Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 14, 1954

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 86. The complaint is contained in two documents : one, the original complaint dated 20 March 1954, addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and transmitted by him to the I.L.O, and the other, dated 24 July 1954, consisting of further information in substantiation of the complaint addressed to the I.L.O by the complaining organisation in accordance with the procedure in force. The two documents are analysed together.
2. 87. The complainant makes the following allegations:
   • (a) Since the coup d'état of 19 August 1953, the Government has followed a policy of anti-union repression, abolishing the legally recognised rights of the workers contrary to the Constitutional and legislative provisions in force. In particular, troops have occupied the factories, forcing the workers at pistol-point to work for from 10 to 14 hours a day for the same wage as that paid for a legal working day of eight hours, and have taken control of the railways, forcing railwaymen and technicians to work contrary to the provisions of their contracts of employment.
   • (b) Martial law has been extended indefinitely. In consequence, all trade union meetings have been forbidden on pain of dismissal, imprisonment and deportation, and no meeting of workers is allowed if attended by more than two persons.
   • (c) The Government has issued a decree abolishing the right to strike.
   • (d) The workers' press has been ordered to cease publication--three trade union newspapers are cited by the complainant : Navide Azade, Asré Piruzi (the organ of the Federation of Iranian Railway Workers) and Zafar (the principal organ of the Central Council of the Unified Trade Union Movement of Iran).
   • (e) Trade unionists have been imprisoned without trial. Four hundred workers were imprisoned or deported on account of their trade union activities in the latter half of August and in September 1953. Hundreds of manual and professional workers have been imprisoned or deported to concentration camps, especially to the fortress of Falakol-Aflak and the " death island " of Khark, in the Persian Gulf. One hundred and twenty miners at the Ziral mines, owned by the Government, have been arrested and deported and payment of bonuses and other benefits to workers in the mines has been stopped. In the communication dated 24 July 1954, the complainant states that further deportations are taking place.
   • (f) Hundreds of workers, teachers and salaried employees have been dismissed by " purge committees " for their trade union activities. Six workers at the Teheran Tobacco Factory were dismissed by order of the authorities for refusing to work overtime.
   • (g) Various acts of brutality have been committed against the workers. At Shahi, Behshahr and Sari, workers' homes were pillaged by marauders in Government pay ; at Chaloussa, workers in the silk and textile factory were arrested for trade union activity and tortured and flogged by order of the military government of the town ; a worker in the Chitsazi cotton mill in Teheran was arrested, flogged and refused food, and died two days later as a result of his brutal treatment.
   • (h) Trade unionists detained at the Recht prison have been confined with ordinary criminals and brutally treated. On 12 and 13 May 1954 government agents forced their way into the prison and attacked the " trade unionists and democrats " therein with sticks and knives. The troops joined in with machineguns. Six of the persons imprisoned-Hormoz Nik-Kah (a tea worker), Mohamed Taghi Mohabbat Khah (a government official), Mohamed Taghi Eghdamé Dusta (a member of the peasant movement), Ali Bolandi (a building worker), Salzali Mohamed Nejad and Fereydun Parsa-Duste (a student)-were killed and 100 others wounded.
3. 88. The complainants demand the lifting of the various trade union restrictions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and the immediate liberation of the imprisoned and deported workers and trade union leaders.
   • ANALYSIS OF THE REPLY
4. 89. In its reply, dated 16 September 1954, the Government declares that the complaints presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions are made regularly as an instrument of political propaganda and picture accusations of a purely political character as pretended infringements of trade union rights. The present complaint is considered by the Government to be a continuation or resumption of previous allegations presented against the Government of Iran and already rejected by the Committee and by the Governing Body and, in fact, the Government considers that the present case should be regarded as res judicata. The Government quotes the conclusions reached by the Committee in Case No. 93 relating to Iran, when it recommended that the allegations in that case consisted of general statements not substantiated by any evidence of definite violations of trade union rights and also formed part of a series of allegations of a purely political character and should be dismissed.
5. 90. With regard to the allegations now made by the complainant, the Government states:
   • (a) The trade union movement has at no time been repressed and full freedom of association is guaranteed by law without interference or discrimination. The Labour Law has not been altered, hours of work remain unchanged, stipulations in employment contracts are observed.
   • (b) Martial law now exists only in a very few areas, has no effect on industrial relations and cannot prejudice the Labour Law or regulations made thereunder. Trade union meetings are in no way prohibited.
   • (c) No decree limiting the right to strike has been issued.
   • (d) The press enjoys full freedom of publication and can suffer no prohibition except in accordance with the very precise regulations contained in the relevant legislation.
   • (e) While not referring specifically to the alleged cases of imprisonment or deportation of persons to concentration camps, especially Falakol-Aflak and Khark, on account of trade union activities, the Government, referring to the complaint as a whole, declares that its inquiries reveal no case corresponding to the allegations made. It denies any refusal to pay bonuses and other benefits due to workers as alleged in the case of the workers in the Ziral mines.
   • (f) The allegations as to " purging " of hundreds of workers, teachers and salaried employees are dismissed by the Government as slanderous.
   • (g) The acts of pillage and brutality specified in various factories and towns by the complainant are answered by the Government by its general statement that inquiries reveal no cases corresponding to any of the allegations made in the complaint as a whole. The allegation as to pillage of workers' homes is described by the Government as slanderous.
   • (h) The Government comments in some detail on the alleged incidents at the Recht prison. It declares that all the persons held in the Recht prison were imprisoned for common law offences after being judged by the courts and that no trade unionists have been imprisoned as such. Persons under detention are together during the daytime and, under prison regulations, must return to their cells at 10 p.m. On 12 May some prisoners refused to return to their cells, fomented a disturbance and plans for escape, and incited other prisoners to smash doors and windows and to assault police and warders, and the troops were called in to prevent an escape. Armed resistance to the prisoners was ordered only when they were actually scaling the walls of the prison ; five persons were killed and 44 injured, including several police. The police acted according to law to prevent an escape, a matter in no way related to an alleged infringement of trade union rights. All the insurgents were persons who had been convicted by the competent courts of crimes and offences punishable under the penal law of Iran.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 91. The Government, before dealing in its reply with the different allegations, raises two arguments concerning the case as a whole : firstly, that the complaint has been presented as an instrument of political propaganda and pictures accusations of a purely political character as infringements of trade union rights ; secondly, that the present complaint is nothing more than a continuation or resumption of previous allegations already rejected by the Committee and by the Governing Body and should, therefore, be regarded as res judicata.
   • Preliminary Question as to the Political Nature of the Complaint
2. 92. In the present case, although on the complainant's own admission the general background to and origin of the situation is a political event, namely, the change of government in Iran in August 1953, since when, it is claimed, the present Government has infringed trade union rights, the complaint contains a series of allegations which, whatever the motive for presenting them may be, relate clearly to trade union questions, for example that workers are forced to work contrary to contractual provisions, that trade union meetings and publications are prohibited, that workers, because of their trade union activities, have been dismissed or subjected to brutal treatment, or, again, have been arrested or deported without trial.
3. 93. In its First Report the Committee endorsed the general principle which the Governing Body, on the recommendation of its Officers, adopted for dealing with cases of a political nature. The Committee unanimously considered it inappropriate for the I.L.O to discuss questions of a purely political character, but recognised that situations which are political in origin may have social aspects which the I.L.O may be called upon to examine. The Committee has consistently followed this principle in a large number of cases and considers that it should be guided by it in its consideration of this particular case and confine its examination to the purely trade union aspects of the case.
   • Preliminary Question as to the Issues Being res judicata
4. 94. The Government contends that the present complaint is a resumption of the allegations presented by the same complainant and rejected by the Committee in its examination of Case No. 93 relating to Iran and should, therefore, be treated as res judicata.
5. 95. According to the decisions adopted by the Governing Body, " in any case in which a complaint relates to exactly the same infringements as those concerning which the Committee has already given a decision ... the procedure should not be automatically set in motion, but the Director-General should be authorised to refer such complaints in the first place to the Committee on Freedom of Association for a decision as to whether action should be taken or not ". Where, however, allegations are based on substantially the same facts as allegations dismissed in an earlier case, but are presented in a more specific or detailed manner than on the previous occasion, the Committee has already taken the view, as it did, for example, in Case No. 46 relating to the United States, that the new allegations cannot be dismissed out of hand but must be examined by the Committee.
6. 96. The allegations in Case No. 93 were presented in November 1953 with respect to the conditions which ensued in the agitated period after the then recent change of government in Iran (August 1953). The Committee considered that those allegations consisted of general statements not substantiated by any evidence of definite violations of trade union rights. In the present case, while some of the allegations also relate to similar events in the autumn of 1953, they are for the most part made in far more precise terms, with a number of alleged specific cases being cited in support, and in certain respects relate also to a situation alleged to be continuing up to the time when the documents of complaint were submitted. Other precise allegations are made in the complaint which were not raised at all in the previous case. For these reasons the Committee considers that, in view of the above differences between the allegations made in Case No. 93 and those made in the present case, the latter cannot simply be dismissed in toto as res judicata, but should be examined separately by the Committee.
   • Allegation as to the General Anti-Union Policy of the Government and Non-Application of Legal and Contractual Conditions of Employment
7. 97. It is alleged, generally, that the new government formed in August 1953 has followed a policy of anti-union repression, abolishing the recognised rights of the workers contrary to the legislation in force and, more particularly, that the workers are forced by the military to work for from 10 to 14 hours a day for the same wage as is paid for a legal working day of eight hours and railway employees are obliged to work under conditions contrary to those contained in their contracts of employment. The Government denies any union repression, stating that freedom of association is guaranteed by law without interference or discrimination, the Labour Law has not been altered, hours of work remain unchanged and employment contracts are observed.
8. 98. While recalling the view which it has expressed in earlier cases that it is concerned not only with the legal position but with the extent to which freedom of association exists in practice throughout the territory of the member State concerned, the Committee notes that in the present case the complainant refers to no specific undertakings or industries or areas in which workers are forced to work excessive hours, nor mentions in what respects railway employees are forced to depart from their contractual conditions of employment, while the Government, briefly but categorically, denies each of the points raised.
9. 99. In so far as these allegations relate to questions of general social policy rather than to specific infringements of trade union rights, they fall outside the scope of the present procedure. In so far as they allege a general policy of anti-union repression, the Committee considers that, in view of the imprecise terms of the allegations, in respect of which the complaining organisation, also, gave no further information in its communication dated 24 July 1954, written in response to an invitation to present within one month any further information it might wish to offer in substantiation of the original complaint of 20 March 1954, these allegations are too vague to permit a consideration of this aspect of the case on its merits.
   • Allegations relating to Martial Law and the Banning of Trade Union Meetings
10. 100. Whereas the complainant declares that martial law has been extended indefinitely, with the consequence that all trade union meetings have been forbidden on pain of dismissal, imprisonment and deportation, and that no meetings of workers are allowed if attended by more than two persons, the Government denies any restriction of trade union meetings, but admits that martial law is still maintained in a few areas.
11. 101. In Case No. 93 no reference was made specifically to trade union meetings, but it was alleged that, under the measures taken in the agitated period following the events of August 1953, all meetings were prohibited.
12. 102. As over a year has now passed since those events took place, but martial law still exists in some areas, and having regard to the fact that it has on several occasions emphasised that the freedom of trade union meetings constitutes one of the fundamental elements of trade union rights, the Committee, before reaching final conclusions on this aspect of the case, considers it necessary to obtain further information from the Government as to the areas in which martial law still exists and, if meetings in general are restricted in those areas without any special dispensation in favour of trade union meetings, information as to the provisions of the martial law relating to the holding of meetings, in the areas in question.
    • Allegation relating to the Right to Strike
13. 103. The complainant states and the Government denies that a decree has been issued abolishing the right to strike. While noting the Government's denial that any decree has been issued to prohibit the right to strike, the Committee, having regard to the fact that it has no information before it indicating whether or not any such prohibition exists as a consequence of the maintenance of martial law in certain areas, considers it necessary to obtain further information on this question from the Government.
    • Allegation concerning Prohibition of Trade Union Newspapers
14. 104. Whereas the allegation made in Case No. 93 consisted of a general statement that the trade union and democratic press had been suppressed, the complainant in the present case gives the names of three trade union papers alleged to have been ordered to cease publication. In its reply the Government states that the press enjoys freedom of publication and " can suffer no prohibition except in accordance with the very precise regulations contained in the relevant legislation ". The terms of this reply do not preclude the possibility that the publications mentioned may have been ordered to cease publication under that legislation.
15. 105. In these circumstances the Committee, before formulating its conclusions on this aspect of the case, considers it necessary to request the Government to inform it whether these publications are still being issued, or, if all or any of them have been ordered to cease publication, to forward to the Committee a copy of the legislative provisions pursuant to which such order has been made and information concerning the grounds for such action.
    • Allegations concerning Arrests and Deportations for Trade Union Activities
16. 106. The present allegations are in some respects similar to certain allegations made in Case No. 93 to the effect that over 4,000 persons, including hundreds of workers, trade union militants, political figures, etc., were arrested and deported without trial in August and September 1953-allegations which the Committee rejected because they were general statements which, moreover, formed part of a series of allegations of a purely political nature. The Committee notes, however, that in the present case it is alleged specifically that 400 workers were deported on account of their trade union activities in August and September 1953, that 120 miners employed in the government-owned Ziral mines have been arrested and deported (and payment of bonuses to other mines suspended) and, further, that as recently as July 1954-11 months after the agitated period of August 1953-similar deportations were still taking place. The Government denies the suspension of bonuses but, apart from a general statement that inquiries reveal no cases corresponding to allegations made in the complaint as a whole, does not refer specifically either to the 400 workers or the 120 Ziral miners or to the contention that deportations were taking place as late as July 1954.
17. 107. In these circumstances the Committee, before reaching final conclusions on these two points, considers it necessary to request the Government to inform it whether, in fact, 400 workers and 120 miners have been arrested and deported, whether deportations of workers were being made up to July 1954 and, if so, on what charges they were tried and convicted.
    • Allegations as to Dismissals for Trade Union Activities
18. 108. The allegation that hundreds of workers and other employed persons have been dismissed by " purge committees " for trade union activities is dismissed by the Government as slanderous. The allegation that six workers at the Teheran Tobacco Factory were dismissed by the authorities for refusing to work overtime is not specifically referred to by the Government, and the Committee is therefore not in a position to judge whether, in this case, there has been any infringement of trade union rights.
19. 109. The Committee considers that the Government's statement is too imprecise to enable it to reach a conclusion on these allegations and considers it necessary to request the Government to furnish further information.
    • Allegations as to Acts of Brutality Committed against Workers on the Ground of Their Trade Union Activities
20. 110. The complainant alleges that workers in the silk and textile factory at Chaloussa were arrested and tortured for trade union activity by order of the military authorities and that a worker in the Chitsazi cotton mill in Teheran was arrested and brutally treated in such a way as to cause his death. The Government makes no specific reference to these two alleged cases beyond the general statement that inquiries reveal no cases corresponding to the allegations in the complaint as a whole.
21. 111. In the circumstances, and having regard to the specific nature of these allegations, the Committee, before formulating its conclusions thereon, considers it necessary to ask the Government to supply further and more precise information as to the result of its inquiries into the alleged incidents with respect to the two factories in question.
    • Allegations as to Incidents at the Recht Prison
22. 112. It is alleged that trade unionists in the prison have been confined with ordinary criminals and brutally treated and, more specifically, that in May 1954 government agents attacked trade unionists in the prison with sticks and knives and that, thereafter, troops opened fire with machine-guns, killing six persons and wounding 100 others.
23. 113. In a detailed reply to this allegation, the Government states that no trade unionist was incarcerated in the prison in that quality, but that all the prisoners were persons convicted of penal offences by the courts. The Government declares that the incidents began by some prisoners fomenting disobedience to the prison regulations, which soon became riotous disobedience culminating in a determined attempt at a mass escape, the troops who had been called in to prevent the escape not opening fire until the prisoners were actually scaling the walls.
24. 114. The Committee considers that the details given by the complainant are somewhat general in character, whereas the Government has made a detailed reply to the effect that a series of events developed, contrary to prison regulations, culminating in an attempt at a mass escape, in the course of which the troops exercised restraint until the last possible moment.
25. 115. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the complainant has not offered sufficient proof in support of these allegations to justify their reference to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission.