Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 93, 1967

1. 34. The complaint was submitted by a letter dated 3 March 1965 from the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International (P.T.T.I.). The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (I.C.F.T.U.) supported the complaint in a letter dated 16 March 1965.
2. 35. Ecuador has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 36. P.T.T.I's complaint contains detailed allegations respecting acts of interference by the public authorities in the affairs of the National Federation of Telecommunications Employees (FENETEL), which is affiliated to the complaining organisation. Among these acts mention is made of a ministerial order dated 14 April 1964 ordering changes in the by-laws of the Federation and dissolving its executive committee; the imposition of a new committee sponsored by the Telecommunications Company; the suspension of the payment of members' contributions to the executive committee of the Federation; the expulsion of that committee from the Federation's headquarters and the transfer of its property to the " company union "; interference with a congress held in October 1964, and the dismissal from his job of the General Secretary of the Federation, Mr. José Maria Larco Vera. The complainants also allege that on 26 February 1965 a warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr. Larco Vera. The complaining organisation requests the intervention of the I.L.O to secure withdrawal of this warrant, put an end to the Government's acts of interference in the internal affairs of the Federation and ensure recognition of the dissolved executive committee.
2. 37. At its November 1965 session, the Committee, observing that the Government's answer dated 19 May 1965 did not specifically refer to the allegations made by the complainant, requested the Director-General to obtain the relevant further information and meanwhile adjourned further examination of the case. This decision was notified to the Government in a letter dated 26 November 1965. At its February 1966 session the Committee decided once again to postpone examination of the case, as it still had not received the additional information requested from the Government. The Government was informed of this decision by a letter dated 7 March 1966.
3. 38. By a communication dated 28 March 1966 the Government forwarded a copy of a letter signed by Mr. José Benitez Coli, President of FENETEL, and sent to the Regional Director of P.T.T.I on 10 March 1966. The signatory of this letter, emphasising that FENETEL was functioning normally and was protected by the guarantees afforded under the law and that the good relations which existed between that organisation and P.T.T.I had been re-established, requested the latter organisation to withdraw its complaint. The Government therefore asked that the case be closed.
4. 39. At its May 1966 session the Committee, not having received any communication from the complaining organisation as to whether or not it intended to withdraw its complaint, observed that the withdrawal of a complaint raised a procedural point which the Committee had already been called upon to examine in the past. In Case No. 66 (Greece) the Committee had expressed the view that the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw its complaint, while constituting a factor to which the greatest attention must be paid, was not in itself sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. It considered in this respect that it should be guided by the conclusions approved by the Governing Body in 1937 and 1938 with regard to two representations submitted by the Madras Labour Union for Textile Workers and by the Société de Bienfaisance des Travailleurs de l'Ile Maurice, in accordance with article 23 of the Constitution of the Organisation (now article 24). The Governing Body at that time established the principle that, from the moment that a representation was submitted to it, it alone was competent to decide what effect should be given to it, and that " the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not receivable or is not well founded ". The Committee considered that, in implementing this principle, it was free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether they appeared sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the withdrawal was made in complete independence.
5. 40. Under these circumstances the Committee considered it advisable, before proceeding with the examination of the case, to request the complaining organisation to be good enough to state how the matter stands and indicate whether it desires to maintain its complaint or, if not, what reasons it has for not wishing the matter to be pursued further. The Committee, therefore, requested the Director-General to seek this additional information from P.T.T.I, adjourning in the meantime its examination of the case. This decision was communicated to P.T.T.I by a letter dated 8 June 1966.
6. 41. In a communication dated 16 September 1966 P.T.T.I states that the problem of FENETEL to which the complaint relates has been satisfactorily settled thanks to the intervention of the Regional Office of the complaining organisation, and that, moreover, the Government against which the complaint was made is no longer in power. In these circumstances the complaining organisation considers that it would be purposeless to examine the matter further. It expresses regret, however, that the procedure for the consideration of complaints of violation of freedom of association submitted to the I.L.O. " is such as to rule out in practice the possibility of the I.L.O making an impact at the right time " in situations such as that which arose in the case of FENETEL.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 42. The Committee considers that the reasons given by P.T.T.I for withdrawing the complaint are sufficient to justify it in closing the matter. Further, as the complaint was presented by an international organisation, it can be confidently presumed that the decision to withdraw it has been taken in complete independence. As regards the views expressed by the complainant with respect to the existing procedure for the examination of complaints of violations of trade union rights submitted to the International Labour Organisation, it is difficult to see in which precise context those views are presented. In any case, the expression of these views does not appear to add any new allegations to the complaint concerning which the Committee is called upon to give its opinion.