Interim Report - Report No 381, March 2017

1. 125. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Burundi (CSB) dated 28 December 2015.
2. 126. Since there has been no reply from the Government, the Committee has been obliged to postpone its examination of the case twice. At its October–November 2016 meeting [see 380th Report, para. 8], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of this case at its next meeting, even if the requested information or observations had not been received in time. To date, the Government has not sent any observations.
3. 127. Burundi 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 complainant’s allegations

1. 128. In its communication of 28 December 2015, the complainant organization alleges that the Econet Leo SA company (the new company), formerly U-Com Burundi SA (the enterprise): (i) unfairly dismissed a member of the executive committee of the U-Com Burundi Workers’ Union (SYTCOM), affiliated to the CSB; (ii) indefinitely suspended the contracts of the members of the Union’s executive committee; and (iii) arbitrarily terminated the contracts of numerous company workers.
2. 129. The complainant organization states that following the merger between the Econet Wireless Burundi and U-Com Burundi SA companies, more than 60 employees were dismissed on claimed grounds of economic difficulties. It alleges that the members of the executive committee of SYTCOM, while seeking to defend the interests of workers in the merger, had their contracts indefinitely suspended as of 23 December 2015, without regard to the applicable provisions, namely the internal regulations of the enterprise (sections 57–59), the Labour Code of Burundi (sections 37 and 70), and the interoccupational collective labour agreement of 3 April 1980 (section 24). The individuals who have been suspended are: Mr Alain Christophe Irakiza, Mr Martin Floris Nahimana, Mr Bernard Mdikabandi and Ms Bégnigne Nahimana. According to the CSB, these suspensions follow the unfair dismissal of another member of the SYTCOM executive committee, Mr Alexis Bizimana, in August 2015.
3. 130. The complainant organization also observes that SYTCOM gave notice of strike action in February 2015 to oppose the restructuring process, and that despite the involvement of the Committee on Social Dialogue and the public authorities’ recommendations that the employer hold a frank social dialogue and present a clear social plan, the negotiations initiated in March 2015 between the enterprise and SYTCOM were not successful. The CSB also points out that the directors of the new company left the country in the wake of the political crisis that began in Burundi in April 2015.
4. 131. The CSB considers that these dismissals and suspensions are unjustified and result in reality from the union membership of the individuals concerned. In its view, these measures bear witness to the employer’s deliberate intention to intimidate the other union members to prevent them from continuing with the task of defending and promoting workers’ interests. It emphasizes in this regard that the new employer expressed its intention not to recognize the union as a legitimate body for the representation of workers’ interests.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 132. The Committee deeply regrets the fact that, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, the Government has not provided the requested observations and information in time, even though it has been asked to do so several times, including through an urgent appeal made at its October–November 2016 meeting. Hence, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee is obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the observations which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
2. 133. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect for trade union rights in law and in practice. While this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, they must recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations brought against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
3. 134. The Committee observes that in the present case the complainant organization’s allegations relate to the suspension and dismissal of trade union representatives in the context of the merger of two telecommunications enterprises in Burundi, which gave rise to a staff reduction programme (involving the dismissal of more than 60 individuals, according to the complainant).
4. 135. With respect to the social implications of the merger of the two enterprises, the Committee considers that it can examine allegations concerning economic rationalization programmes and restructuring processes, whether or not they imply redundancies, only in so far as they might have given rise to acts of discrimination or interference against trade unions. Furthermore, the Committee requests that, in the cases where new staff reduction programmes are undertaken, negotiations take place between the enterprise concerned and the trade union organizations [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 1082].
5. 136. With regard specifically to the allegations concerning the suspension of four trade union representatives simply for carrying out legitimate trade union activities, in relation to whom no lifting of penalties has been reported, the Committee, in the absence of any comment from the Government, observes that the suspensions took place in a climate of high tension between the management of the enterprise and the representatives of SYTCOM, and only a few days after the conciliation process had failed with respect to the request for their dismissal submitted by the new company. Without any further indications, the Committee considers that such measures may seriously undermine the exercise of trade union rights at the enterprise in question. The Committee recalls that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom [see Digest, op. cit., para. 799]. The Committee therefore requests the Government to expedite an independent inquiry into the allegations concerning the suspension of Mr Alain Christophe Irakiza, Mr Martin Floris Nahimana, Mr Bernard Mdikabandi and Ms Bégnigne Nahimana. If it is established that acts of anti-union discrimination have been committed, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures of redress, including ensuring the reinstatement of the workers concerned without loss of pay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard and their results.
6. 137. With respect to the dismissal of Mr Alexis Bizimana, also a trade union representative, in August 2015, the Committee notes that in a communication dated December 2015 the executive chairman of the new company acknowledged that the letter of dismissal had been addressed to the recipient by mistake, the procedures concerning the dismissal of staff representatives not having been exhausted. The Committee notes that the complainant organization has not provided further information on this matter. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to provide full information on the situation of Mr Alexis Bizimana and, if necessary, to take the appropriate measures of redress.
7. 138. The Committee regrets not having been able to examine information from the enterprise on account of the absence of a reply from the Government. It requests the Government to ask the employers’ organizations concerned, if they so desire, to provide information so that it can be aware of their version of events and know the views of the enterprise on the pending issues.