Definitive Report - Report No 67, 1963

1. 47. The complaint of the Union of Non-Denominational Teachers of Senegal (S.U.E.L.) is contained in a communication dated 20 November 1961 addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In accordance with the procedure in force the Secretary-General forwarded the S.U.E.L's communication to the I.L.O by a letter dated 18 December 1961. The complaint was referred to the Government concerned for observations on 5 January 1962. The Government replied by a communication dated 4 July 1962.
2. 48. Senegal has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
3. 49. The complainants allege in general terms that all sorts of discriminatory measures are being taken against the S.U.E.L by the authorities in order to weaken the complainant organisation, to the advantage of the other union in the profession concerned - the SYNELS -which is said to have government support. In support of these general assertions the complainants make a certain number of specific allegations which can be classified in three categories that will be dealt with separately in the following paragraphs.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Transfer and Suspension of Primary and Secondary School Teachers
  50. 50 The complainants allege that since 1958 many primary and secondary school teachers who were members of the S.U.E.L have been transferred or suspended. According to complainants these measures are not unconnected with the fact that those concerned were members of the S.U.E.L.
  51. 51 More precisely, the complainants allege that Mr. Amadou N'Dené N'Daw, Deputy Secretary of the National Executive of the S.U.E.L, was transferred less than a month before the congress of that organisation in order to upset the arrangements made. It is alleged that he was later suspended without pay without there being any reason of a professional nature that could be invoked to justify such action. Similarly the complainants declare that Messrs. Mamady Sane and Babacar Diallo were posted to Tamba Counda and to Pata respectively " solely in order to weaken the S.U.E.L section at Rufisque ". However, complainants fail to specify what trade union posts, if any, were held by these persons.
  52. 52 In its reply the Government recognises that disciplinary action, including unsolicited transfers, has been taken against certain civil servants. It denies, however, that these measures were due to the trade union activities of those concerned. The Government states that in any case the measures impugned were taken after consulting disciplinary boards on which an equal number of seats are allocated to representatives of those concerned and of the administration.
  53. 53 The Government states that the teachers referred to in the complaint, many of whom have been brought before the ordinary courts, were caught in the act of, for example, throwing stones, carrying prohibited weapons, manifesting in a prohibited manner during an election period or " breaking into polling stations, with daggers or revolvers drawn, to burn ballot boxes after throwing petrol over them ".
  54. 54 With regard to the particular case of Mr. Amadou N'Dené N'Daw, who was Deputy Principal of the Gambetta School at Kaolack, the Government states that the man concerned had on several occasions been reported by the Inspector of Primary Education as being systematically absent. The Government goes on to state that the Minister of Education held an inquiry to establish the reasons for these frequent absences without leave, and that the inquiry revealed that the intense political activity of the person concerned had led him to neglect increasingly his official duties as a teacher. It is owing to this misconduct that Mr. N'Dené N'Daw was transferred to Mondéry, where the Government states he was offered the post of Principal. Mr. N'Dené N'Daw having refused to move to his new duty station, he was suspended from his post following disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in accordance with the regulations.
  55. 55 In reply to the assertions of complainants, who submit no supporting evidence, the Government provides detailed and specific information on the reasons for the measures taken against the persons in question. The Government states in its reply, first, that these measures were taken in accordance with established procedure, and secondly that they were due either to eminently reprehensible acts (see paragraph 53 above) or to shortcomings of the persons concerned in the performance of their professional duties. In any case the complainants have not proved that the measures in question were due to the trade union activities or membership of the persons affected.
  56. 56 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Obstruction of Trade Union Meetings
  57. 57 Complainants allege that the Government obstructed the holding of meetings organised by the S.U.E.L. More exactly it is alleged that on 6 April 1961 the Government prohibited the S.U.E.L from holding an educational seminar on the premises of the Clemenceau State School in Dakar. It is further alleged that on 22 June in the same year the Government had the Clemenceau School encircled by police in order to prevent the Dakar section of the S.U.E.L from holding its regional conference there. Thirdly, it is alleged that on 20 July the Government took the same action in connection with a national conference. Complainants state that SYNELS, on the other hand, met with no obstruction in using the Clemenceau School to hold its meetings.
  58. 58 In its reply the Government states that on none of the occasions mentioned by complainants was the Minister of Education informed of the S.U.E.L's intention of holding meetings, except through tracts that had been distributed. The S.U.E.L never asked for permission to hold the meetings in question on public premises. In these circumstances the Minister was in duty bound to prohibit the holding of the meetings on such premises. Complainants were informed of these prohibitions but tried to hold their meetings in spite of them.
  59. 59 With regard to the meetings held by SYNELS on the same premises, the Government states that they were held because the organisation always applied for and obtained the necessary permission in the prescribed manner.
  60. 60 In connection with an earlier case, also concerning Senegal, the Committee considered that, generally, the fact that a government was able to grant the occupation of premises to a particular organisation or to evict a given organisation from premises which it had been occupying in order to grant them to another organisation might, even if this was not intended, lead to the favourable or unfavourable treatment of a particular trade union as compared with others, and in this way constitute an act of discrimination. More particularly, the Committee stated, by according favourable or unfavourable treatment to a given organisation as compared with others, a government might be able to influence the choice of workers as to the organisation which they were going to join. The Committee pointed out that the right of those concerned to make a free choice in this respect was specifically provided for in Article 2 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
  61. 61 In this particular case, however, it does not seem that there was any intention on the Government's part to discriminate against the complaining organisation. The reason which seems to explain the prohibition is that the S.U.E.L, by failing to apply for permission, did not comply with the formalities required for the holding of meetings on public premises. The right to hold trade union meetings cannot be interpreted as releasing the complainant from the obligation to comply with reasonable formalities when it is desired to make use of public premises. Moreover, there does not seem to have been any infringement of the right to hold meetings since the prohibited meetings were not to be held on trade union premises.
  62. 62 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations concerning the Dissolution of the Complaining Organisation
  63. 63 The complainants state in conclusion that " in certain government circles there is talk of making an order to dissolve the S.U.E.L and to grant official recognition to SYNELS as the only teachers' organisation of Senegal ".
  64. 64 In its reply the Government refrains from mentioning this statement.
  65. 65 However, this statement is not strictly speaking an allegation but rather a rumour referred to by the complainants; moreover, this rumour has not been confirmed, and the complainants, who were given an opportunity of submitting additional information in support of their complaint, refrained from doing so. The Committee therefore considers that there would be no point in giving further consideration to this aspect of the case, and recommends the Governing Body to decide to take no further action.