Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 371, March 2014

1. 482. The complaint is contained in communications dated 20 October 2009, 14 January, 15, 23 and 30 March and 19 April 2010, 31 January 2011, 1 August 2012 and 14 January 2013 by the Martinique Democratic Workers’ Confederation (Centrale démocratique martiniquaise des travailleurs (CDMT)) and its affiliated trade union CDMT–Postes.
2. 483. The Government provided its observations in a communication dated 11 August 2010.
3. 484. France 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 complainants’ allegations

1. 485. In their successive communications, the complainants denounce the anti-union discrimination against the CDMT–Postes trade union, an organization affiliated to the CDMT, since its establishment in the enterprise La Poste (referred to hereafter as “the enterprise”). They recall that the CDMT–PTT trade union had existed in the enterprise since 1979. That trade union was reconstituted under the name “CDMT–Postes” in February 2008, under the leadership of a Secretary-General, Mr Hervé Pinto. Mr Pinto has been an established staff member since 1990 and has been head of the mail and parcels team at the mail and parcels preparation and distribution (PPDC) hub in Fort-de-France, Martinique since 2004. He carried out trade union activities in several unions (Département secretary of the FNSA/PTT, then enterprise secretary at Sud PTT Martinique) before being elected Secretary-General of the CDMT–Postes trade union in February 2008.
2. 486. The complainants denounce the fact that Mr Pinto’s managers systematically opposed the exercise of his trade union activities in all their forms, on the grounds that they did not consider CDMT (the second highest placed trade union in the elections for labour courts in Martinique in December 2008) to be a representative union in the enterprise. The complainants point out that the enterprise, through the conclusion of a framework agreement of 27 January 2006 on exercising the right to organize, had limited the trade union rights on its premises solely to representative organizations, namely those that had obtained at least 10 per cent of the votes cast in occupational elections. However, CDMT–Postes, which had just been established, had not yet taken part in any election whatsoever and could not therefore claim to be a representative organization within the enterprise.
3. 487. By way of example, the complainants denounce the fact that CDMT–Postes was excluded from the first meeting of the Département Director of the enterprise with all the trade union organizations following his appointment. The organization was also excluded from the meeting with the Overseas Director of La Poste when she visited Martinique in November 2008, as well as from the discussions concerning, in particular, reorganization of the very site where its Secretary-General was working. In response to CDMT–Postes’ requests to be given an explanation and to be allowed to participate, the management of the enterprise invariably argued that the union could not be regarded as representative and that it could not therefore benefit from the advantages and prerogatives accorded to representative unions, such as access to the enterprise’s premises and to postal services. Similarly, after it had submitted a notice of strike action in December 2008, the organization received the response from the management of the enterprise that it was obliged to refuse such a notice from a non-representative organization.
4. 488. The CDMT–Postes states that it appealed to the administrative courts alleging denial of its rights, but that its appeals were rejected, notably by the judge for urgent applications at the Administrative Tribunal in Fort-de-France and the Office for Summary Proceedings at the Council of State (Conseil d’Etat), on the grounds of the existence of the Framework Agreement of 27 January 2006 and a lack of urgency to take action.
5. 489. However, the complainants note that, in an important judgment dated 15 May 2009 (CE, 15 May 2009, Fédération CNT–PTT), the Council of State ultimately annulled, in its entirety, the Framework Agreement of 27 January 2006. In the complainants’ view, the automatic result of this judgment is that all the bans on the exercise of his trade union functions imposed on Mr Pinto by the management of the enterprise were illegal. On 2 June 2009, CDMT–Postes accordingly asked the management of the enterprise to draw the conclusions from the decision of the Council of State, but there was no favourable follow-up to this request. According to the complainants, the conflict between CDMT–Postes and the enterprise led to disciplinary action being taken against the Secretary-General of the trade union in September 2009. In October 2009, he was notified of a two-year suspension of functions and salary as a disciplinary measure. The Secretary-General, who had already been suspended for four months in 2008, instituted numerous appeals against the suspension orders, and in particular against the order issued by the enterprise’s Central Disciplinary Board.
6. 490. In this connection, the complainants consider that Mr Pinto was unjustly sanctioned for having merely attempted to carry out his trade union functions. They recall that Martinique experienced a major earthquake in November 2007, which seriously damaged some of the enterprise’s facilities. Mr Pinto’s PPDC hub was relocated, as an emergency measure, to the Dillon postal sorting centre. The working conditions at that site, in a sensitive urban area, proved to be extremely difficult. In his dual capacity as a supervisor and a trade union official, Mr Pinto repeatedly warned his line managers of the serious shortcomings with regard to the health and safety of his team, seeking improvements in their working conditions. Between January and December 2008 he wrote 29 notes to his line managers warning them of these shortcomings.
7. 491. The complainants denounce the fact that, in the meantime, despite the Council of State’s judgment of 15 May 2009 annulling the 2006 framework agreement between the enterprise and the trade unions, the management of the enterprise continued to refuse to grant CDMT–Postes the same facilities as the other trade union organizations present. In July 2012, the various appeals against the enterprise’s position had still not been the subject of a decision.
8. 492. Furthermore, the complainants allege that, during the elections to technical committees held in October 2011, CDMT–Postes proved its representative nature by obtaining more than 10 per cent of the votes in two workplaces (FDF–CTC and FDF–PCD1), as evidenced by the polling records. The management of the enterprise, on the other hand, did not read the results in the same way and continues not to recognize the representative nature of the trade union in these workplaces. In the meantime, the situation with regard to social dialogue in the enterprise has deteriorated. The enterprise’s inter-union association has had to denounce “the aggression, contempt, authoritarian attitude and threats issued by the management” (October 2012).
9. 493. Concerning Mr Pinto’s situation, the complainants state that, following his appeal against denial of his trade union rights, the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered a preliminary investigation in May 2010 and hearings were held with the parties involved, notably the director of the enterprise and his staff. According to the complainants, however, it is still not known what action has been taken as a result of the procedure initiated by the Prosecutor. The complainants state that that ultimately the court found in favour of Mr Pinto, annulling the two-year temporary suspension order that had been imposed on him (judgment of the Fort-de-France Administrative Tribunal of 14 April 2011). However, CDMT–Postes denounces the fact that, following that judgment and his reinstatement, the enterprise again notified him of a two-year suspension from duty as from December 2011. Similarly, the complainants regret the fact that the Bordeaux Administrative Appeal Court rejected Mr Pinto’s appeal for confirmation of the first instance judgment but also for a ruling that he was sanctioned for his trade union activities.
10. 494. Lastly, in a communication dated August 2013 CDMT–Postes denounces the anti-union harassment of its Secretary-General. During a peaceful demonstration by the trade union on the occasion of the visit by the Prime Minister (June 2013), Mr Pinto was the victim of an assault by law enforcement officers, and he has been summoned to appear before the Criminal Court at a hearing scheduled for May 2014.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 495. In a communication dated 11 August 2010, the Government recalls that La Poste (referred to hereafter as “the enterprise”) has since 1 January 1991 been an “independent operator under public law” with the legal form of a public industrial and commercial establishment (établissement public industriel et commercial (EPIC)), and the enterprise and its subsidiaries form a public group fulfilling missions of general interest and carrying out competitive activities under the specific arrangements provided for by the Post and Electronic Communications Code. The staff of the enterprise are governed by particular statutes implemented under Act No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983 governing the rights and obligations of public officials, Act No. 84-16 of 11 January 1984 containing statutory provisions concerning the government civil service, and the Act of 20 May 2005 on regulation of postal activities.
2. 496. With regard to the right to organize, the enterprise has been made subject to Decree No. 82-447 of 28 May 1982 governing the exercise by state employees of their right to organize. In addition, on 27 January 2006, the enterprise and several trade union organizations had concluded a framework agreement specifying the arrangements for exercising the right to organize and for distributing the resources allocated to the representative trade union organizations. However, the Government confirms that this framework agreement was annulled in its entirety by a judgment issued by an administrative court (Council of State, 15 May 2009). Reference should therefore be made from then on to the provisions of the 1982 Decree. Although at the outset they were close to those under the Labour Code, they have been markedly different since the Code was modernized by the Act of 20 August 2008.
3. 497. The Government recalls that freedom of association is guaranteed as a constitutional value. In addition, section L.2141-4 of the Labour Code states that “The exercise of the right to organize shall be recognized in all enterprises, subject to respect for the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic, and in particular the individual freedom to work”. The primary mission of trade unions is to defend employees. This finds expression notably in the industrial action that trade unions take and the legal proceedings that they initiate, either in the interests of the union or in the individual interest of employees. Under section L.2142-3 of the Labour Code, trade union notices may be posted up freely on the noticeboards reserved for the purpose and distinct from those intended for communications from the staff delegates and the works committee. The noticeboards shall be placed at the disposal of each trade union branch, in accordance with arrangements to be made by agreement with the employer. Posting does not require prior authorization; a copy of such notices shall be forwarded to the employer at the same time as they are posted up (section L.2142-3). Trade union publications and handbills may be freely distributed, within the premises of the enterprise, to the employees of the enterprise at the times of their arriving for and leaving work (section L.2142-4). In order to prevent anti-union discrimination, the law makes provision, in section L.1132-1 of the Labour Code, for a general principle of non-discrimination that includes, in particular, anti-union discrimination: “No person shall be ... subject to a discriminatory measure, whether direct or indirect, [on the grounds] of his or her trade union or mutual benefit society activities ... ”. Since section L.1132-4 of that Code states that “any discriminatory decision or act against an employee in contravention of the provisions of this chapter is void”, an adverse action against an employee on the grounds of his or her trade union activity must remain null and void. In addition, section L.2141-5 of the Labour Code enshrines the principle of no anti-union discrimination. This principle of non discrimination applies on two levels: first, from the point of employees, because their freedom of association is protected, notably against the employer’s management prerogatives, and, second, from the point of view of trade unions, who may not be subject to any pressure by an employer. These provisions are a matter of public order; any action taken by an employer contrary to them shall be deemed to be an abusive practice and shall render them liable for damages (section L.2141-8 of that Code). Section L.2146-2 of the Labour Code provides, in addition, for penal sanctions for any infringement of sections L.2141-5 to L.2141-8 of that Code concerning discrimination that affects the exercise of the right to organize.
4. 498. The Government also recalls that, under the law, no one may be subject to discrimination in employment by reason of present or past membership of a trade union or participation in legitimate union activities. Similarly, no one may be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities. Under section L.1134-1 of the Labour Code, the employee is responsible for submitting to the judge “factual elements allowing it to be supposed that there is direct or indirect discrimination” and, in the light of those elements, it is up to the employer to “prove that this apparent discrimination is founded on objective elements, separate from any discrimination”, with the judge reaching a conclusion after having ordered such measures of investigation as he or she deems fit. Lastly, section L.2141-5 of the Labour Code forbids the employer from taking disciplinary measures by reason of an employee’s union membership. The sanction for such a measure is its annulment and the payment of damages for the injury suffered. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination is extended to employees, union members, former union officials and current union representatives, with the latter benefitting from special stronger protection.
5. 499. Trade union representativeness is defined in the Labour Code in section L.2121-1 et seq. It confers certain additional prerogatives on representative trade unions: for instance, they are authorized to conclude collective labour agreements (section L.2231-1) and have a monopoly on calling strikes in public services.
6. 500. The Government indicates that CDMT–Postes, in its observations, questions the ability of a legally constituted trade union to become representative if it is prohibited from exercising its “freedom to campaign, freedom to defend those workers who have mandated it to do so, and freedom of trade union action” in order to make itself better known by employees. In this regard, section 3 of Decree No. 82-447 of 28 May 1982 provides that the administration “when the total staff of a service or group of services [is] greater than 50 officials, shall make available to the most representative trade union organizations with branches in the establishment concerned premises to be used in common by the various organizations. So far as practicable, the administration shall make separate premises available to each of these organizations … the premises made available to trade union organizations shall comprise the facilities required to carry out trade union activity ... .” Furthermore, in accordance with section 8 of the 1982 decree, “trade union notices shall be posted up on the noticeboards reserved for the purpose and arranged so as to ensure the retention of such notices. Such noticeboards shall be placed in premises that are readily accessible by the staff but to which the public do not normally have access.”
7. 501. In its estimation, the management of the enterprise applied the provisions of the Labour Code with regard to the right to organize through the now lapsed 2006 framework agreement, reserving to representative trade unions alone the whole range of prerogatives concerning the right to organize. According to the Government, CDMT–Postes, although a non-representative trade union in the enterprise, nonetheless has the right to campaign and to disseminate trade union notices. This right of communication falls within the ambit of its activity and that of freedom of association, as confirmed by the Council of State in its decision of 15 May 2009. For the Government, the enterprise has decided to comply with the provisions in force.
8. 502. With regard to the ability of the complainant trade union to take part in elections owing to its non-representative nature, the Government recalls that, under section 9bis of Act No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983, “Shall be considered as representative of the entirety of the staff and subject to the provisions of the present Act those civil servants’ trade unions or trade union associations which: (1) hold at least one seat in each of the upper councils ... ; or (2) obtain at least 10 per cent of the total votes cast in the elections ... ”. In addition, under section 14 of Act No. 84-16 of 11 January 1984, the organizations affiliated to the organizations defined above and those meeting the provisions of section L.2121-1 of the Labour Code shall be considered as representative.
9. 503. The Government adds that the bill on renewal of social dialogue in the civil service is close to Act No. 2008-789 of 20 August 2008, which applies to the private sector. It gives effect to the objectives and commitments set out above, by broadening the conditions for taking part in elections and no longer making the presentation of lists (of candidates) conditional on certain criteria of representativeness or on benefitting from a presumption of representativeness. All trade unions that have been legally constituted for at least two years and meet the criteria of respect for republican values and of independence will thus be eligible to stand for occupational elections. These new rules governing access to elections are applicable to all occupational elections in the civil service.
10. 504. Lastly, the Government emphasizes that the rights granted to a legally constituted trade union organization should not be confused with the prerogatives stemming from its representative nature. On the one hand, a trade union’s lack of representativeness by no means calls into question its existence and the rights that arise therefrom; on the other hand, the representative nature of a trade union should be assessed as a capacity, not a right.
11. 505. With regard to the legislation applicable to the staff of the enterprise, Act No. 2010-751 of 5 July 2010 concerning renewal of social dialogue and comprising several provisions relative to the civil service has been adopted. This Act provides for: (i) development of national social dialogue in the civil service, expansion of issues that can be the subject of negotiation, and redefinition of the arrangements for access to occupational elections, with abolition of the requirement of prior representativeness for trade unions; (ii) establishment of a Higher Council for the Civil Service (Conseil supérieur de la fonction publique), a new joint consultative body for the three civil service categories; and (iii) guarantees for trade union representatives in terms of their careers (the skills acquired in carrying out trade union duties will be taken into account as occupational experience acquired on the job). The Government emphasizes that Act No. 2010-751 of 5 July 2010 thus affords new rights and additional guarantees for the exercise of trade union rights in the public sector, and further protection against the risks of anti-union discrimination.
12. 506. The Government recalls that the rights of the CDMT–Postes trade union were strengthened following the Council of State’s judgment of 15 May 2009, in accordance with the provisions of Decree No. 82-447 of 28 May 1982. The complainant trade union was informed by the management of the enterprise in a letter dated 30 July 2009 that it chose to apply that decision in full. No evidence has been brought to the attention of the Government to show that La Poste has not honoured this commitment to comply with the statutory provisions and judicial rulings on this matter.
13. 507. The Government observes that the complainant organization has exercised its right of appeal as regards administrative decisions to the administrative courts of first instance (Administrative Tribunal), appeal (Administrative Appeal Court) and cassation (Council of State). The impartiality of the legal system is indisputable. Since the Council of State’s judgment of 15 May 2009, the various judicial decisions of 2009 and 2010 have rejected the applications by CDMT–Postes. Furthermore, Mr Pinto has instituted numerous proceedings on his case. The Fort-de-France Administrative Tribunal, in a decision of 13 January 2010, rejected Mr Pinto’s applications for summary proceedings on the grounds that the condition of urgency, as defined in section L.521-1 of the Administrative Justice Code, had not been met. Furthermore, the High Authority for the Fight against Discrimination (HALDE), the independent administrative authority to whom Mr Pinto had appealed, decided to close the dossier and informed CDMT–Postes of that decision in a letter dated 5 March 2010, since it did not consider that the acts of anti-union discrimination complained of were proven. Lastly, the Bordeaux Administrative Appeal Court, in a decision of 11 May 2010, rejected Mr Pinto’s appeal to have the Fort-de-France Administrative Tribunal’s judgment of 5 February 2009 overturned, denying his applications against the two decisions to impose disciplinary sanctions on him.
14. 508. In conclusion, the Government considers that its panoply of legal instruments is sufficient to ensure compliance with the standards of the International Labour Organization and put an end to any situation that might be regarded as discriminatory or restricting freedom of association.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 509. The Committee notes that the complaint concerns allegations that the management of the enterprise La Poste (referred to hereafter as “the enterprise”) refused to recognize the representative nature of the CDMT–Postes trade union and thus to allow it to carry out its activities within the enterprise, as well as allegations of anti-union discrimination against the Secretary-General of the trade union.
2. 510. With regard to the allegations concerning the refusal by the management of the enterprise to recognize the representative nature of the CDMT–Postes trade union and thus to allow it to carry out its activities on the premises, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant organizations, the CDMT–PTT trade union existed within the enterprise from 1979 and that it was renamed “CDMT–Postes” in February 2008, under the leadership of a Secretary-General, Mr Hervé Pinto. The Committee notes that the enterprise, through the conclusion of a Framework Agreement of 27 January 2006 on exercising the right to organize, had limited the trade union rights on its premises solely to representative organizations, namely those that had obtained at least 10 per cent of the votes cast in occupational elections. However, CDMT–Postes, which had just been reconstituted, had not yet taken part in any election whatsoever and could not therefore claim to be a representative organization within the enterprise. Consequently, CDMT–Postes denounces the fact that it was excluded from meetings between the management and the social partners, and from organizational meetings. In response to its requests for explanations, the management of the enterprise invariably argued that the union could not be regarded as representative and that it could not therefore benefit from the advantages and prerogatives accorded to representative unions, such as access to the enterprise’s premises and to postal services.
3. 511. The Committee notes that the trade union brought cases before the administrative courts (the judge for urgent applications at the Administrative Tribunal of Fort-de-France and the Office for Summary Proceedings at the Council of State), which always rejected the appeals on the grounds of the existence of the Framework Agreement of 27 January 2006 and a lack of urgency to take action. Nonetheless, the Committee observes that, in a judgment dated 15 May 2009 (CE, 15 May 2009, Fédération CNT–PTT), the Council of State ultimately annulled, in its entirety, the Framework Agreement of 27 January 2006. The Committee notes that, according to the complainant organizations, CDMT–Postes unsuccessfully asked the management of the enterprise to draw the conclusions from the Council of State’s decision.
4. 512. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the enterprise was subject to Decree No. 82-447 of 28 May 1982 governing the exercise by state employees of their right to organize. In addition, on 27 January 2006, the enterprise and several trade union organizations had concluded a framework agreement specifying the arrangements for exercising the right to organize and for distributing the resources allocated to the representative trade union organizations. However, the Government confirms that this framework agreement was annulled in its entirety by a judgment issued by the Council of State on 15 May 2009. Since then, the legislation applicable to the staff of the enterprise has been Act No. 2010-751 of 5 July 2010, concerning renewal of social dialogue. This Act thus affords new rights and additional guarantees for the exercise of trade union rights in the public sector, and further protection against the risks of anti-union discrimination.
5. 513. Lastly, the Committee notes that the Government emphasizes that the rights granted to a legally constituted trade union organization should not be confused with the prerogatives stemming from its representative nature. On the one hand, a trade union’s lack of representativeness by no means calls into question its existence and the rights that arise therefrom; on the other hand, the representative nature of a trade union should be assessed as a capacity, not a right.
6. 514. While welcoming the Government’s position and the new framework henceforth governing the activities of trade unions within the enterprise, the Committee notes however that the complainants still report, three years later and with supporting documentation, obstacles raised by the enterprise to the free exercise of trade union activities by CDMT–Postes. The Committee recalls, with regard to the facilities to be granted to workers’ representatives, that Convention No. 135 (which France has ratified) calls for such facilities to be provided in the enterprise as may be appropriate in order to enable workers’ representatives to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently, and in such a manner as not to impair the efficient operation of the enterprise concerned. In this connection, workers’ representatives should be granted access to all workplaces in the enterprise where such access is necessary to enable them to carry out their representation function. Trade union representatives who are not employed in the enterprise but whose trade union has members employed therein should be granted access to the enterprise. The granting of such facilities should not impair the efficient operation of the enterprise concerned. [See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paragraphs 1098, 1104 and 1105.] Furthermore, the granting of facilities to workers’ representatives may also include, inter alia, the granting of time off. Consequently, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that, in accordance with the legislation in force, CDMT–Postes may enjoy the same facilities as are provided to the other legally constituted trade union organizations, notably free access to premises and to its members, and freedom to hold meetings. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the alleged impediments on the part of the enterprise to the activities of CDMT–Postes.
7. 515. The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations concerning the elections to technical committees held in October 2011, where it was alleged that CDMT–Postes had obtained more than 10 per cent of the votes in two workplaces (FDF–CTC and FDF–PDC1), and the refusal by the management to recognize the representativeness of the union in these workplaces. The Committee notes, from the polling records communicated by the complainant, that the joint list for CDMT–Postes and FNSA/PTT obtained a total of two seats (out of the total of 47 distributed among ten trade union lists). Noting further the protests by CDMT–Postes at the arrangements made for the allocation of seats following the ballot, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether CDMT–Postes has the possibility of participating in the meetings of the technical committees in the workplaces where it has achieved the required representativeness through the votes cast by workers.
8. 516. With regard to the allegations of anti-union discrimination against the Secretary-General of CDMT–Postes, the Committee notes the complainants’ statement that it was in his dual capacity as a supervisor and a trade union official that he warned his line managers of the need to improve health and safety at his workplace. The Committee observes that, in his arguments before the disciplinary boards and courts where the cases were heard, Mr Pinto has always denounced the fact that he was subject to sanctions by reason of his trade union activities and has thus systematically rejected the rationale put forward concerning his behaviour towards his colleagues and line managers.
9. 517. The Committee notes that the decision issued by the Fort-de-France Administrative Tribunal on 14 November 2011 annulled the temporary suspension order that had been imposed on Mr Pinto by the Central Disciplinary Board. It notes that Mr Pinto called on the Bordeaux Administrative Appeal Court to confirm the first instance ruling and also to rule that the facts held against him were not established. The Committee observes that the Administrative Appeal Court confirmed the first instance ruling, invalidating the order of the Central Disciplinary Board on procedural grounds. However, the Administrative Appeal Court refused to rule on whether Mr Pinto was sanctioned for his trade union activities, considering that it was not within its competence to examine if such alleged facts against Mr Pinto had been established.
10. 518. The Committee takes note of the Government’s observations that Mr Pinto instituted numerous proceedings on his personal case. The High Authority for the Fight against Discrimination (HALDE), the independent administrative authority to whom Mr Pinto had appealed, decided to close the dossier and informed CDMT–Postes of that decision in a letter dated 5 March 2010, since it did not consider that the acts of anti-union discrimination complained of were proven. Lastly, the Bordeaux Administrative Appeal Court, in a decision of 11 May 2010, rejected Mr Pinto’s appeal to have the Fort-de-France Administrative Tribunal’s judgment of 5 February 2009 overturned, denying his applications against the two decisions to impose disciplinary sanctions on him.
11. 519. In addition, the Committee notes with regret that in December 2011, following his reinstatement, the enterprise again notified Mr Pinto of a two-year suspension from duty. While observing with regret that, in view of the circumstances, a decision of that kind taken so promptly does not contribute to the establishment of peaceful relations within the enterprise, the Committee has taken note of the reasons put forward for such a decision, which repeated in full those given for the previous suspension, namely Mr Pinto’s inappropriate behaviour in the exercise of his duties.
12. 520. More generally, the Committee takes note of the copious information submitted for its assessment concerning the disciplinary measures taken against Mr Pinto. The exchanges of notes within the enterprise between Mr Pinto and his line managers reveal difficulties in communicating calmly; the line managers’ assessments of Mr Pinto’s work as a supervisor are focused on his tasks and shortcomings, and do not mention his trade union functions, except for one allusion; the discussions within the Central Disciplinary Board in September 2008, however, show differences of opinion between the representatives of the staff and the enterprise concerning the link between the disciplinary measures and his trade union functions, but a majority consider that an effort needs to be made in his relations with his fellow workers; Mr Pinto has brought numerous cases before the courts and appeal bodies, but none of them deemed his trade union functions to be grounds for the sanctions imposed; the HALDE rejected his appeal. In consequence, the Committee cannot conclude, on the basis of these observations, that Mr Pinto was subject to disciplinary measures because of his trade union activities.
13. 521. Lastly, the Committee notes with concern the recent allegations concerning the violent intervention by law enforcement officers in June 2013 during a peaceful demonstration by the CDMT–Postes on the occasion of the visit by the Prime Minister, and the assault of which Mr Pinto is said to have been the victim. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.