Informe provisional - Informe núm. 320, Marzo 2000

1. 363. The complaint in the present case is contained in a communication dated 30 October 1998 from the Cameroon Workers' Trade Union Confederation (CSTC).
2. 364. In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee was obliged to examine this case on two occasions. At its meeting in November 1999 (see the 318th Report of the Committee, para. 9), the Committee issued 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 the case at its next meeting even if the information or observations requested had not been received in due time. To date the Government has sent no observations.
3. 365. Cameroon 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. 366. In its communication of 30 October 1998, the CSTC states that on 6 May 1988 the Director of the Cameroon National Electricity Company (SONEL) dismissed a staff delegate, Mr. Gilbert Ndzana Olongo, despite the fact that no authorization for this had been obtained from the labour inspector, as required under section 137 of the Labour Code. The CSTC alleges that on 24 August 1988, i.e. a little over three months after the dismissal, the managing director of SONEL obtained authorization for the dismissal from the labour inspector and this was upheld by the Minister of Labour. The CSTC also claims that the reasons given for Mr. Olongo's dismissal, namely "insubordination and insolence", were spurious, the real reason being his position and activities as a workers' representative.
2. 367. The CSTC also explains that retrospective authorizations for dismissal from the labour inspector and the Minister of Labour have also been challenged in appeals to administrative tribunals. On 28 February 1991, the Supreme Court revoked not only the retrospective authorization for dismissal given by the labour inspector but also subsequent decisions by the Minister of Labour. Furthermore, on 17 November 1992, the Yaoundé Court of Appeal ordered the reinstatement in his elected and contractual functions of the staff delegate who had been wrongfully dismissed. The SONEL appealed against this ruling. On 3 February 1993 the President of the Supreme Court ordered that the ruling be suspended. This Supreme Court ruling, which purports to be an interim measure pending examination of the substance of the Court of Appeal ruling, has not been followed up since 1993. The CSTC recalls that Mr. Olongo has still not been reinstated 11 years after his dismissal.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 368. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was first presented, the Government has not replied to any of the complainant's allegations, although it has been invited on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal, to present its own comments and observations on the case. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will be more cooperative in the future.
2. 369. Under these circumstances, in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure (see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session), the Committee is bound to present a report on the substance of the case without the benefit of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 370. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the whole procedure introduced by the International Labour Organization for examining allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for that freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance for their own good name of formulating detailed replies concerning allegations made against them (see 1st Report of the Committee, para. 31).
4. 371. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations dating back to 1988 concerning the dismissal of a staff delegate employed by the SONEL. The Committee observes that, according to the complainant, not only did the dismissal of Mr. Olongo take place without the prior authorization of the labour inspectorate, but the reasons given for it were spurious, the true reason being Mr. Olongo's trade union activities. In this regard, the Committee would remind the Government 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. (See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 724.)
5. 372. The Committee also notes that, according to the complainant, on 17 November 1992, the Yaoundé Court of Appeal ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Olongo in his elected and contractual functions within SONEL, but that the Supreme Court on 3 February 1993 ordered that the ruling in question be suspended. With regard to this, the Committee expresses its deep concern at the fact that, eight years after the Court of Appeal ruling, the highest court in the land has yet to give its ruling on the substance of the case. The Committee would remind the Government that it has a responsibility to prevent all acts of anti-union discrimination and that its must ensure that any complaints of discriminatory practices of this kind are examined in the framework of procedures that are prompt and impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned; and, furthermore, the Committee also recalls that justice delayed is justice denied. (See Digest, op. cit., paras. 105 and 738.) Furthermore, the Committee has on several occasions in the past requested that measures be taken to ensure that trade unionists who so wish are reinstated in their functions if they have been dismissed because of their legitimate trade union activities and that appropriate legal sanctions be applied to the enterprises responsible. In this particular case, in view of the time that has elapsed since the dismissal, the Committee urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Olongo receives full compensation if it appeared that his reinstatement within the company SONEL was not feasible. The Committee request the Government to keep it informed promptly of any measures taken in this respect.