Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
- 84. The Committee examined this case at its November 2007 meeting [see 348th Report, paras 838–906] and on that occasion it formulated the following recommendations:
- (a) The Committee urges the Government to conduct an independent inquiry without delay into all alleged acts of anti-union discrimination suffered by the officials and members of the MRF United Workers’ Union and, if these allegations are found to be true, to provide redress for the damages suffered. Specifically, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that:
- – all workers dismissed for their trade union activities are reinstated in service with all consequent benefits, including full payment of lost wages subject to substantive evidence and/or information warranting the contrary;
- – all workers suspended for their trade union activities are allowed to resume work and are granted all consequent benefits, including arrears of wages;
- – all pending disciplinary proceedings initiated on the grounds of trade union membership and activities are dropped;
- – false criminal charges against trade union members are dropped and that the concerned workers are compensated;
- – trade union members transferred because of their membership or union activities are allowed to return to their previous workplaces.
- The Committee further requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the members of the complainant organization are not discriminated against in the matter of wages and other benefits and that they are not engaged in the pre-compounding chemical section of the Banbury area of the Arakonam factory in a discriminatory manner. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the inquiries carried out.
- (b) The Committee requests the labour and judicial authorities, in order to avoid a denial of justice, to pronounce on the dismissals without delay and emphasizes that any further undue delay in the proceedings could in itself justify the reinstatement of these persons in their posts.
- (c) The Committee urges the Government to conduct an independent inquiry without delay into all allegations of interference by the factory management into trade union internal affairs and, if the allegations of the complainant are found to be true, to take all necessary steps to ensure that there are sufficiently dissuasive sanctions imposed so that the management refrains from any further such acts so as to safeguard the independence of any workers’ organization at the factory and, in particular, so as to ensure that the complainant organization may carry out its activities freely. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
- (d) The Committee requests the Government to actively consider, in full and frank consultations with the social partners, legislative provisions expressly sanctioning violations of trade union rights and providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union internal affairs.
- (e) The Committee urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to ensure that suspended workers and trade unions may approach the court directly, without being referred by the State Government.
- (f) The Committee requests the Government to take appropriate measures to obtain the employer’s recognition of the MRF United Workers’ Union for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
- (g) The Committee requests the Government to consider laying down objective rules for the designation of the most representative union for collective bargaining purposes, when it is not clear by which union the workers wish to be represented. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
- (h) The Committee requests the Government to solicit information from the employers’ organizations concerned, as well as those of the enterprise concerned, with a view to having at its disposal their views on the questions at issue.
- 85. In its communication dated 6 February 2008, the MRF United Workers’ Union submits that it has made various representations to the central and the Tamil Nadu governments, as well as to the employer, seeking implementation of the Committee’s recommendations, to no avail. The complainant alleges that the management of the Arakonam factory of MRF Limited continues to victimize its members by unjust issue of warning letters and show cause notices on false grounds. The complainant provides a list of 12 workers who received such letters between August 2007 and January 2008. Furthermore, on 24 December 2007, the management of the factory issued a written notice to the attention of all workers of the enterprise indicating that the recommendations of the ILO are not court orders and do not carry much significance (a copy of the notice is submitted by the complainant).
- 86. The complainant further alleges that on 1 February 2008, at the behest of the enterprise management, the MRF Arakonam Workers’ Welfare Union, its puppet union, lodged a false complaint at the Arakonam Taluk Police Station against three office bearers and ten members of the complainant organization alleging that they had prevented workers from going to the factory to work first shift (7 a.m. to 3 p.m). According to the MRF United Workers’ Union, the false complaint was lodged against its members in retaliation following the distribution near the gate of the factory of leaflets informing of the proceedings at the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 30 January 2008 where the issue of difficulties faced by the MRF workers was raised. At that time, office bearers of the MRF Arakonam Workers’ Welfare Union threatened the activists of the complainant organization, used offensive language and attempted to attack them with soda bottles. In this regard, a complaint was lodged at the Arakonam Taluk Police Station.
- 87. Finally, in the same communication, the complainant submits that it came to its knowledge that the management of the enterprise was planning to enter into a settlement with the MRF Arakonam Workers’ Welfare Union, ignoring the complainant union, genuinely representative of the factory workers.
- 88. By a communication dated 1 October 2008, the complainant reiterates that the Government has failed to implement the Committee’s recommendations and submits additional information in this respect.
- 89. In its communication dated 28 April 2008, the Government indicates that this case falls under the jurisdiction of the state government of Tamil Nadu. The observations of the Committee were therefore sent to the government of Tamil Nadu for its comments, on the basis of which, the Government submits the following information.
- 90. The government of Tamil Nadu established a three-member committee, with the District Collector as its chairperson, one representative from the office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour and one representative from the office of the Joint Chief Inspector of Factories, to conduct an in-depth inquiry into all alleged acts of anti-union discrimination suffered by the officials and members of the complainant trade union.
- 91. With regard to the dismissals, the Government indicates that 26 cases are currently pending before the Labour Court for adjudication. Although the judiciary is an independent authority, the government of Tamil Nadu had nevertheless written a letter to the High Court on 6 March 2008 requesting speedy processing of the pending cases. The Government transmits a copy of the communication in which it cites recommendation (b) of the Committee and lists the workers concerned.
- 92. With regard to the cases of suspension pending inquiry, 28 cases have ended in dismissal and are also pending before the Labour Court. The government of Tamil Nadu has requested the High Court to process these cases speedily. In nine cases, suspension has been inflicted as punishment. There have been no further proceedings against the order of suspension by way of raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Had the union challenged the punishment awarded under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Government would have intervened in the matter. Since no industrial dispute has been raised by the union challenging the orders, there is no legal action pending with the Government.
- 93. With regard to dropping false criminal charges, according to the management, one case has ended in acquittal and another was not pursued.
- 94. With regard to the issue of transfer of trade union members, according to the management, there have been job changes within the department and interdepartmently, but there have been no transfers from unit to unit. The complainant trade union has not filed any industrial dispute challenging mala fides transfers. However, the issue of transfers has been referred by the Government for adjudication.
- 95. The committee established by the Government in March 2008 has been requested to take the necessary action to hold inquiries into the allegation of engagement of members of the complainant trade union in the pre-compounding chemical section of the Banbury area of the Arakonam factory in a discriminatory manner and into allegations of interference by the factory management into trade union internal affairs (recommendation (c)) and to submit its report to the Government within two months.
- 96. Recommendation (d). The Government indicates that the Commissioner of Labour had a meeting with the enterprise management and advised it not to indulge in anti-union discrimination.
- 97. Recommendation (e). According to the Government, industrial disputes are conciliated and adjudicated in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act. The legislative proposals are initially discussed in inter-ministerial meetings. The legislative amendments are also discussed with the social partners in various forums. Before taking a final decision on the matter, the suggestions and views of the social partners are considered. Amendments to the state legislation have to be deliberated before the State Labour Advisory Board, a tripartite consultative body.
- 98. Recommendations (f) and (g). The Government refers to the procedure laid down under the Code of Discipline to determine whether an organization has the capacity to be the sole representative body for collective bargaining purposes. The State Evaluation and Implementation Committee makes an appropriate decision following a presentation of a plea for recognition by a petitioner union.
- 99. Recommendation (h). According to the information provided by the MRF management, the MRF United Workers’ Union has only 114 members out of 1,364 workers. It is a minority union caught up in an inter-union rivalry. This union tarnishes the image and reputation of the company and disturbs industrial harmony. This opinion is shared by the MRF Arakonam Workers’ Welfare Union.
- 100. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and the complainant’s new allegations. The Committee welcomes the steps taken by the Tamil Nadu government to implement its recommendations, including sending a communication to the High Court requesting a speedy process of cases of alleged anti-union dismissals, meeting of the Commissioner of Labour with the enterprise management and advising it not to indulge in anti-union discrimination, and the establishment of a committee to examine the alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union affairs at the Arakonam factory. However, the Committee notes with concern the new allegations of the continuing anti-union discrimination and interference, which it expects will also be examined by the committee, and requests the Government to provide its observations thereon. The Committee further expects that if the committee concludes that these allegations are substantiated, sufficiently dissuasive sanctions will be imposed so as to ensure that the management refrains from any further such acts and that the complainant organization may carry out its activities freely. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect and to submit a copy of the committee’s report. The Committee further requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the court cases concerning the dismissed workers.
- 101. The Committee notes the explanation provided by the Government with regard to the orders of suspension which, according to the Government, were inflicted as punishment. The Government argues that the failure by the workers to challenge the said orders under the Industrial Disputes Act prevented it from intervening in the matter. In this respect, the Committee once again recalls that where cases of alleged anti-union discrimination are involved, the competent authorities dealing with labour issues should begin an inquiry immediately and take suitable measures to remedy any effects of anti-union discrimination brought to their attention [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 835]. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that an independent investigation into the nine cases of suspension is carried out without delay and if it is found that the workers were suspended due to their legitimate trade union activities, to fully compensate the workers concerned for the damages suffered. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
- 102. With regard to the allegation of criminal charges brought against members and office bearers of the complainant organization, while the Government refers to two cases (one of which was not pursued and the other ended in acquittal), the Committee recalls from the previous examination of this case that the MRF United Workers’ Union alleged six such cases. The Committee further notes a new allegation of allegedly false charges being filed. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the complainant and the Government to provide information on all pending charges against members and office bearers of the MRF United Workers’ Union.
- 103. The Committee further requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the case concerning the alleged transfers of trade union members, which have been referred by the Government for adjudication.
- 104. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures so as to bring the legislation in the country into conformity with freedom of association principles. In particular, it requested the Government to actively consider, in full and frank consultations with the social partners:
- – adoption of the legislative provisions expressly sanctioning violation of trade union rights and providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination;
- – amendment of the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to ensure that suspended workers and trade unions may approach the court directly, without being referred by the state government; and
- – laying down objective rules for the designation of the most representative union of collective bargaining purposes, when it is not clear by which union the workers wish to be represented.
- 105. The Committee notes that the Government limits itself to providing information on the general procedure for legislative changes. Emphasizing that the membership of a State in the International Labour Organization carries with it the obligation to promote respect for trade union rights in fact and in law, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any concrete envisaged legislative changes pursuant to the previous request of the Committee. The Committee expects that the necessary measures will be taken so as to bring the legislation into full conformity with freedom of association principles. While noting the Government’s indication that the Code of Discipline provides for the procedure for determining representative capacity of an organization, the Committee recalls from the previous examination of the case that the decisions of the State Evaluation and Implementation Committee are of a recommendatory nature. The Committee further once again requests the Government to take appropriate measures to obtain the employer’s recognition of the MRF United Workers’ Union for collective bargaining purposes and to keep it informed in this respect.
- 106. The Committee notes the recent complainant’s communication. It requests the Government to provide its observations on the allegations contained therein.
