Definitive Report - Report No 145, 1974

1. 7. In a communication dated 16 January 1974 the European Organisation of the International Federation of Employees in Public Service submitted a complaint concerning infringements of trade union rights alleged to have been committed in France. The World Confederation of Labour, the International Federation of Employees in Public Service (INFEDOP) and the European Organisation of the WCL supported this complaint in communications dated 17, 18 and 21 January 1974 respectively.
2. 8. The texts of the aforementioned communications were transmitted to the Government, which provided its observations in a letter dated 23 April 1974.
3. 9. France 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. 10. The complaint from the European Organisation of the INFEDOP concerns the dismissal, on 10 January 1974, by the Minister of the Interior of the French Government, of Mr. Jean-Louis Breton, Secretary of the CFDT (French Democratic Confederation of Labour) unions of the Paris police and Assistant General Secretary of the unions of inspectors and detectives.
2. 11. In its communication, the complainant organisation states that on 16 November 1973 Mr. Jean-Louis Breton, who was one of a delegation representing the CFDT federation of the national police force, addressed a general meeting of workers of the LIP undertaking with a view to explaining the position of his organisation as a trade union. The European Organisation of INFEDOP specifies further that the members of the delegation did not speak as private individuals but only in accordance with the terms of reference given them by their trade union organisation.
3. 12. The complainant organisation adds that in so doing, Mr. Jean-Louis Breton was merely availing himself of the right to freedom of speech, which has been an acknowledged right of trade unionised policemen ever since the Council of State gave a ruling to that effect in May 1966 (In re Rouve). According to the complainant organisation, this ruling formally acknowledged that a trade unionised policeman, when acting on behalf of his union, could not be required to exercise restraint in making public statements for otherwise the policeman's trade union rights, recognised both by French law and by the Constitution, would be jeopardised.
4. 13. The European Organisation of the INFEDOP goes on to state that Mr. Jean-Louis Breton was brought before the Disciplinary Board on 10 January 1974 for "failure to exercise restraint in making public statements and for going beyond the realm of occupational interests", a charge which, according to the complainants, cannot be sustained. Firstly, in the view of the complainant organisation, the notion of "failure to observe restraint in making public statements" is vague and to charge anyone with such an offence would run counter to the Council of State ruling mentioned above. Secondly, failure to recognise the right of policemen belonging to workers' Confederations to explain the attitudes of their organisations would be equivalent to preventing freedom of choice as regards trade union membership. Thirdly, the grounds given would be contrary to a circular issued by the Prime Minister on 14 September 1970 to the effect that trade union organisations should enjoy the means necessary for the exercise of trade union rights and that trade union representatives should be immune from discrimination on the grounds of their trade union activities.
5. 14. The complainant organisation concludes by stating that the decision to dismiss Mr. Breton - which had been reached only with the casting vote of the Chairman, representing the Government - creates a situation that is out of all proportion with the facts since this penalty is generally reserved for really serious professional misconduct or actual conviction in a court of law.
6. 15. The Government, in its letter, points out that Convention No. 87 does not apply to the police, to which body Mr. Breton belonged before his dismissal. The Government confirms, furthermore, that Mr. Breton was dismissed, with the agreement of the Disciplinary Board, for having seriously contravened the requirement to exercise restraint in making public statements laid down in section 12 of Decree No. 68-70 of 24 January 1968. According to the Government, what he said to the workers of the LIP undertaking was likely to discredit the national police and constituted a demonstration of solidarity designed to encourage unlawful acts.
7. 16. The Government adds that the fact that Mr. Breton acted in his capacity as a trade unionist in no way releases him from responsibility for his actions. The Government specifies further that the Council of State was of the opinion, in the Rouve ruling, that the policeman concerned had been wrongly dismissed not because his being a trade unionist released him from the requirement to observe restraint in making public statements but because Mr. Rouve's protest was intended to defend occupational interests and because the terms he used did not go beyond the limits that had to be respected. On the contrary, the Government maintains that the Council of State recognises in this ruling that such restraint is required of all officials, including those with trade union responsibilities. Moreover, in a recent ruling (In re Obrego, 1 December 1972), the Council of State decided that a public official by helping to spread a protest, had failed to observe due restraint although he had acted in his capacity as a member of a trade union branch.
8. 17. The Government concludes by stating that although, in practice, trade unionised policemen are accorded greater freedom of expression than their colleagues on active duty they can, if they go too far (as was the case with Mr. Breton) be charged with not observing due restraint.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 18. The Committee notes the allegations made by the complainant organisation and the Government's comments thereon. It notes that the case concerns the situation of the leader of a policemen's trade union organisation. The Committee is obliged to recall in this respect that Article 9(1) of Convention No. 87 provides that: "The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations".
2. 19. Consequently it is clear that the International Labour Conference intended to leave it to each State to decide on the extent to which it was desirable to grant members of the armed forces and of the police the rights covered by the Convention. This means that States having ratified the Convention are not required to grant these rights to the said categories of persons.