Informe provisional - Informe núm. 76, 1964

300. This case has already been examined by the Committee at its 35th Session (November 1963), when it made interim recommendations to the Governing Body which are to be found in paragraphs 158-181 of its 72nd Report. This was approved by the Governing Body at the 157th Session (November 1963) : it asked the Government of the Congo (Leopoldville) for additional information on a number of points mentioned in paragraph 181 of the report, and, in particular, recommended the Governing Body:

1. ......................................................................................................................................................
2. (a) to request the Government to confirm that Messrs. Mutombo, Mbwangi, Luyeye, Bamu, Mbenza, Ndala, Sakibanza, Toto-Zita and Bunga have been released, as seems to be indicated by the Government's telegram dated 5 April 1963 ;
3. (b) to request the Government to indicate whether the offices of the Union of Congolese Workers (U.T.C.) in Stanleyville, Lukula, Matadi and Thysville have been reopened and whether the U.T.C has been free to resume its activities in these places ;
4. (c) to request the Government to state whether the order prohibiting strikes has been rescinded at Coquilhatville ;
5. (d) to request the Government to indicate whether the workers dismissed as a result of the strike have been reinstated ;
6. ......................................................................................................................................................
7. 301. The Government responded to these various requests by a communication dated 12 February 1964, which arrived too late for the Committee to be able to examine the substance at its 36th Session (20-21 February 1964).
8. 302. In its reply the Government states that all the persons mentioned in point (a) of the recommendation quoted above had been released not long after their arrest; that the offices of the U.T.C at Stanleyville had been reopened " several months ago " and the offices at Lukula, Matadi and Thysville some time afterwards ; that the prohibition of strike action at Coquilhatville had been rescinded in June 1963 as a result of observations made by the Minister of Labour to the regional authorities ; and that the workers of OTRACO who were dismissed as a result of the strike had been reinstated in their employment.
9. 303. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to note the information provided by the Government on these aspects of the case and to decide that they do not call for further consideration.
10. 304. The other requests made in paragraph 181 of the Committee's 72nd Report related to several communications from the complainant organisations on which the Government had not made any observations. These were communications from the U.T.C dated 14 May, 12 June and 24 June 1963. The Government was also asked to provide the additional information, to which it had itself referred, on the questions raised in a communication from the General Federation of Congolese Workers dated 29 August 1963.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 305. The Government sent the Director-General a letter dated 24 December 1963 which deals with only one of these communications, namely the letter from the U.T.C dated 24 June 1963.
2. 306. In that letter the Union alleged that the Congolese Rubber Company forbade workers belonging to the complaining organisation to hold trade union meetings on its plantations. In the Union's view this attitude on the part of the employers constituted a breach of freedom of association.
3. 307. In its observations the Government stated that, as the complainants themselves admit, it was planned to hold these meetings on the plantations themselves, i.e. on private property belonging to the employers. The Government states that existing legislation contains no provision compelling employers to allow trade union meetings to be held on their premises or land ; the Congolese Rubber Company was therefore perfectly justified in adopting the attitude it did ; accordingly there was no ground for a complaint.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 308. On the other occasions' the Committee, when dealing with allegations about the refusal of plantation employers to allow trade union activities to be conducted on their property, has taken the view that, although plantations are admittedly private property, it is particularly important, in cases where workers live on the plantations where they are employed (and trade union representatives must therefore enter the plantations to carry out their normal union duties), that these representatives should have unrestricted access to the plantations, in order to carry out their lawful trade union activities, provided they do not interfere with operations during working hours and adequate precautions are taken to protect the employers' property.
2. 309. The same considerations led the Committee on Work on Plantations in a resolution concerning industrial relations on plantations (Bandung, December 1950) to lay down the principle that plantation employers "should provide such unions with facilities for the conduct of their normal activities, including free office accommodation, freedom to hold meetings and freedom of entry ".
3. 310. Accordingly, the Committee on Freedom of Association, having regard to the importance it attaches to the foregoing principles, recommends the Governing Body to express the hope that the Government will find it possible to take all appropriate measures to secure an agreement between the plantation employers and trade union organisations concerned regarding the holding of trade union meetings.
4. 311. As regards the other allegations in this case which are still outstanding, the Committee, noting that the Government has not responded to the requests for additional information that have been made to it, can only recommend the Governing Body to submit these requests once more.