Definitive Report - REPORT_NO66, 1963

CASE_NUMBER 261 (South Africa) - COMPLAINT_DATE: 05-APR-61 - Closed

1. 162. The earlier complaints of the South African Congress of Trade Unions, dated 5 April and 10 May 1961, and of the W.F.T.U, dated 18 April 1961, relate to an alleged prohibition of meetings of the South African Congress of Trade Unions and other measures against the Congress. The Government furnished certain observations on these matters in a communication dated 9 October 1961. The Committee, as indicated below, submitted an interim report to the Governing Body on this aspect of the case in paragraphs 645 to 653 of its 58th Report. Further observations were forwarded by the Government in a letter dated 10 January 1962.
2. 163. The South African Congress of Trade Unions and the W.F.T.U, in two communications dated respectively 9 and 17 February 1962, submitted further allegations, this time relating to measures taken against Mr. William Mark Shope, General Secretary of the South African Congress of Trade Unions. The Government replied with respect to these allegations by a letter dated 8 June 1962. This aspect of the case has not as yet been the subject of examination by the Committee.
3. 164. The Republic of South Africa has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Measures Taken against the South African Congress of Trade Unions
  165. 165 In a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 5 April 1961 the South African Congress of Trade Unions alleges that the Government of the Republic of South Africa, by Government Notice promulgated on 29 March 1961-a purported copy of which is forwarded by the complainant-prohibited all gatherings by, or under the auspices of, or for the promotion of the interests or objects of the South African Congress of Trade Unions during the period from 31 March 1961 to 30 June 1961 inclusive. The Notice is stated to have been promulgated pursuant to powers accorded by the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950.
  166. 166 The complaining organisation alleges that the prohibition prevented the holding of its Sixth Annual National Conference, which had been due to open on 1 April 1961 in Durban, and that the further effect of the prohibition would be to deprive the 53,000 members of the 51 unions affiliated to the Congress of the right to hold meetings in furtherance of the objects of the Congress, and refers to the principle emphasised on many occasions by the Committee that " the right to organise trade union meetings is one of the essential elements of trade union rights ". The effect of the prohibition, declares the complainant, would be to prevent the holding of meetings in furtherance of such legitimate trade union objects of the Congress as the payment of higher wages, freedom to organise and join trade unions, the improvement of the conditions of the workers and the ending of racial discrimination. In conclusion, the Congress calls upon the I.L.O to send representatives to South Africa to discuss with the Government and with workers' and employers' organisations the immediate granting of full trade union rights to all South African workers, irrespective of race and colour, in accordance with the Constitution of the I.L.O, and, until this is done, to encourage all Members of the I.L.O to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions against South Africa and not to allow their nationals to migrate to South Africa in order to work there.
  167. 167 In a further communication dated 10 May 1961 the South African Congress of Trade Unions declares that, in reply to its inquiry as to the reasons for the prohibition, the Minister of Justice stated that he was not required by law to furnish anyone with the reasons or a statement of the information which induced him to issue the Notice. The complainant alleges further that, on 3 May 1961, the police searched all offices of the Congress and of its affiliated unions and the homes of leading trade union officials, these searches being accompanied by a military show of strength, and that the Minister has stated that such raids would continue. On 8 May 1961, it is alleged, the Minister of Justice introduced new security measures enabling the State to arrest anyone and to hold him without bail for up to 12 days, stating, when he introduced the Bill, that it was necessary to diminish the power of the courts to grant bail. The complainant expresses the view that this is a prelude to the imposition of a total ban on the Congress.
  168. 168 In a communication dated 18 April 1961 the W.F.T.U protests against the prohibition of meetings of the South African Congress of Trade Unions, stating that no reason for the ban had been given.
  169. 169 The W.F.T.U also alleges that when delegates to the Conference of the Congress held a meeting of protest on 30 March 1961, before the prohibition entered into force, the police interrupted the meeting, took the names and addresses of those present and seized copies of the Conference reports and other documents.
  170. 170 The W.F.T.U calls upon the I.L.O to take all possible measures to bring about respect for trade union rights in South Africa and the removal of the prohibition placed upon trade union activities of the South African Congress of Trade Unions.
  171. 171 In a communication dated 9 October 1961 the Government confines itself to the statement that " the three months' prohibition of meetings of the South African Congress of Trade Unions was not imposed with a view to interfering with trade union rights in the Republic but because the Congress engaged in activities not associated with such rights ".
  172. 172 When it considered this aspect of the case at its meeting in November 1961, the Committee recalled that it had pointed out in the past that, when precise allegations are made it cannot regard as satisfactory replies from governments which are confined to generalities, and that where the information given in a government's reply appears to be inadequate or of too general a character, it will request the government concerned to supply it with more detailed information in order to enable it to express a considered view to the Governing Body.
  173. 173 In these circumstances the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish more detailed information concerning the various allegations raised in the complaints. This recommendation was approved by the Governing Body at its 150th Session (November 1961). The Government was accordingly requested, by a letter dated 29 November 1961, to furnish more detailed information.
  174. 174 In a communication dated 10 January 1962 the Government reiterates that the temporary ban which was placed on meetings of the South African Congress of Trade Unions was not intended to interfere with the exercise of trade union rights. The Government adds that the circumstances in which the measure was taken do not permit of any further information being furnished in connection with the matter except to confirm that the action was taken under the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950.
  175. 175 In numerous cases in the past, the Committee has emphasised the importance which it has always attached to the fact that freedom from government interference in the holding and proceedings of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights, and to the principle that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
  176. 176 It is admitted that the South African Congress of Trade Unions was prohibited from holding any meetings for a period of three months, but the Government, after stating that the ban was imposed, pursuant to the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, not with a view to interfering with trade union rights but because the Congress engaged in activities not associated with such rights, has refused to comply with the Governing Body's request to it to furnish more detailed information.
  177. 177 In a number of earlier cases, the Committee has pointed out that the application of certain measures of a political character, although they may not be intended to restrict trade union rights as such, may nevertheless affect the exercise of such rights. The question as to whether the grounds for taking such measures lay in activities not related to the exercise of trade union rights, moreover, as the Committee has pointed out in the past, is not one which can be determined unilaterally by the government concerned. If, in certain cases, the Committee has reached the conclusion that allegations relating to measures taken against trade unionists-and measures taken against trade unions would seem, in this respect, to call for consideration in the same light-did not call for further examination, this has been after it had received information from the governments showing sufficiently, precisely and in sufficient detail that the measures were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but purely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political character.
  178. 178 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to deplore the fact that, after having been requested by the Governing Body to furnish fuller observations on these allegations in order that the Committee might reach conclusions in full knowledge of all the circumstances, the Government has declined to do so;
       • (b) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which the Governing Body has always attached to the fact that freedom from government interference in the holding and proceedings of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights, and to the principle that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof;
       • (c) to express the view that the ban imposed on meetings of the South African Congress of Trade Unions must of necessity have restricted seriously the freedom of that organisation to carry on its trade union activities and that the Government has not furnished evidence to show that this ban did not constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights and, in particular, of the principle enumerated in subparagraph (b) above.
  179. Allegations relating to Measures Taken against the General Secretary of the South African Congress of Trade Unions
  179. 179 It is alleged that Mr. William Mark Shope, General Secretary of the South African Congress of Trade Unions, in previous years the subject of criminal proceedings because of his trade union activities, has been prohibited from attending all gatherings for a period of five years.
  180. 180 In a communication dated 8 June 1962 the Government states that the ban was not imposed with a view to interfering with trade union rights; the measure was taken pursuant to the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, and in the circumstances the Government cannot furnish any further information.
  181. 181 This case is another instance of a trade union leader having been banned from public and trade union life by operation of the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, the essential elements of which are not distinguishable from those present in the other cases in which the Committee has examined similar allegations relating to measures taken against other South African trade union leaders.
  182. 182 In Case No. 63 relating to the then Union of South Africa, the Committee, in paragraphs 268 to 276 of its 12th Report, formulated certain conclusions and made recommendations to the Governing Body concerning similar allegations, presented in far greater detail, relating to the effect of the Suppression of Communism Act on the exercise of trade union rights. When similar allegations relating to further persons came before it in Case No. 102, the Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 185 (1) of its 15th Report, " to reaffirm the conclusions regarding the suppression of Communism Act, 1950, as amended in 1951, set forth in paragraphs 268 to 276 of its 12th Report ".
  183. 183 The allegations now made with respect to the case of the General Secretary of the South African Congress of Trade Unions add no new elements to the allegations made in Cases Nos. 63 and 102, beyond the addition of the name of a further individual to the list of those already alleged to have been removed from trade union life under the Suppression of Communism Act, and involve the same questions of principle as those with respect to which the Committee submitted recommendations to the Governing Body in its 12th Report.
  184. 184 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to reaffirm the conclusions regarding the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, as amended in 1951, set forth in paragraphs 268 to 276 of its 12th Report.

The Committee's recommendations

• (a) with regard to the allegations relating to measures taken against the General Secretary of the South African Congress of Trade Unions, to reaffirm the conclusions regarding the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, as amended in 1951, set forth in paragraphs 268 to 276 of the Committee's 12th Report;
• (b) with regard to the remaining allegations relating to measures taken against the South African Congress of Trade Unions:
• (i) to deplore the fact that, after having been requested by the Governing Body to furnish fuller observations on these allegations in order that the Committee might reach conclusions in full knowledge of all the circumstances, the Government has declined to do so;
• (ii) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which the Governing Body has always attached to the fact that freedom from government interference in the holding and proceedings of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights, and to the principle that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof;
• (iii) to express the view that the ban imposed on meetings of the South African Congress of Trade unions must of necessity have restricted seriously the freedom of that Organisation to carry on its trade union activities and that the Government has not furnished evidence to show that this ban did not constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights and, in particular, of the principle enumerated in subparagraph (ii) above.