Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 286, Mars 1993

1. 291. In its communication of 16 September 1992, the Democratic Labour Federation of Cyprus (DEOK) presented a complaint against the Government of Cyprus alleging violations of trade union rights. The complainant organization provided further information in its communication of 18 September 1992.
2. 292. The Government presented its own observations in a communication dated 15 January 1993.
3. 293. Cyprus has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 294. In its complaint, DEOK alleges that at 9.30 a.m. on 16 September 1992, the police arrested the Limassol harbour guards who were on strike, the Secretary of the Limassol Association of Unions, the Secretary of the Harbour Workers' Union and a member of the Executive Committee of the harbour section of the Cyprus Civil Servants' Union.
2. 295. The complainant organization points out that the harbour guards had been on strike since 4 September, following unsuccessful efforts to reach a negotiated agreement on claims submitted the year before by the harbour workers' unions.
3. 296. At the time of the police intervention, the workers were picketing peacefully in front of the main entrance to the port of Limassol. One of the individuals arrested, the Secretary of the Association of Unions, was collecting donations for the strike fund and not involved in picketing. The Secretary of the Harbour Workers' Union was arrested while on his way to the entrance to find out what was happening.
4. 297. The police used force before making arrests, injuring one of the strikers, who had to be taken by ambulance to a nearby clinic.
5. 298. According to DEOK, the police action was illegal and in violation of the Constitution, article 27 of which guarantees the right to strike, and the Trade Unions Law, which safeguards the right to engage in peaceful picketing.
6. 299. The complainant organization goes on to state that the individuals arrested were released at 2 p.m. on the same day after being charged; it regards these measures, which had probably never been used before in the history of the Republic, as a dangerous precedent.
7. 300. Finally, DEOK emphasizes that the Board of Directors of the Cyprus Port Authority and the Minister of Communications remained silent throughout the 13-day strike and did not move from their position. Not until 15 September did the Minister meet a workers' delegation, and even then he refused to consider their claims.
8. 301. In its communication of 18 September 1992, DEOK pointed out that the strike was continuing. On the same day at 7.30 a.m., a strike picket was organized. Less than five minutes later, the police arrived on the scene and informed the strikers that they had orders to arrest them. The strikers were then taken to police stations in Limassol and detained there for almost seven hours. They were charged and finally released.
9. 302. Following protests by DEOK's legal adviser, the Attorney General in Nicosia ordered the release of the strikers and demanded access to the relevant files in order to give a ruling on the legality of the police action. The police pointed out that the arrests had been made because of obstruction to traffic in the harbour area. Members of the Cyprus Civil Servants' Union came out in sympathy for two hours. According to DEOK, the Government and Port Authorities are still refusing to negotiate. The General Secretary of DEOK has suggested that the Minister of Labour might act as a mediator, but despite the willingness of the latter to do so, nothing has so far come of this.

B. The Government's reply

1. 303. In its communication of 15 January 1993, the Government passed on the comments of the Police and Harbour Authorities concerned. It points out that in the view of the Attorney General who had been consulted, the allegations made by DEOK that the arrested strikers were only engaged in peaceful picketing were unfounded, and there had been no infringement of the constitutional or trade union rights of the strikers, either intended or otherwise. On the contrary, offences had been committed by them, and had led to their arrest in accordance with the law.
2. 304. The observations of the police are contained in a letter dated 12 October 1992, which was written in response to a request for information made by the Government on 18 September 1992 concerning the DEOK complaint. In this letter, the police confirmed that on 4 September 1992 11 harbour guards had gone on strike in support of their claims. In the course of the strike, they had hung some banners bearing union slogans on the railings of the main entrance to the new harbour and had mounted strike pickets in front of the gate and by the entrance to the container area between 7.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. From time to time, they also formed a human chain to obstruct the harbour entrance. The obstruction lasted for about one hour a day and caused severe bottlenecks, with both pedestrians and vehicles being refused entry by the strikers. Furthermore, the presence of a crowd of workers, drivers and other port employees at the port entrance and exit posed a real threat to public order, obliging the police to remain on duty to prevent any incidents arising between strikers and persons prevented from entering the port area on their normal business.
3. 305. On 11 September, the Deputy Commander of the Port and Naval Police informed Mr. Panicos Mamonides, a DEOK union representative of the guards of the Cyprus Port Authority, Limassol, that the strikers must not block the port entrance or exit and must cease to impede traffic. Mr. Mamonides replied that the blockade was the sole means available to the strikers of enforcing their claims and that they could not end it. The Harbour Master asked the police on several occasions, both verbally and in writing, to take steps to ensure that vehicles and pedestrians were not obstructed by the strikers when entering or leaving the port.
4. 306. At about 8 a.m. on 15 September 1992, the strikers and their leaders, Mr. Soteriades and Mr. Mamonides, blocked the vehicles' and pedestrians' entrances and exits by forming a human chain. At 9 a.m. they were warned by the Deputy Commander of the Port and Naval Police that they must clear the entrances and allow pedestrians and traffic to move freely. They were also told that they could continue their strike nearby but that they would be arrested if they refused to free the entrances. Having failed to comply with this order by 9.30 a.m., nine of them, together with the two leaders, were arrested in accordance with the law. They were released at 2 p.m. on the same day but charged with serious misconduct under section 188(d) of the Penal Code and with obstructing the free movement of vehicles carrying goods into the port (sections 15 and 128 of the 1976 of the Harbour Authorities Regulations). In addition, the DEOK leader Mr. Soteriades was accused of assaulting the Deputy Commander of the Port and Naval Police. The individuals arrested were not manhandled by the police. On the other hand, one of the DEOK leaders jostled the Deputy Commander of the Port and Naval Police. As regards the harbour guard, Xenophon Theologou, who, according to the allegations, was pushed to the ground and injured, he chose to lie on the ground near the main entrance as soon as the police started making arrests and stayed there, apparently in order to avoid arrest or to obstruct the entrance to the port. He was not arrested, having left the scene of the strike when the arrests started. At about 10.20 a.m. he went to the police and reported the loss of a ring and some car keys near the entrance gate. These events were repeated at about 7.30 a.m. on 18 September: a human chain was formed at the instigation of Mr. Prentzas, General Secretary of DEOK and a Member of Parliament. Police warnings, obstruction, protests by non-strikers and arrests ensued. Those detained were released by 1 p.m. on the same day and the same charges were made as before.
5. 307. Finally, the police contend that the strikers and their leaders were arrested on the grounds that they had committed offences; the police did not resort to excessive force, on the contrary, it was the Deputy Commander of the Port and Naval Police who was assaulted by one of the union leaders while performing his duty of maintaining order.
6. 308. In a letter dated 11 November 1992, the representative of the General Director of the Port Authorities pointed out that the harbour guards had submitted a request for changes to their schedule and a reassessment of their posts. The request was discussed on numerous occasions by the Joint Staff Committee (MEPALC), in accordance with the procedures accepted by the union and the Port Authorities. A copy of the MEPALC regulations is appended. Lengthy discussions took place but ended in deadlock. At the union's own request, the dispute was referred for mediation to the Minister of Communications. The Minister heard both sides on two occasions and on 11 August 1992 decided not to raise the harbour guards' pay scales above the level proposed by the Port Authorities. The harbour guards did not accept the Minister's ruling and started an indefinite strike on 4 September. This became a hunger strike on 29 September. The other four unions, which represent 95 per cent of the port workers, did not agree to the strike. They include the Cyprus Civil Servants' Union (PASYDY), to which most of the harbour guards belong. Since the strike was not endorsed by PASYDY it constituted an infringement of Union Law 71/65, as amended in 1992. It was in order to overcome this difficulty that the strikers joined DEOK.
7. 309. The representative of the General Director of the Port Authorities explains that until now, rulings given by the Minister of Communications had always been respected, and that they were binding both on the employer and on the unions. Had the ruling been in the union's favour, the Port Authorities would have abided by it, as they have always done in the past. They believed that the union would do the same, especially since it was the union that sought the Minister's mediation, and since both the authorities and the other four unions had respected the procedure. According to MEPALC regulations, issues on which discussion had been closed by the Joint Committee without agreement being reached could only be reconsidered after at least one year had passed. DEOK should accept this condition, since it had been instrumental in adopting it.
8. 310. In conclusion, the representative of the General Director of the Port Authorities considers that the strikers obstructed work in the port, blocked the entrance, and created difficulties for people wishing to enter or leave and for port workers and users. All this was in violation of union rules, current regulations, and the Penal Code. The strikers had not been mistreated, as shown by the fact that they had put up a tent in the port area, had been able to move freely and were obstructing port activities. The police had certainly made sure that a breach of the law had occurred before making arrests. He further pointed out that the Port Authorities had a certain public responsibility and could not go beyond reasonable bounds to meet the guards' demands, since they would otherwise run the risk of creating serious inequities in pay scales.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 311. The Committee notes that the present case concerns allegations of anti-union measures taken against workers on strike. Both the complainant and the Government confirm that a strike was declared on 4 September 1992, after the failure of negotiations concerning claims submitted by the Limassol harbour guards; and that strikers were detained on two separate occasions, on 16 and 17 September 1992, for several hours before being released and are now facing prosecution.
2. 312. In the view of the complainant, the police action to disperse the peaceful picketing was a violation of the Constitution and of the law governing freedom of association; strikers were assulted and are now being wrongfully prosecuted.
3. 313. The Government for its part takes the view that strikers had refused to comply with the ruling of the Minister of Communications, whom they themselves had asked to act as mediator in conformity with the procedure followed by the Joint Committee (MEPALC). However, no restriction was placed on the strike activity in the harbour area. The police did not resort to excessive force, and only started making arrests to allow traffic to move freely again in the port. The strikers and their leaders were detained for several hours on the grounds that they had committed offences, but they were not assaulted.
4. 314. The Committee considers therefore that the issue in the present case is not recognition of the right to strike but the actions carried out by pickets who blocked traffic at the port. The Committee notes in this respect that legal proceedings were instituted against the strikers. Taking into account the contradictory accounts of the complainant and the Government on those events, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed on the status of the legal proceedings and to provide the text of any judgement.