Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 344, Mars 2007

332. The complaint is contained in communications from SYNTRA–MFPTRA dated 26 May 2006 and 7 July 2006.

1. 333. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 18 July 2006, and 11 September 2006.
2. 334. Benin 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. 335. In its communication dated 26 May 2006, the National Trade Union of Workers of the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Administrative Reform (SG/SYNTRA/MFPTRA) alleges that the previous Government’s division of the former Ministry of Public Service and Administrative Reform into two ministries (Ministry of Labour, Public Service and Administrative Reform and the Ministry of Administrative and Institutional Reform) has separated the trade union officials from their rank and file members, thereby weakening and destabilizing the organization and scattering its officials.
2. 336. Moreover, the authorities have transferred union members (with no justification in terms of staffing needs), interfered in the running of the complainant organization and sown discord between trade unions operating within the same working environment.
3. 337. More specifically, the complainant organization states that the authorities are determined to eliminate it. On 24 May 2005, ten officials and members of the complainant organization (all members of the executive committee and rank and file leaders in the Archive Department for Disputes and Disciplinary Matters (DACAD) and the Department for Civil Servant Career Management (DGAE)) were transferred and thus separated from their respective rank and file members. Union activists in the complainant organization are also alarmed by threats of transferring them to locations a long way from the capital, Cotonou, if they engage in further strike action (as in the case of trade union member Henri Akpaoka following the strike action in 2003, for example).
4. 338. The complainant organization encloses a letter from the head of the Office of the Minister of Public Service dated 12 May 2005, stating that “permission will not be granted for any meeting of workers to be held without clear information as to the agenda” and consequently requesting the trade union to postpone the planned meeting mentioned in its correspondence – in reference to the holding of a general assembly of ministry workers. Various letters testifying to the Ministry’s interference are enclosed with the complaint, including one dated 9 November 2005 refusing permission to hold training sessions on administrative ethics and stating that the conference room was in any case unavailable.
5. 339. The complainant organization emphasizes that the Office of the Minister shows favouritism towards the Autonomous Trade Union of Workers of MFPTRA (SYNATRA) trade union and grants it special facilities (such as a vehicle for dealing with administrative formalities connected with management and performance allowances).
6. 340. Finally, the drafting of the order to extend the specific management allowance was entrusted to the SYNATRA trade union (which is close to the Office of the Minister, according to the complainant organization), which has never called for a strike in the past. Moreover, nine members of the complainant organization had their retraining allowances reduced (by more than half) or withheld for taking part in strike action.
7. 341. In its communication dated 7 July 2006, the complainant organization claims that, on 12 September 2003, a memorandum (No. 062/MFPTRA/DC/SGM/SA) officially confirmed the consensus reached by workers at a general meeting held at the Ministry of Public Service and Labour, to the effect that a specific management allowance of 1,000 CFA francs was payable to SYNTRA–MFPTRA. The complainant organization adds that the Ministry, with the intention of sowing discord, annulled the memorandum, thereby favouring the “employer-biased” trade union SYNATRA, which had, for example, encouraged its members not to take part in the April 2004 strike and to place their confidence in the Office of the Minister.
8. 342. The complainant organization encloses the text of the new memorandum, No. 055, (following the annulment of memorandum No. 062), which states that:
9. In view of the existence of several trade union organizations within the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Administrative Reform, memorandum No. 062/MFPTRA/DC/SGM/SA of 12 September 2003, concerning the payment of one thousand (1,000) CFA francs per beneficiary of the specific civil servant management allowance to the Trade Union of Workers of the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Administrative Reform (SYNTRA–MFPTRA), is and remains annulled.
10. Consequently, the payment of the allowance must be agreed upon between the aforementioned trade union organizations.
11. B. The Government’s reply
12. 343. In its communication dated 18 July 2006 the Government indicates that, in the opinion of SYNTRA–MFPTRA, the complainant organization, the transfers (indicated on assignment slip No. 041-MFPTRA/DC/SGM/DA/SA of 24 May 2005) are illegal, as they mean separating members of the executive committee of the trade union from their rank and file, thus hampering trade union activities at the Ministry of Public Service and Labour. The Government observes that, in considering this allegation, there are a number of points that show that the transfers of civil servants were designed solely to ensure the smooth running of the public service and were therefore in no way aimed at a particular trade union. Firstly, the transfer slip in dispute concerns 31 civil servants, whereas SYNTRA–MFPTRA mentions only ten as being members of its executive committee and rank and file, or so-called supporters of SYNTRA–MFPTRA. Secondly, the redeployment plan affected all the general directorates within the Ministry and not just the Public Service Department, as SYNTRA–MFPTRA claims. Finally, all the employees concerned were transferred from their former services to services located in the same city, less than 5 kilometres away. Some have even been relocated on the same premises, such as the Department for Civil Servant Career Management, the Customer Relations Office and the Department of Administration.
13. 344. The complaint refers to the division of the former Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Administrative Reform into two separate departments, the Ministry of Labour and Public Service (MFTP) and the Ministry of Administrative and Institutional Reform (MRAI). The civil servants employed by the former General Directorate of Administrative Reform and Modernization (DGRMA) are now part of the Ministry of Administrative and Institutional Reform, whether they are trade union members or not. The presence of trade union members in the MRAI does not therefore point to any injustice or to some kind of plot to weaken the trade unions.
14. 345. With regard to memorandum No. 055/MFPTRA/DC/SGM/SA of 24 November 2004 annulling an earlier memorandum and requiring that all payments from the specific civil servant management allowance, initially credited to SYNTRA–MFPTRA, must be agreed upon between the various trade unions, the Government states in its communication dated 11 September 2006 that this decision is justified by the fact that there are two trade union organizations at the Ministry of Labour and Public Service, the National Union of Labour Administration Staff (SYNACAT) and SYNATRA. Making automatic deduction from the allowances of all civil servants was therefore no longer viable, since the fact that no share was credited to SYNACAT or SYNATRA could lay the system open to charges of being discriminatory. The administration did not at any time take an arbitrary decision, nor is it guilty of interfering in trade union affairs; on the contrary, it has guaranteed equality of treatment.
15. 346. With regard to SYNTRA–MFPTRA’s allegation that officials of the Ministry of Public Service and Labour have opposed the holding of its consultation meetings, the Government stresses that trade union meetings have never been prohibited at the ministry level. However, workplace security is the exclusive responsibility of the head of department, who must take appropriate action in the event of public disturbances. The request for information on the agenda of a meeting cannot therefore be interpreted as interference in the life and affairs of the trade union organization, since the meeting in question could have been held at the workplace, during working hours. Finally, it should be pointed out that this request was made on the day after the political strikes called by SYNATRA–MFPTRA, in accordance with the decision of the Confederation of Workers’ Trade Unions of Benin, of which SYNTRA–MFPTRA is a member.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 347. The Committee notes that the allegations concern: (1) various measures taken by the authorities to separate trade union officials from their rank and file, including the transfer of ten members; (2) restrictions on the right to participate in trade union meetings; (3) acts of favouritism towards the SYNATRA trade union on the part of the authorities; (4) reduction or withholding of the retraining allowances of nine trade union members, because of their participation in a strike; and (5) unilateral modification of the system of management allowances, to which the complainant organization had been entitled.
2. 348. With regard to the allegations concerning the transfer of union officials and members belonging to the complainant organization, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, these transfers were carried out with the aim of ensuring the smooth running of the public service and concerned 31 civil servants, of whom only ten were mentioned by the complainant; the transfers took place in all the Ministry’s General Directorate Ministry and involved relocation in the same city within a distance of 5 kilometres or on the same premises. Nevertheless, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the transfer of trade union members is bound to have had an impact on the effective functioning of the trade union and notes that the Government has not mentioned holding any consultations with the complainant organization during the transfer process. The Committee requests the Government to examine, with the complainant organization, how best to limit the impact of the transfer of the trade union members in question and requests the Government to engage in full and frank consultation whenever it deems it necessary to transfer significant numbers of workers, including trade union members.
3. 349. With regard to the alleged restrictions on the right to hold meetings, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, trade union meetings have never been prohibited and the request for information on the agenda was apparently connected to workplace security. The Committee points out, however, that the trade union should be able to hold meetings without the need to communicate the agenda to the authorities, in accordance with the principle embodied in Article 3 of Convention No. 87, whereby organizations have the right freely to organize their activities without interference from the authorities. Moreover, the Committee underlines the fact that the complainant organization sent a copy of a communication from the Office of the Minister of Public Service, dated 9 November 2005, refusing permission to hold training sessions on administrative ethics and indicating that the conference room was in any case unavailable. Bearing in mind the Government’s statement that trade union meetings have never been prohibited at the Ministry, the Committee requests the Government to respect fully the right to hold trade union meetings without demanding the communication of the agenda, which should remain an internal trade union matter.
4. 350. With regard to the allegation concerning the unilateral modification of the system of management allowances, to which the complainant organization had been entitled, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that this change took account of the fact that at least three trade unions existed in the Ministry of Public Service and was designed to ensure equality of treatment between them.
5. 351. Finally, noting that the Government has not sent its observations on the allegations concerning: (1) acts of favouritism on the part of the authorities towards the SYNATRA trade union (which allegedly has close links to the Director of the Office of the Minister); and (2) the reduction or withholding of the retraining allowances of nine trade union members because of their participation in a strike, the Committee requests the Government to clarify these matters with the complainant organization, with a view to ensuring full respect for the principles of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.