the company to pay 22
million CFA francs in compensation (the High Court of Mfoundi and then the Court of
Appeal of the Centre Region). The other six union members, who had filed the case with
another court (the High Court of Wouri), had their dismissal confirmed on grounds of
misconduct. The complainant denounces the different treatment of the union members,
which changes according to the court.
- 31. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the
action taken on its recommendations, which is contained in the communications dated 23
July 2012, 13 January 2013 and 3 January 2014. The Government indicates that it raised
the matter of the deduction of the union dues of SPCTC members with the company, despite
the latter’s initial refusal to do so owing to administrative problems. The Government
adds that the SPCTC does not have access to the premises intended for unions in the
company as it did not take part in the last trade union elections, and therefore has no
staff delegates in the company. Lastly, the Government indicates that the union members
in question were dismissed on account of an illegal work stoppage, and not their
activities, and that the appeals lodged are still before the courts.
- 32. The Committee, having noted the court rulings concerning the seven
SPCTC members dismissed for participating in a strike, requests the Government to
indicate whether an appeal has been lodged against the rulings of the High Court of
Wouri confirming the dismissal of six of the union members and, if so, to inform it of
the outcome.
- 33. In general, the Committee notes with concern the lack of information
from the Government on the practical measures taken to enable the SPCTC to carry out its
activities without hindrance within CAMRAIL. The Committee is therefore bound to
reiterate a number of its recommendations. The Committee urges the Government to provide
information on any investigation conducted by the authorities into the allegations of
anti-union discrimination contained in the communication of 9 October 2008 from the
SPCTC to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.
- 34. Moreover, the Committee, noting the Government’s indication that it
has raised the matter with the company with a view to it signing an agreement with the
SPCTC authorizing the deduction of the union dues of its members, urges it to indicate
any negotiations conducted or agreements concluded on this subject.
- 35. Lastly, the Committee notes the company’s explanations for refusing
to provide SPCTC representatives with premises and expects that the trade union will at
least have access to the workplace of its members and that its representatives will be
able to perform their functions in relation to its members without hindrance.
