Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 160, Mars 1977

154. The Committee previously considered Case No. 834 in May 1976 and at its session of that date submitted to the Governing Body a report which is reproduced in paragraphs 236 to 249 of its 158th Report.

1. 154. The Committee previously considered Case No. 834 in May 1976 and at its session of that date submitted to the Governing Body a report which is reproduced in paragraphs 236 to 249 of its 158th Report.
2. 155. Case no. 851 concerns complaints that have not yet been considered by the Committee. These complaints, along with additional information submitted by the complainants, appear in the following communications: that of 3 June 1976 from the Greek Workers' Anti-Dictatorial Front (AEM); two communications; the first dated 11 June 1976, the other undated but received at the ILO on 9 August 1976, from the National Trade Union Movement for Workers' Defence (PASKE); two communications dated 23 June and 22 July 1976 from the world Confederation of Labour; and one communication dated 28 August 1976 from the United Anti-Dictatorial Trade Union Movement (ESAK).
3. 156. The Government sent its observations on both cases in three letters dated 19 August, 28 September and 8 November 1976.
4. 157. Allegations similar to those of Case No. 834 are an aspect of Case No. 851 and the Committee accordingly feels that it would be appropriate to consider both cases together.
5. 158. Greece has ratified 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

• Case No. 834
  159. 159 The AEM, which claims to represent tens of thousands of workers and employees, alleged that in 1975 the employers dismissed over 300 trade union leaders. According to the AEM, this represented a deliberate policy on the part of employers in order to maintain industrial peace as they wanted it, and the Government gave its backing to this tendency on the part of employers to dismiss trade unionists, whereas it could have taken specific measures to ensure the effective protection of those concerned. The complainant organisation mentioned, in particular, as measures which should be taken to this end the ratification of the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), and the extension to other persons of safeguards provided for in Emergency Law No. 1803 of 26 April 1951 on the protection of trade union leaders. It considered that these recurrent dismissals were considerably hampering industrial relations and, as examples, listed the dismissals which had taken place in several undertakings. In a subsequent letter the AEM communicated a further list of 35 undertakings which had carried out dismissals since the original complaint was submitted.
  160. 160 The Government said in its reply that it had introduced various measures to protect trade union rights and establish a truly independent trade union movement; referring to Greek legislation on the subject, that it was considering drawing up a Bill on workers' organisations which would extend the protection given by law; that it was studying the provisions of Convention No. 135 with a view to its ratification, but that the lack of legislation on this subject was causing difficulty; that it had to take into account the current state of economic development in the country and the situation in the Greek trade union movement; and that there were 3,400 unions, 97 workers' centres, 75 federations and 5 Confederations.
  161. 161 The Committee considered in its 158th Report that in view of the number of dismissals of trade union leaders and other trade unionists which had been alleged, it would be particularly desirable for the Government to carry out an inquiry in order to establish the true reasons for the measures taken. This inquiry might also provide an opportunity of assessing the effectiveness of the present legislation and the measures which might be taken to expand it, as the Government stated that it proposed to do, in a Hill under preparation. In these circumstances, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to keep it informed of any further developments.
  162. 162 The Government reported in its communication of 19 August 1976 that it had promulgated Act No. 330 of 1976 on occupational associations and unions and the guarantee of freedom of association. It described in detail the guarantees given by the Act to trade union representatives and workers in general in the exercise of legal trade union activities.
  163. 163 The Government added that the Ministry of Labour had held an inquiry into the alleged dismissals of trade union leaders and the reasons therefor which showed that most dismissals had not taken place because of trade union activities, but that a number of trade unionists who had carried out trade union activities had been dismissed. Where the information obtained showed that a penal offence had been committed the file had been passed to the appropriate official for legal action. A few dismissals had been found to be illegal under Articles 281 and 286 of the Civil Code; the law considered dismissals made for legal trade union activities as null and void and the civil courts were accordingly competent to deal with such cases. The Ministry of Labour had sent a circular (of which a copy was enclosed) to all its regional offices asking them to inform the competent legal authorities at once of any apparent or indirect infractions of the law, so that the offenders might be prosecuted.
  164. 164 The Committee notes the Government's information and, in view of the similarity of allegations considered in Case No. 851, refers to its conclusions on that case.
• Case No. 851
• Receivability of complaints
  165. 165 The complaints on this subject by the AEM, PASKE and ESAK were transmitted to the Government. In reply, the Government stated in its communication of 19 August 1976 that these organisations were in fact the trade union wings of certain political parties and were totally different in so far as their representativity was concerned from the other trade union organisations constituted in accordance with legal procedure. The Government added that there was no legal link between these organisations and the occupational associations and unions purporting to be affiliated members of them. It therefore considered that these organisations could not legitimately make complaints. The Government pointed out that the trade union leaders of the most important occupational organisations in Greece had sent a telegram to the ILO on 31 May 1976 recording their disagreement with the allegations made.
  166. 166 In accordance with current rules of procedure, the Director-General asked the AEM, PASKE and ESAK to give further details and any other information which would enable the character of these organisations to be more clearly ascertained.
  167. 167 The AEM had already stated in its complaint of 3 June 1976 that its trade union section comprised dozens of groups and workers' unions. It also stated with regard to Case No. 8342, that it represented tens of thousands of workers and employees in answer to the Director-General's request the AEM stated in a communication of 29 September 1976 that it had been formed in August 1967 during the military dictatorship and was then active underground; its purpose was to overthrow the dictatorship and unite all working-class forces to defend their rights. It was a trade union movement in the same way as ESAK, PASKE and ADEK were trade union movements; it was made up of first- and second-degree trade union organisations; unlike other organisations, it was not governed by statutes but by the Civil Code; it enjoyed complete legality and was working to unite working-class forces.
  168. 168 The ESAK stated that it had been founded in 1968 by leading trade unionists having leftist or other trade union leanings with the object of organising the struggle for the promotion of the interests of the Greek working class and the fight against the dictatorship, both within the country and also on behalf of the Greek seamen and Greek workers abroad. After the fall of the dictatorship, ESAK continued, its affiliates and its leaders took part in first and second-degree trade union elections (local branches, federations and labour centres) and also in the congress of the Greek General Confederation of Labour (CGCL). Out of the 35 members of the executive Committee of the CGCL, who had been appointed at the 18th Congress (10-11 April 1976), six were elected from the list submitted by ESAK, three from that submitted by PASKE and two from that submitted by the AEM; ESAK obtained similar representation in the big labour centres in the country; it controls the executive Committees of hundreds of trade union branches as well as some of the 45 federations, in particular the most important of these, the Panhellenic Federation of Construction Workers. In short, it concluded, ESAK is the most representative trade union group in the entire Greek trade union movement.
  169. 169 No reply has been received from PASKE.
  170. 170 However uncertain it may be whether these three organisations are trade union organisations, allegations substantially similar to theirs also appear, the Committee notes, in the complaint or additional information sent by the World Confederation of Labour, whose capacity as complainant is beyond dispute. Moreover, the Government has sent observations on the substance of the matter. The Committee considers that in those circumstances the only course open to it is to go on to examine the substance of the case.
• The complainants' allegations
  171. 171 The AEM states in its communication of 3 June 1976 that the above-mentioned Act No. 330 of 1976 does not protect Greek workers' trade union rights, but that the Government seeks by means of it to control the working-class movement and put a brake on strikes for the benefit of employers, capital and multinational enterprises.
  172. 172 More specifically, the complainant makes the following complaints:
       • (a) the law does not protect the 21 founder members of the provisional administration of a new association. Employers are daily dismissing workers who attempt to form an organisation (the Petrola-Latsis undertaking is a typical example of this) and, as a result, 700,000 persons have no trade union;
       • (b) Greece has taken no steps to ratify the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), which provides real protection for trade unionists and works councils;
       • (c) the Act restricts the right to strike (sections 34 and 35) and does not grant strikers permission to supervise strikes (section 40) to prevent extremists or suspects from mixing with the strikers, but allows employers to bring strike-breakers into towns and factories. It regards as illegal strikes declared by co-ordinating Committees where trade unions cannot be formed because of dismissals and other action taken against workers. It bans strikes against the Government on the pretext that they are political;
       • (d) the new Act has not abolished the institution of "political mobilisation of strikers"; thousands of workers were mobilised on 24, 25 and 26 May 1976 because they were against the law's being passed.
  173. The complainant adds that although the Government introduced amendments into the law under the pressure of a three-day strike, the objectives of the Act are essentially the same as before.
  173. 173 The World Confederation of Labour states in its communication of 23 June 1976 that 300,000 workers went on strike in protest against Act No. 330, which was then only a bill, and that the Government replied by using armoured vehicles against the strikers on 25 and 26 May, killing one person and injuring 160 others. It states that the law was passed with a few amendments which have altered nothing essential and that it is contrary to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, both of which Greece has ratified; freedom to form trade union organisations has been abolished and there are still restrictions on the right to strike; magistrates are empowered to declare a strike legal or illegal; and the law has already been used to dismiss 97 trade union activists in 17 undertakings between 26 May and 2 June 1976.
  174. 174 PASKE also protests against Act No. 330, which it states is completely contrary to International Labour Conventions and abolishes the workers' rights contained in such Conventions and the Constitution; it abolishes the right to strike, recognises and protects lockouts and strike-breaking devices and makes it legal to dismiss trade union leaders. It sets up strict direct control of workers' organisations and deprives workers of the right to take part in decision making affecting Greek national and political policy. PASKE also reports deliberate attempts to intimidate trade union leaders by systematic expulsions and waves of dismissals.
  175. 175 The World Confederation of Labour enclosed several documents on the trade union situation in Greece with its second comments on the trade union situation in Greece with its second communication of 22 July 1976. These include long lists of dismissed trade unionists (including members of trade union executives and of works Committees) and protests against dismissals. There is also a detailed criticism of Act No. 330 of 1976 emphasising the numerous restrictions on the right to strike although lockouts have been made legal. Mention is made of the lack of effective protection for workers and their leaders against dismissals for trade union activities, including strikes, and against other pressure by employers. Various legal restrictions on trade union activity under section 21 (on eligibility requirements) and section 31, subsection 2 (on the number of votes allotted to each organisation at assemblies of members of occupational associations) are also quoted.
  176. 176 PASKE states in its second communication that the main purpose of Act No. 330 is to deprive workers who are not members of trade unions of the right to strike and to make strikes difficult or impossible even when there is a trade union in the undertaking. It lists various provisions restricting the right to strike and states that the Government resorts to mobilising strikers. The complainant also refers to other restrictions imposed by the law, making special mention of trade union election procedure (sections 21 and 31 abovementioned) and protection against dismissal.
  177. 177 The ESAK communication of 28 August 1976 points to several provisions of Act No. 330 which it regards as contrary to International Labour Conventions. It specially mentions the provisions on strikes and sections 21 and 31 above-mentioned, and considers that too little protection is given to trade union leaders.
• The Government's reply
  178. 178 The Government states in a communication of 19 August 1976 that the complaints do not relate to concrete cases of violation of specific provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Not only has Greece ratified those Conventions but it fully applies them; once International Labour Conventions have been ratified they become an integral part of domestic law (under article 28 of the Greek Constitution) and prevail over any other provision of law; section 1 of Act No. 330 of 1976 refers to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and if any provision of that law were to be declared incompatible with the Conventions by the proper authority it could not be enforced. The Government accordingly considers that there are no grounds for pursuing the complaints.
  179. 179 It adds that Act No. 330 for the first time provides trade union leaders and workers in general with express guarantees against dismissal and also against any threat of dismissal for legal trade union activities. The Government refers particularly to section 6, subsections 2 and 3, section 261 and section 40, subsection 4 (combined with section 3, subsection 3 and section 5, subsection 2) of the new Act.
  180. 180 In answer to the allegation that 21 founder members of the provisional administration of a trade union are not protected, the Government points, in particular, to sections 3 and 5, section 40, subsection 4 and section 26, subsection 3, of the Act which, it says, protect trade union officials and employees against any antiunion discrimination.
  181. 181 The Government states that termination of a labour contract as a reprisal against the employee's taking part in legal trade union activities is null and void and that in any event dismissal of a worker on any of the above-mentioned grounds is null and void. As an example of the protection given by the new Act it points to a decision (of which it encloses a copy) given by a Court of First Instance in Thebes on 11 July 1976, following a complaint against an undertaking for illegally dismissing workers and impeding the formation of an occupational organisation; the representative of the company in question was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 drachmas, and each of the dismissed persons was awarded 8,000 drachmas damages, apart from the other consequences of the action complained of.
  182. 182 The Government denies that sections 34 and 35 of the Act place obstacles in the way of calling strikes. Far from this being the case, it says, there are various provisions guaranteeing untrammelled freedom to organise a strike and enabling workers to be fully informed, at least in so far as procedure is concerned, of the legality of doing so, necessary requirements and formalities being reduced to a minimum. The Government goes on to say that, in contrast to the position under previous legislation, the executive Committee's decision suffices for a mere work stoppage or for a strike called by an occupational union (such as a workers' centre, federation or Confederation) or by a national, regional or local occupational organisation. In addition, when the prior decision of the trade union's general assembly is required, section 34, subsection 1, last paragraph, relaxes the quorum of one quarter of members required when a second meeting has to be convened. Decisions on starting a strike are valid for two months workers who are not trade union members are entitled to strike, and if there is no trade union decisions to strike have to be taken by the executive Committee of the appropriate workers' centre.
  183. 183 On the subject of freedom to work in case of a strike, the Government states that the national Constitution guarantees the right to strike (in article 23, paragraph 2) but also the freedom of the individual and his right to unrestricted development of personality and participation in social, economic and political life. The Constitution protects the right to work and any contrary provision would accordingly be null and void. The Government also points to Article 8, paragraph 1, of Convention No. 87 which states that in exercising the rights provided for in the Convention, workers, like other persons or organised collectivities, are bound to respect the law of the land. Section 40, subsection 4(b) of Act No. 330, prescribing penalties, applies not only to strikers who, when their colleagues wish to work, hinder them from working, but also to persons obliging would-be strikers to work.
  184. 184 According to the Government, Act No. 330 does not contain any provision for political mobilisation of strikers and could not possibly contain one, in view of the fact that article 22, paragraph 3 of the national Constitution bans compulsory work of any kind and provides that requisitioning of personal services in case of war, mobilisation for national defence, and the like, shall be regulated by special laws. Presidential Decree No. 506 of 20 July 1974 proclaimed general mobilisation and is still in force because of the disagreement between Greece and Turkey; the few cases of political mobilisation were on this basis.
  185. 185 Regarding the allegations that strikes called by coordinating Committees are illegal, the Government replies that under article 23, paragraph 2 of the national Constitution, strikes have to be started by legally-constituted trade union organisations and unofficial strikes are therefore anti-Constitutional workers in an undertaking, concern, or section or branch of activity who are not trade union members are, however, free, under section 32, subsection 4 of Act No. 330, to take part in a strike called by the competent organisation. If the workers of an undertaking cannot form a trade union (for example, because they cannot find enough members) the decision to strike may be taken by the most representative workers' centre in the principal town in the district in which these persons are employed.
  186. 186 The Government goes on to say, with reference to strikes directed against the Government, that political strikes are prohibited not by the law but by the Constitution. This provides that a strike may not be organised except in connection with the defence and promotion of the workers' economic and occupational interests and their social security. Strikes called for the purpose mentioned by the complainants are accordingly banned and the Government contends that this is not contrary to the provisions of Convention No. 87. In support of its argument it quotes several of the Committee's previous decisions.
  187. 187 The Government says that for the time being at least it is unable to ratify the porkers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), because Greek law does not deal with staff delegates or works councils. The Government nevertheless considers that trade union representatives and workers in general enjoy adequate safeguards and in this connection quotes the foregoing decision of the Court in Thebes. In conclusion, it states that all workers without discrimination, only excepting magistrates and members of the security corps, enjoy the right to strike when the strike is called to defend and promote their economic and social interests. In contrast to the position in other countries, there are no restrictions to this right applying to certain categories of workers, nor any special bodies empowered to suspend the right if national economic life is adversely affected.
  188. 188 The Government adds in its communication of 28 September 1976 that the strike of 25 and 26 May 1976 was organised by extremist groups to impress the public and disturb the peace. These actions were denounced by all political parties represented in Parliament and even by responsible trade union organisations. The strikers had armed themselves in advance with sticks, stones and means of protection against tear gas. Of the 189 persons arrested for assaulting the police, 65 were schoolchildren and students, and the others members of various occupations including 24 carpenters, 21 employees in the private sector, 6 sailors, 5 tradesmen, etc. Legal action was taken against 37 of these persons and 30 of them received sentences in the Athens courts under Decision No. 15,498 of 29 May 1976. Of the 68 injured, 39 were police. One person was killed as the result of an accident; the victim was not a demonstrator but an old beggar woman who was crossing the road without regard for traffic and was dragged along by a passing police vehicle.
  189. 189 The Government states that Act No. 330 was promulgated on 29 May 1976 and came into force on 30 May. Dismissals before the latter date could not therefore have been made under it as the complainants allege. The new Act contained specific safeguards against dismissal and also against any threat of dismissal for trade union activities.
  190. 190 In its communication of 8 November 1976, the Government, basing itself on statistics, states that the number of dismissals in the country has decreased. In addition, it states that the complainants have wanted to link the ordinary dismissals which took place with the adoption of Act No. 330. The inquiries carried out by the Ministry of Labour, continues the Government, prove that the majority of dismissals took place for reasons unconnected with trade union activities. As an example, the Government cites the cases of the inquiries carried out in the following companies: Mylonas, Bougatsos, Trias, Tzortzos, Viofarm, Ladopoulos, Proel, the Athens paper factories Trikopi, Standard Hella and Vepsy (Salonika). The result, according to the Government, is that in only a few cases did the dismissal of trade union leaders take place, and these persons were reinstated as a result of the Ministry's intervention. In the case of the undertaking Vepsy, the Ministry took legal action against the company and the matter is now before the courts.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Conclusions of the Committee
  191. 191 The Committee proposes to concentrate on examining the provisions of Act No. 330 which, bearing in mind the complainants' allegations, call for comment in the light of the standards and principles of the Conventions on freedom of association.
  192. 192 The new Act contains a number of provisions designed to protect workers and their organisations against anti- union discrimination (see section 3, subsection 3, sections 5 and 26, and section 40, subsection 4). In particular, employers or their representatives are prohibited from requiring workers, as a condition of employment or continued employment, to make a declaration that they will not join a particular trade union or will leave that trade union or will join a particular trade union (section 5, subsection 2(b)). Moreover, termination of a labour contract is considered arbitrary when it is a reprisal for the employee's taking part in legal trade union activity (section 26, subsection 3). On the subject of trade union leaders and members of the provisional administration of an occupational organisation, the new Act prohibits dismissal of certain specified categories of these persons unless for serious cause. The extent of protection nevertheless varies according to the number of members of the organisation (see section 26); thus leaders of trade unions with a membership of less than 80 are not granted this special protection; and in organisations with a membership of between 80 and 100 only the President and General Secretary enjoy it, provided always that there is no other legally constituted trade union. The Act of 1914 concerning associations is not among the texts abrogated by section 41 of the new Act and it accordingly appears that the protective measures in section 23 of the Act of 1914 are still in force in so far as they are not at variance with Act No. 330.1
  193. 193 The effectiveness of guarantees offered by provisions such as those just quoted depends in the last resort on how they are applied in practice. In this respect, the Committee has already pointed out that so long as the protection against anti-union discrimination referred to in Article 1 of Convention No. 98, which has been ratified by Greece, is in fact given, methods adopted to safeguard workers against such practices may vary from one State to another; but if there is discrimination, the government concerned must take all necessary steps to eliminate it, whatever the methods normally used. The complainants quote a very large number of cases of dismissal in addition to those already mentioned in Case No. 834. Some of these took place after the new Act was passed. The Government transmitted the results of one inquiry and gave some specific examples concerning certain undertakings. It also mentioned the measures taken by the Ministry when the dismissal of trade union leaders was involved.
  194. 194 The Committee has emphasised, for example when last considering Case No. 8343, that protection against acts of antiunion discrimination is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to carry out their trade union functions in full independence, they must have the assurance that they will not be victimised by virtue of their trade union office. Moreover, as the Committee has seen in other cases, inadequate safeguards against anti-union discrimination may lead to the actual disappearance of trade unions composed only of the workers in an undertaking. It is relevant that the Workers' Representatives Convention and Recommendation of 1971 expressly state that workers' representatives in the undertaking should enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as workers' representatives or on union membership or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements. The Government repeats in this connection that for the time being it is unable to ratify Convention No. 135. The Committee nevertheless considers that additional means should be adopted to ensure fuller protection for heads of all organisations, and delegates and members of trade unions, against any discriminatory action.
  195. 195 The complainants also mention in their complaints section 21 of Act No. 330. One of the eligibility requirements for trade union office laid down in this provision is that the candidate must have belonged to the organisation for at least one year. This could be interpreted as meaning that all trade union leaders must be members of the occupation or work in the undertaking whose trade union represents the workers. In this event, if the requirement were applied to all office-holders in trade union organisations it would be incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.
  196. 196 Under section 31, subsection 2, mentioned by the complainants, the total number of votes allotted to each organisation at assemblies of members of occupational unions may not exceed one tenth of the total number of votes in the assembly. The Committee considers that this restriction is not compatible with Articles 6 and 3 of Convention No. 87, in accordance with which workers' and employers' organisations have the right to draw up their Constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, the public authorities refraining from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
  197. 197 The allegations also refer to sections 32 et seq. of Act No. 330 regulating the right to strike and making it subject to certain conditions. Thus prior notice must be given to the employer or his occupational organisation (section 33), a certain quorum must be observed and decisions to strike must be taken by secret ballot (section 34). Similarly, a strike organised by workers in public undertakings or those of vital importance may not be put into effect until after eight days from the date of ratification of the workers' claims and of the reasons for the decision to strike (sections 34, 35 and 36). Again, occupational organisations in all branches of activity must see to it that the staff necessary to ensure the safety of machinery and equipment, and prevent accidents and destruction, should continue to work, disagreements on who constitutes necessary staff being settled by the Administrative Arbitration Tribunal to which disputes have to be referred in the first instance. In the Committee's opinion these restrictions on the right to strike are no greater than those which it has considered acceptable in other cases.
  198. 198 Furthermore, a strike may be called only by a legally constituted and legally operating occupational organisation; workers who are not members of a trade union are accordingly not empowered to start a strike; but they may take part in it, and the "workers' centre" (the most representative one in the principal town in the district in which they are employed) may decide to call a strike in their place.
  199. 199 Article 3 of Convention No. 87 recognises the right of trade union organisations - i.e., workers' organisations for furthering and defending their occupational interests (Article 10) - to formulate their programme of action and organise their activities; this entails in particular the right to negotiate with employers and express their point of view on economic and social questions affecting their members' occupational interests. Because of the above-mentioned right which trade unions are recognised as having, the Committee has always considered that the right to strike is a legitimate and, indeed, an essential means whereby workers may promote and defend their occupational interests, and has expressed the opinion that purely political strikes are not within the scope of the principles of freedom of association. In these circumstances, it does not appear that making a right to call a strike the sole preserve of trade union organisations is incompatible with the standards of Convention No. 87.
  200. 200 Workers, especially their leaders in undertakings, must however be protected against any discrimination which might be exercised because of a strike called in these circumstances, and be able to form trade unions without being exposed to anti-union discrimination. The Committee feels that workers could be given fuller protection in this respect (see paragraphs 193 and 194 above).
  201. 201 In answer to the allegations on the mobilisation of workers during the strike of 24, 25 and 26 May 1976, the Government states that general mobilisation had been proclaimed, and is still in force because of the disagreement between Greece and Turkey; it says that the few cases of political mobilisation were on this basis. In the past, the Committee has on many occasions - some of them concerning cases referring to Greece - considered that it is undesirable to have recourse to such measures except for the purpose of maintaining essential services in circumstances of the utmost gravity; the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the possibility of abuse involved in the mobilisation or requisitioning of workers in industrial disputes.