Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 60, 1962

1. 30. The complaint of the Khit-lite Industrial Company Workers' Union is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O and received on 31 October 1960. The Government furnished its observations on the complaint by a communication dated 9 March 1961.
2. 31. Burma has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 32. It is alleged that on 15 October 1960 the police arrested workers in the employ of the Khit-lite Industrial Company who had taken part in a peaceful strike, this police action being contrary to the democratic right of freedom of association and to the Constitution of Burma; it is contended that the police acted in favour of the employer. On 17 October 1960, it is alleged, the employer locked out 13 workers as a reprisal against a peaceful strike, such lockout being contrary to the I.L.O. Constitution and International Labour Conventions and to the Constitution of Burma and being a violation of trade union freedom. The complainants demand that the dismissed workers be reinstated, their dismissal having been unlawful, and that the I.L.O and the Government of Burma take action against the employer.
2. 33. In its communication dated 9 March 1961 the Government stated that, on 15 October 1960, 12 of the 47 persons employed by the company struck work and refused to leave the factory premises after working hours; their actions being contrary to section 448 of the Penal Code, the police prosecuted them in the competent court. The court case was still pending. On 17 October 1960 the employer dismissed the persons concerned in the proceedings. The management contended that this dismissal was not a lockout within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the Burma Trade Disputes Act and did not infringe the principle of freedom of association or the Constitution of Burma. The remaining employees continued to work during the strike and the association which they had formed prior to the strike had since been registered under the Trade Union Act. The Government considered that the dismissal of employees who were being prosecuted was not an infringement of trade union rights.
3. 34. At its 28th Session (May 1961) the Committee observed that the versions of the facts given by the complainants and the Government differed in a number of respects and that there was disagreement as to whether the dismissal of the strikers was lawful or not. According to the Government a prosecution was still pending in the competent court. It appeared probable to the Committee that at least some of the points at issue would be resolved by the court.
4. 35. The Committee pointed out that in previous cases it has followed the practice of not proceeding to examine matters which were the subject of pending judicial proceedings, provided that these proceedings were attended by proper guarantees of due process of law, where the pending judicial proceedings might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations were well founded.
5. 36. In the present case, as the verdict of the competent court of law before which a prosecution of the strikers was pending might afford information of assistance to the Committee in evaluating the allegations before it, the Committee decided, before formulating its recommendations to the Governing Body, to request the Government to be good enough to inform the Committee of the outcome of the proceedings in question and to forward a copy of the judgment handed down. In those circumstances the Committee recommended the Governing Body to take note of its interim report, it being understood that the Committee would report further thereon when it had received the information requested from the Government.
6. 37. Further information is furnished by the Government in a communication dated 1 February 1962, in which the findings of the competent summary court are given. It appears from this communication that all the strikers who were prosecuted pleaded guilty in the competent court to a charge of criminal trespass, admitting that, after having staged a demonstration on their employer's premises, they remained there after working hours. They were arrested because they refused to leave. The court imposed fines, these being first offences, with the alternative of one month's imprisonment in default in each case.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 38. In view of the findings of the court that the persons concerned were dismissed for unlawful trespass on the employer's premises after working hours, to which charge they pleaded guilty, the Committee considers that the complainants have not furnished sufficient proof to show that the dismissal and prosecution of the persons concerned constituted, in this particular case, an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights.

39. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.