Definitive Report - Report No 102, 1968

Case No 512 (Cyprus) - Complaint date: 14-APR-67 - Closed

1. 8. The complaint is contained in communications to the I.L.O from the Miners' Trade Unions International (dated 14 April 1967 and 28 April 1967), and from the Pancyprian Federation of Labour (P.E.O.) (dated 25 May 1967). Certain other unions affiliated to the Pancyprian Federation of Labour addressed communications to the Director-General indicating their support for the complaint brought by the Federation.
2. 9. The complaint relates to the alleged refusal of the Cyprus Mines Corporation (Skouriotisis) to recognise or negotiate with the Pancyprian Union of Miners (P.U.M.), which is affiliated to the Pancyprian Federation of Labour, and to alleged discrimination by the Cyprus Mines Corporation (C.M.C.) against members of the said union, contrary to the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
3. 10. The Government submitted its observations by communications dated 23 May 1967 and 18 July 1967.
4. 11. Cyprus 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 12. In its communication of 25 May 1967 the P.E.O states that, after refusing for many years to recognise trade unions, the Cyprus Mines Corporation announced on 8 August 1959, following union pressure, that " they are prepared to recognise one Greek and one Turkish union if and when such union is in a position to present to the management certified lists of names of workers indicating that a majority of at least 60 per cent signed to become members of each respective union ". The Corporation's policy, as stated in the declaration of 8 August 1959, was criticised by the unions with members employed by the Corporation which insisted that they should all be recognised irrespective of membership.
2. 13. The complainants further allege that even this unsatisfactory policy of the Corporation was not applied equitably, contending that, although over 65 per cent of the Greek miners in the C.M.C joined the Pancyprian Union of Miners, the C.M.C refused to recognise it, and recognised instead a Greek union, affiliated to the I.C.F.T.U, with membership amounting to only about 30 per cent of the workers, and a Turkish union, also affiliated to the I.C.F.T.U, alleging that these unions, taken together, were more representative than the P.U.M. Despite repeated challenges by the P.U.M and the P.E.O to the Corporation, the latter has refused to permit a secret ballot among its employees to assess the relative strengths of the unions in question.
3. 14. The complainants further allege that the Corporation discriminates against their members in respect of promotion, dismissal and other matters and that, although this policy constitutes an offence under section 50 of the Trade Unions Act (No. 71) of 1965, the burden of proof for the offence rests with the worker, which makes the protection of section 50 quite inadequate.
4. 15. Specific reference is made in the communication to the alleged dismissal of Mr. Charalambos Anastasiou in 1955 on the ground of his trade union activities.
5. 16. In conclusion, the complainants recall that the P.E.O is the most influential and most representative workers' Organisation in Cyprus, that the P.U.M is the most influential mining union, and that the Corporation's policy is contrary to the established pattern of industrial relations in Cyprus, where " in all industries and in every enterprise, all existing unions, irrespective of size, membership or affiliation, are accepted at the negotiating table as equal participants ".
6. 17. By its communications of 23 May 1967 and 18 July 1967 the Government, while deploring the exclusion of the P.U.M from the bargaining table of the Corporation and recalling its own repeated requests that the P.U.M be recognised by the C.M.C, indicates that the Cyprus Workers' Confederation and the Cyprus Turkish Trade Union Federation are recognised bargaining agents in the Corporation, operating without any interference on the part of the latter, and that, in its view, Convention No. 98 only makes it incumbent upon an employer to recognise trade unions and bargain with them in good faith and does not oblige him to recognise and deal with any particular union.
7. 18. The Government further points out that section 50 of the Trade Unions Act, 1965, has not been invoked by the P.U.M or the P.E.O and that the only two specific cases of alleged discrimination reported to the Government were proved on inquiry to be unfounded.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 19. With regard to the allegations concerning the non-recognition of the complainant union by the Cyprus Mines Corporation, the Committee recalls that, in previous cases', it has not considered the refusal by an employer to bargain with a particular union as an infringement of freedom of association. As it pointed out in one case, " it has adopted this attitude on the basis of the principle that collective bargaining must, if it is to remain effective, assume a voluntary character and not entail recourse to measures of compulsion which would alter the voluntary nature of the bargaining ".
2. 20. With regard to the allegation of discrimination by the Cyprus Mines Corporation against members of the complainant union, the Committee considers that, if substantiated, these acts could constitute a violation of the principles of Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
3. 21. The Committee notes, however, that the only specific allegation of discrimination referred to by the complainants in their communication is that summarised in paragraph 15 above. Since the alleged dismissal dates back to 1955, the Committee does not consider that it now calls for examination.
4. 22. The Committee further notes the statement made by the Government and summarised in paragraph 18 above that the only two specific cases of alleged discrimination reported to the Government were proved on inquiry to be groundless.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 23. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that neither the allegation relating to the non-recognition of the complainants nor, on the basis of the information furnished by the complainants, the allegation relating to anti-union discrimination calls for further examination.