Interim Report - REPORT_NO408, October 2024

1. 433. The Committee examined this case (presented in 2021) at its October 2023 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 404th Report, paras 362–400, approved by the Governing Body at its 349th Session (October–November 2023)]. 
2. 434. The Committee had to twice adjourn examination of the case in the absence of a reply from the Government. At its meeting in June 2024 [see 407th Report, para. 7], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government to present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the observations or information had not been received in due time. Since the last examination of the case, the Government has not provided the requested information.
3. 435. Guinea 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 436. During its previous examination of the case in October 2023, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 404th Report, para. 400]:
   • (a) Noting that the employer has appealed against the labour court of Guinea’s ruling of 31 March 2023 in favour of the hotel’s trade union officials, Mr Amadou Diallo and Mr Alhassane Diallo, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the proceedings and to inform it of the court of appeal’s ruling once it has been handed down.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to conduct an independent investigation into the conditions of the dismissal of Mr Alhassane Sylla and Mr Mory Soumaoro in November 2019. The Committee also requests the Government, as well as the complainant, to provide information on any legal proceedings initiated in this regard.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government and the complainant to provide information on Mr Sampil’s situation and to indicate whether an appeal has been lodged against the labour court’s ruling of 19 July 2021 concerning him.
   • (d) The Committee requests the complainant to provide detailed information on the situation of four of the six trade union representatives remaining who were allegedly unfairly dismissed, as well as on any associated legal proceedings.
   • (e) The Committee requests the Government to give all appropriate instructions to ensure that the police are not used as an instrument of intimidation or surveillance of trade union members and to keep it informed of the action taken or envisaged in this regard.
   • (f) The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary steps, in consultation with the social partners concerned, to ensure that the protection of trade union rights and protection against anti-union discrimination, in particular in the hotel sector, are fully guaranteed both in law and in practice.

B. Additional information and allegations from the complainant

1. 437. In its communication dated 9 September 2024, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) provides additional information and allegations in relation to this case.
2. 438. With regard to the Marriott Sheraton Grand Conakry Hotel (hereinafter “Hotel 1”), the subject of the previous examination of the case, the complainant indicates that: (i) in September 2022, the hotel was officially closed for refurbishment and all employees were dismissed; (ii) many dismissed workers are still unemployed and without access to healthcare, and several have not yet received their full redundancy payments; (iii) despite indications that the hotel is about to reopen, there is reason to fear that the hotel management will not call back all eligible employees, as required by the collective agreement in force and the dismissal letters of those concerned, and that employees involved in the union will be singled out.
3. 439. The complainant goes on to provide new evidence in support of its earlier allegations that the violations of freedom of association, aimed particularly at the Federation of Hotel, Tourism, Restaurant and Catering and Allied Workers Associations (FHTRC), concern other establishments in the Guinean hotel industry.
4. 440. With regard to the Onomo Conakry Hotel (hereinafter “Hotel 2”), the complainant alleges the following: (i) in June 2023, the hotel management – without the workers‘ knowledge – organized a trade union election with representatives of the National Confederation of Workers of Guinea (CNTG), the management’s “preferred” trade union. Shortly afterwards, workers who were members of the FHTRC presented a petition, signed by more than 50 per cent of the entire workforce, accompanied by a letter calling for union elections with FHTRC representatives; (ii) in July 2023, the hotel management finally accepted the petition and the workers‘ letter calling for elections, but failed to actually organize any elections. Instead, management, in individual meetings, made it clear to the workers who had signed the petition that, if they remained part of the FHTRC, they would have to face the consequences; (iii) in August 2023, the hotel management began contacting workers without permanent contracts – more than 50 per cent of the workforce at the time – to encourage them to join a subcontracting company, this change in employment status being in effect a reprisal against the workers who had signed the petition in order to exclude them from participating in future union activities; (iv) in December 2023, almost six months after the workers‘ initial request to hold elections, the hotel management met with the CNTG, the FHTRC and the labour inspectorate to draw up an “electoral protocol” outlining the rules and standards for a possible election. During the drafting of this protocol, the labour inspectorate stated that subcontracted workers would not be able to vote in the elections; (v) despite this, and despite a campaign of intimidation by management, the FHTRC won the elections; (vi) subsequently, in June 2024, FHTRC representatives presented a petition to the hotel management demanding the reinstatement of all workers who had been forced to change their status, some of whom had been unfairly dismissed. Forty-eight workers, almost 90 per cent of the non-management workforce, signed the petition and added their photos.
5. 441. Lastly, the complainant states that the refusal to organize elections concerns the Primus Kaloom Hotel (hereinafter “Hotel 3”): (i) in February 2022, a majority of hotel workers presented a petition to the hotel management requesting union elections. More than a year has passed without any significant response from the hotel or the labour inspectorate; (ii) in July 2023, the labour inspectorate summoned members of the hotel’s management to its premises to discuss the hotel’s refusal to hold elections, but no member of management attended the meeting. To date, no further action has been taken by the hotel or the labour inspectorate. According to the complainant, the problem remains unresolved and is not being sufficiently addressed by the Government, which bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the right to freedom of association is respected, promoted and implemented.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 442. The Committee regrets that the Government has failed to provide replies to its recommendations, even though it has been requested several times to do so, including through an urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on this case, and urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 443. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable rule of procedure [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee finds itself obliged to present a report on the substance of the case, without the benefit of the information it had expected to receive from the Government.
3. 444. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association aims to ensure respect for this freedom both in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, while this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, they must recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations brought against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
4. 445. The Committee recalls that this case concerns anti-union discriminatory acts and harassment by the management of a hotel (Hotel 1), targeting both the officials of the newly established union and the workers who had expressed their support for the union. The Committee also recalls that the complainant denounces the Government’s failure to ensure respect for the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining in this case.
5. 446. The Committee notes the information provided by the complainant in its communication dated 9 September 2024, according to which, in relation to Hotel 1: (i) in September 2022, the hotel was officially closed for refurbishment, and all employees were dismissed; (ii) many dismissed workers are still unemployed and without access to healthcare, and several have not yet received their full redundancy payments; (iii) despite indications that the hotel is about to reopen, there is reason to fear that the hotel management will not call back all eligible employees, as required by the collective agreement in force and the dismissal letters of those concerned, and that employees involved in the union will be singled out.
6. 447. The Committee recalls that the anti-union discriminatory acts denounced in the context of Hotel 1 related mainly to unfair dismissals: (i) dismissal of trade union officials Mr Amadou Diallo and Mr Alhassane Diallo, who were dismissed after the February 2020 union elections had been held at the hotel; in this respect, the Committee had noted the labour court of Guinea’s ruling in March 2023 in their favour, finding a “simple or minor misconduct, characterized by the fact that they had engaged in a reciprocal shouting match with their hierarchical supervisor”, but that the employer had appealed against this decision (cf. recommendation (a)); (ii) dismissal of two employees, Mr Alhassane Sylla and Mr Mory Soumaoro, in November 2019, on minor disciplinary grounds shortly after they had expressed support for the trade union, such dismissals in fact being meant to intimidate other employees who might follow suit; the Committee had considered that the information provided by the Government could not rule out any act of harassment (cf. recommendation (b)). The Committee had also noted the allegations that Mr Sylla had been imprisoned by the local police for three days, on the pretext that he had left the hotel with prepared food, when it was in fact his own meal (cf. recommendation (e)); (iii) dismissal of hotel employee, M Sampil, in September 2020, on minor grounds, (broken flowerpot); the Committee had observed that the labour court, in a ruling dated 19 July 2021, had ordered the employer to pay compensation for unfair dismissal (cf. recommendation (c)); and (iv) dismissal of four of the six trade union representatives remaining in the hotel, without prior authorization from the labour inspectorate (cf. recommendation (d)).
7. 448. Regretting the absence of observations by the Government concerning Hotel 1 since its last examination of the case, the Committee finds itself obliged to refer the Government to the conclusions and recommendations from its last examination of the case [see 404th Report, paras 385 to 400]. With regard to recommendation (d), the Committee observes that the complainant has not provided the information expected concerning the situation of the four trade union representatives who were allegedly unfairly dismissed, as well as on any associated legal proceedings. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the allegations in question.
8. 449. The Committee also notes the new information provided by the complainant in support of its earlier allegations that violations of freedom of association, aimed in particular at the FHTRC, were not an isolated phenomenon in the Guinean hotel industry.
9. 450. In this connection, with regard to Hotel 2, the Committee notes the complainant’s following allegations: (i) in June 2023, the hotel management – without the workers’ knowledge – organized a trade union election with representatives from the National Confederation of Workers of Guinea (CNTG), the management’s “preferred” trade union. Shortly afterwards, workers who were members of the FHTRC presented a petition, signed by more than 50 per cent of the entire workforce, accompanied by a letter calling for union elections with FHTRC representatives; (ii) in July 2023, the hotel management finally accepted the petition and the workers’ letter calling for elections, but failed to actually organize any elections. Instead, management, in individual meetings, made it clear to the workers who had signed the petition that, if they remained part of the FHTRC, they would have to face the consequences; (iii) in August 2023, the hotel management began contacting workers without permanent contracts – more than 50 per cent of the workforce at the time – to encourage them to join a subcontracting company, this change in employment status being in effect a reprisal against the workers who had signed the petition in order to exclude them from participating in future union activities; (iv) in December 2023, almost six months after the workers’ initial request to hold elections, the hotel management met with the CNTG, the FHTRC and the labour inspectorate to draw up an “electoral protocol” outlining the rules and standards for a possible election. During the drafting of this protocol, the labour inspectorate stated that subcontracted workers would not be able to vote in the elections; (v) despite this, and despite a campaign of intimidation by management, the FHTRC won the elections; (vi) subsequently, in June 2024, FHTRC representatives presented a petition to the hotel management demanding the reinstatement of all workers who had been forced to change their status, some of whom had been unfairly dismissed. Forty-eight workers, almost 90 per cent of the non-management workforce, signed the petition and added their photos.
10. 451. With regard to Hotel 3, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant: (i) in February 2022, a majority of hotel workers presented a petition to the hotel management requesting union elections. More than a year has passed without any significant response from the hotel or the labour inspectorate; (ii) in July 2023, the labour inspectorate summoned members of the hotel’s management to its premises to discuss the hotel’s refusal to hold elections, but no member of management attended the meeting. To date, no further action has been taken by the hotel or the labour inspectorate. According to the complainant, the problem remains unresolved and is not being sufficiently addressed by the Government, which has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the right to freedom of association is respected, promoted and implemented.
11. 452. In the light of the above, the Committee notes with concern, from the allegations brought to its attention, that the lack of protection of freedom of association appears to extend to other hotels in the sector, particularly as regards hostility to holding trade union elections, marked by delaying tactics, reprisals and even other acts of intimidation. The Committee recalls its earlier recommendation requesting the Government to take all necessary steps, in consultation with the social partners concerned, to ensure that protection of trade union rights and protection against anti-union discrimination, in particular in the hotel sector, are fully guaranteed both in law and in practice. In this respect, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that, when Hotel 1 reopens, there is no anti-union discrimination in determining which employees may be recalled to work. The Committee also requests the Government to provide without delay its observations in response to the additional information and allegations contained in the latest communication from the complainant.