Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Côte d'Ivoire (Ratification: 1960)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1995, Publication: 82nd ILC session (1995)

A Government representative considered that the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the application of the Convention were positive, and found that the direct contacts mission made to his country in September 1994 was effective. This mission enabled several issues to be clarified during a tripartite meeting, and subsequently there was a follow-up of the adviser responsible for standards at Abidjan. According to the speaker, there were no problems at present relating to the formation of trade unions or to the exercise of trade union rights. In addition, he indicated that the draft law referred to by the Committee of Experts had been adopted on 12 January 1995, and had been in force since its publication in the Journal officiel on 8 February 1995 as Act No. 95-15 providing for the Labour Code. This rectified various problems with regard to the application of this Convention in Act No. 64-290 of 1 August 1964 providing for the Labour Code. The new Labour Code, whose implementing texts were being prepared, explicitly covered trade unions in the five chapters of Title V of the Code. Moreover, the provisions of sections 51.1 to 51.9 concerning freedom of association and the formation of trade unions seemed sufficiently clear and did not make any reference to the Act on Associations. For this reason, in his view there was no ambiguity in that all matters concerning trade unions were covered by the Labour Code and not by Act No. 60-315 of 21 September 1960 on associations. The latter Act did not apply to trade unions and, as a result, did not require amendment. He concluded by stating that trade unions continued to be established without difficulty in various sectors and without being impeded in any way by the provisions of the relevant legislation.

The Workers' members began by recalling that the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the application of the Convention were made following complaints introduced in 1992, in particular at the time of the 79th Session of the Conference. These complaints concerned a large number of practices that involved repeated violations of trade union rights. Subsequent to deliberations by the Committee on Freedom of Association, a decision was made to send a direct contacts mission to Côte d'Ivoire in view of the importance of the case and the seriousness of the matters concerned. The conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association referred to by the Experts determined that, in addition to questions of the adequacy of legislation with regard to trade union pluralism, there were a series of unjustifiable practices. These included, in particular, imprisonment of trade unionists, their dismissal for trade union activities, expulsion from their homes, exclusion of their children from schools, and damage to their health to the extent that several workers and members of their families died. As noted by the Committee of Experts, there clearly was a spirit of cooperation shown by the Government and an apparent willingness to remedy the gaps that had been found, which was shown in particular by the useful direct contacts mission as well as by the announcement made by the Government according to which the draft of the working group referred to by the Committee of Experts was adopted and became law. It was thus important that the new legislative text be sent to the Office so that it could be the object of an in-depth examination by the Committee of Experts. This would require confirmation of the announced revision of the draft Labour Code, which in the meantime apparently had been adopted, as well as the amendment of the Act on associations in order to eliminate any ambiguity with regard to its non-application to trade unions. However, the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association left unanswered a number of questions. In contrast to the 1995 observations of the Committee of Experts, violations of the Convention in practice had been addressed in the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association which "nevertheless drew the attention of the Government to the danger that existed for the free exercise of trade union rights because of imprisonment and conviction of workers' representatives within the framework of activities connected to the defence of the interests of their constituents". The Workers' members could not understand why, within one month after the direct contacts mission, the Secretary-General of "Dignité" was once again arrested. In addition, they asked about the fate of Mr. Sawadogo Nikiema, a militant member of "Dignité", who had been imprisoned since 17 January 1995 under the most severe conditions that were usually reserved for dangerous criminals. These two trade unionists were imprisoned for the simple so-called offence of having defended the dignity of their striking colleagues. They also recalled that the Committee had asked the Government to keep it informed regarding negotiations for the re-employment of workers who had lost their jobs following labour disputes related to the recognition of first-level trade unions that were affiliated to "Dignité" and to the holding of elections of trade union representatives in six enterprises. It was therefore important to have, together with positive changes in legislation, information on the practice and in particular on the follow-up given to the recommendations of direct contacts missions and of the Freedom of Association Committee, such as the measures taken to resolve the labour conflict concerning port workers who were members of "Dignité" in order to ensure that they were not dismissed or excluded from the list of port workers because of their trade union membership or their participation in trade union activities. In addition, they asked to what extent guarantees were given that the militant trade union members and officials would be re-employed, as requested by the Committee, and that the conditions for trade union elections would be established. It was therefore important that the Government respond to the questions raised by the Committee on Freedom of Association while implementing its recommendations in legislation and in practice, as well as follow the suggestions of the Committee of Experts, in particular with respect to freedom of association in practice.

The Employers' members stated that this case was an illustration of how the ILO supervisory machinery could work in a normal and positive way, assisted by the Government's positive attitude and by the 1994 direct contacts mission, which achieved positive results with regard to the obligations of this country under the Convention. The enactment of the new Labour Code (Act No. 95-15) addressed some of the concerns raised by the Experts, and clearly important changes had been made. The new legislation needed to be implemented in practice and it was hoped that from the outset there would be a positive application of the provisions of the Labour Code. With regard to possible conflict between the Labour Code and Act No. 60-315 of 21 September 1960 on associations with respect to their application to trade unions, they noted that while the Government insisted that only the Labour Code would apply to trade unions, the Committee on Freedom of Association questioned whether this would always be the case. As apparent conflicts in laws were sometimes not easily resolved, the Government might need ILO technical assistance to resolve any ambiguity. They asked that the conclusions stress the fundamental importance of implementation of Conventions in practice, and that all reasonable steps be taken to resolve the ambiguity concerning the application to trade unions of the Labour Code and the above Act on Associations.

The Workers' member of Côte d'Ivoire indicated that the difficulties with regard to "ambiguity" had already begun in his country in 1990, the year in which the country returned to a multi-party political system. It was normal that this multi-party policy instigated an interest in trade union pluralism. In the absence of relevant texts concerning trade union organization and practice, everyone thought that they could establish their own organizations as they liked. With regard to the provisions referred to by the Government representative, he said that although they existed they were not in themselves sufficient. He pointed out that the Experts had requested the amendment of Act No. 60-315 of 21 September 1960 on associations and youth movements because there was real ambiguity that was detrimental to the promotion of trade unionism. He was convinced that his country, as a State governed by law, intended to broaden measures concerning trade unionism in this respect and he asked whether it would not be appropriate that the Government, in view of the ambiguities that had been found, gather all provisions concerning trade unions in one trade union act, as had been done with regard to associations and political parties. He said that frequently associations called themselves trade unions and trade unions called themselves associations, and for this reason the Act on Associations was often wrongly considered to be an Act on trade unions, and as a consequence the terms "trade union" and "association" were confused. However, a trade union was a specialized association and could not be compared with youth movements that formed to carry out a specific activity and were referred to as "non-governmental associations".

The Workers' member of Togo outlined the history of French-speaking African trade unionism which began at the time of colonization and particularly after the 1944 Brazzaville Conference. These trade unions were called "cover-all" because they covered both employers, who were solely Europeans, and workers, who were called "natives". The struggle of the latter ended in independence in 1960, at which time this Convention was ratified by all French-speaking African States. However, the question was raised regarding the evolution of the application of the Convention in these countries. The second stage of French-speaking African trade unionism began in the 1970s in the framework of "trade unionism involving responsible participation" with single federations whose secretaries-general were members of governing bodies of single parties and vice-presidents of the National Assembly at the same time; this compromised the defence of trade union rights as well as of other rights of workers. In the 1990s, the fall of the Berlin wall initiated a third stage of trade unionism which became pluralist with the beginning of the democratic process in Africa. The return to trade union pluralism allowed the establishment of other independent trade union federations who were joined by a wave of members, who were supporting independent trade unionism. This scenario existed in several countries, including Côte d'Ivoire. The advent of this new trade unionism involved, and continued to involve, imprisonment and dismissals of trade unionists. He recalled that with regard to the application of the Convention the problems of "Dignité", the confederation of free trade unions of Côte d'Ivoire, began a long time ago. Several missions had previously been sent to Abidjan, including that of the World Confederation of Workers, of which "Dignité" was a member. The arrest of the Secretary-General of "Dignité" raised in general the problem of the application of ratified Conventions to legal, representative and independent trade union organizations. He concluded by asking the Government to respect freedom of association and ratify ILO Conventions. This would be a credit to the democracy to which the Government constantly referred.

Another Workers' member of Côte d'Ivoire said that the arrival of the direct contacts mission that took place from 24 to 30 September 1994 was a relief to him and his trade union organization "Dignité" of which he was Secretary-General which was established in 1988. With regard to the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the reason for sending a direct contacts mission to Abidjan was related to the problem of recognition of first-level trade unions of "Dignité", and the dismissal of trade union militants in several enterprises. With respect to the independent port of Abidjan, the recognition of the basic trade union "Dignité" did not take place until 28 May 1995. However, this recognition was in his mind incomplete in view of the fact that even if the trade union in question could participate in elections and negotiations, its officers did not have the right of access to the port. With regard to the workers of Irho Lamé, he said "Dignité" had been reproached for the absence of permission accorded by the Ministry of the Interior, as well as the fact that it had not sent a letter of apology to the political authorities and to the director of the enterprise for having conducted a strike. The direct contacts mission was therefore able to make clear that obtaining a receipt for filing the text of the constitution of the trade union was sufficient and that there was no need to wait for the permission referred to above. In addition, the mission asked the Government to no longer ask for letters of apology and to re-employ workers, taking into account their interests and those of the enterprise. He added that they had had only one meeting with the employer and the Government since 14 October 1994, as a result of which the employer had suggested the re-employment of 25 of the 618 workers between October 1994 and January 1995, and 75 others at the end of 1995; the others had been summarily dismissed on the basis of serious misconduct. "Dignité" had suggested the replacement by new employees of 122 striking workers who were at retirement age and 32 other striking workers who had died, as well as re-employment according to the needs of the enterprise of 464 other strikers. Since that time, there had not been any tripartite follow-up, and a serious incident occurred on 17 January 1995 at Irho Lamé when the employer deliberately armed the new workers with hunting rifles which they then fired at the former workers at a sit-in in front of the enterprise. He said that he had proof of this which he had sent to the Government, but without result, as the Government preferred instead to chase away the strikers who, since 17 January 1995, had been hiding in the bush with their families. Since that time, the primary school of the village had been closed. With regard to trade union elections, he pointed out that in enterprises where "Dignité" was authorized to present candidates, it succeeded in registering 458 elected delegates as opposed to 56 for the other confederation. Since then, the Government also had permitted "Dignité" to participate in all collective bargaining. He asked the Government to make an effort so that elections would be organized in enterprises referred to as the "heart of the economy", such as the independent port of Abidjan and the airport of Abidjan, etc., where such elections had not taken place for five years. He also regretted that since the departure of the direct contacts mission, no negotiations had been undertaken to resolve the problem of the dockers of Irho Lamé, as well as of the representatives and workers of several other enterprises referred to in the mission report. These problems were reflected in the Workers' members' request that the new Labour Code actually be applied. With regard to the misappropriation of trade union cards and funds of which he had been accused, he stated that he had just been acquitted by the courts, which implied that he had been arrested unfairly and without any basis. He also expressed concern about the fate of two members of "Dignité" who had been detained since 17 January 1995 in a high security prison in Abidjan set aside for murderers and persons who had committed serious crimes. He added that he would file a report with the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning the dismissal of workers for trade union activities or strikes; this report was also available to the Committee. He concluded by expressing great concern for his trade union organization, which must depend upon the effectiveness of ILO supervisory mechanisms.

The Government representative made it clear that the sombre picture painted of his country did not represent reality. He stated that aside from the problems of "Dignité" there was actual freedom of association in his country, including three trade union confederations having a total of about 300 trade unions. With regard to the restriction on trade union leaders from entering the independent port of Abidjan, he clarified that the reason for this was that there was a labour dispute before the Labour Court and that until this case was decided, nothing could be done. He stated in addition that it was not the Government but instead former members of "Dignité" who had commenced the judicial procedure against their Secretary. Moreover, the Government was not involved in the organization of elections of personnel delegates. With regard to the comments of the Worker member of Togo and of the Secretary-General of "Dignité", and the incidents that occurred during the 17 January 1995 sit-in, he referred to the reports sent by the Government to the ILO. While taking into account the suggestions for the improvement of national legislation, he considered that there was no possible ambiguity with regard to Act No. 60-315 of 21 September 1960 with respect to associations and the new provisions of the Labour Code concerning trade unions.

The Workers' members once again insisted on the need for the Government to provide replies and concrete information concerning the application of the Convention in practice as well as on all the points examined that were referred to in the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Employers' members expressed concern regarding what they had heard concerning the application of labour legislation in practice, and stated that a written report from the Government to the ILO was necessary on how the new Labour Code would be implemented in practice.

The Committee noted the report of the Committee of Experts and the oral information given by the Government representative as well as the discussion that took place thereafter. The Committee took note of the direct contacts mission that went to Côte d'Ivoire in September 1994. The Committee welcomed the Government's information that the new Labour Code, which was promulgated on 23 February 1995, contained provisions in line with some previous comments of the Committee of Experts. The Committee, however, insisted that implementation of law and practice was of fundamental importance and called upon the Government to adopt at a very early date appropriate measures to bring the legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention. In particular, it urged the Government to amend Act No. 60-315 of 21 September 1960 on associations, so as to remove ambiguities and to provide that it did not apply to trade unions and to abstain from any interference in the internal affairs of the trade unions. The Committee exhorted that if necessary, with technical assistance from the ILO, the Government would implement the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and give effect to the points raised by the Experts. The Committee trusted that it would be able to take note at its next examination of the case of substantial progress in the application of the Convention and asked the Government to report in detail to the Committee of Experts in due time.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the Government’s report in which it responds to the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2019, referring to arbitrary arrests, police violence and violations of the right to strike in various sectors. The Committee notes the Government’s confirmation of the arrests of protesters and trade union members during a sit-in and indicates that the protest prevented public servants from reaching their workplace. It also notes that, in response to the allegations concerning many arrests of workers and trade union members who were on strike, the Government indicates that those on strike were released two days after being arrested for disturbing the public order. The Committee also notes that the Government does not comment on the ITUC’s allegations concerning the violent repression of several strikes and protests organized by the Côte d’Ivoire trade unions. The Committee deplores the serious allegations of violent repression of strikes and protests organized by the Côte d’Ivoire trade unions. Furthermore, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not responded to the previous observations of the ITUC, received on 31 August 2016, which also refer to violations in law and in practice of the Convention, particularly concerning allegations of police repression. The Committee recalls that the authorities should resort to calling in the police only in exceptional circumstances, if there is a genuine threat to public order, and that the use of the police should be in proportion to the situation. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the serious allegations of the ITUC concerning acts of violence during strikes and protestsorganized by the Côte d’Ivoire trade unions.

For several years, the Committee’s comments have also addressed the need to amend sections 51(6) and 51(7) of the Labour Code (2015) to bring them into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Article 2. Right to organize of minors. The Committee noted that under section 51(7) of the Labour Code, minors above the age of 16 years may join trade unions unless their parents or guardians object, and it requested the Government to recognize the right to join trade unions of minors who have reached the statutory minimum age for admission to employment, without requiring the permission of their parents or guardians. The Committee notes with regret that the Government, while highlighting that the Côte d’Ivoire Labour Code does not prohibit minors who are working from joining a trade union organization but rather empowers their parents to object, does not report any progress in this regard. In this respect, the Committee recalls the need to guarantee that minors who have reached the minimum legal age for admission to employment, both as workers and as apprentices, can exercise their trade union rights without parental authorization (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 78).

Article 3. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee noted that, under section 51(6) of the Labour Code, members responsible for the administration or management of an occupational trade union must be Ivorian nationals or nationals of any other State with which reciprocity agreements have been concluded. The Committee recalled that the recognition of the trade union rights established by the Convention for foreign nationals cannot be subject to any reciprocity requirement and that the national legislation must allow foreign workers access to trade union office, at the very least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country. The Committee therefore requested the Government to amend the legislation to that effect. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the issue of reciprocity remains central to the social partners’ concerns and that it will ensure that section 51(6) is amended in line with the Committee’s comments during the next general revision of the Labour Code.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the Labour Code, without delay, so as to remove the above-mentioned restrictions, and the Committee firmly hopes that the Government will report progress in this regard in its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 31 August 2016, reporting violations of the Convention in law and practice, namely concerning allegations of police repression and violations of the right to strike in the education sector. The Committee regrets that the Government has not provided its comments in this regard. The Committee also notes the observations made by the ITUC, received on 1 September 2019, regarding allegations of arbitrary arrests during protests, violent police repression and violation of the right to strike in different sectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations made by the ITUC in 2016 and 2019. The Committee notes the general observations made by the General Confederation of Enterprises of Côte d’Ivoire (CGECI), received on 2 July 2019.

The Committee also had noted the adoption of Act No. 2015-532 of 20 July 2015 issuing the Labour Code and had raised the following issues in that regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to organize of minors. The Committee noted that, under section 51(7) of the Labour Code, minors above the age of 16 years may join trade unions unless their parents or guardians object and requested the Government to recognize the right to join trade unions of minors who have reached the statutory minimum age for admission to employment, whether as workers or apprentices, without requiring the permission of their parents or guardians.

Article 3. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee noted that the new Labour Code had not lifted the restrictions on access to trade union office as, under section 51(6), members responsible for the administration or management of an occupational trade union must be Ivorian nationals or nationals of any other State with which reciprocity agreements have been concluded. The Committee recalled that the recognition of the trade union rights established by the Convention to foreign nationals cannot be subject to any reciprocity requirement and that the national legislation must allow foreign workers access to trade union office, at the very least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country. The Committee therefore requested the Government to amend the legislation to that effect.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it recognizes the right to freedom of association of minors who have reached the statutory minimum age for admission to employment and that it will take into account the observations of the Committee on the application of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention when the Labour Code is revised. The Committee expects that the Government will amend the legislation with a view to lifting the above-mentioned restrictions and requests it to report any progress to this effect in its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature. It also notes the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 31 August 2016, which cover issues relating to the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments in this respect.

The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 2015-532 of 20 July 2015 issuing the Labour Code.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of public employees, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. Right to organize of minors. The Committee notes that section 51(7) of the Labour Code provides that minors above the age of 16 years may join trade unions, unless their parents or guardians object. The Committee requests the Government to recognize the right to join trade unions of minors who have reached the statutory minimum age for admission to employment, whether as workers or apprentices, without the permission of their parents or guardians being necessary.

Article 3. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and formulate their programmes without interference from the public authorities. Exercise of trade union office. The Committee notes with regret that the new Labour Code has not lifted the restrictions on access to trade union office. Under section 51(6), members responsible for the administration or management of an occupational trade union must be Ivorian nationals or nationals of any other State with which reciprocity agreements have been concluded. The Committee wishes to recall that the recognition of the trade union rights established by the Convention to foreigners cannot be subject to any reciprocity requirement and that the national legislation should allow foreign workers to have access to trade union office, at the very least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation to this effect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of employers’ and workers’ organizations to choose their representatives in full freedom. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary steps to amend section 51.5 of the Labour Code which provides that officers of occupational trade unions must have Ivorian nationality, but that foreign members of unions who have lived in Côte d’Ivoire for three years may take up administrative and management functions in the union provided that their countries grant the same right to Ivorian nationals. The Committee notes in this connection that, according to the Government, in the course of the process to revise the Labour Code, the representatives of employers, workers and the administration agreed after discussion to maintain the provisions of section 51.5 of the Labour Code as they are, but that they are ready to discuss the matter if the employment situation in some sector of activity requires the provision to be revised. While noting the tripartite discussions held on its recommendation, which led to section 51.5 of the Labour Code being maintained, the Committee points out that the grant to foreigners of the trade union rights prescribed by the Convention may on no account be subject to a reciprocity requirement. Consequently, the Committee invites the Government to reconvene the tripartite dialogue in order to abolish the reciprocity requirement established in section 51.5 of the Labour Code and in its next report to provide information on progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Trade union rights and civil liberties. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of comments by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the abduction, torture and detention by the police, from April to July 2011, of Mr Basile Mahan Gahé, General Secretary of the DIGNITÉ Confederation and his transfer in July 2011 to Boundiali prison in harsh conditions. In those comments the ITUC indicated that it feared for his physical integrity. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, Mr Mahan Gahé was released from prison in December 2012, and since then he has been able to exercise his rights in full, including his trade union activities at the head of the DIGNITÉ Confederation.

The Committee has been informed of Mr Mahan Gahé’s death in September 2013, nine months after his release. The Committee expresses its deep regret at the long term of imprisonment (21 months) endured by Mr Mahan Gahé in reportedly difficult conditions, and observes that the Government’s report gives no indication of the charges for which he was imprisoned. The Committee strongly recalls that the arrest of trade union leaders without any charges being brought constitutes a serious restriction of the exercise of freedom of association and a violation of the Convention, and that all appropriate measures should be taken to prevent the danger that such arrests involve for trade union activities. It further recalls that freedom of association can be exercised only where respect for fundamental human rights is fully guaranteed, particularly the right to life and the right to personal safety. The Committee strongly urges the Government to ensure respect for these principles in the future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

In its previous comments the Committee noted comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning: (1) threats of sanctions against primary school teachers on strike (MIDD); (2) the violent repression of striking public officials in the north of the country, and particularly the members of the Movement of Redeployed Public Officials of Côte d’Ivoire (MOFORCI); (3) the unwarranted arrest of leaders of the Union of Communal Employees of Côte d’Ivoire (SYNAPECO-CI) and the National Union of Municipal Police Officers of Côte d’Ivoire (SYNAPOMU-CI); and (4) intimidation by the authorities and their interference in the activities of the National Union of Middle and Higher Level Health Officials of Côte d’Ivoire (SYNACASS-CI). The Committee notes the Government’s replies to the questions raised. In the case of the MIDD, the Government states that this is now a legally constituted union and that the wages seized following the strike of the MIDD have been returned in full and without counting the strike days. In the cases of MOFORCI, SYNAPECO-CI, SYNAPOMU-CI and SYNACASS-CI, the Committee notes the Government’s general comment that some of the events occurred in areas under the influence of the rebellion that were outside its control. The Government adds that it was entitled to require a minimum service during the doctors’ strike and that it has agreed to all the claims made by SYNACASS-CI, and has released all the prisoners in provisional custody and paid their wages in full and without counting the days not worked because of the strike.

The Committee also notes the ITUC’s comments of 4 and 31 August 2011 reporting a climate of insecurity in the country and referring in particular to the abduction, torture and detention, from April to July 2011, by the police of Mr Basile Mahan Gahé, General Secretary of the Dignité confederation without any charges being brought against him. Following a mission by the ITUC, charges were brought and Mr Mahan Gahé was transferred to Boundiali prison in harsh conditions on 9 July 2011. The ITUC indicates that it has had no news of the trade unionist and fears for his physical integrity. The Committee points out that the arrest and detention, even for short periods, of trade union leaders and members engaged in their legitimate trade union activities, without any charges being brought and without a warrant, constitute a grave violation of the principle of freedom of association and that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can develop only if fundamental human rights are respected. Furthermore, the guarantees set out in international labour Conventions, particularly those relating to freedom of association, can be effective only if the civil and political rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are genuinely recognized (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 31 and 43). The Committee urges the Government to send its observations on the ITUC’s comments, to state the charges brought against Mr Gahé and to indicate whether he has been released pending trial.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of employers’ and workers’ organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee notes that section 51.5 of the Labour Code provides that officers of professional trade unions must have Ivorian nationality but that foreign members of unions who have lived in Côte d’Ivoire for three years may take up administrative and management functions in the union provided that their countries grant the same right to Ivorian nationals. The Committee points out that provisions on nationality that are too strict could deprive some workers of the right to elect their representatives, for example migrant workers in sectors in which they account for a significant share of the workforce. The legislation should accordingly be made more flexible so as to allow organizations to elect their officers freely and without impediment and to allow foreign workers to take up trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 118). Although the length of residence established in section 51.5 appears reasonable, the Committee considers that the reciprocity requirement is excessive and ought to be removed. The Committee requests the Government in its next report to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 51.5 of the Labour Code along these lines.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the occupation by government authorities of the headquarters of the National Union of Secondary School Teachers (SYNESCI), the recruitment of a militia by the maritime police to intimidate strikers and threats of penalties against primary school teachers on strike. The Committee notes the Government’s replies to the questions that were raised. With regard to the occupation of the premises of SYNESCI, the Committee notes the indication that it consisted of an occupation of the union’s headquarters by the militants of one of the branches of the union, and that the Government did not intervene in the dispute, which has been referred to the judicial authorities. With regard to the strike by the staff of the maritime police force, the Government confirms that the management indeed engaged a militia to intimidate the strikers. The Government specifies that the employment of the Director-General of the maritime police forces was terminated in August 2007 and indicates that it is a civil party to his prosecution. Finally, with regard to the threats of penalties against the Movement of Primary School Teachers in Defence of their Rights (MIDD), the Government indicates that this concerned an informal group that did not enjoy the legal status of a registered union, as required by the Labour Code. The Government indicates that it did its best to negotiate with the Movement, although without success, and that finally it only reminded the striking primary school teachers of the legal provisions governing the procedures for strikes in public services, which establish that a collective work stoppage results in a proportional reduction of pay or wages and the various additional emoluments, other than family allowances.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s comments, dated 26 August 2009, reporting the violent repression of striking public officials in the north of the country, and particularly the members of the Movement of Redeployed Public Officials of Côte d’Ivoire (MOFORCI), the arrest without due reason of the leaders of the Union of Communal Employees of Côte d’Ivoire (SYNAPECO-CI) and of the National Union of Municipal Police Officers of Côte d’Ivoire (SYNAPOMU-CI), intimidation by the authorities and interference in the activities of the National Union of Middle and Higher level Health Officials of Côte d’Ivoire (SYNACASS-CI). The Committee recalls that a climate of violence and the arrest and detention of trade union leaders for exercising lawful trade union activities without any charges being laid or court warrants being issued constitutes a serious hindrance to the exercise of trade union rights and requires severe measures to be taken by the authorities. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the ITUC’s observations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report containing its reply to the observations of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – the International Trade Union Confederation) dated 10 August 2006 concerning acts of repression of workers and in particular on the occasion of the demonstration of public employees organized by the National Union of Public Finance Workers (SINAFIG) on 27 September 2005, which was alleged to have been brutally repressed by the police, a number of officials having been injured on that occasion.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the public employees taking part in the demonstration were illegally occupying a public thoroughfare. The demonstration, which did not observe the relevant procedures, was dispersed by the police (not by armed bands) since it was causing a public disturbance and restricting freedom of movement and the freedom of other workers to reach their workplaces.

In this respect, the Committee recalls that the right to organize public meetings or demonstrations in support of social and economic demands, constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights. Nevertheless, organizations must observe the general provisions relating to public meetings, which are applicable to everyone. The prohibition of demonstrations or processions on public streets, when it is feared that disturbances might occur, does not necessarily constitute an infringement of trade union rights, but the authorities should strive to reach agreement with the organizers of meetings to enable them to be held in some other place or under agreed upon conditions so as to minimize the likelihood of disturbances. While reasonable restrictions are acceptable, they should not result in breaches of fundamental civil liberties (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 37). The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure observance of these principles.

Finally, the Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), dated 28 August 2007, concerning the occupation of the headquarters of the National Union of Secondary School Teachers (SYNESCI) by the government authorities, recruitment of a militia by the maritime police to intimidate strikers and threats of penalties against primary‑school teachers on strike. The Committee asks the Government to send its reply to the observations of the ITUC.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee takes notes of the Government’s report.

It also notes the comments of 10 August 2006 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the ICFTU, since the armed insurrection of 2002 Côte d’Ivoire has been in a state of chaos and those in power are using armed bands to repress demonstrations and attack farm workers; for example, the police used violence to break up a demonstration of public employees organized by the National Union of Public Finance Workers (SINAFIG) on 27 September 2005 to call for the payment of arrears in their entitlements. The Committee expresses its concern at the seriousness of these allegations and points out that there can be a genuinely free and independent trade union movement only in an environment in which basic human rights are observed (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 26). In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the right to demonstrate may be freely exercised in Côte d’Ivoire and to send its observations on the ICFTU’s comments with its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee refers to its previous comments and notes with interest the Circulars of 1996 forwarded by the Government concerning the abolition of prior agreement for establishing trade unions, transmitted by the Government in response to its observation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's report as well as the information it communicated to the Conference Committee in June 1995 and the discussion which ensued on that occasion.

The Committee notes with interest the amendments introduced by Act No. 95-15 of 12 January 1995 establishing a Labour Code. In particular, it notes that section 82-11 of the Code restricts the powers of the President of the Republic to submit a collective difference to compulsory arbitration to cases in which it is admissible to interrupt or prohibit a strike in accordance with the principles of freedom of association (essential services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in cases of acute national crises).

The Committee requests the Government to send with its next report a copy of communication No. 00321/EFPPS/DERT of 4 March 1996 and circular No. 0322/EFPPS/DERT of 4 March concerning the abolition of prior agreement for establishing trade unions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes from the Government's report that no texts have as yet been adopted under section 10 of Act No. 92-571 establishing the general conditions of service of the public service with regard to strike procedures in public services. Observing the Government's indication that regulations to govern minimum service in the event of a general work stoppage are to be adopted, the Committee recalls that it pointed out in its 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining that such a service should meet at least two requirements. It must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service. Workers' organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authority (paragraph 161). The Committee asks the Government to send with its future reports any implementing texts adopted under section 10.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 1594 and 1647 (296th report of the Committee approved by the Governing Body at its session of November 1994). The Committee also takes note of the content of the draft Labour Code which is being prepared and which was supplied during the direct contacts that took place in Côte d'Ivoire when Case No. 1594 was being examined.

1. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest section 82.11 of the draft Labour Code which limits the powers of the President of the Republic to refer a collective dispute to compulsory arbitration to cases where a strike may be ended or prohibited in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, since it provides for such a possibility only in the following circumstances;

(a) if the strike affects an essential service, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population;

(b) in the event of an acute national crisis.

2. The Committee also notes with interest the provisions in the draft Code concerning the representativeness of workers' and employers' organizations (section 56(1), (2) and (3)) which set out objective, precise and predetermined criteria directly linked to election results, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association.

3. Lastly, in order to clear up any ambiguity, the Committee like the Committee on Freedom of Association, requests the Government to amend Act No. 60-315 of 20 September 1960 on Associations, so as to provide that it does not apply to trade unions. The Committee hopes that provisions taking account of its comments will be adopted in the near future, and asks the Government to inform it of any development in this respect in its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes Act No. 92-570 issuing the general conditions of service of the public service and Act No. 92-571 respecting the procedures for calling a strike in public services.

It requests the Government to supply a copy of any decree which is adopted under section 10 of Act No. 92-571.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee recalls that for several years its comments have concerned the need to amend section 183 of the Labour Code, which gives the President of the Republic excessive powers to submit an industrial relations dispute to compulsory arbitration in order to bring an end to a strike. The Committee notes that the Government supplies in its report the same information as that contained in a previous report that the procedure set out in section 183 is only put into effect by the President of the Republic in cases concerning a ministerial department and, in other cases, by the Minister of Labour which, according to the Government, restricts the concept of general interest, since the President's intervention is limited to ministerial departments.

In these circumstances, the Committee is bound to recall once again that, irrespective of the authority which refers a dispute to compulsory arbitration, whether it is the President of the Republic or the Minister of Labour, that authority should only be empowered to refer a dispute to arbitration and, by so doing, prohibit or restrict the exercise of strike action in three circumstances: in cases where the strike affects an essential service in the strict sense of the term, that is a service the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; in cases where the strike is called by public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authorities; or in the event of an acute national crisis.

The Committee also notes that the Government states in its report that no progress has been made concerning the amendment to section 183, which had been submitted to the Labour Commission as part of a general reform of the Labour Code, due to the fact that a new commission concerning the Labour Code was established on 26 March 1992 with the Minister of Labour as its president.

The Committee expresses once again the firm hope that the new commission will make every effort to ensure that section 183 of the Labour Code is adopted in the very near future in the version proposed earlier, which was in conformity with the principles of freedom of association, and it requests the Government to indicate any measure which has been taken in this respect in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee refers to its previous comments concerning the need to amend section 183 of the Labour Code, which gives the President of the Republic excessive powers to submit an industrial relations dispute to compulsory arbitration in order to bring an end to a strike. The Committee noted in its previous observations that a draft amendment to this section had been prepared which would restrict the powers in question to the cases in which it is admissible to end or prohibit a strike in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, namely: where the strike affects an essential service, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; where the strike is called by public officials acting in their capacity as agents of the public authorities; or during an acute national crisis.

The Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government in its latest report that, once the amendment has been agreed to by the social partners and the permanent committee of the Labour Commission, it will be submitted to the Labour Commission within the framework of the general reform of the Labour Code that is currently under way.

In these circumstances, the Committee once again hopes that the new version of section 183 of the Labour Code, which is in conformity with the principles of freedom of association, will be adopted in the very near future and it requests the Government to indicate in its next report all progress made in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report.

In its previous observation, the Committee noted with interest that the new proposed wording of section 183 of the Labour Code would restrict the current powers of the President of the Republic to decide to submit an industrial relations dispute to compulsory arbitration, when a strike or a lock-out is likely to prejudice public order in the following circumstances:

1. in cases where the strike affects an essential service, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population;

2. in cases where the strike is called by public officials acting in their capacity as agents of the public authorities;

3. in the event of an acute national crisis.

The Committee notes, from the Government's report, that the draft amendment to the above text has been transmitted to the social partners for their examination.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures that have been taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.