Interim Report - REPORT_NO389, June 2019

1. 216. The Committee last examined this case at its October 2018 meeting [see 387th Report, paras 228–244].
2. 217. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) sent additional information in a communication dated 18 February 2019.
3. 218. The Government sent its partial observations in a communication dated 8 May 2019.
4. 219. China has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 220. At its October 2018 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations in relation to this case [see 387th Report, para. 244]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken to ensure the right of all workers to form and join the organization of their own choosing.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to reply to the specific allegations in relation to the right to strike in practice, including the frequent use of public order laws to restrict its exercise, by specifying the conditions for the effective exercise of this right in law and in practice.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the report of the investigation into the alleged harsh treatment of the labour activists while in custody and numerous interrogations of the accused.
   • (d) The Committee urges the Government to conduct a full investigation into the alleged beating and injuries suffered by workers and their representatives at the shoe factory, 1 as well as Mr Chen and Ms Zhu Xinhua (labour dispute at the bag factory) 2 without further delay and to keep it informed of the outcome.
   • (e) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the ongoing investigation into the destruction of the door in Mr Meng Han’s rented house.
   • (f) The Committee once again requests the Government to confirm that Mr Deng and Mr Peng are no longer under investigation and will not be prosecuted.

B. Additional information from the complainant

1. 221. By a communication dated 18 February 2019, the ITUC provides an update on the developments in this case and alleges new cases of harassment, intimidation, arrests and physical abuse of workers for exercising their fundamental right to establish organizations.
2. 222. The ITUC recalls that on 3 November 2016, Mr Meng was sentenced to one year and nine months of imprisonment. He was released on 3 September 2017. The ITUC alleges that in order to prevent him from returning to his home in Guangzhou city where he had been working as a labour activist, his identification documents were withheld by the authorities. He was informed that he would need to return to his place of origin in Hubei province to apply for new identification documents. According to the complainant, when Mr Meng refused to comply, his freedom of movement was restricted and he was put under surveillance by the public security authorities and plain-clothes police. On 22 September 2017, he was detained for questioning at the Jingzhou branch station of Nansha district over the articles he posted on the Internet. His posts described his activism, trial and treatment during his time in prison, which included a prohibition to talk to other prisoners. The posts were deleted by the authorities and he was released a few days later. Furthermore, according to the ITUC, Mr Meng contracted hepatitis C while in prison and, without identification papers since his release, Mr Meng has been unable to access medical services, or to apply for a formal job.
3. 223. The ITUC further alleges that the Government’s indication contained in its previous reply to the Committee to the effect that the local public security authorities in Guangdong province had not received any complaints regarding cases of beatings at the shoe factory – suggesting that such beatings never happened – is false. The ITUC alleges in this regard that according to an article and photos circulated online, at around 4 p.m. on 19 April 2015, 106 factory workers and 20 workers’ representatives were having a meeting at a local restaurant to discuss how to demand that the factory management pay all overdue social insurance and housing provident fund premium when nearly 100 police officers arrived in more than ten riot police vans. They started to beat workers and eventually took away Mr Meng from the Panyu Worker Service Centre. Some workers suffered injuries and needed medical attention.
4. 224. The ITUC further points out that despite the Government’s claim that it safeguards the exercise of the rights of assembly, procession and demonstration, in practice, it is virtually impossible for workers to exercise these rights without being subjected to repression and sanctions. According to the ITUC, the Law on Assemblies, Processions and Demonstrations (1989) and the Implementing Regulation (2011, revised) are just two examples of national laws that put obstacles on the exercise of the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly. In this respect, the ITUC refers to sections 7 and 8 of the Law on Assemblies, Processions and Demonstrations, which provide for a system where a prior permission by the public security authorities is needed in order to carry out a protest action. The prerequisites for obtaining permission are, according to the complainant, excessive and include the submission of detailed information on posters and slogans, number of participants, vehicles, sound facilities, starting and finishing time, the route, as well as personal information about the organizers to the competent authorities. Inter-provincial and municipal assemblies are prohibited under section 15 of the Law, which does not allow individuals to organize or participate in assemblies, processions or demonstrations staged in places other than one’s place of residence. Furthermore, when an assembly, procession or demonstration concerns a dispute, the Implementing Regulation further authorizes the public security authorities to mandate a mediation between the parties before deciding on the application (section 11 of the Implementing Regulation).
5. 225. The ITUC further refers to new instances of violation of freedom of association, which allegedly took place at the Jasic Technology Company in Shenzhen (hereafter, the technology company) and describes the course of events as follows.
6. 226. On 10 May 2018, three workers of the company (Mr Mi Jiuping, Mr Liu Penghua and Mr Zhang Baoyan) submitted a joint letter signed by 28 workers to the Pingshan District Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and the Pingshan District Human Resources Bureau, requesting their support to address a range of workplace grievances. Workers’ demands included abolishing excessive and unreasonable fines, stopping physical and verbal abuse, removing stringent company rules and the possibility to establish an enterprise-level trade union. The Pingshan District FTU replied positively and expressed their support to workers’ desire to form a branch union.
7. 227. On 7 June 2018, two workers’ representatives, Messrs Mi and Liu, submitted an application to establish an enterprise-level trade union to the Pingshan District FTU and the Longtian Street FTU. The Zhukeng Community Federation accepted the application and requested the company’s seal on the form for the application to be approved. According to the ITUC, however, there is no such requirement in the Trade Union Law or in the Measures for the Implementation of Trade Union Law in Shenzhen. On 22 June 2018, the company rejected the workers’ request to stamp the application. The Longtian Street FTU advised Messrs Mi and Liu to organize 100 members and call for a general meeting to elect a trade union preparation committee.
8. 228. In early July 2018, the management told Mr Mi to accept a transfer to a different position within the company or to face dismissal. Mr Mi sent a letter to the Shenzhen FTU asking for their help. On 10 July 2018, the Vice-Chairperson of the Pingshan District FTU and the Vice-Chairperson of the Longtian Street FTU informed Mr Mi that the Pingshan District FTU had communicated with the company and instructed him to collect workers’ opinions and obtain the company’s approval to set up a union. Within the next two days, Mr Mi and other workers formed a trade union preparation committee and collected the signatures of 89 workers consenting to join the union.
9. 229. On 12 July 2018, the management accused Mr Mi of deceiving workers, intimidated those who signed the form and pressured them to remove their names. That evening, the Vice-Chairperson of the Pingshan District FTU declared that Mr Mi’s actions as well as the actions of the union preparation committee were illegal and demanded that Mr .Mi write a memo stating that the District Union was not involved in their efforts. Mr Mi went to the Shenzehn FTU on 13 July 2018 and asked them to supervise the establishment of a trade union and to ensure that trade unions at all levels safeguard the legal rights and interests of workers.
10. 230. On 16 July 2018, Mr Liu Penghua (a member of the union preparation committee) was transferred to a different post within the factory. Later, he was violently beaten by a group of unidentified people who were driven to the factory. Mr Liu was then taken away by officers from the Yanziling police station and not released until the next morning.
11. 231. On 18 July 2018, another official from the Pingshan District FTU asked Mr Mi to declare that his actions to form a union were a personal decision and not under the instruction of the District FTU. That afternoon, on the order of a top executive and a production line manager, a group of security guards violently threw Mr Mi out of the factory. He suffered injuries to his leg as he was pushed to the ground. Another worker, Mr Song, who came to Mr Mi’s assistance, was also attacked. That night, both Mr Mi and Mr Song were informed that they were dismissed. A few other workers also received dismissal notices. On the morning of 20 July 2018, the dismissed workers returned to the factory but were blocked from entering the premises. They were then beaten and detained by the police from the Yanziling police station. More than 20 workers protested in front of the police station demanding their release, only to be detained as well. All workers were released in the evening, but several suffered serious injuries.
12. 232. On 23 July 2018, the Pingshan FTU met with the company executives to discuss the establishment of an enterprise union. On 1 August 2018, the Longtian Street FTU approved the trade union preparation group. The Vice-Chairperson of the Pingshan District FTU was appointed the director of the group and the company investment director as the deputy. The other five members of the group, all company managers, were instructed to enrol as union members under the Longtian Street FTU to enable them to participate in the trade union election. On 20 August 2018, the Shenzhen Jasic Technology Trade Union held its general assembly to elect 100 representatives who then elected nine union committee members. The management did not allow for campaigns or questions in the election process. Workers were simply given a ballot to choose their representatives from. As a result, 72 of the 100 representatives are managers or supervisors. According to the complainant, the nine- member trade union committee is effectively dominated by management. The company investment director became the trade union chairperson.
13. 233. On 27 July 2018, the six dismissed workers (Mi Jiuping, Song Yiao, Liu Penghua, Kuang Hengshu, Zhang Baoyan and Chang Zhongge) made another attempt to return to work but were blocked again. They, as well as two ex-workers (Yu Juncong and Li Zhan), their supporters and students were later detained by the Pingshan police for the criminal offence of picking a quarrel and provoking trouble. Before the end of the 37-day criminal detention permitted by the Criminal Code, all except for Mi Jiuping, Liu Penghua, Yu Juncong and Li Zhan had been released. Messrs Mi and Yu were able to meet with their lawyers on 1 August 2018. However, the lawyers were forced to withdraw from the case under pressure from the local Justice Bureau, the Public Security Bureau and the Political and Legal Affairs Committee. Lawyers from other provinces who agreed to represent them were denied access to the workers. On 3 September 2018, Mi Jiuping, Liu Penghua, Yu Yucong and Li Zhan were formally charged with the criminal offence of “assembling a crowd to disturb public order”.
14. 234. Following the arrests of workers and supporters on 27 July 2018, hundreds of university students wrote open letters on social media in their support. About 20 of them travelled to Shenzhen. On 6 August 2018, around 50 student activists and supporters protested in front of the police station where the workers were detained. Ms Shen Mengyu began advocating for workers who were trying to form a union. On 11 August 2018, after dining with her parents, she was taken away in a car by three unidentified men. She is currently being held at an unknown location. At 5 a.m. on 24 August 2018, police with riot gear raided an apartment in Huizhou and detained about 50 student activists and supporters. Some detained student activists were escorted back to their home towns by the police after a few days. Ms Yue Xin, a recent graduate from Peking University, was among dozens of other student activists who travelled to Shenzhen to support the workers. She was also arrested during the raid on 24 August 2018. Ms Gu Jiayue, another graduate of Peking University, who previously organized petitions to the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) and the All-China Women’s Federation in Beijing, was also arrested in the raid.
15. 235. On 9 and 11 November 2018, authorities detained 18 worker supporters in Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Wuhan. Zhang Shengye, a recent graduate of Peking University, was physically assaulted and abducted from the university campus. On 9 November 2018, Zou Liping and Li Ao, two union officials at the Zhukang Commune Trade Union who helped the company workers with the application procedure to set up an enterprise-level union, were detained by police on suspicion of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”. On 30 November 2018, lawyer Huang Sha, who represented former workers and labour activists associated with the workers’ attempt to form a trade union, was arrested in Putian, Shenzhen.
16. 236. On the evening of 20 January 2019, police arrested another five well-known labour activists, all of them either currently working in Shenzhen or with connections to labour groups in the city. These activists are Zhang Zhiru and Jian Hui, the founder and an activist at the Chunfeng Labour Dispute Service Centre, both involved in numerous labour disputes since 2010; He Yuancheng, former editor of the Collective Bargaining Forum; Wu Guijun, former lead workers’ organizer at a Hong Kong-owned company in Shenzhen, currently an independent activist helping workers to claim social insurance and other entitlements; and Song Jiahui, a workers’ representative involved in the negotiation of one of the most comprehensive compensation packages during the relocation of the shoe factory in Guangzhou. All five have been charged with gathering a crowd to disturb public order and are being held in a detention centre in Shenzhen’s Bao’an district.
17. 237. Moreover, two paralegals of the Dagongzhe Migrant Worker Centre (DGZ Centre) in Shenzhen, Fu Changguo and Huang Qingnan, were arrested and detained for providing support to the company workers. Mr Fu took part in solidarity actions outside the company and helped dismissed workers to return to work. Moreover, he engaged in online support actions by sharing pictures, videos and updates. As a result, he was subjected to repeated interrogations between 25 July and 7 August 2018, ranging from two hours to 11 hours each time. During the last interrogation, police cited the foreign NGO law and the national security law as the basis for his detention. His lawyer requested to meet him on 10 August 2018 but was not authorized. Even his family was unable to obtain any information about his location. According to the ITUC, public authorities denied he was detained. Mr Fu’s family finally succeeded in obtaining confirmation that he was detained at Shenzhen Municipal No. 2 Detention Centre. His lawyer was informed on 18 September 2018 that Mr Fu was formally charged on 9 September 2018 for “gathering a crowd to disturb public order”. His lawyer was only allowed to meet Mr Fu for one hour on 20 September 2018, more than one month after he was arrested and formally charged. His request for release on bail was rejected. Mr Fu remains in detention.
18. 238. On 24 August 2018, the state newspaper Xinhua News published an article entitled “Investigation on so-called worker incidents in Shenzhen” stating that Mr Fu was involved in organizing and agitating workers and that the DGZ Centre was an illegal organization that “secretly agitates workers”.
19. 239. On 13 August 2018, Mr Huang Qingnan was taken into custody and transferred to the Shenzhen Investigation Centre. Although Mr Huang had not taken part in the dispute, he was officially detained for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”. At the same time, two staff members of a Hong Kong-based labour NGO, Worker Empowerment (WE), were detained at Ailian police station when inquiring about the situation of Mr Fu. They were interrogated about their involvement with the DGZ Centre and the dispute at the company. On 30 August 2018, police at Mr Huang’s hometown in Fujian went to his mother’s house to ask about Huang’s activities, including how often he visits Shenzhen, whether he owns property there, his marital status, as well as his sister’s residence, etc. Mr Huang Qingnan was released on bail on 3 September 2018 and returned to Fujian province.
20. 240. During the same period, two former DGZ Centre staff were summoned by the police and interrogated, one for two hours and the other for 24 hours. Furthermore, members of the DGZ Centre’s WeChat group received phone calls from the police asking them to refrain from sharing “inappropriate speech”. Police also raided the DGZ Centre’s office and confiscated attendance sign-in sheets and cell phones.
21. 241. The complaint concludes by stating that the employer in question has repeatedly violated workers’ freedom of association rights by intervening and participating in trade union elections (in violation of the local law), dismissing workers for their union organizing activities and using thugs to physically assault them. The ITUC further alleges that it is a common practice that the upper-level official union federations require workers to obtain management’s approval to form unions, which makes it impossible for workers to exercise their rights. According to the ITUC, workers’ rights were further violated by the State by means of arrests, beatings by the police while in detention and the criminalization of protest. The complainant considers that the State has further violated workers’ rights when it failed to take affirmative measures to protect freedom of association rights and when it failed to provide a remedy when these rights were violated. The complainant considers that the State and the employer appear to have colluded to deny the workers the right to freedom of association guaranteed under the ILO Constitution.
22. 242. The ITUC further points out that the national and provincial law violate principles of freedom of association. The right of workers to form trade union organizations is guaranteed under section 3 of the Trade Union Law only when they are represented by the ACFTU (section 2). Local regulations further restrict the process of registering an enterprise union unless the upper federation gives approval and leads the preparation process (section 9 of the Measures of Shenzhen Municipality to Implement the Trade Union Law (2008)). The use of the criminal offence of “gathering a crowd to disturb public order” (section 290 of the Criminal Law) and the vaguely worded “picking quarrels and provoking troubles” (section 293 of the Criminal Law) at the discretion of the police, public security authorities and the prosecutor further create an environment where workers are reluctant to exercise their right to freedom of association. According to the complainant, the Supreme Court interprets this provision to cover general circumstances where a serious impact to work, lives, production, and business operations has been made, or a commotion has been caused. The criminal offence of “gathering a crowd to disturb public order” is used at the discretion of the police, public security and the prosecutor to charge workers when they attempt to take industrial action. The competent authorities simply resort to this criminal offence in a widely extended scope to arbitrarily arrest, detain and prosecute any person for their sympathetic expressions, actions or activities supporting workers.
23. 243. The ITUC considers that the arrest of student activists who provided support to the workers in their exercise of freedom of association constitutes a further violation of that right. Similarly, Mr Fu’s arrest and detention based on his support to the workers is a violation of the right to associate. The arrest, harassment and public smears against the staff of DGZ Centre, where Mr Fu works, has a chilling effect on workers, especially those who have been supported by the Centre. The ITUC provides a list of 32 individuals detained or disappeared in connection with the workers’ campaign described above (attached as Appendix).

C. The Government’s reply

1. 244. By its communication dated 8 May 2019, the Government indicates that it had conducted a special investigation in the situation alleged in the latest communication of the ITUC and provides in this respect the following information.
2. 245. In May 2018, in the absence of a trade union, employees of the technology company, Messrs Mi Jiuping, Liu Penhua and Yu Juncong conveyed the idea of setting up a union to the authorities at the district and neighbourhood levels. The persons in charge of the District FTU led the relevant personnel to discuss and coordinate with Mr Mi several times, and went to the company to give feedback on the opinions and suggestions of workers to the senior management in order to guide and help the enterprise to set up a trade union. On the afternoon of 12 July 2018, under the guise of the so-called “instructions and requests of the trade unions at higher level”, Mr Mi and others published an open letter in the name of the “Preparatory Group for the Trade Union of Jasic Technology” with an aim of inciting workers of the company. The District FTU immediately sent someone to investigate the matter. It disputed and criticized the words and acts of Mr Mi and others and ordered them to stop their actions immediately. On 16 July 2018, Mr Liu was dismissed for fighting with his colleagues. On 20 July 2018, Mr Liu and six other people gathered by the gate of the company and forced their way into the compound to cause trouble. Local police was called and brought these workers to the police station for further inquiry. Later, about 20 people who called themselves Mr Liu’s relatives or co-workers gathered at the police station demanding the “release of the detained”. The police dealt with the situation in accordance with the law. After a verification by the local public security authorities, it turned out that Mr Liu fought with two co-workers on 16 July 2019 because of the orientation of the fans in the workshop, and as a result, all three were dismissed. The allegation that the company had hired someone to beat him up was not confirmed. On the afternoon of 21 and 22 July 2019, Mr Yu and about 20 others once again gathered around the Yanziling police station chanting slogans, demanding that the “guilty batters” be punished. It was also understood that Messrs Liu, Yu and others urged members in several social media groups to block, surround and adopt other extreme measures.
3. 246. After the incident, the relevant departments of the Guangdong Provincial government and the Provincial FTU jointly set up a special team to handle the incident and guide its settlement. The rules and regulations of the company were verified as to their conformity with the legislation, and the application of overtime and other issues were examined and settled, following which, a trade union was formed. In particular, the team noted that since 2017, the Labour Service of Longtian Street Neighbourhood received five complaints on behalf of 21 people regarding arbitrary fines and disagreement with the readjustment of rest time. The team considered that the rules and regulations of the company clearly stipulate the circumstances of economic penalties for violations of discipline. These rules have been formulated through a democratic process and all entry employees have signed and confirmed their knowledge thereof and expressed their willingness to abide by them. The economic penalties for violations of the discipline carried out by the company in accordance with the rules and regulations do not run counter to the “Regulations of Shenzhen Municipality on the Payment of Wages to Employees” and other relevant legislation. During the investigation, it was found however that the company had practiced illegitimate acts such as overtime. A relevant Notice was issued requesting the company to make a correction within a determined time frame. The issue has now been resolved in accordance with the law.
4. 247. As to the cases reported by Mr Yu, the investigation established that on 18 May 2018, Mr Yu filed a complaint online against the company alleging that the latter: (1) is forcing workers to hike without paying overtime; (2) promulgated 18 bans; (3) practiced illegal fines; and (4) dismissed employees illegally. Regarding the first allegation, the investigation determined that since 2017, the company has been organizing hiking activities in Longshan Park every quarter. Such activities are scheduled on weekend mornings. They are voluntary and family members of employees are encouraged to participate; they do not fall into the category of overtime. Regarding the 18 bans imposed by the company in 2012 to regulate employee management, these were superseded after the Employee Manual came into force in 2015. Regarding the third allegation, it was determined that in June 2017, the company imposed a 200 Yuan fine on Mr Yu for violating the discipline (playing with his mobile phone during working hours, which he had admitted doing). Finally, as regards the fourth allegation, the investigation noted that the Employee Manual of the company stipulates that serious violations involving a total of three cumulative days of absenteeism within a year shall be treated as automatic separation from service. Mr Yu was absent from work for three and a half days from April to May. In accordance with the regulations, the company terminated Mr Yu’s contract and settled his wages. On 10 May 2018, Mr Yu submitted eight claims to the Arbitration Commission for Labour Dispute (ACLD) in Pingshan District, demanding the reimbursement of 200 Yuan (fine imposed on him as a disciplinary and economic penalty) and a compensation for the illegal dismissal. On 16 July 2018, Mr Yu filed a lawsuit with the Pingshan District Court against the verdict of the ACLD. The Government indicates that this civil case is currently suspended because the party concerned is involved in another criminal case.
5. 248. Regarding the establishment of a trade union, the investigation determined that under the guidance of the FTU at the provincial and municipal levels, the company established the trade union by election on 20 September 2018. There was a total of 14 members serving the Committee for Trade Union Affairs, the Committee for Funds Review and the Committee on Female Employees and Workers, of which 11 were front-line workers accounting for 78.6 per cent of the total elected members. By 30 September 2018，trade union membership expanded to 687, with a membership rate of 70.97 per cent. The trade union applied for and obtained a certificate of a legal person, had its seal engraved, opened a funds account, formulated its rules and set up six special working bodies, including the Organizational Building Committee, the Outreach and Sports Committee, the Labour Dispute Mediation Committee, the Work Safety Supervision Committee, the Social Security and Welfare Committee and the Enterprise Democratic Management Committee.
6. 249. After its establishment, the union has actively communicated and consulted with the management of the company on the issues of holiday benefits, the organization of cultural and sports activities, the improvement of welfare benefits, and adjustment of the wage system, as well as organized visits to workers living in difficult conditions. High-level trade unions continue to provide strong guidance and assistance to the trade union of the company. The Government indicates that the work of the trade union is being carried out in a standardized and orderly manner.
7. 250. As to the outstanding recommendations of the Committee, the Government reiterates that the Constitution and the relevant laws fully guarantee freedom of association. It further reiterates that by adhering to the working principle of organizing and earnestly safeguarding their rights, Chinese trade unions have resolutely supported and safeguarded the right of workers and employees to join associations and have constantly expanded their membership. According to the Government, by the end of September 2017, 2,809,000 grass-roots trade unions representing over 300 million workers had been established in the country. At the same time, like in other countries, in the exercise of freedom of association rights, especially those relating to social governance, workers and trade union organizations must abide by the national legislation. The parties involved in this case were not investigated due to the establishment of a trade union and participation in its activities, but rather, because they used illegal means in the labour disputes, violating the legislation in force. In handling this case, Chinese courts and public security authorities proceeded in strict compliance with the procedures prescribed by the law, and the rights of the parties concerned were properly ensured.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 251. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of arrest and detention on charges of “gathering a crowd to disturb public order” of advisers and paralegals who have provided support services to workers and their organizations in handling individual and/or collective labour disputes.
2. 252. The Committee notes with serious concern the complainant’s additional allegations in relation to Mr Meng, one of the advisers who had been sentenced to 21 months of imprisonment on such charges. The ITUC alleges that following his release from prison, Mr Meng’s identification documents were withheld by the authorities; without the documents, he cannot access medical services to treat hepatitis C, contracted in prison, nor apply for jobs. The ITUC further alleges in particular, that Mr Meng’s freedom of movement is restricted and that he was once again detained (for a few days) following publication of articles describing his activism, trial and imprisonment. The Committee deeply regrets the absence of a reply from the Government on this matter and considers that the withholding of identification documents by reason of a person’s involvement in legitimate trade union activities or assistance therewith would appear to violate the basic civil liberties of Mr Meng, given that these documents are necessary for his freedom of movement, as well as for obtaining employment and accessing healthcare services. The Committee therefore urgently requests the Government to take the necessary steps for the delivery to Mr Meng of the identification papers without delay. Furthermore, once again recalling that the detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 123], the Committee urges the Government to reply without delay to the allegation of detention of Mr Meng following publication of articles in relation to his activities and imprisonment. With reference to its previous recommendations in this case, the Committee once again requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the ongoing investigation into the destruction of the door in Mr Meng’s rented house.
3. 253. The Committee further recalls that in its previous examination of this case it had regretted that no information had been provided by the Government regarding the alleged beating and injuries suffered by workers and their representatives at the shoe factory, as well as by Mr Chen and Zhu Xinhua (labour dispute at the bag factory) and requested the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of the relevant investigations. In this respect, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that the investigation revealed that the local public security authorities in Guangdong Province did not receive any complaints reporting cases of beatings of workers at the shoe factory (nor of Mr Chen, Zhu Xinhua and others at the bag factory). The Committee notes that the ITUC refutes the Government’s claim that the local public security authorities had not received any complaints of cases of beatings at the shoe factory. The Committee once again recalls that all allegations of violence against workers who are organizing or otherwise defending workers’ interests should be thoroughly investigated and full consideration should be given to any possible direct or indirect relation that the violent act may have with trade union activity. In the event of assaults on the physical or moral integrity of individuals, the Committee has considered that an independent judicial inquiry should be instituted immediately with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts [see Compilation, op. cit., paras 101 and 105]. The Committee considers that even in the absence of complaints to the local authorities, the allegations in this case should be drawn to the attention of the relevant authority for full investigation. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to conduct a full investigation into these allegations without further delay and to keep it informed of the outcome.
4. 254. The Committee further recalls that it had requested the Government to provide detailed information on the alleged harsh treatment of the labour activists while in custody, and, in particular, on the alleged numerous interrogations of the accused. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that a special investigation into the situation was carried out and revealed that Mr Zeng and others were not subject to cruel treatment while in detention. The Government reiterated that the public security authority deals with cases in strict conformity with relevant legal provisions and that the rights of those concerned were sufficiently safeguarded during the hearing. In the absence of any new information, the Committee urgently requests the Government to transmit a copy of the investigation report.
5. 255. With reference to its previous recommendations in this case, the Committee once again requests the Government to confirm that Mr Deng and Mr Peng are no longer under investigation and will not be prosecuted.
6. 256. The Committee further notes that the complainant submits new allegations of violation of workers’ rights to establish a trade union in full freedom without previous authorization at the technology company in Shenzhen, as well as arrests, detention, ill-treatment and disappearance of labour activists and supporters of the company’s workers and the detailed account of the events that gave rise thereto. The Committee regrets to note that the Government has provided only a partial reply to these allegations.
7. 257. With regard to the alleged difficulties with the establishment of a trade union at the technology company, while noting from the Government’s reply that a union has now been established, it appears from the complainant’s allegations and the Government’s reply thereon that this was only possible with the involvement and approval of the FTU. In this respect, the Committee notes that the ITUC reiterates that the overall legislative framework does not allow workers to join or form trade unions unless the local unions affiliate with the ACFTU and that in this particular case, the nine-member trade union committee finally elected is effectively dominated by management with the company investment director as the trade union chairperson. While taking note of the Government’s reiteration that the national legislation and practice ensure that workers enjoy freedom of association, the Committee recalls that workers should be fully ensured the right to form and join the organization of their own choosing and that this implies, in particular, the effective possibility of forming, in a climate of full security, organizations independent both of those which exist already and of any political party [see Compilation, op. cit., para. 475]. It once again requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken to ensure the right of all workers to form and join the organization of their own choosing.
8. 258. The Committee notes with serious concern the list of 32 individuals (noted in the appendix) who are allegedly in detention or have disappeared in this connection, as well as criminal charges brought against some. Regretting that no information has been provided by the Government in respect of this serious allegation, the Committee once again recalls that the detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular [see Compilation, op. cit., para. 123]. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure the release of any workers detained in relation to their activities to form a union and to submit a detailed reply on the above grave allegations of violation of trade union rights and civil liberties without further delay.
9. 259. The Committee further notes that among these 32 individuals, four (Messrs Mi, Yu, Liu and Li) were workers of the technology company who were also allegedly dismissed due to their involvement in the establishment of the union and later charged with the criminal offence of “assembling a crowd to disturb public order”. The ITUC also refers to the dismissal of other workers in this connection and names, in particular, Messrs Song, Kuang, Zhang and Chang. The Committee notes that according to the Government, following investigations it was ascertained that Messrs Liu and Yu were dismissed for fighting with their colleagues and absenteeism, respectively, and that the civil case of Mr Yu’s dismissal was suspended due to him being involved in a pending criminal case. The Committee observes the contradictory nature of the information provided by the Government and that of the complainant in relation to the circumstances around these dismissals. The Committee recalls that adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures is fundamental to the principle of freedom of association. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure adequate protection against anti-union discrimination in law and in practice and to provide a copy of the report on the outcome of the investigation referred to by the Government and detailed information with regard to the alleged dismissals of Messrs Mi, Li, Song, Kuang, Zhang and Chang.
10. 260. The Committee understands that the pending criminal cases against the four workers are in relation to the exercise of their right to assembly. It notes in this respect that the ITUC reiterates that it is not possible for workers and labour activists to participate in a legitimate strike or demonstration without violating the law that prohibits the disturbance of public order; and that it is common for the prosecutor and the court to view industrial action taken by workers as public security violations rather than as the exercise of fundamental rights. With reference to its previous examinations of this case, the Committee requests the Government to reply without further delay to the specific allegations in relation to the exercise of the right to strike and demonstrate in practice.

Appendix

1. 1. Mr Mi Jiuping: The technology company worker, detained since July 2018, charged with “gathering a crowd to disrupt social order.” He is being held at the Shenzhen Municipal No. 2 Detention Centre. Mi’s first two lawyers were forced to withdraw from his case. On 1 October 2018, a request by a new lawyer to meet with Mi was denied on the grounds that Mi’s case involved state secrets.
2. 2. Mr Yu Juncong: The technology company worker, detained since July 2018, charged with “gathering a crowd to disrupt social order”. He is being held at the Shenzhen Municipal No. 2 Detention Centre. After meeting with Yu on 30 August 2018, Yu’s lawyer was pressured to withdraw from the case. Yu’s requests for a meeting with his new lawyer have not been accepted after 30 August 2018.
3. 3. Mr Liu Penghua: The technology company worker, detained since July 2018, charged with “gathering a crowd to disrupt social order”. He is being held at the Shenzhen Municipal No. 2 Detention Centre. Liu told a lawyer who met with him in September that he had been beaten. Further requests to meet with his lawyer have been denied.
4. 4. Mr Li Zhan: former The technology company worker and worker supporter, detained since July 2018, charged with “gathering a crowd to disrupt social order”. He is being held at the Shenzhen Municipal No. 2 Detention Centre. After meeting with Li on 18 September 2018, Li’s lawyer was pressured to withdraw from his case.
5. 5. Ms Shen Mengyu: graduate of Sun Yat-sen University, forcibly disappeared in August 2018. Still missing.
6. 6. Ms Yue Xin: graduate of Peking University, forcibly disappeared on 24 August 2018. Still missing.
7. 7. Ms Gu Jiayue: graduate of Peking University, taken from her home on 24 August 2018, charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and is being held under “residential surveillance at a designated place”. Whereabouts unknown.
8. 8. Mr Xu Zhongliang: graduate of University of Science and Technology Beijing, detained since 24 August 2018, charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and is being held under “residential surveillance at a designated place”. Whereabouts unknown.
9. 9. Mr Zheng Yongming: graduate of Nanjing Agricultural University, detained since 24 August 2018, charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and is being held under “residential surveillance at a designated place”. Whereabouts unknown.
10. 10. Mr Shang Kai: editor of a leftist media website Hongse Cankao, taken away by Guangdong police on 24 August 2018 from the office of Hongse Cankao. Still missing.
11. 11. Mr Fu Changguo: staff member of a workers’ centre, Dagongzhe, detained since August 2018, charged with “gathering a crowd to disrupt social order” and is being held at the Shenzhen Municipal No. 2 Detention Centre.
12. 12. Mr Yang Shaoqiang: graduate of University of Science and Technology Beijing, taken from home in August 2018, charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and is being held under “residential surveillance at a designated place”. Whereabouts unknown.
13. 13. Mr Tang Jialiang: postgraduate student at Beijing Institute of Technology, forcibly disappeared since early September 2018. Still missing.
14. 14. Mr Wu Lijie: editor of a leftist media website Hongqi, taken from home and forcibly disappeared 24 October 2018. Still missing.
15. 15. Mr Zhang Shengye: graduate of Peking University, taken from campus and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
16. 16. Ms Sun Min: graduate of Peking University, taken away in Guangzhou and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
17. 17. Mr Zong Yang: graduate of Peking University, taken away in Beijing and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
18. 18. Mr Liang Xiaogang: worker supporter, taken away in Shanghai and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
19. 19. Mr Tang Xiangwei: worker supporter, taken away in Wuhan and forcibly disappeared on 11 November 2018. Still missing.
20. 20. Mr Zheng Shiyou: worker supporter, taken away in Wuhan and forcibly disappeared on 11 November 2018. Still missing.
21. 21. Ms Zheng Yiran: graduate of Beijing Language and Culture University, taken away in Beijing and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
22. 22. Mr Lu Daxing: graduate of Nanjing University of Science and Technology, taken away in Beijing and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
23. 23. Ms Li Xiaoxian: graduate of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, taken away in Beijing and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
24. 24. Mr He Pengchao: graduate of Peking University, founder of Qingying Dreamworks Social Worker Centre, taken away in Beijing and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
25. 25. Ms Wang Xiangyi: graduate of Peking University, founder of Qingying Dreamworks Social Worker Centre, taken away in Shenzhen and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
26. 26. Ms Jian Xiaowei: graduate of Renmin University, staff member of Qingying Dreamworks Social Worker Centre, taken away in Shenzhen and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
27. 27. Ms Kang Yanyan: graduate of University of Science and Technology Beijing, staff member of Qingying Dreamworks Social Worker Centre, taken away in Shenzhen and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
28. 28. Ms Hou Changshan: graduate of Beijing Foreign Studies University, staff member of Qingying Dreamworks Social Worker Centre, taken away in Shenzhen and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
29. 29. Ms Wang Xiaomei: graduate of Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, staff member of Qingying Dreamworks Social Worker Centre, taken away in Shenzhen and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
30. 30. Ms He Xiumei: supporter of Qingying Dreamworks Social Worker Centre, taken away in Shenzhen and forcibly disappeared on 9 November 2018. Still missing.
31. 31. Ms Zou Liping: local trade union staff member, detained in Shenzhen on 9 November 2018, charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”. Whereabouts unknown.
32. 32. Mr Li Ao: local trade union staff member, detained in Shenzhen on 9 November 2018, charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”. Whereabouts unknown.