Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 2, 1952

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  32. 32 The complainants make the following allegations:
      • (a) The Government is trying to suppress trade unionism.
      • (b) A recent Decree of the Governor-General was designed to smash the trade union movement. The Decree bans all associations which the Government may claim to be " inspired by communist doctrine or conducting communist propaganda " and provides for jail sentences of three years for members and seven years for leaders of such associations.
      • (c) The anti-labour attitude of the Government is also evidenced by the jailing of the Secretary of the Sudanese Workers' Trade Union Association, a federation of 48 trade unions, on a charge of " defamation " of the Sudanese Railways' management.
      • (d) A railroad strike, first called for 2 January 1951, began on 26 December 1950, in protest against the jailing of the official mentioned in paragraph (c) (who was also general secretary of the Railway Workers' Union) and against the anti-labour actions of the Government, as well as for wage increases. The Governor-General's spokesman declared the strike illegal because " it was not in furtherance of a trade dispute ". The complainants declare that this is further evidence of the Government's anti-union attitude.
  33. Analysis of the Reply
  33. 33 On 1 March 1952 the United Kingdom Government forwarded to the Director-General observations in reply to the complaint prepared by the Sudan Government and indicated that arrangements were being made for a copy thereof to be made available to the Egyptian Government through the Government of the Sudan.
  34. 34 The main part of the reply is directed to the first allegation-the general claim that the Government is seeking to suppress trade unionism-and the Government gives a general survey of trade union development against the Sudanese political and social background with the intention of refuting this allegation. The Government's reply to the specific points in the three remaining allegations, which the complainants cite as evidence in support of their general charge in the first allegation, follows its statement of the general position.
  35. 35 With regard to the first allegation, the Government begins by pointing out that the Sudanese trade union movement is mainly a post-war growth and that unions have developed rapidly since 1945, the most prominent being the Railway Workers' Affairs Association. In 1948 the Sudan Government enacted the Trade Unions Ordinance, the Regulation of Trade Disputes Ordinance and the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Enquiry) Ordinance. These Ordinances are not cited in the complaint but are forwarded for reference if necessary. There was some trade union opposition to the Trade Unions Ordinance, notably to the clause requiring compulsory registration and the provision for the submission of funds to proper accounting. Compulsory registration was intended to ensure the sound growth of trade unions in a country with no industrial background and where most of the workers are illiterate. The object of the submission of accounts was to protect the interests of the union members. Complaints are only entertained by the Registrar under the Ordinance if they are initiated by a member of the union. The unions claimed that the Ordinance was an attempt to bring the trade unions under Government control and it was suggested that the provision therein forbidding persons employed in the public services to belong to unions containing persons outside the public services and forbidding joint action between public service unions and other unions was designed to restrict freedom of collective action. It was also alleged that the Ordinance was intended to forestall the formation of a strong central trade union federation. The Government amended this provision, retaining only the stipulation that a registered trade union which includes persons employed in the public services shall not federate, affiliate or otherwise take joint action in furtherance of its purposes under its Constitution with any political organisation. The Government then held a conference with representatives of workers' organisations early in 1949 and, after discussion, the conference unanimously approved the Ordinances.
  36. 36 While the registration of individual unions then proceeded under the Trade Unions Ordinance, the Railway Workers' Affairs Association took the lead in organising a central " Workers' Congress " which, by 1950, was acting as a co-ordinating body in presenting demands on behalf of the registered unions. At this time much progress was made in developing good industrial relations with the help of the Labour Commissioner, seconded from the British Ministry of Labour, and of the Trade Union Adviser, seconded from the British Trade Union Movement. Between March 1949 and December 1950, 40 disputes were reported under the legislation in force. The Labour Branch conciliated successfully in five cases in 1949, 23 cases in 1950 and 42 in 1951. Although the Congress was not a registered union the Government encouraged it and had relations with it.
  37. 37 In the spring of 1950 the President and Secretary of the Workers' Congress approached the Trade Union Adviser for assistance in drawing up a Constitution. He suggested the formation of (a) a federation of unions of Government industrial workers, and (b) an over-all trade union congress to which this federation and all other unions should be affiliated. The Congress leaders rejected this advice. They drew up a Constitution giving the Sudanese Trade Union Federation, as it was now called, wide powers over its affiliated member unions. At the foundation congress on 15 November 1950, the President and Secretary of the Railway Workers' Union were elected President and Secretary of the Federation. The Congress proceeded to pass resolutions and to send telegrams threatening the Government with general strikes if certain Government measures were not cancelled. One of these measures was the disciplinary expulsion of 119 secondary school students from the Khor Taggat school after many acts of indiscipline. Another measure whose withdrawal was demanded was an amendment to the Defence of the Sudan Ordinance, 1939, enacted on 26 November 1950, giving powers to the Government by proclamation to declare a state of emergency in the event of an imminent threat to the defence of the Sudan or the public safety of the country, arising from war, insurrection, strike, lock-out, etc. The passing of this enactment coincided with the tense situation arising after the Egyptian Government's statement, on 16 November, that they intended to abrogate the 1899 and 1936 treaties. Virulent campaigns were worked up by the political parties and others. Much sedition and trouble was being caused by the quasi-military activities of youth movements. The amendment to the Defence Ordinance was intended to protect the life and well-being of the community as a whole. The texts of the amendment and of the original Ordinance are forwarded for reference, if necessary, although no proclamation has been made under the Ordinance since the amendment.
  38. 38 The next developments were those referred to in the second, third and fourth allegations made by the complainants and the Government's reply to these points is analysed below.
  39. 39 Still with regard to the general allegation, however, the Government refers to later events as further evidence of the fact that it has sought to promote and not to suppress the trade union movement in the Sudan. In February 1951 the Sudan Trade Union Federation applied for registration as a trade union. The Registrar decided that he could not register a federation of trade unions as an individual trade union under the law as it stood and which the Government did not propose to amend. But the Federation retained its full liberty to coordinate the action of its member unions and to represent their views to the Government and to negotiate.
  40. 40 The Wakefield Commission which, in 1950, was examining wage claims and co-ordinating wage scales of unclassified Government employees, recently issued a report recommending substantial revisions and considerable general increases, together with adjustments to meet future cost-of-living variations.
  41. 41 The Government points out that the task of building up a responsible trade union movement in the Sudan is formidable, especially m view of the size of the country, the illiteracy of the workers and their lack of understanding of trade unionism. However, by February 1952, there were 85 registered trade unions, which should be sufficient to contradict the allegation that the Government intends to smash the trade union movement. The Sudan Government is also encouraging wages councils, joint consultation and arbitration, the establishment of an employment service, the adjustment of wages and conditions and the promotion of housing development.
  42. 42 In conclusion to the reply on the first general allegation, it is emphasised that the Sudan Government has always endeavoured to ensure that the general requirements of I.L.O Conventions relating to non-metropolitan territories are observed in the formation and implementation of its labour legislation. The Sudan Government will do everything in its power to continue this policy and to protect and encourage the free growth of trade unions.
  43. 43 With regard to the second allegation, during the tense political situation in November 1950 the communist movement for national liberation was conducting seditious propaganda. The Executive Council of the Sudan Government recommended that special measures be taken to check the activities of seditious and communist political societies. On 25 November the Governor-General issued a Decree declaring associations promoting or practising the theories or principles of international communism to be illegal within the meaning of the Unlawful Associations Ordinance of 1924. He issued the Decree because he was of opinion that communist or communist-controlled associations are associations which interfere or whose object is to interfere with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order or which constitute a danger to the public peace. The texts of the Ordinance under the Decree were forwarded for reference if necessary. The Government states that the Decree was directed against outside interference in Sudanese affairs and not against the Trade Union Federation or its affiliated unions. The Decree has not been used against any trade union organisation or against the Federation.
  44. 44 Regarding the third allegation, the General Secretary of the Railway Workers' Union, on 2 December 1950, distributed a circular among railway workers and the general public. It was couched in inflammatory terms and accused the railway management of cruelty, oppression, sucking the workers' blood, terrorism, starving and depriving them of food, clothing, medical care and education. Individual charges of criminal defamation under the Sudanese Penal Code were brought against the General Secretary and six members of the Central Executive Council of the Railway Workers' Union. Six of the seven accused, including the General Secretary who had drafted the circular, were convicted by a Major Court. The Court held that the statement in the circular was defamatory, intended and calculated to harm the reputation of the railway management, was not fair comment (being mainly untrue) and was not made in good faith but maliciously. The statement was held not to be privileged. The maximum penalty was two years' imprisonment but the General Secretary was sentenced to one month's imprisonment and the remainder were released on probation. There were no appeals.
  45. 45 Regarding the fourth allegation, the Trade Union Federation, at its inaugural congress, in addition to making the demands to which reference has already been made, made a demand for a general 75 per cent wage increase. The Federation leaders declined an invitation to appear before the Wakefield Commission mentioned earlier. In the meantime, the Railway Workers' Union had become involved in a dispute with the management over a minor issue involving some 60 firemen. The men stopped work and brought all trains to a standstill on 25 November 1950 without giving the statutory 15 days' notice of a strike. They were given until 11 December to return to work and were then dismissed. A settlement was reached on 18 December and all the dismissed men returned to work. During the course of this dispute there occurred the criminal trial of the General Secretary of the Railway Workers' Union, mentioned above, and, after the promulgation of the sentences there occurred a sudden three-day railway strike from 27 to 30 December. Section 228 of the Sudan Penal Code requires 15 days' notice of work stoppages in any work connected with public health or safety or with any service of public utility (including the railways). Failure to give this notice may make strikers liable to imprisonment up to six months or to a fine, or both. No notice was given of the present strike which was stated to be " in protest against the trial ". Fifty-two leaders of the strike were arrested and charged under the Penal Code with criminal conspiracy and strike in a public utility service without giving the statutory notice. All pleaded guilty, were convicted and fined. No notice of a strike for 2 January 1951 had been given by the Railway Workers' Union as alleged, but the Federation had given notice of a one-day general strike for that date " in protest and condemnation of the Government's obstinate policy towards the workers " and had been warned that, according to legal opinion, the strike would be illegal as it was not in furtherance of a trade dispute. The Government pointed out to the Federation that the proposed strike was not protected by Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Ordinance, 1948, a copy of which is contained in the reply. The Government at the same time pointed out that some of the affiliated unions were connected with public utility undertakings and had not given the 15 days' strike notice required by law. The Railway Workers' Union, however, did not support this strike and the threat was withdrawn. Subsequently the Federation leaders renewed their demands for a 75 per cent wage increase and threatened a general strike of five days' duration to take place on 17 February 1951. The strike lasted only one day.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 46. On the general allegation that it is trying to suppress trade unionism the Government has outlined at some length the growth of the trade union movement since 1945 and has demonstrated that, in spite of the difficulties involved, it has, partly with the help of an adviser from the British trade union movement, helped to promote trade unions until, as the latest figures given show, 85 trade unions have registered and there exists, although unregistered, a central federation which co-ordinates their efforts and acts as a negotiating body. In view of all the circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the complainants have not offered sufficient evidence in regard to this general allegation to justify reference of the matter to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission.
2. 47. Regarding the second allegation the Government gives the text of the Decree complained against, which it describes as a purely anti-communist enactment against all associations and bodies controlled by communists and not directed against trade unions. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this allegation is so purely political in character that it is undesirable to pursue the matter further.
3. 48. Regarding the third allegation the person concerned was found guilty of criminal defamation in his individual capacity by a competent court. There appears to be nothing in the enactment under which he was charged which affects any trade union right. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the facts alleged, if proved, would not constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights.
4. 49. Regarding the final allegation, there is a slight confusion between the two versions. The complainants state a strike was called by the railway workers for 2 January 1951 and then brought forward to 26 December 1950. The Government states that the one-day general strike called for 2 January 1951, and being quite distinct from the railroad strike, was to be " in protest and condemnation of the Government's policy ". The Sudan Government then stated that, according to legal opinion, such a strike would be illegal because " not in furtherance of a trade dispute ". For the Government to have informed the federation concerned that a proposed strike would, according to the legal advice which it had received, be illegal would not appear to constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights calling for further examination by the Governing Body.

50. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to place on record its appreciation of the full information furnished by the Sudan Government and to decide that the case as a whole does not call for further examination.