Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 287, Juin 1993

1. 38. The Committee already examined this case at its February 1992 meeting, when it presented interim conclusions (281st Report, paras. 480 to 511, approved by the Governing Body at its 250th Session).
2. 39. The General Confederation of Lebanese Workers (GCLW) subsequently sent additional information in a communication dated 15 October 1992. The Government replied in a communication dated 27 January 1993.
3. 40. Lebanon has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87) but it has ratified the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 41. The allegations still pending in this case concern incidents which occurred during a strike in the banking sector which began on 24 May 1991. The GCLW had alleged that police officers raided certain banks, arrested several employees belonging to the works' council and the executive committee of the Federation of Unions of Bank Employees (FUBE) and held them at a police station. For its part, the Government had replied that one of the bank directors had requested police assistance to preserve discipline and the safety of the employees against the irresponsible behaviour of a small minority who had refused to go back to work. Four or five persons, who did not hold responsible positions, were arrested and then released a few hours later.
2. 42. At its February 1992 meeting, the Committee had made the following recommendation (see 281st Report, para. 511):
3. In view of the contradictions between the statements of the Government and the complainant as regards the events which occurred during the strike called on 24 May 1991, the Committee requests the complainant organization to transmit its comments on the Government's reply.
4. B. Additional information from the complainant organization
5. 43. In its communication of 15 October 1992, the GCLW points out that, contrary to the statement by the Government, the strike of 24 May 1991 was well supported by employees in the banking sector on four consecutive days.
6. 44. The GCLW also points out that to ensure the smooth running of the strike, the trade union of banking employees had despatched its officials on the spot and that the latter were arrested by the police not at the request of one of the ordinary directors but of the President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr. Adnan Kassar.
7. 45. Finally, the complainant organization states that the suspension of the strike and the release of the persons arrested were not due to any attempts to resolve the impasse but to the fact that the trade union had succeeded in maintaining the strike for four days and that the GCLW had threatened to launch a general strike to protest against violations of trade union freedoms, as a result of which the Prime Minister brought the parties together with a view to reaching an agreement on the dispute.
8. C. Subsequent reply by the Government
9. 46. In its communication of 27 January 1993, the Government reiterates its previous reply that, following the withdrawal by the trade union of bank employees of its approval of an agreement concluded by the representatives of employees and employers in the banking sector and its decision to call a strike, some of the strikers organized pickets at the banks and tried, according to the owners and directors of the banks, to persuade the many employees who wanted to continue their work to follow the strike. In order to protect individual and public freedoms, the director of one of the banks then requested the intervention of the competent authorities, i.e. the Ministry of the Interior, to prevent the imposition of the strike by force in his bank. Four or five persons were arrested for three hours. On learning of these detentions, the Ministry of Labour requested the Ministry of Interior to order the release of the persons in question.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 47. The Committee regrets first of all that the additional information provided by the complainant organization and the reply from the Government merely repeat the information already available to the Committee and do not significantly clarify the circumstances in which the incidents occurred during the strike which began on 24 May 1991.
2. 48. However, the Committee notes that the arrests of strikers were not denied by the Government. In these circumstances, the Committee must recall the great importance which it attaches to the principle that the arrest and 9etention - even if only briefly - of trade union leaders and trade unionists for exercising legitimate trade union activities constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 88).
3. 49. Emphasizing also that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in serious situations where law and order is seriously threatened (Digest, op. cit., para. 431) and that the action of pickets organized in accordance with the law should not be subject to interference by the public authorities (Digest, op. cit., para. 432), the Committee requests the Government to ensure that in future workers' organizations may freely have recourse to strike as a legitimate means of defending the economic and social interests of their members and that the public authorities refrain from imprisonment or other measures in the event of the organization of, or participation in, a peaceful strike.