Interim Report - Report No 233, March 1984

1. 338. The Committee has examined this case on three previous occasions, the most recent being at its meeting in February 1983 when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 222nd Report, paras. 219 to 244, approved by the Governing Body at its 222nd Session (March 1983).]
2. 339. At its meeting in May 1983 the Committee requested the Government to transmit at an early date detailed observations on further allegations that had been presented by the complainants in a communication of 28 April 1983 and which were, in turn, communicated to the Government on 4 May 1983 (see 226th Report, para. 9). The Government sent certain further observations in a communication received on 17 May 1983. In a further communication dated 28 October 1983 the Government, referring to its previous communications concerning the case, stated that the complainants, in their most recent allegations, repeated information that was being circulated years ago and which, according to the Government, was without any basis in fact. The Government added that it considered that it had already supplied sufficient information on the basis of which the case could be closed. At its November 1983 meeting the Committee took note of these statements and decided to examine this case in substance at its February 1984 meeting (see 230th Report, para. 14).
3. 340. Romania 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).

A. Previous examination of the case by the Committee

1. 341. When it last examined this case in substance in February 1983, the Committee recalled that the complaint related to the repressive measures that were said to have been taken by the Romanian authorities against the founder and other members of an organisation that was alleged to have been established in 1979 under the name of "The Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers (SLOMR)"; the fate of certain persons in the town of Sighisoara who were said to be militants of the SLOMR; the alleged repressive action that was taken against strikers at the Jiu Valley colliery in 1977, and the alleged arrest and imprisonment of certain persons in the town of Timisoara for trade union activities.
2. 342. The complainant organisation had alleged that, in 1979, an organisation known as the "Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers (SLOMR)" had been founded by 20 persons whose names appeared on a document that was said to be the constituent document of the new organisation. The complainant had alleged in general terms that this attempt to form a trade union organisation was followed immediately by a wave of repression by the authorities against the union and its members, including the arrest, internment in psychiatric hospitals, exile, beatings and summary sentencing. For its part, the Government strenuously denied the existence of any such new organisation and consequently any repressive measures that were said to have been taken against it or its members.
3. 343. In addition, as regards the 20 named founder members of the SLOMR, the Government stated that 15 could not be traced and that, of the remaining five, two were retired and presently living in Bucharest (having previously been sentenced for disseminating fascist propaganda, and subsequently amnestied), and three (two of whom were retired, the other a seamstress) were living in Bucharest and Otopeni respectively and had no knowledge of the new union referred to in the complaint.
4. 344. On this aspect of the case the Committee found that it was confronted with a general allegation that there had been a repression by the authorities of an attempt to establish a new trade union and a general denial by the Government that any such repression had taken place. In the absence of more specific information in support of the allegations made, the Committee, considering the seriousness of the allegations, could only note with regret that it did not have at its disposal adequate information on which to base any firm conclusions on this aspect of the case. As regards the more specific information supplied by the complainant regarding the founder members and the constitution of a new organisation the Committee could only note that, since it last examined the case, the complainant organisation had supplied no new information in response to the Government's previous denial of the existence of the organisation, nor as regards the specific information previously supplied by the Government following its inquiries into the present status of the 20 persons named by the complainants as being the founder members of the organisation in question. In these circumstances, the Committee again expressed its regret that the information at its disposal was insufficient to enable it to reach any conclusion on this aspect of the case. The Committee, accordingly, requested the Government and the complainant to supply more detailed information on this aspect of the case.
5. 345. The complainant had also alleged that a number of militants had disappeared, in particular Vasile Paraschiv, Virgil Chender, Melania Mateescu and Constantin Acrinei. In addition to the information previously transmitted by the Government concerning Vasile Paraschiv (now working and living in Ploiesti), the Government had supplied specific information concerning Virgil Chender (now working in Sighisoara) and Melania Mateescu (now deceased). According to the Government, Constantin Acrinei could not be traced. Having regard to the general nature of the allegations concerning these persons, and to the more specific information provided by the Government, the Committee considered that this aspect of the case did not call for further examination.
6. 346. The Committee had also observed that the Government which had earlier not replied to the allegation - made in general terms - that a strike in the Jiu Valley colliery had been followed by repressive measures, including the transfer or demotion of some 3,000 workers, now denied this allegation and repeated certain information concerning one miner (C. Dobre) who was alleged to have led the strike and who had died as a result. According to the Government this person (a former miner) was a student of the Stephan Gheorghiu Academy in Bucharest. Again, the Committee considered that, in the absence of more specific information in support of the allegations made, which, the Committee pointed out, was particularly regrettable in view of their seriousness, it did not have at its disposal adequate evidence upon which to base any firm conclusions on this aspect of the case.
7. 347. As regards the alleged arrest and imprisonment of a number of persons in the town of Timisoara for their involvement in trade union activities the Committee noted the Government's explanation that these persons had left the country, having requested and been authorised to do so. The Government, the Committee noted, did not specifically deny that these persons had been arrested and sentenced, as alleged by the complainants. The Committee, accordingly, requested the Government to supply precise information concerning the reasons for their alleged arrest and detention.
8. 348. In all these circumstances, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to approve its interim report, and in particular the following conclusions;
   • (a) As regards the alleged repression of the founder and other members of an organisation known as the "Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers", the Committee noted with regret that, despite the seriousness of the allegations, it did not have at its disposal adequate information on which to base any firm conclusions on this aspect of the case.
   • (b) As regards the allegation concerning the attempt to form the organisation known as the "Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers" the Committee again expressed its regret that the information at the Committee's disposal was insufficient to enable it to reach any conclusion on the matter. The Committee again requested the Government and the complainant to supply more detailed information on this aspect of the case.
   • (c) As regards the alleged disappearance of a number of named militants of the new organisation, the Committee considered that this aspect of the case did not call for further examination.
   • (d) With regard to the alleged repression of the strike at the Jiu Valley colliery in 1977, the Committee considered that it did not have at its disposal adequate evidence upon which to base any firm conclusions on this aspect of the case; it again requested the Government and the complainant to supply more detailed information on this aspect of the case.
   • (e) With regard to the alleged arrest and imprisonment of certain persons in the town of Timisoara, the Committee again requested the Government to supply precise information concerning the reasons for their alleged arrest and detention.

B. Further information communicated by the complainant

1. 349. In its communication dated 28 April 1983 the World Confederation of Labour first refers to the observation made by the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations concerning sections 164 and 165 of the Labour Code and section 26 of the Constitution of Romania, in which, according to the complainant, the Committee stated that these provisions appeared to restrict the rights of workers to establish organisations of their own choosing and to render legally impossible the constitution of organisations that were independent of the Party.
2. 350. The complainant, referring to the establishment of the "Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers (SLOMR) ", attaches to its communication a statement that is said to have been made by one of the founder members of the union, Vasile Paraschiv who, it is stated, was arrested, beaten and threatened for his adherence to the SLOMR in March 1979, and who subsequently disappeared. In his statement, published in an article in a French newspaper, Mr. Paraschiv described the ordinary trade union situation in Romania and the reasons why the workers aspired to a free form of trade unionism.
3. 351. Also communicated by the complainant as information in support of its complaint is a document published by the French committee for the defence of human rights in Romania in which the constitution, in February 1979, of the SLOMR is described in some detail. This document contains information that, as from 6 March 1979, the new trade union came under attack by the Securitate (Romanian political police) who proceeded to cut off the telephones of two founder members, Ionel Cana and Gheorghe Brasoveanu, in Bucharest and, in the days following, arrested and detained for several days the founder and other members of the union. The document also mentions the arrest of Vasile Paraschiv and alleges that he was beaten by the police and threatened with death.
4. 352. The same document describes a number of small provisional committees that were set up in Bucharest and in other parts of the country (including Timisoara) and speaks of the arrest of a number of spokesmen of the union (e.g. Mihai Vlad, Alexandre Nagy, Nicolae Dascalu, Bogdan Mischiu and Constantin Eugen Onescu). According to this document the security police have attempted to discredit all of these persons by making false and defamatory accusations against them.
5. 353. In other documents submitted by the complainants, and transmitted to the Government for observations, detailed information is supplied concerning the arrest of a number of adherents to the SLOMR and the sentences passed on these persons.
6. 354. As regards two of the founder members of the SLOMR (Ionel Cana and Gheorge Brasoveanu) who were stated by the Government to have been charged with disseminating fascist propaganda, the complainant points out that Cana, a doctor, had already been described as mad ten years ago. After the creation of the SLOMR in 1979 he was arrested and interned in the psychiatric hospital in Jicava. According to the complainant his family was forced to sign a statement that he was mentally ill - otherwise he would be sentenced to a long period of detention. In June 1979, however, Cana, apparently no longer mentally ill, was sentenced, following a trial behind closed doors, for fascist activities, to seven years' imprisonment (reduced, following appeal, to 5 1/2 years). He was subsequently amnestied, and is today living under strict police surveillance. He has been refused a passport. As for Brasoveanu, an economist, he was interned on 10 March 1979 in the Batistei Polyclinic of Bucharest, accused of being mad and dangerous, by virtue of Decree No. 12 of 1965. According to the complainant this was the fifth time in nine years that Brasoveanu had been interned in a psychiatric institution. He was later tried behind closed doors, sentenced and subsequently amnestied.
7. 355. As for the other 18 founder members of the SLOMR (Gugu, Fratila and Grigore and the 15 workers of Turnu Severin), the complainant challenges the Government's denial of the existence of these persons or knowledge of their whereabouts and suggests that only an inquiry on the spot would confirm the true situation.
8. 356. In another document communicated by the complainant the names and addresses are given of some 40 members of SLOMR in various parts of the country (including Timisoara). The complainant states that, as soon as these names became known, the persons were arrested. Many were forced to leave the country or emigrated of their own accord.
9. 357. As regards Vasile Paraschiv and Virgil Chender (who, according to the Government, are working in Ploiesti and Sighisoara respectively), the complainant states that in view of the unsuccessful attempts by various individuals and international organisations to contact these persons, it cannot accept the explanations provided by the Government. As for Constantin Acrinei (who, the Government stated, could not be traced) the complainant points out that Acrinei was amongst the signatories of a letter describing the strike of the Jiu Valley mine in 1977 and the repression that followed this strike. According to certain information he was transferred to another mine at Baia Borsa in the north of the country and thereafter all trace of him was lost. As regards Melania Mateescu (who, according to the Government, had died) the complainant states that it considers this explanation to be false and that it will provide further information in due course with a view to establishing the facts.
10. 358. Referring to the allegations concerning the strike which was said to have taken place at the Jiu Valley in August 1977 as a result of unfulfilled, promises given by the Government of improved working and living conditions, and following which the authorities are said to have beaten, transferred or demoted the strikers, the complainant transmits a document that is said to have been written by a group of named miners who participated in the strike. A detailed description is given of the strike that took place on 1, 2 and 3 August 1977 and of the measures that were taken by the authorities following the strike. The document states that the Jiu Valley was declared a prohibited zone until 1 January 1978.
11. 359. As regards two of the strike leaders, G. Jurca and loan Dobre, who were said to have been killed for their action, the complainant expresses surprise that the Government has not been able to trace or identify these persons and points out that the Constantin Dobre who, the Government indicated was a student of the Stephan Gheorghiu Academy in Bucharest, is not loan Dobre, the miner who was killed.
12. 360. The complainant adds that one group of miners involved in the strike have not yet been freed but have been transferred to a forced labour camp situated between the river Danube and the Black Sea. Among these persons are Ion Paraschivescu, Aurel Rusu and S. Postoloeli.
13. 361. The complainant also refers to the cases of two other members of the SLOMR, the first, Onescu Eugen, whose house is said to have been forcibly entered by the security police. He was given an injection from which he suffered pains in his limbs and he lost consciousness several times. Since 26 May 1979, states the complainant, he has been detained forcibly in a psychiatric institution; the second, Carmen Popescu, is said to have been sentenced to 6 years in prison in August 1981.
14. 362. The complainant adds that, in view of the unsatisfactory replies given by the Government to the complaints, an ILO mission should be sent to Romania to examine the situation.

C. Additional observations transmitted by the Government

1. 363. In its communication received on 17 May 1983 the Government states that the Committee in its previous examination of this case has not taken full account of the information supplied by it in the framework of the constructive approach thus far taken by the Government.
2. 364. The Government states that, as regards the founder members of the so-called trade union, apart from 15 of the names previously mentioned - which were found to be fictitious - and the four retired persons, there is also another person, a housewife who does sewing at home, and who is not registered as a member of any trade union. The persons in question, states the Government, have nothing to do with the so-called union and the statements made concerning the union are without any basis in fact.
3. 365. The Government states that it has also supplied information which proves the lack of any basis for the allegations concerning the so-called strike (in the Jiu Valley). The Government, in this connection, supplies statistical information indicating various improvements in the housing and general social situation of miners and points out that any difficulties that arise are solved through the numerous democratic channels that are available to the masses. What the complainant refers to as a strike was in fact a situation in which some miners wrote to the authorities stating their views on the pensions law and on other questions concerning employment for their wives near the mines, work production, etc.
4. 366. Such questions, explains the Government, are systematically discussed in public debate in Romania and the miners have many ways in which to debate and resolve such problems with the management. On each occasion, appropriate solutions have been found, which shows the seriousness, the responsibility and the wisdom of those involved. The allegations that there was a strike followed by repression are merely an attempt to denigrate the authorities.
5. 367. As regards the "people of Timisoara", continues the Government, information has already been supplied showing that these persons asked for, and in many cases received, authorisation to emigrate, in accordance with section 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is highly regrettable, states the Government, that measures taken to facilitate the reunion of families, especially of German nationality, should be used to prove the existence of false trade union activities. The persons concerned were not involved in any action that may have been related to the so-called trade union. It is also well known that, while these persons were working in Romania, they were members of enterprise unions or unions of other institutions where they were employed. Any problems which some of them may have encountered with the authorities or the courts were of a common law nature and had nothing to do with trade union problems.
6. 368. The Government concludes, in this communication, by stating that the complaint has been submitted for reasons of a purely political nature and in view of all the information supplied by the Government in response, the case should be closed.
7. 369. In its further communication dated 28 October 1983, the Government refers again to the detailed information which it claims to have provided in response to the complaint and asserts that this information should be an adequate basis on which to close the examination of the case. According to the Government, the complainant persists in presenting information that was being circulated some years ago and which, as time has shown, is false.
   • The complainant has also presented its case in language that is unparliamentary and unacceptable.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 370. The Committee has again examined the various aspects of this case in the light of all the information supplied by the complainant and the various responses provided by the Government. It recalls that the complaint concerns the repressive measures that are said to have been taken by the Romanian authorities against the founder and other members of an organisation that was alleged to have been established in 1979 under the name of "The Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers (SLOMR)"; the fate of certain persons in the town of Sighisoara who were said to be militants of the SLOMR; the alleged repressive measures that were taken against strikers at the Jiu Valley colliery in 1977, and the alleged arrest and detention of certain persons in the town of Timisoara for trade union activities.
2. 371. As regards the allegation concerning the creation of the organisation known as the SLOMR the Committee recalls that, when it last examined this case, it was confronted with a general allegation that the authorities had severely repressed this organisation and its members and a general denial by the Government that any such repression had taken place. In any event, stated the Government, no new organisation had been created and the names of the so-called founder members supplied by the complainant were, for the most part, fictitious. Fifteen of the 20 names provided could not, according to the Government, be traced and of the remaining five, two were now retired and presently living in Bucharest (having been previously sentenced for disseminating fascist propaganda, and subsequently amnestied), and three (two of whom were retired and the other a seamstress) were living in Bucharest and Otopeni respectively and had no knowledge of the new union referred to in the complaint.
3. 372. In response to the Committee's request for more specific information on this aspect of the case the complainant has transmitted, in support of its allegations, a number of documents, essentially prepared - and in some cases published - as articles in French publications on the basis of information supplied by persons who claim to have first-hand knowledge of the events which gave rise to the complaint.
4. 373. As regards the alleged establishment of the new organisation referred to as the SLOMR the latest information provided by the complainant contains greater detail concerning certain of the founder members of the organisation and gives specific information regarding persons who were said to be spokesmen or organisers of the new union in Bucharest and in other parts of the country. In particular, detailed information is given concerning the two persons (Ionel Cana and Gheorge Brasoveanu) who were said to be founder-members of the organisation, the dates on which they were arrested and the institutions in which they were interned. The Committee notes that these persons were alleged to have been arrested and detained shortly following the date on which the new organisation is said to have been set up. The documents transmitted by the complainant also contain the names of many other persons who, it is alleged, were spokesmen or militants of the SLOMR who, as the organisation began to be established in various parts of the country, were harassed or arrested by the security police in Romania, or in some cases left the country. The Government has transmitted no specific information in reply to the latest allegations brought by the complainant, but has confined itself to repeating its previous denial that any such organisation existed and that, accordingly, no repressive measures could have been taken against the founders or members of it.
5. 374. As regards this aspect of the case, and in the light of all the information now at its disposal, the Committee considers that it is unable to accept the Government's general denial of all the specific information supplied by the complainant regarding the establishment of a new trade union organisation. The Committee has examined the constituent document of this organisation, which was signed by 20 founder members whose names and addresses were supplied by the complainant. It has also received abundant information regarding the attempts made by many named militants to set up the organisation in Bucharest and in other towns in Romania, as well as information concerning the action taken by the authorities against these persons. The Committee would also point out that the apparent inability of the founders of the SLOMR to form and develop a new trade union would appear to be consistent with the conclusion reached by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations concerning the application by Romania of Convention No. 87 that the legislation applicable to trade unions (in particular s. 26 of the Constitution, ss. 164 and 165 of the Labour Code and Act No. 52) restrict the right of workers to establish organisations of their own choosing and to formulate their programmes. [See Report of Committee of Experts, Report III, Part 4A, ILC, 69th Session, 1983, p. 148.]
6. 375. As regards the allegations that certain persons connected with the new organisation had disappeared (viz. Vasile Paraschiv, Virgil Chender, Constantin Acrinei and Melania Mateescu) the Committee recalls that, when it last examined the case, it decided that, on the basis of the information supplied by the complainant and the Government, this aspect of the case called for no further examination. In view, however, of the further allegations made in this connection by the complainant in its most recent communication, namely that a number of individuals and international organisations have attempted unsuccessfully to contact Vasile Paraschiv and Virgil Chender, and that Constantin Acrinei was amongst the signatories of a letter describing the strike at the Jiu Valley mine in 1977 and the repression which followed that strike, and that he was subsequently transferred to another mine of Baia Borsa in the north of the country, the Committee can only express its regret that the Government has failed to respond specifically to these allegations.
7. 376. As regards the alleged strike at the Jiu Valley mine in 1977 which was said to have been followed by severe repressive measures by the authorities, the Committee has taken note of the further detailed information supplied by the complainant and in particular the specific account of the strike contained in a document which purports to have been signed by a number of miners who participated in the strike. The Committee has also taken note of the names of certain miners against whom measures were allegedly taken following the strike (transfer to other, smaller mines or demotion). The complainant, in addition, has supplied information concerning the transfer to a forced labour camp of a group of miners, the names of some of whom are given. All of the allegations in connection with this strike in 1977 at the Jiu Valley, however, have been met with a general denial by the Government that any strike took place or that any repressive measures were at any time taken.
8. 377. The Committee, when it last examined this case, also requested the Government to supply precise information concerning the reasons for the arrest and detention of a number of named persons in the town of Timisoara who had been stated by the complainant to have been involved in the establishment of the SLOMR in that town. The Committee notes in this connection that, although the names and addresses of additional union militants in Timisoara are given by the complainant, no information or explanations are provided by the Government in response to the Committee's request.
9. 378. In the absence of any detailed replies by the Government to the many serious allegations brought by the complainant, and in particular to the specific and detailed information provided by the complainant in its most recent communication, the Committee must recall that the purpose of the procedure set up in the ILO for the examination of allegations of violation of freedom of association is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact. If the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments, on their side, should recognise the importance of formulating for objective examination detailed replies to the allegations brought against them. The Committee would emphasise that, in all cases that have been presented to it since it was first set up, it has always considered that the replies from governments against which complaints are made should not be limited to general observations. [See First Report of the Committee, para. 31.]
10. 379. The Committee can only express its regret that the Government of Romania has not, in the Committee's view, responded in detail to the grave allegations that have been made against it or to the detailed information supplied by the complainant which, in the opinion of the Committee, could bring into question the application of the principles of freedom of association in Romania and, more particularly of the freedom of association Conventions that have been ratified by Romania.
11. 380. In all these circumstances, and in order to enable the Committee to reach its conclusions in this case in full knowledge of the facts and with the utmost objectivity, the Committee considers that it would be appropriate and useful if the Government would indicate at an early date its willingness to accept a direct contacts mission which would elucidate all the matters remaining outstanding in the present case and report to the Committee on the results of the mission.