Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 281, Mars 1992

1. 480. The General Confederation of Lebanese Workers (GCLW) presented a complaint of infringement of trade union rights against the Government of Lebanon in a letter dated 1 November 1991.
2. 481. The Government furnished its observations on the allegations in a letter dated 20 December 1991.
3. 482. Lebanon has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Allegations of the complainant organisation

1. 483. In it letter of 1 November 1991, the General Confederation of Lebanese Workers alleges that the Lebanese Government is taking arbitrary action against the trade union movement in Lebanon with a view to limiting the role of the GCLW and undermining trade union freedom in the Lebanon.
2. 484. According to the complainant organisation, a dispute arose between the Federation of Unions of Bank Employees (FUBE) and the Association of Lebanese Banks (ALB). The dispute bore on a number of points connected with the collective agreement governing relations between the FUBE and the ALB, which is renewed every two years if necessary in the light of employment circumstances and of the increase in prices as a result of inflation, the constant rise in the cost of living caused by the situation in the Lebanon and the considerable decline in the purchasing power of the Lebanese pound which has resulted in a drop in the real value of salaries.
3. 485. According to the complainant organisation, the Minister of Labour called the two parties together and, with a view to avoiding a strike in the banking sector, imposed solutions to settle the points at issue. After officially announcing in a press release the clauses of the agreement that had been reached, he notified the Council of Ministers, which emphasised the role played by the Minister of Labour in bringing the crisis to an end.
4. 486. Following the failure of the ALB to respect and implement the agreement, the FUBE sought the intervention of the Minister of Labour to secure the application of the agreement. The complainant organisation alleges that at this point the Minister took the ALB's side, disregarding his own previous statements. The FUBE then fixed a date for a strike in the banking sector if the clauses of the agreement were not respected. Faced with the threatened strike, the Minister did nothing to prevent it but, in fact, left Lebanon on the day it was due to be held.
5. 487. The complainant organisation states that on 25 May 1991, the day following the strike which was observed in an organised manner by 15,000 bank employees in all the banks operating in Lebanon, police officers raided certain banks, arrested several employees belonging to the works council and the executive committee of the FUBE, and held them at a police station. The trade union federations reacted immediately; their executive committees held extraordinary meetings to examine the events. The GCLW convened the executive committee to a meeting on the matter and decided to organise a general strike in Lebanon if the arrested trade unionists were not released immediately. The employees of the Central Bank also threatened to resort to strike action unless the arrested employees were released and the agreement applied. The GCLW considered what had occurred to constitute an attack on trade union and democratic freedoms.
6. 488. The GCLW relates that, after five days' strike and the release of the arrested employees, the President of the Council of Ministers convened a joint meeting with the ALB and the FUBE, putting pressure on them to resolve the crisis in the banking sector - even to the detriment of some of the employees' rights and despite the fact that workers in Lebanon were no longer able to cope with the cost of living.
7. 489. The organisation then refers to a second case of police repression against trade unions, which it maintains was instigated by the Minister of Labour himself, concerning the suspension of elections in the Union of Drivers of North Lebanon (UDNL). After securing prior authorisation from the Minister of Labour, and in compliance with the policy of the GCLW concerning the need to renew the executive committees of trade unions and federations, the UDNL had organised elections. On the day of the elections, however, the Minister requested the union to postpone them without giving any reasons for this. The UDNL maintained the date it had set and, in accordance with Lebanese law, called in a solicitor to supervise and confirm the legality of the elections.
8. 490. Still according to the complainant organisation, police officers raided the UDNL premises while the elections were being held, forcibly suspended the elections by the use of arms, cleared the premises of everyone present and took the president of the union away to a police station. Notified of this incident, the president, general secretary and several members of the executive of the GCLW, as well as the president and members of the Road Transport Federation, met at the union's headquarters in Tripoli and had an official report of the incident drawn up before a solicitor. The electoral lists were given to the president of the GCLW and to the delegation accompanying him. At his request, the elections were continued the same day.
9. 491. The GCLW alleges more generally that the Minister of Labour is applying sanctions against it by opposing everything related to workers' rights and, in particular, blocking projects concerning the National Social Security Fund, thereby affecting the persons insured. The Confederation maintains that he is deliberately preventing all participation by the GCLW at conferences to which it is invited, in particular those of the ILO, either by concealing information or by refusing to finance the travel costs of a delegation of the Confederation or to offer any financial assistance for this purpose. The complainant organisation points out that this matter was already the subject of an official complaint presented by the GCLW to the ILO during the Conference in June 1991.
10. 492. The GCLW concludes that the practices carried out by the Lebanese Government, through the Minister of Labour, are an infringement of trade union and democratic freedoms and thereby restrict the role of the GCLW; it maintains that these practices are likely to get worse and to infringe upon trade union rights of Lebanese workers, thereby destroying one of the fundamental pillars of freedom and democracy in Lebanon.

B. The Government's reply

1. 493. It its letter of 20 December 1991, the Government regrets that some of the officers of the GCLW should have presented a complaint against the Government of Lebanon, in the person of the Minister of Labour, making inaccurate and unjustified accusations against him. It states that, contrary to the allegations, the Government's social policy in general and in the labour field in particular, consists in reorganising and reshaping the social system and the social relations and values severely damaged by the long war. To this end, it has set up a number of study committees to improve workers' and employers' relations and it keeps watch on the observance of laws and regulations guaranteeing trade union rights.
2. 494. Concerning the crisis in the banking sector, the Government explains that the Minister of Labour tried, by means of conciliation, to find a solution that would be favourable to the employees but without undermining the interests of the employers. The Government states that the manner in which he dealt with the problem was well received in labour circles, as could be seen from the demonstrations of support and the thanks expressed by trade union leaders on several occasions, and especially with regard to the renewal of the collective agreement in the banking sector.
3. 495. As regards the allegations that the Minister did nothing to prevent the strike, when the first attempt to renew the collective agreement failed and there was a threat of strike action, the Government states that the Minister's services followed the matter with interest and that the Minister himself brought the parties together and spared no effort until an agreement had been adopted. Subsequently, the Minister had been thanked for his work in both radio and television communiqués.
4. 496. As regards the incidents during the strike in May 1991, the Government relates that after the strike had been announced the employees were divided between an overriding majority who were in favour of resuming work, since their claims had been met, and a very small demagogical and manipulated minority who refused to go back to work. Some groups allegedly headed for the banks which were still operating, to make trouble and threaten the employees into stopping work. One of the bank directors then requested police assistance to preserve discipline and the safety of the employees against the irresponsible behaviour of their colleagues. Four or five persons, who did not hold responsible positions, were arrested and then released two or three hours later when the disturbances had quietened down. The Government points out that the maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior and not of the Ministry of Labour. It also explains that, when some of the FUBE officials realised that the strike was not going to achieve their aims, they contacted several officials to bring it to an end and extricate themselves from the difficult situation they were in as a result of the workers' unfavourable reaction. After several contacts, the Prime Minister persuaded them to go back to the agreement that had previously been drawn up under the auspices of the Minister of Labour. At a further meeting, a definitive agreement that was fair and safeguarded the rights of all parties was approved.
5. 497. As regards the allegations in connection with the UDNL elections, the Government emphasises that the policy followed by the Ministry of Labour is to respond unreservedly to all requests made by trade unions and federations to organise elections with a view to renewing their executive committees; during the term of office of the present Government several applications complying with the requirements of the Labour Code have been approved.
6. 498. After the Road Transport Federation had requested and secured authorisation to organise elections on 25 October 1991, a large number of drivers who wanted to join the union after 16 years of war presented petitions containing hundreds of signatures and requested the Ministry of Labour to postpone the elections. The Government states that on 21 October 1991 the Minister took the decision to postpone the elections. Despite this decision, taken at the request of the drivers themselves, some trade unionists insisted on going ahead with the elections. Incidents occurred that necessitated the intervention of the police to safeguard security in a country that wishes to see an end to violence, that is going through a difficult transitional period and is in dire need for calm and security.
7. 499. As regards the application of sanctions against the GCLW and the alleged opposition to workers' rights, the Government states that, for the first time, Lebanon is witnessing the preparation of various projects concerning social benefits for workers, such as transport allowances, education grants and an increase in family allowances. The services of the Ministry of Labour are now in the process of drawing up the necessary decrees whereby these measures will be applied.
8. 500. As regards the alleged ban on the participation of the GCLW in international or regional conferences, the Government states that this is incorrect. Proof of this can be seen in the composition of the Lebanese delegation to the ILO Conference in June 1991, which included representatives of the State, the GCLW and employers.
9. 501. The Government concludes its observations by affirming that it categorically rejects the complaint because it is inaccurate, unjustified and includes major errors intended to cover up the inability of certain GCLW leaders to attract workers whom the war has weakened and who now need calm and serenity in order to resume work and production, free from demagogues and troublemakers.

C. The Committe's conclusions

1. 502. The Committee observes that the allegations in this case relate to arbitrary actions against the trade union movement in Lebanon aimed at restricting the role of the GCLW.
2. 503. The complainant organisation alleges that the Minister of Labour put pressure on the parties negotiating the renewal of the collective agreement governing relations in the banking sector; that he changed his position after the agreement had been concluded, and then favoured the employers (ALB); that he did nothing to implement the agreement and to avoid the strike announced by the FUBE following the ALB's failure to respect the agreement; and that once again, after five days' strike, he exerted pressure to settle the crisis to the detriment of the workers' rights. The Committee observes that the Government states that before the strike took place the Minister brought the parties together, that he spared no effort to reach an agreement and that the agreement, when it was reached, was well received in labour circles. After the strike began and following several contacts between the parties, the Prime Minister convinced the parties to approve a definitive agreement.
3. 504. The Committee considers that the information at its disposal does not allow it to conclude that the Lebanese authorities intervened in collective bargaining on conditions of employment in the banking sector in such a way as to limit this right or impede the legal exercise thereof, in violation of Article 4 of Convention No. 98.
4. 505. As regards the incidents that took place on the occasion of the strike which began on 24 May 1991, the Committee observes that the versions of the facts differ. According to the complainant organisation, the police raided certain banks, arrested several employees who were members of the works council or executive committee of the FUBE and held them at a police station. The Committee notes that the Government states it was following the request of a bank director that the police intervened in order to preserve the safety of the employees and maintain discipline against irresponsible activities by a small minority who refused to resume work and were trying to prevent their colleagues from doing so. Four or five persons who did not hold positions of responsibility were arrested and released only some hours later. In view of the contradictions between the statements of the Government and of the complainant organisation, the Committee requests the complainant organisation to transmit its comments on the Government's reply.
5. 506. The Committee observes that the Government's statement according to which the Prime Minister, after several contacts, convinced the parties to agree definitively to respect the accord they had previously reached does not seem to be denied by the complainant organisation, even if the latter alleges that the crisis in the banking sector was settled under pressure and to the detriment of the employees' rights. Noting that the GCLW does not specify the nature of the pressure exerted or how the employees' rights were undermined, the Committee considers that this point calls for no further examination.
6. 507. As regards the allegation that the Minister of Labour decided unilaterally and without justification to postpone the trade union elections organised by the UDNL, the Committee notes the Government's explanation that this decision was taken following and as a result of a postponement request made by the workers themselves, who wished to become union members before the elections. As regards the allegations concerning the intrusion of the police, their suspension of the elections and the forced evacuation of the union premises, the Committee notes the Government's reply according to which this action was necessary in the interests of security, which was threatened by the desire of a few trade union members to maintain the elections on the original date, against the wishes of the majority of workers concerned. Noting that the elections finally took place under the supervision of a solicitor, the Committee nevertheless wishes to recall that intervention by the public authorities in trade union elections runs the risk of appearing to be arbitrary and thus constituting interference in the functioning of workers' organisations. (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 455.) It recalls the importance it attaches to the right of workers freely to organise trade union elections and to elect their trade union leaders.
7. 508. Considering that the allegations concerning the application by the Minister of Labour of sanctions against the complainant organisation are of a very general nature, and noting that they are not supported by specific examples, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case calls for no further examination.
8. 509. Since the question of representation at the International Labour Conference falls within the competence of the Conference Credentials Committee, it is not for the Committee to express an opinion on the allegation that the Minister of Labour deliberately prevented the GCLW from participating in the Conferences to which it was invited.
9. 510. Finally, the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement that its social and labour policy aims at reorganising and restructuring the social relations and values that had been severely damaged by a long war and that, to this end, it has set up several study committees. The Committee notes nevertheless with some concern, that the Government justifies the intervention of the police in two trade union events by the need to safeguard order and security in a country that wishes to see an end to violence, that is going through a difficult transitional period and is in dire need for calm and security. Unless the exercise of the essential trade union right to hold meetings disturbs public order or threatens it in a serious and imminent way, which did not seem to be the case here, the authorities should refrain from any intervention in the holding of trade union meetings.