Definitive Report - Report No 217, June 1982

1. 225. The complaint of the World Federation of Trade unions is contained in a telegram dated 5 November 1981. The Government forwarded its observations in communications dated 12 January, 23 February and 23 March 1982.
2. 226. Upper Volta has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 67) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 227. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) denounces the suppression of the right to strike in Upper Volta, adopted in flagrant violation of the Conventions and Recommendations of the ILO. It requests that steps be taken with a view to abrogating this anti-trade union measure.

B. The Government's reply

1. 228. In its reply dated 12 January 1982 the Government asserts that it is not at all the intention of the Military Committee of Reconstruction for National Progress, which has been in power since 25 November 1980, deliberately to violate trade union rights, since Upper Volta ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 in 1960 and 1962 respectively.
2. 229. The Government goes on to state that the Chairman of the Military Committee, the Head of State, guaranteed trade union freedoms in his Proclamation of 25 November 1980. Unfortunately, the Government adds, evil-minded people tried, by taking advantage of this Proclamation, to turn the possibility of a strike into a springboard for covert action.
3. 230. According to the Government's explanation, in order to meet a dangerous internal situation threatened by a grave crisis of incalculable consequences which certain trade unionists intended to bring about by calling for general indefinite strikes for anarchic purposes and imposing highly political decisions, the Military Committee, anxious to avoid the irrevocable and to save the higher interests of the nation, found itself obliged to pass various legislative texts, in particular order No. 0041/CMRPN/PRES of 1 November 1981 concerning the suppression of the right to strike.
4. 231. The Government states that this was done for reasons of State and was aimed at maintaining social stability. In the Government's view, these contingency measures will be lifted. It adds that the Head of State, in his 1982 New Year message to the nation, gave an assurance that "the Military Committee of Reconstruction for National Progress which, since it first came into power, has asserted its desire to make the workers' organisations its privileged social partners, will very soon make efforts to establish a normal situation in this area".
5. 232. The Government encloses with its reply the text of the order suppressing the right to strike and a communiqué of 11 November 1981, signed by the Head of State, in which reference is made to the attitude of certain employers who, it is maintained, tended to behave intolerably towards their workers since the publication of the order suppressing the right to strike. The communiqué points out to the said employers that, while this decision was taken for reasons of State, the workers nevertheless have complete freedom under the law to defend their occupational interests and to claim their rights. It concludes: "just as no act of indiscipline can be tolerated on the part of the workers, any arbitrary behaviour of an employer with regard to his employees will be punished".
6. 233. In its further reply of 23 February 1982 the Government states that the ban on strikes which was the subject of the complaint was lifted by Order No. 82-003 (CMR/PN) of 14 January 1982, published on 13 February 1982, laying down the procedures for settling collective labour disputes. In its communication of 23 March 1982, the Government sends the text of the order in question, together with Decree No. 82/0054 concerning the composition and running of the National Bargaining Committee and Council.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 234. The Committee notes, firstly, that the Military Committee of Reconstruction for National Progress suppressed the right to strike in Upper Volta on 1 November 1981.
2. 235. In this respect the Committee points out that, in cases' where legislation imposes an absolute ban on strikes, it has always shared the opinion of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, namely that such a ban constitutes a significant limitation on the range of action of trade union organisations, a limitation which is incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.
3. 236. The Committee also notes with interest the statement made by the Government in its communication of 23 February 1982 announcing that the order suppressing the right to strike has been lifted by Order No. 82-003 of 14 January 1982 laying down procedures for settling collective labour disputes.
4. 237. Nevertheless, the Committee, having studied the contents of the said order, has reservations regarding certain provisions in this text.
5. 238. The Committees notes that the right to strike is denied, in particular, to wage earners in the private sector who are on probation (section. 13(6)); that in case of need (the text does not specify further) the Government may decide to requisition, collectively or individually, the workers and agents on strike (section 15); that, in addition to sit-down, lightning, go-slow, staggered and wildcat strikes, even strike pickets are banned and liable to penalties (section 16); and that any sympathy or supporting strike which does not directly concern the occupation is illegal (section 17). Participation in an illegal strike entails liability to a prison term of up to one year or to a fine (section. 20), and refusal to submit to a requisition order also is liable to similar penalties.
6. 239. As regards the objectives which workers may pursue through the exercise of the right to strike, the Committee recalls that strikes are one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and protection of their occupational and economic interests' in the broad sense of the term; these interests do not only concern collective claims of an occupational nature (section 12 of the Order), but also concern the seeking of solutions to economic and social policy questions and problems facing the undertaking which are of direct concern to the workers.
7. 240. Regarding the strike procedures which are denied to workers (in particular, the ban on strike pickets and sit-down strikes), the Committee considers that these restrictions would be justified only if the strike ceased to be peaceful.
8. 241. Concerning the categories of workers who do not enjoy the right to strike, the Committee notes that wage earners in the private sector who are on probation are denied this right. The Committee considers that the exclusion of this category of workers from the right to strike is incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.
9. 242. As regards the powers of requisition available to the administration "in case of need", the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that requisitioning persons to carry out jobs which have been vacated as a result of a labour dispute can only be justified, if the strike is legal in other respects, by the need to ensure the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.
10. 243. The Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation to bring it into conformity with the principles of freedom of association stated above. It considers that it would be appropriate to bring these questions to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.