Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 324, Mars 2001

1. 564. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Workers' Union of YAS Sewing Enterprise (SOYASSE) dated 8 June 1999.
2. 565. In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee had to postpone its examination of the case twice. At its June 2000 meeting [see 321st Report, para. 9], the Committee issued an urgent appeal to the Government drawing its attention to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it might present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting if the information and observations of the Government had not been received in due time.
3. 566. Haiti 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 567. In its communication of 8 June 1999, the complainant explains that on 11 May 1999 it informed the management of YAS Sewing Enterprise in writing of the establishment of a workers' organization within the enterprise, called the "Workers' Union of YAS Sewing Enterprise", emphasizing that this organization has been recognized by and registered with the Labour Directorate of the Ministry of Social Affairs, and complies with Law No. VI on trade unions of the Labour Code in force. In its communication to the enterprise management, the newly created trade union requested a meeting with the management to discuss employees' working conditions, in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement on these issues. This letter was signed by Messrs. Paul Brissaut and André Clervin, in their capacity as members of the executive committee of the new union.
2. 568. Following this letter, the complainant states that Messrs. Brissaut and Clervin were dismissed by YAS Sewing Enterprise on 12 May 1999. In the dismissal letters, attached to the file by the complainant, the enterprise management refers to "conduct aimed at disrupting the smooth running of the enterprise" to justify the two dismissals. In addition, the complainant alleges that, since the establishment of the union, the enterprise management has been systematically harassing and threatening all workers suspected of being members of the union. Any worker caught distributing union leaflets is threatened with dismissal, as well as with physical reprisals against family members.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 569. The Committee deplores the fact that, despite the time that has elapsed since the submission of the complaint, and given the serious nature of the allegations that have been made, the Government has not replied to any of the allegations made by the complainant, although it has been invited on several occasions to present its own comments and observations on the case, including by means of an urgent appeal. Under these circumstances and in accordance with the applicable rule of procedure [see the Committee's 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee is bound to present a report on the substance of the case, even without the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
2. 570. The Committee reminds the Government, first, that the purpose of the whole procedure set up in the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact. If the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognize the importance of formulating, so as to allow objective examination and detailed replies to the allegations brought against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
3. 571. Finally, the Committee expresses its deep concern at the fact that this is the third complaint made against the Government of Haiti in the last 18 months without the latter having conveyed information of any sort to the Committee.
4. 572. The Committee notes that the present complaint concerns allegations of dismissals of trade unionists following the establishment of an enterprise trade union and acts of intimidation against workers suspected of being members of the union.
5. 573. The Committee observes that the complainant states that it informed the management of YAS Sewing Enterprise of the establishment of a trade union within the enterprise on 11 May 1999. The Committee also notes that, according to the complainant, the trade union in question has been recognized by and registered with the Labour Directorate of the Ministry of Social Affairs, and complies with the legislation in force on trade unions. The two signatories of the letter informing the enterprise management of the establishment of the union were dismissed the day following dispatch of the letter, i.e. on 12 May 1999, on grounds of conduct, according to the employer, aimed at disrupting the smooth running of the enterprise. In addition, since this date, the complainant affirms that numerous workers suspected of belonging to the union have been the victims of acts of intimidation and harassment.
6. 574. In these circumstances and in the absence of any reply from the Government, the Committee first of all recalls that the dismissal of workers on grounds of membership of an organization or trade union activities violates the principles of freedom of association [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 702]. The Committee cannot but point out here that the persons concerned were dismissed immediately after the establishment of the union had been announced to the employer. In the Committee's opinion, there is consequently a strong presumption that the dismissals in question took place on account of activities connected with the setting up of a trade union. Under these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that an independent inquiry is immediately carried out on this matter. Should the outcome of this inquiry confirm the anti-union nature of the dismissals, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures for the two leaders to be reinstated in their posts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect. As regards the other acts of intimidation to which several workers of the company are said to have been subjected, the Committee asks the Government to investigate the matter and reminds it that it is responsible for preventing any acts of anti-union discrimination, and that the basic regulations that exist in the national legislation prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination are inadequate when they are not accompanied by procedures to ensure that effective protection against such acts is guaranteed [see Digest, op. cit., para. 739]. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.