Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 145, 1974

1. 21. The complaint of the University and Allied Workers' Union (UAWU) is contained in communications to the ILO dated 27 April, 30 May and 7 June 1973. The Government sent its observations in a letter dated 19 February 1974.
2. 22. Jamaica has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 23. In its communication of 27 April 1973, the complainant alleges that in October 1972 there was a strike by members of the union against the management of the University of the West Indies at Mona. With officers of the Ministry of Labour and Employment acting as conciliators, a resumption-of-work agreement was signed, one of the clauses of which provided that "There will be no victimisation of workers who went on strike, and other union personnel, provided, however, that this clause shall not be regarded as altering or amending the contractual obligations and duties which any person owes to the University."
2. 24. Two of the persons active in the strike were Dr. Trevor Munroe, Vice-President of the UAWU and lecturer at the University in question, and Mr. Robert Figueroa, a member of the union's financial and strike Committees. In December 1972, these trade unionists were notified that they were to be brought before the Professional Committee of Academics (a university tribunal) on charges such as intimidation, obstruction and uttering grossly offensive statements, all based on incidents which had taken place during the strike. It is of these proceedings that the union complains, on the grounds that they are in violation of the non-victimisation clause of the resumption agreement and in breach of International Labour standards, and in particular, of Article 1 of Convention No. 135 concerning workers' representatives.
3. 25. The complainant also alleges that the Ministry of Labour and Employment has refused to intervene in the matter and that the Government of Jamaica, through its representative on the university management, has agreed to these proceedings.
4. 26. In its letter of 19 February 1974, the Government replies that there was indeed a strike in October 1972, at the University of the West Indies at Mona. The Ministry of Labour and Employment intervened and it quotes a statement of Dr. Munroe praising "the considerable and crucial role played by the Ministry of Labour and Employment in these conciliation proceedings".
5. 27. Subsequently, according to the Government, the university authorities charged Dr. Munroe and Mr. Figueroa with serious misconduct. At the request of the UAWU the Ministry of Labour and Employment contacted the university authorities with a view to examining the matter but the university took the position that the question was a purely internal one respecting the contractual obligations to the university of Dr. Munroe and Mr. Figueroa, and that it did not constitute a trade dispute. The Ministry contacted the university's lawyers, requesting the relevant documents, but these were not forthcoming. The Government states that it understands that in the meantime the Professional Committee of Academics has handed in its reports to Messrs. Munroe and Figueroa and that the matter now rests in the hands of the University Council.
6. 28. The Government explains that the Ministry of Labour and Employment, through the conciliation services of its Industrial Relations Division, is always ready and willing to mediate in any existing trade dispute, but the Ministry has not the legal right nor is it common practice for it to compel either employers' or employees' representatives to attend at the Ministry for purposes of conciliation unless the service affected is one of the essential services listed in the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Services Arbitration Law. The Ministry could, therefore, proceed no further in the matter, which the university authorities claimed was not a dispute but a breach of contract on the part of Dr. Munroe and Mr. Figueroa and which was being dealt with in accordance with procedures laid down by the University Council for dealing with disciplinary matters. The Government notes further that Dr. Munroe himself accepted the jurisdiction of the university tribunal by indicating his intention to exercise his right to appear before it, to be legally represented and to call witnesses.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 29. The Committee notes that the views expressed by the parties involved in this case are to a large extent contradictory and it would be difficult for the Committee to reach a conclusion on the matters raised. However, the Committee wishes to set forth certain general considerations in connection with these matters.
2. 30. The Committee notes that proceedings are now in progress before the University Council of the University of the West Indies and that therefore no final decision has yet been taken by the employer of Messrs. Munroe and Figueroa, namely, the University of the West Indies. The Committee hopes that in reaching this decision, due account will be taken of the principle that trade union officials must not suffer prejudice by reason of their trade union activities. In general terms this principle does not necessarily imply that the fact that a person holds a trade union office confers on him immunity against measures such as dismissal irrespective of the circumstances. The activities of trade union officials should, however, be considered in the context of particular situations which may be especially strained and difficult in cases of labour disputes and strike action. In the present case, an additional element to be considered is the no-victimisation clause included in the resumption-of-work agreement.
3. 31. More generally, the Committee wishes to stress once again that complaints against anti-union practices should normally be examined by national machinery. Although it would be desirable to settle grievances relating to acts of anti-union discrimination wherever possible by discussion without treating the process of determining grievances as a form of litigation, in cases where there arise differences of opinion, resort should be had to impartial bodies or individuals representing the final step of the grievance procedure.