Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 197, Noviembre 1979

1. 93. The complaint of the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA) is contained in two telegrams dated 25 June 1979, the text of which was transmitted to the Government of New Zealand for observations.
2. 94. By letter dated 13 July 1979 the PSA communicates its decision to withdraw the complaint.
3. 95. New Zealand has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) nor the Eight to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 96. In its telegrams of 25 June 1979 the complainant referred to the introduction of legislation into Parliament threatening to deregister the PSA and confiscate its assets, following an industrial dispute affecting 2,000 of the 68,000 PSA members. It requested early action by the ILO to maintain trade union rights.
2. 97. With its communication of 13 July 1979, the complainant provides a copy of the Bill in question. This Bill would have authorised the Minister of State Services to withdraw recognition of the Association, if in respect of any discontinuance of employment he was satisfied that this had caused or was likely to cause serious loss or inconvenience. One of the effects of such a measure would have been to place the assets under the temporary management of the Public Trustee.
3. 98. However, the PSA states that following an initiative from the Association to refer the dispute over electricity workers' house rents to industrial mediation, the Government agreed to withdraw the Bill from Parliament. Thus, the PSA declares that it does not at this juncture wish to proceed to bring any formal complaint against the New Zealand Government before the ILO.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 99. In previous cases the Committee has considered that the desire expressed by a complainant organisation to withdraw its complaint constitutes an element of which full account should be taken, but it is not sufficient in itself for the Committee to automatically cease to proceed further with the case.,
2. 100. In such cases the Committee has been guided by a principle laid down by the Governing Body in 1937 and 1938,3 namely that once a representation has been submitted to it, it alone was competent to decide what effect should be given to it and that "the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not receivable or is not well-founded".
3. 101. Acting on the basis of this principle, the Committee has decided that it alone is competent to evaluate in full freedom the reasons put forward to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to endeavour to establish whether these appear to be sufficiently plausible so that it may be concluded that the withdrawal is being made in full independence. In this connection, the Committee had noted that there might be cases in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it was the result not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose but of pressure exercised by the government against the complainants, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if they did not consent to this withdrawal.
4. 102. In the present case, the Committee notes that the PSA has furnished sufficient information showing that, at its own initiative, an arrangement was made which was satisfactory to the organisation and removed the factual basis of the complaint.