Interim Report - REPORT_NO386, June 2018

1. 214. The complaint is contained in communications from the Independent Trade Union Association of Cuba (ASIC) dated 21 December 2016 and 3 January, 7 February, 30 March and 3 April 2017.
2. 215. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 29 September 2017.
3. 216. Cuba 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. 217. In its communications of 21 December 2016 and 3 January, 7 February, 30 March and 3 April 2017, ASIC reports numerous specific cases of anti-union discrimination and interference on the part of the authorities (including harassment, persecution, arrests and assaults) against independent trade union activists, alleges that the Government recognizes only one single trade union federation, and asserts that there is no collective bargaining or legal recognition of the right to strike in the country.
2. 218. ASIC indicates that it was established on 26 October 2016, to replace the Independent Trade Union Coalition of Cuba (CSIC). It provides copies of its constituent instrument, structure, declaration of principles and union constitution, in which it is stated that ASIC is the result of the amalgamation of the Single Council of Cuban Workers (CUTC), the Cuban Confederation of Independent Workers (CTIC) and the Independent National Workers’ Confederation of Cuba (CONIC). In its declaration of principles, ASIC advocates trade union autonomy in the framework of the rule of law, promotes full compliance with ILO international labour standards and proclaims that it will not compromise or associate itself with party-political activities. It also asserts the importance of strengthening ties of fraternity and solidarity with workers in other parts of the world, without embracing their ideology or religion. ASIC’s objectives in its constitution include grouping together the country’s independent trade unions and reporting violations of international standards. Members’ duties as set out in the union constitution include defending workers’ claims and benefits. ASIC provides details of its organization chart and elected offices, and emphasizes that it is represented in all provinces of the country.
3. 219. ASIC alleges that the Government recognizes only one single trade union federation in the country – the Cuban Workers’ Federation (CTC) – controlled by the State and the Communist Party. It indicates that the Labour Code maintains the monopoly of the CTC through ambiguous wording. It considers that the text of the Code aims at formal compliance with international standards but has nothing to do with the actual world of work in Cuba. In this regard, ASIC highlights the fact that section 13 of the Code establishes that workers have the right to organize voluntarily and to establish trade unions, “in conformity with fundamental unitary principles”. It also considers that Act No. 118 concerning foreign investment and the provisions governing the Mariel Special Development Zone (ZEDM) are contrary to the principles of freedom of association. In this context, ASIC alleges that the police and state security authorities, as well as those exercising authority within workplaces, relentlessly repress any autonomous or independent industrial action, whether individual or collective in nature, and do not recognize any form of representation outside the official trade union movement.
4. 220. In that respect, ASIC reports in detail in its complaint on anti-union aggression, interference and discrimination on the part of the authorities against independent trade union activists, as a result of which the latter are obliged to carry out their activities in an extremely hostile and repressive environment. The alleged aggression includes arrests of trade unionists, threats of prosecution, physical assaults, raids on private houses, trials and convictions of union leaders, dismissals, cases of short-term but systematic detention, travel bans, as well as the use of legal proceedings involving the constant threat of imprisonment, the confiscation of trade union property and the dismissal of workers for their union activities, including just for attendance at union training sessions. The specific allegations by ASIC can be summarized as follows:
   • (a) On 6 November 2015, Mr Kelvin Vega Rizo, the secretary of the Independent Mine Workers Union affiliated to the CTIC, was dismissed from his post at the former “René Ramos Latour” nickel processing plant, where he had worked as a plumber for over 23 years. According to Mr Vega Rizo, officials of the Department of State Security (DSE) ordered the company management to dismiss him following his attendance at a trade union training course at the University of Latin American Workers (UTAL) in Panama.
   • (b) On 9 December 2015, plain-clothes officers from the secret political police arrested Mr Osvaldo Arcis Hernández, an independent trade unionist belonging to the Escambray Independent Trade Union, in the municipality of Trinidad and took him into custody. Nine days later he was tried in summary judicial proceedings and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment further to the charge of being a danger to society. He was denied any choice of defence counsel and the authorities provided him with a court-appointed lawyer instead. Before his arrest, he had been physically assaulted and received written threats of imprisonment if he did not give up his independent trade union activities. He was granted conditional release on Friday, 19 August 2016 and was warned that he faced further imprisonment if he continued his independent trade union activities.
   • (c) On 6 January 2016, the joint authorities of the Ministry of the Interior and the DSE raided the residence of independent trade unionist Mr Bárbaro Tejeda Sánchez in Holguín. The police conducted a thorough search of the property and confiscated a laptop, a mobile phone, a flash memory device and a camera, without issuing a certificate of confiscation. The Government has not responded to the complaint lodged by the trade union member.
   • (d) Repeated acts of repression were committed by DSE agents against Mr Pavel Herrera Hernández, an independent trade unionist, including constant surveillance of his movements and arbitrary detention for short periods (with threats of termination of employment if he did not give up his anti-establishment activities), culminating in dismissal from his post. On 8 April 2016, he was dismissed from his job as a dockworker which he had performed for over eight years, with the management alleging unjustified absences, specifically on 9 and 22 March 2016, even though both of these absences were the result of being arrested by DSE agents as he was leaving home to go to work (on 22 March, the final day of the visit of the President of the United States, he was held in police custody).
   • (e) During and prior to the visit of the President of the United States, several CTIC activists were arrested, threatened and beaten up: (i) on 12 March 2016, the general secretary of the Catering Workers’ Union, Mr Alexis Gómez Rodríguez, was arrested by DSE officials and police officers as he was leaving his house for work and was taken into police custody. He was released after 8.30 p.m., having been warned to stay at home for the duration of the US President’s visit; (ii) on 17 March 2016, Mr Iván Hernández Carrillo, the CTIC general secretary, was arrested in Colón by nearly a dozen police officers, who kicked him to the ground, damaged his clothes and shoes, and forcibly took him into police custody. They later issued a warning for an alleged disturbance of public order and released him on payment of a fine. The following day, they arrested him again and warned him that during the visit of the US President his freedom of movement was restricted; and (iii) other trade union activists, including Mr Emilio Gottardi Gottardi and Mr Raúl Zerguera Borrell, were issued official warnings and placed under temporary house arrest.
   • (f) On 31 July 2016, on his return to Cuba after a work-related trip, Mr Iván Hernández Carrillo (now ASIC general secretary) was arrested with force at the airport, taken into police custody and reportedly accused of the offence of contempt, before being released without charge the following day. Many of his belongings had been inspected, some damaged and others stolen, including a radio, 15 compact discs containing ILO Conventions and other ILO documents, as well as t-shirts and stickers considered by the regime to be “enemy propaganda”. In the wake of this situation, a number of international bodies – including the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) – publicly called for an end to these abuses.
   • (g) On 20 September 2016, several trade union activists from CONIC, the CUTC and the CTIC were arrested and others were kept under house arrest by the secret police to prevent them from holding a peaceful assembly aimed at establishing a broad independent trade union coalition. Those arrested included: (i) CUTC general secretary Mr Alejandro Sánchez Zaldívar, who was arrested in the early hours on the same day as he was leaving his house, taken to a judicial office and questioned by DSE officials before being dropped off far from home; (ii) Ms Ariadna Mena Rubio (of the CTIC), who was held in police custody and released eight hours later, following intensive questioning; (iii) Ms Hilda Aylin López Salazar (CONIC), who was taken to Police Unit No. 3 of Havana and subjected to heavy interrogation; and (iv) trade unionists Ms Aimée de las Mercedes Cabrera Álvarez (CUTC), Mr Reinaldo Cosano Alén (CONIC) and Mr Víctor Manuel Domínguez García (National Trade Union Training Centre – CNCS) were prohibited from leaving their homes, having been informed that they would otherwise face arrest.
   • (h) On 22 September 2016, CTIC activist Mr Felipe Carrera Hernández was arrested at home by the national police and taken to a police station, where he was questioned for two hours by plain-clothes secret police officers about his work-related and trade union activities. He was released after being subjected to serious threats.
   • (i) On 7 November 2016, Mr Emilio Gottardi Gottardi, an ASIC member, was arrested by DSE officials and the police as he was leaving home, and was then questioned and threatened because of his trade union training activities, before finally being released around midday.
   • (j) On 14 December 2016, police officers went to the homes of various ASIC members (Mr Pedro Scull, Ms Aimée Cabrera and Mr Alejandro Sánchez) in Havana to warn them that they would not allow the ASIC meeting planned by the secretariat to go ahead, and that general secretary Mr Iván Hernández Carrillo (who lives in Colón, some 127 kilometres from Havana) would be imprisoned if he travelled to the capital. One of the police officers who went to the home of Mr Alejandro Sánchez warned him that he had direct orders from President Raúl Castro not to allow further activities by the opposition.
   • (k) On 27 December 2016, two secret police officers stopped independent trade union member Mr Mateo Moreno Ramón in the street and proceeded to intimidate him and inquire into his trade union activities.
   • (l) On the night of 28 December 2016, ASIC general secretary Mr Iván Hernández Carrillo, on returning to his home in Colón from Havana with Ms Caridad Burunate Gómez, a member of the Damas de Blanco (ladies in white) opposition movement, was subjected to an attempted violent robbery and brutal assault by four secret police officers, who reportedly identified themselves just afterwards. Both activists were subsequently detained, subjected to a thorough body search and inspection of their belongings, and later released without charge. In the afternoon of the same day, trade union activist Mr Felipe Carrera Hernández was arrested and released two hours later.
   • (m) On 30 December 2016, Mr Emilio Alberto Gottardi Gottardi, an ASIC provincial delegate in Havana, was visited at home by two plain-clothes secret police officers to warn him about his activities and restrict his movements during the New Year festivities.
   • (n) On 22 January 2017, the immigration authorities, alleging a breach of migration regulations, placed a travel ban on Mr Raúl Domingo Zerguera Borrell, a trade unionist who had been invited to UTAL for a seminar on the current situation and outlook for the organization of workers in the informal economy. The trade unionist was ordered in a threatening tone, allegedly by an officer of the secret police, to leave the area, and was arrested on his return to Havana and held for an hour at a police station in central Havana.
   • (o) On the morning of 30 January 2017, the home of independent trade unionist Mr Carlos Roberto Reyes Consuegras was raided without warning in a joint operation by the Ministry of the Interior and the DES, which conducted a painstaking search, resulting in the confiscation of two laptops, a camera, a typewriter, a mobile phone and various written complaints to the State, as well as other documents of the organization. Ultimately, the independent trade union member was taken into custody and held for six hours at an office of the Ministry of the Interior in the town of Cruces. Here he was subjected to intense interrogation about his trade union activities and his free legal advisory service relating to labour issues, in which he advises citizens on the drafting of complaints in accordance with their constitutional rights. The authorities opened a judicial file against the trade unionist for alleged abuse of public office, an offence which he was told is punishable with imprisonment of one to three years. He was finally released and warned that his freedom of movement was restricted until the pre-trial hearing.
   • (p) On 5 February 2017, ASIC general secretary Mr Iván Hernández Carrillo was beaten up and then detained after attempting to take photos as state security personnel arrested his mother, Dama de Blanco member Ms Asunción Carrillo Hernández. They handcuffed him and took him to Colón police station. He was released four hours later with a fine, reportedly having been accused of causing public disorder and issued with a warning.
   • (q) On 23 February 2017, independent trade unionists Mr Lázaro Ricardo Pérez (a member of the ASIC leadership) and Mr Hiosvani Pupo were prohibited from travelling to Havana, thereby preventing their attendance at ASIC meetings.
   • (r) On 28 March 2017, state security personnel and police officers raided the home of independent trade union journalist Mr Yoanny Limonta García. Following a thorough search, he was arrested and taken to the municipal police station, where he was questioned and later released after being warned that he faced imprisonment if he continued his activities.
   • (s) On 29 March 2017, ASIC general secretary Mr Iván Hernández Carrillo was arrested during his trip to Havana and placed in a small police cell with deplorable sanitary conditions, where he was held for ten hours without charge. The police report states that he was arrested for opposition activities. He was finally released but the police kept his identity documents in their possession.
5. 221. Lastly, ASIC alleges that there is an absence of collective bargaining and no legal recognition of the right to strike.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 222. In its communication of 29 September 2017, the Government provides its observations on the complaint. The Government states that its reply was formulated in consultation with the CTC and the National Organization of Cuban Employers, as representative organizations of workers and employers respectively, to which a copy of the reply was sent.
2. 223. First, the Government states that the allegations contained in the complaint are false and are part of externally organized and financed campaigns of political manipulation, which seek to discredit the country. The Government denounces as unacceptable the attempt to use the ILO supervisory bodies for political purposes.
3. 224. Second, the Government states that ASIC is not a trade union organization, emphasizing in this respect that: (i) it does not have the objective of promoting or defending workers’ interests; (ii) it does not have the genuine support of any labour collective and is not a grouping of Cuban workers; and (iii) the supposed leaders and activists referred to in the complaint do not represent labour collectives and are not workers themselves as they do not have fixed employment relationships with entities or employers in Cuba, they do not come within the purview of the ILO, and the labour laws are therefore not applicable to them (the Government considers that the ILO has determined that the application of these legal standards is strictly conditional upon the existence of an employment relationship). The Government considers that, by not having an employment relationship or being part of any labour collective, these persons have not been elected by workers to represent them, and it considers this a prerequisite enshrined in Article 3 of Convention No. 135 for their recognition as representatives. The Government alleges that these persons work for the external entities financing them with the objective of subverting the legally established internal order, in line with foreign agendas for regime change. In this respect, the Government indicates that the supposed leaders are funded by the International Group for Corporate Social Responsibility in Cuba, which in turn receives funds from the National Endowment for Democracy in the United States. The Government also provides examples of the activities performed by several of the individuals referred to in the complaint, highlighting trips outside the country to receive funds and instructions, the perpetration of various types of common crimes, the submission of complaints regarding issues unrelated to labour, and the absence of employment relationships or of the application of disciplinary measures for repeated breaches of labour discipline or for declarations of unfitness for work.
4. 225. Third, the Government alleges that it is untrue that Cuban workers are not afforded guarantees relating to the exercise of their labour and trade union rights. In this regard, it indicates that the CTC and its 16 national sectoral unions represent the interests of a total of 3,249,988 members (96.4 per cent of the workers) and that they have all the guarantees necessary to carry out their trade union work, such as not being obliged to register in order to secure recognition. The Government also states that the scope of the exercise of trade union rights is in full conformity with ILO Conventions Nos 87, 98 and 135 and is much broader than in other countries. This is reflected in the recognition of the workers’ right to organize voluntarily and to establish trade unions, in conformity with fundamental unitary principles and their own constitutions and rules, in the privileged role occupied by the trade unions in the political life of the country (recalling that the CTC has recognized authority to initiate legislative proposals), and in the legal protection afforded to the trade unions, with heavy penalties for any parties which seek to impede the proper exercise of labour rights. The Government also emphasizes that employment relationships in the context of foreign investment are governed by existing national legislative provisions and that workers in this sector, like all other workers in Cuba, have the right to organize and to bargain collectively, and that they exercise those rights fully. Furthermore, the Government states that Decree Law No. 313 of 2013 concerning the ZEDM establishes that companies and users must respect the country’s labour and social security provisions, and trade unions have therefore existed in the ZEDM since its creation (and it recalls that none of the supposed trade union activists or leaders referred to in the complaint have an employment relationship in the zone in question and therefore do not represent its workers).
5. 226. Fourth, the Government states that there are no legal provisions or laws prohibiting the right to strike and that the criminal legislation does not lay down any penalty for the exercise thereof. It indicates that it is the trade unions’ prerogative to decide in this respect.
6. 227. Fifth, the Government affirms that: (i) it is untrue that arbitrary or temporary detentions or arrests are carried out in the country (it states that detentions are effected in conformity with criminal procedure and are strictly in line with the extensive guarantees of due process which are recognized in the domestic legal system, in accordance with international standards); (ii) trade union activists or leaders in the country are not subjected to acts of torture or to threats or harassment (as torture has been outlawed in Cuba since the triumph of the Revolution in 1959); and (iii) the national security forces and institutions perform their duties in strict accordance with the law and it is not their practice to repress, intimidate, harass, torture or mistreat citizens of the country (as impunity is not tolerated, and procedures and resources exist to punish any authorities or officials that exceed their powers).
7. 228. Sixth, the Government indicates that there is no consensus or international obligation regarding whether a unified trade union movement or trade union pluralism should exist and that the ILO supervisory bodies have determined that the trade union unity created voluntarily by the workers cannot be prohibited and should be respected. In this regard, it emphasizes that the recognition in practice of the CTC, which was established in 1939, is fully compatible with the ILO Conventions, in view of its numerical superiority and its history of representation. This includes recognition of the representative role that it can play in collective bargaining, in consultations with the Government and in the appointment of delegates to international bodies.
8. 229. Seventh, the Government denies that collective labour agreements do not exist in the country or that they are not effective. In this respect, it reports that 7,161 collective labour agreements are in force, covering approximately 2,946,983 workers. The Government points out that through these agreements the trade union organization and the employer agree on matters relating to working conditions and also to reciprocal rights and obligations, and that such agreements must be discussed and approved in workers’ assemblies in order to be valid.
9. 230. Eighth, the Government denies that it has caused or is causing mass dismissals. It reports that at the end of 2016 a total of 4,591,100 persons were employed (71 per cent in the public sector and 29 per cent in the non-public sector) and that the unemployment rate for that year was 2.4 per cent.
10. 231. Ninth, the Government states that it does not confiscate or destroy material or documents containing ILO Conventions and Recommendations (on the contrary, the Government works to disseminate and raise public awareness of these instruments).

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 232. The Committee observes that the complaint is primarily concerned with numerous allegations of harassment and persecution, involving aggression, arrests and assaults, against independent trade unionists, and other acts of anti-union discrimination and interference on the part of the public authorities. In addition, the complainant organization alleges that only one single trade union federation is recognized by the Government, and that there is no collective bargaining or legal recognition of the right to strike.
2. 233. The Committee observes that the Government questions whether ASIC is a workers’ organization and whether the individuals referred to as trade union activists in the complaint are workers’ representatives. In this regard, while noting that the Government denies that the purpose of ASIC is to defend the workers’ interests (alleging that its purpose is to subvert the legally established internal order), the Committee observes that, in its founding declaration of principles, ASIC advocates trade union autonomy in the framework of the rule of law, seeks to promote full compliance with ILO international labour standards and proclaims that it will not compromise or associate itself with party-political activities. Moreover, the Committee observes that ASIC declares in its constitution that its key objectives include unifying the independent unions and reporting violations of international labour standards. Its constitution also refers to the duty of ASIC members to defend workers’ claims and benefits. Consequently, even though the Committee observes, on the one hand, that the Government questions the actions and representativeness of ASIC (describing it as an organization for political opposition and not for the defence or representation of the workers), the Committee duly notes, on the other hand, the activities that ASIC claims that its activist leaders undertake to promote the principles of freedom of association (through examples and specific situations described in the allegations of aggression and discrimination on account of union activities in various places in the country) and, with regard to the ASIC founding and regulatory documents, observes that the aspects of the ASIC declaration of principles and constitution referred to above come within the sphere of action and the definition of a workers’ organization.
3. 234. Furthermore, the Committee notes that ASIC is the result of the amalgamation of several organizations which have been the subject of previous complaints similarly alleging not only lack of recognition but also interference by the Government in their free operation (for example, it should be recalled that, in relation to the CUTC, one of the three founding organizations of ASIC, the Committee asked the Government to ensure that the CUTC can operate freely and that the authorities refrain from interfering in such a way as to restrict the organization’s fundamental rights [see 320th Report, Case No. 1961, Cuba (March 2000), para. 625]).
4. 235. The Committee further notes that the Government denies that the leaders to which the complainant organization refers can be considered representatives of the workers (on the grounds that since these individuals do not have an employment relationship or are not part of any labour collective, they have not been elected by the workers to represent them). In this regard, the Committee, while observing the differences between the statements of the parties, is bound to recall the following: that both elected representatives and trade union representatives (namely, those appointed or elected by the unions or their members) may be considered representatives of the workers; that freedom of association is a right of all workers, and not just those who are in a specific employment relationship; and that workers and their organizations must have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, so that the absence or disappearance of an employment relationship should not necessarily affect the status and functions of representatives from workers’ organizations, unless the constitutions of the organizations specify differently; otherwise, the abovementioned right would be restricted, leaving such organizations without leadership should their representatives be dismissed. In this regard, the Committee observes that the allegations of harassment and persecution made in the complaint include allegations of anti-union dismissals.
5. 236. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that ASIC is given recognition and that it can freely operate and carry out its trade union activities, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association.
6. 237. As regards the allegations of aggression, harassment and persecution, with detentions, assaults and dismissals, against independent trade union activists, and other acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes the Government’s general statement that no arbitrary or temporary detentions or arrests are carried out in the country and trade union activists or leaders are not subjected to acts of torture or to threats or harassment, and that the national security forces and institutions perform their duties in strict accordance with the law and it is not their practice to repress, intimidate, harass, torture or mistreat citizens of the country. The Government also affirms that freedom of association is fully respected in the country and trade union activity is protected, including by criminal law. The Committee notes with regret that, apart from these general statements, the Government does not provide specific replies to the numerous detailed and serious allegations made repeatedly by the complainant organization. In this regard, the Committee is bound to recall that where cases of alleged anti-union discrimination are involved, the competent authorities dealing with labour issues should begin an inquiry immediately and take suitable measures to remedy any effects of anti-union discrimination brought to their attention. In addition, the Committee recalls the principle that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paras 1159 and 84]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure, in the light of its decisions applying the principles of freedom of association referred to above, that an investigation is made into all the allegations of aggression and other forms of anti-union discrimination made in the complaint and, should these be proven, to ensure that penalties that act as a deterrent are imposed and appropriate compensatory measures are taken, and to provide the Committee with detailed information on this matter and on the outcome (with copies of decisions or rulings) of any administrative or judicial proceedings instituted in relation to the allegations, including those brought against the trade unionists referred to above and the judicial proceedings reportedly brought against Mr Reyes Consuegras.
7. 238. As regards the allegation that there is no collective bargaining in the country, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that there are 7,161 collective labour agreements covering approximately 2,946,983 workers in the country. If the complainant organization does not send more detailed information in support of its general assertion that there is no collective bargaining in the country, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.
8. 239. As regards the allegation of lack of legal recognition of the right to strike, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that there is no law or legal provision laying down any prohibition on the right to strike and that the criminal legislation does not establish any penalty for exercising this right, since it is a prerogative of the trade unions to take decisions in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed regarding the exercise of the right to strike in practice, including as regards any discrimination or disadvantage in employment that may have been applied in practice against workers for peacefully exercising the right to strike.
9. 240. As regards the allegation of official recognition of only one single trade union federation controlled by the State, the Committee observes that the Committee of Experts noted with satisfaction that, as follow-up to the supervisory bodies’ recommendation on this matter, the previous reference to the CTC was removed from the Labour Code and the new Code contains no specific reference to any trade union organization. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that the recognition in practice of the CTC, which was established in 1939, is based on its history of representation as well as its clear numerical superiority. This being the case, the Committee wishes to underline the importance given to previous conclusions – particularly in the light of the allegations in the case – in which the Committee recalled that the granting of exclusive rights to the most representative organization should not mean that the existence of other unions to which certain involved workers might wish to belong is prohibited. Minority organizations should be permitted to carry out their activities and at least to have the right to speak on behalf of their members and to represent them [see Compilation, op. cit., para. 1388].
10. 241. Lastly, having noted the conflicting allegations of the parties questioning the independence of workers’ organizations in the country, the Committee wishes to recall the importance that it attaches to the resolution concerning the independence of the trade union movement adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1952, which emphasizes that it is essential to preserve the freedom and independence of the trade union movement in all countries so that it can pursue its economic and social objectives regardless of any political changes.