Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 305, Noviembre 1996

1. 134. The complaint of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) against the Government of Congo is contained in a communication dated 23 February 1996. As the Government did not reply, the Committee had to postpone the examination of this case on two occasions. At its June 1996 meeting (see 304th Report, para. 10), the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government, stating that, in accordance with the procedural rule set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the observations or information requested had not been received in due time. The Government has not sent any observations to date.
2. 135. Congo 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 136. In its communication dated 23 February 1996, the ICFTU states that the Government is violating the trade union rights of one of its affiliates, the Confederation of Free and Autonomous Trade Unions of Congo (COSYLAC), and its members. Specifically, it makes the following allegations:
   • - refusal to involve the trade unions in the privatization process under way in the country; having accepted the principle of privatization of various public sector enterprises, the workers had set up a trade union coordinating committee for the key enterprises facing privatization so that the social partners could discuss the impact of the decisions to be taken; despite the Government's promises, no negotiations were taken up with the committee; the Government refused to allow any trade union participation and dialogue to deal with the issues raised by privatization;
   • - restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike: according to the complainant organization, the COSYLAC had instructed its members on 20 January 1996 to go on strike in protest against the Government's refusal to involve the trade unions in the ongoing privatization process; the Government immediately declared the strike illegal, accusing the trade union officers of violating the "right to work" and of allegedly committing acts of sabotage, cutting off the water and electricity supply and disrupting telephone connections on 19 and 20 January. President Lissouba allegedly viewed the strike as an attempted coup d'état;
   • - dismissals on account of participation in a strike: 122 workers who were not at their work posts during the strike on 22 January were summarily dismissed, in disregard of labour legislation;
   • - the arrest, detention, ill-treatment and imprisonment of trade union officers and members; according to the complainant organization, on 22 January 1996 the authorities ordered the arrest of four members of organizations affiliated to the COSYLAC, Mr. Lessita Otangui, Secretary-General of the FESYPOSTEL, Mr. Oba René Blanchard, President of the SYLIPOSTEL, Mr. Odzongo Médard, of the FESYPOSTEL, and Mr. Bouya Bernard of the SYNATEL. These persons were assaulted at security forces headquarters (DGST) before being incarcerated; shortly afterwards, two other trade union members, Mr. Tchikaya and Mr. Mampuya, were also arrested;
   • - sentencing of the COSYLAC officers: the complainant organization states that the four main trade union officers mentioned above were sentenced on 14 February 1996 to four months' imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 CFA francs; according to defence counsels, no proof of guilt was provided in court. According to the complainant organization, this incident is widely believed to be a government attempt to destroy COSYLAC in order to make it easier to apply the World Bank structural adjustment programme without opposition and without having to embark on dialogue with the workers who will be affected by privatization.
2. 137. According to the complainant organization, systematic denial of the legitimate request for dialogue with a trade union bargaining committee and brutal repression of protest action against this refusal constitute violations of the most fundamental principles of freedom of association.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 138. The Committee regrets that, despite the time which has elapsed since the presentation of this complaint, the Government has not replied to any of the allegations of the complainant organization, although it has been invited several times, including by means of an urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on this case.
2. 139. In these circumstances, in accordance with the applicable procedural rule (see para. 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session), the Committee will have to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the information it hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 140. The Committee would remind the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure instituted by the International Labour Organization to examine allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee notes that in another case of allegations against the Government of Congo (No. 1850), which it examined at its previous meeting, the Government had not replied either. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to the allegations put forward (see First Report of the Committee, para. 31).
4. 141. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case refer to the denial of trade unions' right to be consulted, restrictions on the right to strike, arrests, imprisonment and sentencing of trade union officers and members, and summary dismissal of trade union members for participating in a strike.
5. 142. As regards the allegation to the effect that the Government refuses to engage in dialogue with the trade unions to deal with issues relating to privatization, the Committee notes that, despite the Government's promises, there have been no negotiations with the coordinating committee set up by the workers. The COSYLAC then called a strike of its members in protest against the Government's attitude. In the Committee's view, restructuring in the public sector, and especially the privatization of enterprises in the context of the application of a structural adjustment policy, undeniably has a considerable impact on social and trade union matters. It is therefore necessary for the social partners, in particular trade union organizations, to be consulted, at least on the social impact and modalities of the measures decided upon by the authorities. In view of the impact that privatization measures in certain public sector enterprises and, in general, government structural adjustment and privatization policy can have on working conditions, the Committee would emphasize the importance that it attaches to the effective promotion of consultation and cooperation between public authorities and workers' organizations in this area, in accordance with the principles laid down in Recommendation No. 113, with the aim of joint consideration of matters of mutual concern with a view to arriving, to the fullest possible extent, at agreed solutions.
6. 143. As regards the restrictions on the right to strike, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant organization, the strike held in protest against the refusal to embark on dialogue and negotiations on privatization issues, called by the COSYLAC on 20 January 1996, was immediately declared illegal by the Government and viewed as an attempted coup d'état, and that it gave rise to intervention by the authorities, arrests and dismissals. In this respect, the Committee recalls that organizations responsible for defending workers socio-economic and occupational interests should be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and standards of living (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, para. 480). The Committee also draws the Government's attention to the fact that final decisions concerning the illegality of strikes should not be made by the Government, especially in those cases in which the Government is a party to the dispute. (See Digest, op. cit., para. 523.)
7. 144. With regard to the dismissals, the Committee notes that 122 workers who were not at their work posts during the strike held on 22 January 1996 have been summarily dismissed. In this respect, the Committee recalls that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that workers should not be dismissed on account of their having participated in a strike or other industrial action. The Committee requests the Government to make all efforts to ensure that these workers are immediately reinstated in their jobs and to keep it informed of the situation of these workers.
8. 145. As regards the arrest and imprisonment of trade union members, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant organization, on 22 January 1996 the authorities ordered the arrest of four members of post and telecommunications unions affiliated to the COSYLAC, Mr. Lessita Otangui, Secretary-General of the FESYPOSTEL, Mr. Oba René Blanchard, President of the SYLIPOSTEL, Mr. Odzongo Médard, of the FESYPOSTEL, and Mr. Bouya Bernard, of the SYNATEL. The Committee notes that according to the allegations, Mr. Oba was detained at his trade union headquarters. It notes that these persons were assaulted at security forces headquarters before being incarcerated. It notes further that according to the complainant organization, these four trade union officers were sentenced on 14 February 1996 to four months' imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 CFA francs and that according to defence counsels, no proof of guilt had been provided in court. The Committee regrets that the Government has not transmitted any comments and observations in this respect. It must recall that the arrest and detention of trade unionists on the grounds of trade union activities constitutes a serious obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights and an infringement of freedom of association. (See Digest, op. cit., para. 75.) The Committee further recalls that in cases involving the arrest, detention or sentencing of a trade union official, the person concerned should be presumed innocent. Although holders of trade union office do not, by virtue of their position, have the right to transgress legal provisions in force, these provisions should not infringe the basic guarantees of freedom of association, nor should they sanction activities which, in accordance with generally recognized principles, should be considered as legitimate trade union activities. (See Digest, op. cit., paras. 65 and 42.) In view of the fact that the sentences appear to be have been motivated by the organization of a strike in protest against the lack of consultation of trade union organizations in the privatization process, the Committee has reason to believe that the persons concerned were sentenced for legitimate trade union activities. It therefore deeply deplores these sentences imposed in violation of the principles of freedom of association and calls for the immediate and unconditional release of these unionists and their reinstatement in their jobs. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.
9. 146. The Committee notes further that two other trade union members, Mr. Tchikaya and Mr. Mampuya, were also arrested. The Committee regrets that it has received no observations from the Government in this respect. It requests the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to conduct an independent and objective inquiry in order to ascertain the facts and exact circumstances of the arrests. The Committee requests the Government to release these unionists immediately and unconditionally and ensure their reinstatement in their posts. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect.