Interim Report - Report No 139, 1974

1. 437. The Committee examined this case at its session in February-March 1973, when it submitted the conclusions which appear in paragraphs 16 to 40 of its 136th Report; this Report was submitted to the 190th Session (June 1973) of the Governing Body, which decided to postpone its examination of the case.
2. 438. In the course of the debate which took place within the Governing Body, the workers' members referred to information they had received according to which the leaders of the Union of Senegalese Teachers, Mr. Segal Fall, Mr. M'Baba Guisse and Mr. Babacar Sane, had been arrested on 27 March 1973 and were still under arrest; furthermore, according to the same information, the trade union had been dissolved at the decision of the Government. The Workers' members requested - and the Governing Body acceded to their request - that the Government be asked for information as to the exactitude of the said information so that the Committee could at a later date present a further report in full knowledge of the facts.
3. 439. The question of the dissolution of the Union of Senegalese Teachers is dealt with under Case No. 749, in respect of which the Committee reached certain conclusions contained in the present report.
4. 440. As regards the arrest of Mr. Segal Fall, Mr. M'Baba Guisse and Mr. Babacar Sane, the Government replied, in a communication dated 8 August 1973, that these persons had been released provisionally on 24 July 1973 by the State Security Court and that the Committee would be informed of the final decision of this Court as soon as it had been reached.
5. 441. The original complaint from the world Federation of Teachers' Unions is contained in a communication dated 19 April 1972 addressed direct to the ILO. It was supplemented by two communications dated 2 and 20 June 1972 respectively. The Union of Senegalese Teachers, for its part, forwarded to the Office a document dated 17 June 1972 to be included in the file on this case. All these communications were transmitted to the Government, which furnished its observations in two communications dated 26 July and 27 October 1972.
6. 442. Senegal has ratified both 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).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 443. In its communication of 19 April 1972, the World Federation of Teachers' Unions (FISE) alleges that "the Government has again taken action which is in clear violation of trade union rights by its decision not to allow the Third National Congress of the Senegalese Union of Teachers" (an organisation affiliated to the FISE) to be held.
2. 444. In its communication of 2 June 1972 the FISE reproduced the text of a general resolution adopted on 30 April 1972 by the National Council of the Union of Senegalese Teachers. This document contains certain remarks of a political nature, which the Committee is not competent to deal with. However it also contains allegations of breaches of trade union rights, which are within the Committee's purview, For instance, the document in question refers, like the FISE, to the banning of the Third Congress of the Union of Senegalese Teachers (SES). It is also alleged therein that discriminatory action has been taken, in violation of the principle of freedom of association, against SES militants. "In the teaching profession states the resolution "unfair and even illegal action continues to be taken against SES militants: there have been arbitrary transfers, unjustified dismissals, suspensions from office, temporary exclusion from the profession, deletions from promotion lists, deductions of one year from the length of service, removal of teachers from positions of responsibility, etc. Our meetings have been prohibited in schools since 18 June 1970 ..." The resolution adds that trade union officers have been refused exit visas.
3. 445. On this last point, the FISE, in its communication of 20 June 1972, states that the SES, which is a member of the administrative Committee of the FISE, was unable to take part in the meeting of that Committee held in Budapest on 9 and 10 June 1972, adding that the telegram sent to the FISE by the SES stated: "Impossible to leave the country".
4. 446. Lastly, the document sent direct by the SES for inclusion in the file on the case consists in an official report drawn up by Mr. Oumar Tidiane Diop, court bailiff at St. Louis, in which it is stated that the police of that town had broken up a meeting being held in a trade union centre lawfully occupied by the SES.
5. 447. In its observations, the Government states first of all that it can neither accept nor tolerate a trade union being diverted from its true purpose to become a political instrument "used to further personal ambitions or undeclared opposition movements". The Government goes on to affirm that the national Constitution guarantees freedom of association, considered to be a fundamental human right, and that Convention No. 87 is applied fully in Senegal.
6. 448. With regard to the specific allegations made by the complainants, and in particular those contained in the general resolution of the SES National Council, the Government, referring to the ban on meetings mentioned in that resolution, indicates that since the end of the state of emergency on 12 July 1969, all associations and groups, whether political or occupational, have been free to meet. "Hence it is curious" declares the Government "that there should be any talk of a ban on meetings, since the resolution which makes this allegation was itself drafted and adopted at one of the numerous meetings held by the National Council of the union making the complaint." As regards the holding of meetings in schools, the Government states that in view of the risk of clashes between rival unions it has been obliged to exercise its responsibilities for the maintenance of law and order. It points out in this connection, moreover, that the Government is under no obligation whatsoever to place public buildings at the disposal of workers' organisations.
7. 449. The Government further states that "nothing is less true than that the Third Congress of the Union of Senegalese Teachers was banned since all that happened was that the place of the meeting was changed. As it was Youth week in Dakar at the same time, all the police forces in the area were fully occupied. As a safety measure both the SES and the FENES were told that they might hold their Congress anywhere except in Dakar. This is what the FENES subsequently did though the SES did not avail itself of the offer. Consequently there can be no talk of a ban".
8. 450. With regard to the injustices which the resolution alleges were directed against SES activists, the Government specifies that administrative sanctions are not ordered until disciplinary councils, composed of representatives of the workers and of the administration, have been consulted. The Government states that any workers punished were punished in a manner that was lawful and solely for faults they had committed in the performance of their duties. The same procedure, according to the Government, is followed in respect of promotion. The Government concludes by stating that any official with a grievance can always appeal to the Supreme Court.
9. 451. As regards the allegation that the St. Louis police broke up a meeting being held in an SES trade union centre, the Government states that the claim according to which these premises belong to the local section of the SES is incorrect. "In fact," the Government goes on to say "the premises in question belonged to the former national Confederation, the UNTS. By underhand means the SES section took over the premises on its own initiative while the question of the assignment of the property of the former Confederation was still sub judice. It was purely in the light of this situation, and in order to avoid clashes between workers, that it had been forbidden to hold meetings or for persons to gather on these premises. The action taken by the St. Lours police was fully in accordance with the surveillance duties assigned to them in this connection."
10. 452. The allegations made are essentially concerned with the right of assembly for trade union purposes and, to a lesser degree, with discriminatory action said to have been taken against members of the SES.
11. 453. As concerns this latter aspect of the case (see paragraph 444 above), the complainants confine themselves to assertions that are unsubstantiated by any specific facts, circumstances or names. As for the Government, after stating that administrative sanctions and promotion procedures are handled by joint bodies, it declares that any action taken was the outcome of faults committed by the persons concerned in the performance of their duties and that if any of them feel they have a grievance they can appeal to the Supreme Court.
12. 454. Considering that the complainants have failed to furnish proof of any link between the measures to which they have referred in general terms and the SES membership of those against whom they were directed, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case calls for no further examination on its part.
13. 455. The allegations relating to the right of assembly may be divided into three categories: allegations concerning the banning of the Third Congress of the SES; allegations concerning the banning of meetings in public educational establishments; and allegations concerning the breaking up of an SES meeting held in St. Louis in a trade union centre said to belong to the local section of that organisation.
14. 456. As concerns the allegation that the Third Congress of the SES was banned, it would appear from the explanations given by the Government that there was no blanket prohibition but merely a ban on the holding in Dakar of the Congress in question (and of meetings of other trade unions too), the SES and the other organisations having been allowed full latitude to hold their meetings anywhere else in the country. The reason given by the Government for the ban was that a Youth Week was being opened in Dakar at the time when the Congresses in question were due to meet and that all the police forces in the area were required to maintain law and order in connection with that event.
15. 457. As concerns the banning of meetings in state schools, the Government explains that this is justified by its concern to avoid clashes between rival unions. The ban appears to have been a general one and not confined to meetings of members of the SES.
16. 458. Lastly, as regards the breaking up of the SES meeting being held at its trade union centre in St. Louis, after explaining that the question of the assignment of ownership of this centre and of other property was still sub judice, the Government states that to avoid clashes between workers no meetings may be held on these premises. Here too, the ban appears to be a general one.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 459. The Committee has always considered that freedom of assembly for trade union purposes constitutes one of the fundamental elements of trade union rights. It has also considered that freedom from government interference in the holding and proceedings of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
2. 460. However, the Committee has also expressed the view that it rests with the government, which is responsible for the maintenance of public order, to decide in the exercise of its corresponding powers whether meetings, including trade union meetings, may in certain special circumstances endanger public order and security and to take adequate preventive measures.
3. 461. In this particular case, in view of the fact that in the three instances mentioned by the complainants the measures taken were of general scope and not directed solely at the SES, the Committee considers that the Government, in restricting the right of assembly as described in this case, appears to have been concerned with maintaining public order and to have had no intention of infringing the right of trade union assembly of any particular organisation.
4. 462. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the allegations made in the present case with regard to the right of assembly call for no further examination.
5. 463. There remains one allegation upon which the Government has failed to comment. This is the allegation that officers of the SES were refused exit visas (see above, end of paragraph 444 and paragraph 445), as a result of which the SES, although a member of the Administrative Committee of the FISE, was unable to be represented at the meeting of that Committee held in Budapest in June 1972.
6. 464. On this point, the Committee feels bound to recommend the Governing Body to draw the Government's attention to the principle that the right of national workers' organisations to join international workers' organisations, a right which constitutes an important aspect of freedom of association, normally carries with it the right for representatives of national organisations to keep in contact with and to participate in the work of the international organisations to which their organisations are affiliated.
7. 465. As regards the arrest of Mr. Segal Fall, Mr. M'Baba Guisse and Mr. Babacar Sane, the Committee emphasises, as it has frequently done in the past, that in cases of allegations relating to the prosecution and sentencing of trade union leaders, the question to be decided is the real reason for which the measures complained of were taken, and only if these measures have been taken because of legitimate trade union activities can there be any infringement of freedom of association. In cases involving the arrest, detention or sentencing of a trade union official, the Committee, taking the view that individuals have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty, has considered that it was incumbent upon the government to show that the measures it had taken were in no way occasioned by the trade union activities of the individual concerned. Furthermore, the Committee has made it a rule to ask the governments concerned for as precise information as possible concerning arrests, particularly in connection with the legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the result of such proceedings, in order to be able to make a proper examination of the allegations.
8. 466. In this particular case the Government states that the case of the accused (who have been released provisionally) is being dealt with by the State Security Court and that the Court's ruling will be communicated as soon as it is handed down. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of these statements and to request the Government to keep it informed of all developments in this matter.