Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 1, 1952

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  55. 55 The complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions against the Italian Government alleges that, on the occasion of a public demonstration organised by the Workers' Trade Unions of Modena and authorised by the public authorities, nine workers were killed by the police.
  56. 56 The World Federation of Trade Unions makes, in particular, the following allegations:
      • (a) A labour dispute with regard to wage scales for piece-work broke out between the owner of the United Foundries in Modena and his employees' trade union (October 1949).
      • (b) A lock-out was ordered by the employer and a large number of workers were dismissed (December 1949).
      • (c) Having exhausted every method of conciliation, the workers called a general strike (9 January 1951).
      • (d) A meeting of protest duly authorised by the authorities was called on the same day.
      • (e) The police, without any prior warning, opened fire on workers who were proceeding to the meeting place in good order and in small groups with the result that nine persons were killed.
  57. Analysis of the Reply
  57. 57 In its reply, the Italian Government, after outlining the various stages in the dispute, gives the conclusions of an enquiry undertaken by the Government into the facts alleged. These conclusions may be summed up as follows:
      • (a) The Italian General Federation of Labour-the trade union organisation directly concerned in the matter and affiliated to the World Federation of Trade Unions-did not think it necessary to lay before the Italian Government any complaint of infringement of freedom of association.
      • (b) The only complaint which was made was one against the Prefect and Commissioner of Police at Modena alleging them to be the persons responsible for the incidents which occurred.
      • (c) This complaint was rejected as unfounded by the competent tribunal after hearing arguments on behalf of both sides.
      • (d) The public meeting gave rise to serious disorders because the demonstrators, to the number of several tens of thousands, attempted to occupy the United Foundries by force.
      • (e) The demonstrators attacked the police and several officers were disarmed and wounded.
      • (f) Certain members of the armed force, without having received any orders to do so, made use of their weapons because their safety was threatened and they had to defend themselves.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 58. It would appear, not only from the text of the reply from the Italian Government but also from the text of the complaint, that no restriction was placed on freedom of association as such. In fact, both pasties to the dispute found it possible freely to have recourse to the legitimate methods of direct pressure-lock-out and strike-in defence of their occupational interests. Moreover, the meeting of protest convened by the workers' organisations was authorised by the public authority.
2. 59. The only wrong alleged by the complainants is that reprisals were taken against workers who were legitimately exercising a trade union right (participating in a duly authorised public meeting).
3. 60. The complainant alleges, without offering further proof, that the police opened fire without prior warning on workers who were proceeding in good order and in small groups to a duly authorised meeting. It was on the basis of this point that an action was instituted against the Prefect and Commissioner of Police as the persons alleged to be responsible for the incidents.
4. 61. The Italian Government, in its very explicit reply, has not confined itself to giving the administrative authorities' version of these incidents but has also explained that the competent tribunal, before which proceedings were brought, rejected the complaint as being without any foundation.

62. The Committee therefore recommends that the Governing Body should decide that the case is not worthy of further examination on the ground that the complainant has not offered sufficient evidence to justify further examination of the matter and the Italian Government has given a satisfactory reply to the allegations made.