Informe provisional - Informe núm. 285, Noviembre 1992

1. 2. The Committee had before it a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in Côte d'Ivoire presented by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), as well as a complaint concerning the non-observance by Côte d'Ivoire of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), lodged by two Workers' delegates to the 79th Session (1992) of the International Labour Conference under article 26 of the ILO Constitution.
2. 3. The Committee submits, for the Governing Body's approval, a report on the pending case and the complaint presented under article 26 of the ILO Constitution.
3. 4. The Committee examined a complaint of infringement of trade union rights lodged against the Government of Côte d'Ivoire at its meeting in October-November 1991, when it submitted interim conclusions which were approved by the Governing Body at its 251st Session (November 1991). (See 279th Report, paras. 717-739.)
4. 5. Subsequently, in a letter of 20 February 1992, the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) submitted new allegations.
5. 6. Since then, in letters of 12 and 18 June 1992 addressed to the Director-General of the ILO, Mr. José E. Pinzon and Mr. Willy Peirens, Workers' delegates of Guatemala and Belgium, respectively, to the 79th Session of the International Labour Conference, filed a complaint under article 26 of the Constitution against the Government of Côte d'Ivoire for infringement of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). In a letter dated 30 June 1992, the International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) associated itself with this complaint.
6. 7. In communications dated 20 May, 1 June and 7 August 1992, the Government sent its observations on the case.
7. 8. Côte d'Ivoire 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

1. 9. In communications dated 22 February and 17 July 1991, the WCL had alleged that the Government was hindering recognition of the "Dignité" trade union federation and had engaged in various measures of intimidation and anti-union discrimination against the organisation's leaders. In an initial reply, the Government maintained that these allegations were totally unjustified and that the Labour Code constituted the legal basis for the setting up of "trade union federations". The Government recognised that "Dignité" had deposited its rules but pointed out that it could not consider the organisation to be a federation since the various basic trade unions making it up were not mentioned in these rules. The Government maintained, moreover, that the disciplinary measures taken against a number of persons were in accordance with the General Regulations Governing the Public Service which cover all public servants in Côte d'Ivoire and in no way constituted measures of discrimination against the members of any particular trade union oragnisation.
2. 10. At its Session in November 1991, the Governing Body approved the Committee's following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee urges the Government to respect the principle whereby workers should in practice be able to establish and join organisations of their own choosing in full freedom in order to safeguard their occupational interests, irrespective of the name of such organisations. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the trade union federation "Dignité" has been registered and, if not, to register it as soon as possible and to keep the Committee informed in this respect.
   • (b) The Committee also invites the Government to ensure that no measures are taken against workers wishing to set up workers' organisations outside the existing trade union organisation.
   • (c) The Committee further requests the Government to give the precise reasons for the arrest and 12-day detention of 29 trade union activists belonging to the trade union federation known as "Dignité" who, according to the complaintant confederation, took part in a demonstration in support of economic and social claims.
   • (d) Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to give the specific reasons for the transfer to the interior of the country of three teachers who, according to the complainant confederation, merely wanted to set up the trade union federation "Dignité".

B. New allegations by the complainant

1. 11. In a letter dated 20 February 1992, the complainant explains that the Government had decided unilaterally, on 15 March 1990, to reduce public sector remuneration by 15 to 40 per cent and to deduct a 10 per cent "solidarity" contribution from wages in the private sector. On 26 March, during a peaceful protest demonstration against the drop in public service remuneration, research workers and teachers belonging to the National Union for Research and Higher Education (SYNARES) were arrested. Among these persons, the WCL cites the names of Mr. Marcel Ette, General Secretary of the Union of Teachers in Higher Education, Mr. Francis Wodie, a teacher, and Mr. Emile Boga, a lawyer teaching at the law faculty.
2. 12. A 48-hour warning strike was called at the same time by the doctors, who left a skeleton service to staff the hospitals. On 27 March the Government ordered the striking doctors back to work and questioned and arrested a number of them, including Dr. Richard Kodjo, General Secretary of the Union of Senior Health Care Staff (SYNACASSCI) and one of his collaborators, Dr. Assoua Adou. On the following day several more persons were arrested when demonstrating to secure the release of the trade unionists.
3. 13. The WCL states that on 29 March 1990 a general strike and protest march were called for 2 April to demand the release of the trade unionists and the annulment of the pay reduction measures. The following day saw the release of the persons who had been arrested on 27 and 28 March. On 2 April, when the peaceful protest march was about to begin, the forces of law and order intervened and arrested 29 "Dignité" activists who were held for 12 days. They included the following teachers: Mr. N'cho Aké, Mr. Gouali Gnonka and Mr. Zouzoua Kalou Prosper.
4. 14. On that same day the schools and colleges which had been closed for a month were supposed to reopen. However, since the teachers wanted to show their discontent at the salary reductions announced by the Government and refused to teach, the state schools in the residential district of Cocody (with nearly 10,000 pupils) were closed again. The salaries of the three teachers cited above were suspended in accordance with ruling No. 0184/MEP/DP of 4 April 1990 on the grounds of their absence from work since 2 April. The WCL explains that they could not have been at their posts since they were arrested on 2 April and held for 12 days. Faced with this critical, social, political and economic situation, and as the strikes and demonstrations continued, the Government decided on 7 April to close schools throughout the country. At the end of April, the Government gave way to public pressure and authorised the multi-party system and trade union pluralism. Nevertheless, according to the complainant organisation, when "Dignité" sought to celebrate the First of May, the authorities refused permission.
5. 15. Reverting to the situation of the teachers, Messrs. Aké, Gouali and Zouzoua, the WCL explains that they had been assigned to posts in the interior of the country - but with their pay suspended - in order to separate and intimidate them since they were militating for "Dignité". Following the offer by the authorities to restore their salaries on condition that they resigned from "Dignité" and rejoined the General Union of Workers of Côte d'Ivoire (UGTCI), and after being subjected to considerable pressure, Mr. Gouali and Mr. Zouzoua returned to that union and took up their new posts. Only Mr. Aké resisted the pressure. From September 1990 to July 1991 he had returned to his former post without being paid, which had placed him and his family in dire straits.
6. 16. The WCL adds that after lodging its complaint with the ILO on 17 July 1991, the authorities reacted by summoning Mr. Aké before a disciplinary board on 24 July 1991. For family reasons, however, Mr. Aké was unable to be present. When he returned to Côte d'Ivoire after following a trade union training course organised at the international level, he learned that he had been suspended from his duties from 15 August 1991 to 3 February 1992. According to the WCL, this proves that the authorities clearly intended to harm members of "Dignité" and to undermine the existence and development of this organisation. Further proof of this is the fact that UGTCI members who had demonstrated and taken part in the strike were not subjected to any reprisals.
7. 17. The WCL then comments on the Government's reply concerning the formalities connected with setting up a trade union federation. The complainant recalls that there is no legislation requiring the names of member unions to be specified in the rules of a trade union federation and that the structure of "Dignité" is set out in the rules that have been deposited, in the section headed "Constitution: The members". The WCL states that when "Dignité" deposited its rules on 25 April 1990, nine basic trade unions and three cooperatives were affiliated to it and this was known to the Government since the rules had been deposited.
8. 18. The organisation considers that the facts of the matter are that the Government is denying the existence of "Dignité" on such fallacious pretexts as that "Dignité" has no PO box or that the Government does not know the exact name of the organisation nor the names of its affiliates. All this information, however, was given to the Ministry of Labour, the Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of the Interior in May 1991. The WCL, in support of its assertions, cites various letters and correspondence concerning recognition of "Dignité" and its affiliated unions written by mayors, the Minister of the Interior, various heads of enterprises and the UGTCI, all of which testify that the authorities are determined not to recognise "Dignité", that they are impeding its operations and activities and barring the way to trade union pluralism.
9. 19. The WCL also refers to other measures of intimidation and "manhunting" against "Dignité" members and representatives. Several enterprises support the line taken by the Côte d'Ivoire authorities in refusing to recognise the unions affiliated to "Dignité" and, consequently, recognise only the UGTCI. The WCL refers to the arbitrary arrest and five-week detention of Mr. Ourega Ballie Ambroise and Mr. Gahuidis Gbogro, who are planters in the Gagnoa Department and members of the first-level trade union of "Dignité". The Prefect refuses to allow the union to be set up in his administrative area without legal recognition by the Minister of the Interior and of Security. The same stance has been adopted by the General Director of SOTRA which, furtheremore, is against any trade union information activity on the part of "Dignité".
10. 20. Several employers make direct deductions from their employees' pay of union dues for the UTGCI, despite the letters these employees have written to the management and chiefs of personnel stating that they have ceased to be members of this union. In the SOCOPAO company, the workers wrote a letter opposing this checkoff, only to be informed by the chief of personnel that "the only trade union federation in Côte d'Ivoire is the UGTCI, to which all the first-level trade unions are affiliated". The WCL states that according to the law of the country the employer is entitled to deduct trade union dues from wages but that no pressure may be brought to bear against an employee who refuses to pay dues, the latter having the possibility of informing his employer of his refusal to have the money deducted.
11. 21. As regards the measures of intimidation against members and representatives of "Dignité" in various enterprises, some of which dismissed employees on spurious grounds, the complainant organisation cites the case of Mr. Grape Eugène. This elderly, exemplary worker, who had always given his employer satisfaction, was dismissed for "inadequate eyesight" after he had become a member of "Dignité". Other dismissals concerned Abidjan dockworkers belonging to the Free Union of Dockers in the Autonomous Ports of Côte d'Ivoire (SYLIDOPACI) which is affiliated to "Dignité" (Messrs. Oule Bernard, Kesse Tia Norbert, Ba Ba Joseph, Kaza Ouapo and Beseh Jean-Baptiste), as well as COSMIVOIRE workers, Messrs. Blai David and Konhon Dieudonné. In the Gandou-CI perfumery, workers belonging to the Union of Perfumes and Cosmetics Workers of Côte d'Ivoire (SYTRAPACOCI) were dismissed because of their trade union activities. At the (Unilever) Blohorn SA-HSL factory, "Dignité" representatives were dismissed on the pretext of "incitement to revolt". These are Messrs. Gnahore Théophile, Gnago N'guessan and Assiri Etienne. Actually the problem in that factory concerned claims by the entire personnel, who went on strike after discussions with the management had broken down. In the Abidjan firm CATERING, leaders and members of the SYTAC union, which is affiliated to "Dignité", were dismissed (Mr. Diaith Essan Prosper, General Secretary of SYTAC, Mr. Kouko Zouzouko Emmanuel, Assistant General Secretary, and Messrs. Goyele Lori, Boudoua Begnana, Kore Yazet Philippe, Sahi Kla Mamadou, Yomi Paul and Aboua Marcellin). Other members were subjected to considerable intimidation. The complainant attaches letters and documents concerning all these allegations.
12. 22. According to the complainant, it cannot be denied that there is no freedom of association in Côte d'Ivoire. The Government, the UTGCI and the firms have joined forces to bar the way to the emergence of the "Dignité" federation and its first-level trade unions by suspending pay and by arresting and dismissing its members. The WCL consequently requests the Committee to make the most appropriate recommendations to secure respect for freedom of association in Côte d'Ivoire.

C. Complaint under article 26 of the Constitution

1. 23. In their complaint of 12 and 18 June 1992, Mr. Peirens and Mr. Pinzon state that, despite the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, no improvement has occurred and further flagrant violations have taken place.
2. 24. The complainants allege that after the delaying tactics referred to in Case No. 1594, the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Constant Bombé, made it known that he was prepared to issue a registration document. However, on several occasions, the Secretary-General of "Dignité" was refused this document by the competent authorities without any explanation or justification.
   • - Prior to the departure of the Secretary-General of "Dignité" for the International Labour Conference, during a meeting with the Ministry of the Interior, the document in question was shown to him from a distance with the promise that it would be handed over to a "Dignité" representative on Monday, 8 June 1992. To date nothing has happened.
   • - The employers demand official recognition of "Dignité" before authorising it to take part in social elections and to receive its members' union contributions.
   • - The UGTCI has taken the liberty of leaving lists of staff delegates, without the prior organisation of social elections, in undertakings where "Dignité" has a majority of members (for example at SCAF in Bassam).
   • - Certain authorities have threatened to take repressive measures if "Dignité" acts without "authorisation" (for example, by collecting or receiving union dues, organising trade union meetings, etc.).
3. 25. The wave of dismissals of trade unionists is also continuing. Among public servants and teachers, for example, "Dignité" leaders or activists frequently have their salaries suspended or suffer abusive transfers. In addition, arbitrary arrests and imprisonment take place. In all cases the only reason for the represssion is the trade union activity of the persons concerned.
4. 26. According to the complainants, the UGTCI and the UPACI (the employers' association), in collusion with the Government, are retaining union dues indiscriminately (including those of "Dignité" members). This amounts to misappropriation of the dues of workers who have chosen not to join the UGTCI. In addition, this is a coercive measure since it obliges those "opposed" to the idea to identify themselves and thus expose themselves to the practices referred to under the preceding point.
5. 27. The complainants also refer to a circular from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Côte d'Ivoire, sent to all the diplomatic missions in the country, stipulating that any request for project financing submitted to them by the various groups and associations of Côte d'Ivoire, including trade unions and political parties, must first be approved by the local administrative authorities. The complainants consider that this is intimidation aimed at hindering the development of freedom of association and risks jeoparadising not only bilateral cooperation but also multilateral cooperation, including the ILO's technical cooperation.
6. 28. In view of all these factors, the complainants request the setting up of a commission of inquiry to ensure the effective observance by the Government of Côte d'Ivoire of Convention No. 87, which it has ratified; the WCL reserves the right to supply any further information in support of this request at a later date.
7. 29. At its Session in June 1992, the Governing Body, on the proposal of its Officers, took the following decisions concerning this complaint:
   • (a) The Government of Côte d'Ivoire should be invited by the Director-General to communicate its observations on the complaint by 10 September 1992 at the latest.
   • (b) In accordance with article 26, paragraph 5, of the Constitution, the Governing Body should invite the Government of Côte d'Ivoire to appoint a representative to take part in the discussions of the Governing Body on this case at subsequent sessions. In sending this invitation to the Government of Côte d'Ivoire, the Director-General should inform it that the Governing Body is planning to hold these discussions at its 254th Session, which will be held in Geneva in November 1992.
   • (c) At its 254th Session, the Governing Body should determine whether, in the light of the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning the complaint received and the information that may be supplied by the Government of Côte d'Ivoire, as well as the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the case before it, the complaint should be referred to a commission of inquiry.

D. The Government's reply

1. 30. In a letter dated 20 May 1992, the Government reaffirms that the principle whereby workers must have full freedom to establish and join organisations of their own choosing, whatever the name of these organisations, in order to defend their occupational interests, is respected in Côte d'Ivoire. Indeed, under section 3 of the Labour Code, "the exclusive aim of trade unions is to study and defend economic, industrial, commercial, agricultural and craft interests". Section 4 of the same Code specifies that "persons carrying on the same occupation, similar trades or related occupations associated in the preparation of specific products, or the same profession, shall be free to form an occupational association. All workers or employers shall be free to join the association of their choice within their own trade or profession". The exercise of this freedom of association is mentioned also in section 9 of the Inter-occupational Collective Agreement of 20 July 1977.
2. 31. The Government goes on to give the assurance that no measure has been taken against workers who wished to set up trade unions parallel to the existing trade union organisation; this is in accordance with section 4(1) of the Labour Code, which provides that persons engaged in the same occupation may freely establish an occupational association of workers. According to the Government, there is nothing to prevent a trade union being established that is independent of other similar existing organisations. Moreover, according to section 4(2), "no employer may base decisions concerning recruitment or the allocation of work on trade union membership or on the exercise of trade union activities". The Government maintains, in view of the foregoing, that no worker is threatened by any coercive measures whatsoever.
3. 32. As regards the precise reasons for the arrest and 12-day detention of 29 "Dignité" activists who, according to the complainant, took part in a demonstration in support of economic and social claims, the Government maintains that the facts have to be verified and that the complainant should supply further information and proof to enable the Government to do this.
4. 33. As regards the situation of the three teachers mentioned by the complainant, the Government merely refers to the explanations contained in its letter of 25 September 1991 on the General Regulations Governing the Public Service.
5. 34. As regards the check-off of trade union dues, the Government explains that this is covered by clause 12 of a collective agreement and is not a statutory provision. Consequently it is up to the parties to the agreement to denounce the provision in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 6 of the said agreement. The Government, for its part, is undertaking a general review of the Labour Code to take the new socio-economic situation into account.
6. 35. As regards the dismissal of workers, the Government recalls the provisions of (the new) section 4 quoted above and states that any worker who considers himself to be the victim of such a dismissal should apply to the competent court which will assess the causes and circumstances of the break in contract.
7. 36. Lastly, the Government states that it never intended to use delaying tactics with a view to putting off or avoiding recognition of any trade union, or of "Dignité" in this particular case. The administrative authorities simply invited the members of the executive of the said union to modify certain provisions of its rules in order to bring them in line with current laws and texts. The Government recalls that it is acting in accordance with the terms of Convention No. 87, Article 8 of which states "in exercising the rights provided for in this Convention workers and employers and their respective organisations, like other persons or organised collectivities, shall respect the law of the land".
8. 37. In a further letter, dated 1 June 1992, the Government states that appropriate instructions have been given to the Côte d'Ivoire authorities with a view to regularising the legal situation of "Dignité".
9. 38. In a subsequent communication, dated 7 August 1992, the Government states that it has difficulty in understanding the accusations made against its country on the basis of unfounded allegations; it attributes this to the "Dignité" leaders' ignorance of the national laws and regulations on trade unions and other associations.
10. 39. As regards the document (acknowledgement of depositing of the union rules) which is to be issued to "Dignité", the Government states that under the current laws, "Dignité" is required to follow the registration procedure laid down in sections 5 and 25 of the Labour Code and in sections 7, 8, 9 and 13 of the Associations Act of 21 September 1960. The Government explains that the intervention of the Ministry of the Interior in this procedure is justified by this Ministry's role as guardian of local collectivities and as legal adviser, through its competent services, to local town halls. As regards the delay in issuing the necessary document to "Dignité", the Government considers that the organisation itself is responsible for this since from the beginning it failed to enclose with its rules the supporting documents required by law concerning the unions affiliated to it. According to the Government, there were never any delaying tactics on the part of the administrative authorities vis-à-vis "Dignité". The Government adds that on 7 June 1992 the receipt for the depositing of the "Dignité" rules was issued. It adds that in accordance with section 4(3) of the Labour Code, "Dignité" had no need of any recognition by the employers to begin its activities in the enterprises. Under section 9 of the Associations Act, it had to wait for two months from the depositing of the rules before beginning its activities - which the Government says it did.
11. 40. As regards the election of staff delegates in enterprises, the Government points out that the fact that "Dignité" is not often represented in the undertakings in question because there are no first-level trade unions constitutes a problem for the organisation. It also states, referring to section 136(4) of the Labour Code that, according to the prescribed procedure, it is not necessary to belong to a first-level trade union in an undertaking to become a staff delegate since individual candidatures are receivable in the second ballot. Contrary to the allegations of "Dignité", the appointment of staff delegates in undertakings takes place in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code which stipulate that recourse may be had to the competent courts in the event of any anomaly (section 137 of the Labour Code).
12. 41. As regards the allegation that certain authorities are threatening to take represssive measures if "Dignité" acts without authorisation, the Government states that it cannot provide the necessary clarification since the complaint by Mr. Pinzon and Mr. Peirens does not name the authorities concerned or specify the alleged measures.
13. 42. As regards the allegation that the wave of dismissals on the grounds of union activities is continuing, the Government states that apart from the previous cases that were the subject of "Dignité's" initial complaint, and for which it has already given explanations, the competent authorities are unaware of any other case of dismissal. The same applies to the public servants and teachers referred to in the complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution.
14. 43. As regards the collection of trade union contributions in general or the check-off system, the Government states that there is no legal text on the matter. The system whereby employers deduct union dues from the remuneration of unionised workers is the outcome of a collective agreement. In 1977 the UGTCI and the Employers' Association of Côte d'Ivoire (UPACI) reached an agreement providing for dues to be deducted at source and this principle was taken up in clause 12 of the Inter-occupational Collective Agreement. The Government explains that "Dignité", being established recently, is not a party to this agreement and has not acceded to it, consequently it cannot require the UPACI to apply the provisions of clause 12 of the above-mentioned Collective Agreement on its behalf. Nevertheless, with the introduction of trade union pluralism, the UPACI, in note No. 91-06 of 22 January 1991, recommended its members "to respect the principle whereby a worker's prior agreement is essential before any deduction is made from his pay".
15. 44. The Government explains that in practice, and in accordance with clause 12 of the Collective Agreement, the UGTCI gives the employer a list of its members. The UGTCI suggested that "Dignité" should send it a list of those of its members from whom it had wrongfully deducted dues so that these should be paid back to "Dignité". The latter refused, however, because "the opponents would be obliged to identify themselves" as though, the Government adds, that union were operating in secret.
16. 45. The Government concludes by recalling that there are over 160 trade unions in Côte d'Ivoire, some of which are affiliated to the UGTCI while others are not. It states that the Côte d'Ivoire representatives have always given evidence of their cooperation in consolidating the aims of the organisation.

E. The Committee's conclusions

1. 46. The Committee notes that the allegations that remain outstanding following the examination of this case at its October-November 1991 meeting, and the subsequent allegations, relate to repressive measures by the authorities of Côte d'Ivoire against the founders and other members of the trade union federation "Dignité", to the refusal by the authorities to confer official recognition on this federation, to measures of anti-union discrimination against the members of this federation and to interference by the employers and the authorities in respect of "Dignité" and its first-level trade unions.
2. 47. First of all the Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government's reply, an acknowledgement of the depositing of the rules of "Dignité" has been issued and that consequently this organisation is now officially recognised by the Côte d'Ivoire authorities as a trade union federation. The Committee also notes the Government's statement that the delay in issuing this acknowledgement of the depositing of the federation's rules was caused by "Dignité" itself because it did not include with its rules the supporting documents required by law. However, the Committee, taking into account the particularly long delay in issuing to "Dignité" an acknowledgement of the depositing of its rules, has to emphasise that the formalities prescribed by law to form a trade union should not be applied in such a manner as to delay or prevent the establishment of trade union organisations. Considering that any delay caused by the authorities in registering a trade union constitutes an infringement of Article 2 of Convention No. 87, the Committee trusts that in future the Government will endeavour to ensure full respect for Article 2 of Convention No. 87 according to which all workers, without distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.
3. 48. As regards the founders and other members of "Dignité" alleged to have been arrested and detained, the Committee notes that these are the following: (i) Mr. Marcel Ette, General Secretary of the Union of Teachers in Higher Education, Mr. Francis Wodie, a teacher, and Mr. Emile Boga, a lawyer teaching in the law faculty, who were arrested on 26 March during a peaceful demonstration in protest against the drop in public service remuneration; (ii) Dr. Richard Kodjo, General Secretary of the Union of Senior Health Care Staff (SYNACASSCI), Dr. Assoua Adou and other persons, who were arrested and detained on 27 and 28 March during a 48-hour warning strike, although a skeleton staff had been maintained in the hospitals, and who were released on 30 March; (iii) 29 trade union activists belonging to "Dignité", arrested on 2 April for having taken part in a demonstration in support of economic and social claims, who were detained for 12 days; and (iv) Mr. Ourega Ballie Ambroise and Mr. Gahuidis Gbogro, planters in the Gagnoa "département" who are members of the "Dignité" basic trade union, and who were arrested and detained for five weeks. According to the complainants, this wave of arrests is still continuing. The Committee regrets that the Government, in its replies, confines itself to stating - as regards the precise reasons for the arrest and detention of 29 "Dignité" militants on 2 April 1990 - that the allegations have to be verified but that it is up to the complainant to furnish fuller information. In these circumstances, noting that the complainants have already described the circumstances in which the arrests took place, the Committee once again requests the Government to inform it of the exact reasons for the arrest and detention of all the persons mentioned who, according to the WCL, are said to have been subjected to these measures by reason of their membership of "Dignité".
4. 49. As regards the three teachers who, according to the allegations, were assigned to posts in the interior of the country and whose salaries were suspended in order to isolate and intimidate them, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant confederation, two of them, Mr. Gouali and Mr. Zouzoua, rejoined the General Union of Workers of Côte d'Ivoire (UGTCI) and accepted their new assignments following the proposal by the authorities to restore their salaries on condition they resigned from "Dignité". The Committee notes that the third teacher concerned, Mr. Aké, apparently resisted such pressure, which left him in a dramatic situation since he was suspended from his duties from 15 August 1991 to 3 February 1992. The Committee also regrets that the Government merely refers to the explanations provided in a previous communication according to which the disciplinary measures taken against certain employees were in accordance with the General Rules Governing the Public Service which cover all public employees in Côte d'Ivoire and that there was no discrimination whatsoever against the members of any trade union organisation. The Committee also notes that the Government has provided no substantial reply to the allegations according to which the suspensions of salary or unfair transfers of the officers or activists of "Dignité" are still being carried out. The Committee once again requests the Government to specify the reasons for transferring these three teachers to the interior of the country. Recalling that no one should be discriminated against in employment on the grounds of his or her legitimate trade union membership or activities, the Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to clarify the reasons why Mr. Aké was suspended and his salary withheld, and to restore him to his former situation if it is found that he was penalised because of his membership of "Dignité".
5. 50. As regards the allegations that a large number of "Dignité" officers and members were dismissed, the Committee notes that the complainants consider this a matter of anti-union discrimination. It notes that, according to the complainants, the following persons, inter alia, were wrongfully dismissed: Mr. Grape Eugène; Messrs. Oule Bernard, Kesse Tia Norbert, Ba Ba Joseph, Kaza Ouapo and Beseh Jean-Baptiste, members of the Free Union of Dockers in the Autonomous Ports of Côte d'Ivoire (SYLIDOPACI) which is affiliated to "Dignité"; Messrs. Blai David and Konhon Dieudonné, workers at COSMIVOIRE, workers belonging to the Union of Perfumery and Cosmetics Workers of Côte d'Ivoire (SYTRAPACOCI); Messrs. Gnahore Théophile, Gnago N'guessan and Assiri Etienne, workers at the (Unilever) Blohorn-SAHSL factory; and Messrs. Diaith Essan Prosper, Koukoo Zouzouko Emmanuel, Goyele Lori, Boudoua Begnana, Kore Yazet Philippe, Sahi Kla Mamadou, Yomi Paul and Aboua Marcellin, leaders and members of the SYTAC union which is affiliated to "Dignité". The Committee observes that the Government, for its part, gives its assurance that no measure has been taken against workers who wished to establish workers' organisations outside the existing trade union organisation, in accordance with the Labour Code which protects workers against acts of anti-union discrimination; and that any worker who considers that he or she has been dismissed for trade union reasons may appeal to a competent court. In the light of the allegations in question which relate to a large number of dismissals of trade union leaders and members who all belong to the same federation, the Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the application of Article 1 of Convention No. 98 according to which workers should enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination which infringe freedom of association in respect of employment. It considers that it would be appropriate for an inquiry to be carried out by the Government with a view to establishing the real reasons for the measures taken against the persons mentioned by the WCL and, if the inquiry reveals that these reasons are of an anti-union nature, to take the necessary measures to have the persons concerned reinstated in their jobs.
6. 51. As regards the alleged refusal by the authorities to recognise the existence of the "Dignité" federation and of its first-level trade unions so that they might exercise their legitimate trade union activities, and as regards the threats by the authorities to take represssive measures if "Dignité" acts without "authorisation" (for example, collecting or receiving dues, organising trade union meetings, etc.), the Committee observes that the Government states that it is impossible for it to provide the necessary clarification since the allegations do not specify the authorities or the measures concerned. The Committee recalls that according to Article 3 of Convention No. 87, unions must have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes and the public authorities must refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. The Committee consequently requests the Government to take the necessary measures to determine whether the "Dignité" federation, and especially at the local level its first-level trade unions, are in fact subjected to acts of interference and threats by the authorities and, if so, to take the necessary measures to put an end to such acts and prevent their recurrence.
7. 52. As regards the allegations relating to acts of interference affecting the first-level trade unions of "Dignité", the Committee observes that the complainants refer in particular to (i) the fact that the UGTCI, without any prior organisation of social elections, leaves lists of staff delegates in enterprises having a majority of "Dignité" members, (ii) the deduction from remuneration of trade union contributions for the UGTCI and (iii) the fact that certain employers are opposed to the trade union activities of "Dignité" in the undertakings.
8. 53. As regards the elections of staff delegates, the Committee notes that the Government points out that "Dignité" is not often represented in the enterprises in question because of the lack of basic trade unions and that that is a problem with which it is faced. The Committee also observes that according to section 136(4) of the Labour Code, it is not necessary to belong to a first-level trade union in an undertaking to become a staff delegate, since individual candidatures are receivable for the second ballot. The Government states that, contrary to the allegations made by "Dignité", the appointment of staff delegates in enterprises takes place in accordance with the Labour Code, which makes provision for the right of appeal to the competent courts in the event of any anomaly (section 137 of the Labour Code).
9. 54. As regards the collection of trade union dues, the Committee notes that, according to the complainants, several employers make direct deductions of the trade union contribution in favour of the UTGCI, despite letters from workers informing the management and chiefs of personnel that they have ceased to be members of this union. The Committee also notes that there is no legislative text providing for the collection of union dues, but that the matter is covered by a provision in a collective agreement and that in 1977 the UGTCI and the UPACI (the Employers' Association of Côte d'Ivoire) reached an agreement concerning the check-off, which principle was taken up in clause 12 of the Inter-occupational Collective Agreement. The Committee observes that according to the Government "Dignité", being established recently, is not a party to this Agreement and has not acceded to it and that consequently it cannot require the UPACI to apply clause 12 of that Collective Agreement on its behalf. Still according to the Government, the UPACI, with the advent of trade union pluralism, recommended its members in note No. 91-06 of 22 January 1991 to "respect the principle whereby the workers' prior agreement is essential before any deduction can be made from their remuneration". The UGTCI apparently proposed that "Dignité" should send it a list of those of its members in respect of whom it had wrongly deducted contributions so that the latter might be returned to "Dignité"; this however was refused by "Dignité" because "the opponents would be obliged to identify themselves".
10. 55. As regards the refusal of certain employers to recognise the basic trade unions of "Dignité" and their opposition to any union activity by "Dignité" in their enterprises, the Committee notes that the Government states that in accordance with section 4(3) of the Labour Code, "Dignité" did not need any recognition by the employers to begin its activities in the enterprises since, according to section 9 of the Associations Act, it had merely to wait two months as from the depositing of its rules before beginning its activities - which it is said to have done.
11. 56. In view of the conflicting nature of the information on this aspect of the allegations, the Committee cannot but recall that, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, workers must have the right to establish and to join organisations of their choice. For their part, organisations must have the right to elect their representatives, to organise their administration, including a system for deducting trade union dues, and to exercise their trade union activities in full freedom without any interference by the authorities or the employers.
12. 57. Nevertheless, as regards elections of staff delegates, the Committee considers that the Government should ensure that all recognised trade union organisations, including "Dignité", are able to present candidates for the elections of staff delegates in all enterprises in which there is a first-level trade union and that this should apply as from the first ballot. As regards the collection of trade union dues, the Committee considers that the Government and the social partners should examine what consequences are to be drawn from the new situation of trade union plurality prevailing in the country, so that the different unions can be treated on an equal basis. Lastly, as regards the allegations of interference by employers in trade union activities, the Committee must recall the terms of Article 2 of Convention No. 98, according to which "workers' and employers' organisations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other's agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration".
13. 58. As regards the circular from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sent to all the accredited diplomatic missions in Côte d'Ivoire, stipulating that any application for the financing of projects submitted to them by various Côte d'Ivoire groups or associations, including trade unions and political parties, must first be approved by the local administrative authorities, the Committee considers that it would be appropriate to ensure that these provisions do not prevent trade union organisations from receiving money from abroad and in particular from international organisations of workers for the furtherance of normal and lawful trade union objectives. The Committee consequently requests the Government to clarify the contents of the circular in question so as to guarantee trade unions the right to organise their administration freely, in accordance with Article 3 of Convention No. 87.
14. 59. In the light of the conclusions it has just formulated, the Committee observes that the situation of the federation "Dignité" and of its first-level trade unions raises problems in connection with several fundamental principles of freedom of association. It therefore considers that the Government must take concrete measures as early as possible to ensure full protection of the rights guaranteed by the Conventions on freedom of association which it has ratified. Allowing for the fact that the "Dignité" federation has now been officially recognised in Côte d'Ivoire and in view of the new social and economic context and of the existence of trade union pluralism, to which the Government refers, the Committee considers that the Government should give priority attention to strengthening the procedures and machinery for ensuring better protection of the trade union rights of all occupational organisations and of all their members. The existence of laws and regulations forbidding acts of anti-union discrimination or interference by the employers or by organisations of workers and employers in each other's affairs is meaningless unless such laws and regulations are accompanied by efficient procedures for ensuring their implementation in practice.
15. 60. Seized in the present case of a complaint lodged under article 26 of the Constitution, the Committee has to pronounce on the opportunity of setting up a Commission of Inquiry to examine the case before it. Taking into consideration the fact that the Government has to supply new information on different aspects of the case, the Committee proposes to come back to this question during its next examination in the light of the observations sent to it.