Interim Report - Report No 338, November 2005

Case No 2348 (Iraq) - Complaint date: 15-MAY-04 - Closed

Allegation: Restrictions on the right to organize

984. The complaint is contained in communications dated 15 May and 12 July 2004 from the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq (UUI) and the Federation of Workers’ Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI).

1. 985. As a consequence of the lack of a response on the part of the Government at its June 2005 meeting [see 337th Report, para. 10], the Committee launched an urgent appeal and drew the attention of the Government to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of this case even if the observations or information from the Government in question have not been received in due time. To date, the Government has not sent its observations.
2. 986. Iraq has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), but has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 987. In their communication dated 15 May 2004, the complainants indicated that the Iraqi workers themselves had set up several trade union organizations after the fall of the previous regime, including the Federation of Workers’ Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI), of which the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq (UUI) is an affiliate. The FWCUI was set up at its founding national conference held on 8 December 2003 in Baghdad and is now grouping 300,000 Iraqi workers. As for the UUI, it was formed in May 2003 with the election of an executive council and a general secretary. It has now formed local branches in seven provinces recording so far 150,000 affiliated workers from around the country.
2. 988. The complainants explained that, on 28 January 2004, Decree No. 16, issued by Interim Governing Council President, Adnan Pachachi, granted recognition to one of the existing trade union federations in Iraq, the Iraqi Federation of Workers’ Trade Unions (IFTU), by stating that the IFTU and its President, Mr. Rasem Hussein Abdullah, were “the legitimate and legal representatives of the labour movement in Iraq”. At various workplaces, such as the Baghdad railway station or Basra Refinery, after the adoption of Decree No. 16, Iraqi workers were told by the management that they should join the legalized union, thus implying that the other unions would be illegal. The complainants further mentioned that by not affiliating to the only recognized union, Iraqi workers can be arrested and put in jail.
3. 989. The complainants considered that the current situation created by the introduction of Decree No. 16 was not consistent with ILO standards on freedom of association and in particular 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). They claimed that, by passing Decree No. 16, which selects the union to be granted recognition, the public authorities had barred the right to affiliate to unions of one’s own choosing and had perpetuated the previous system of official selection and recognition of trade unions, in blatant contradiction with the principles enshrined in the Conventions.
4. 990. The complainants explained that hundreds of thousands of workers in Iraq were currently unemployed (70 per cent of the workforce). Through their organizations and duly elected representatives, they claimed their right to formulate demands towards the elaboration of national labour legislation. They shared the view that full freedom of association, guaranteeing the Iraqi workers the right to organize and to bargain collectively, was a prerequisite in this respect.
5. 991. The complaint also referred to the fact that the 1987 law banning the right to strike in all public enterprises had not been repealed, and that Iraqi trade unionists had been threatened by company managers and attacked by the occupying forces for striking.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 992. The Committee regrets that, despite the time which has passed since the presentation of the complaint, to date the Government has not responded to the allegations made by the complainant organizations, although the Committee has urged it to send its observations or information on the case on several occasions, including through an urgent appeal launched at the Committee’s June 2005 meeting. Under these circumstances, in accordance with the procedure established in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report as approved by the Governing Body, the Committee stated that it would present a report on the substance of this case at its next session, even if the observations or information requested had not been received in due time.
2. 993. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations made against them.
3. 994. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern restrictions placed upon the right of workers to form and join the organization of their own choosing and to bargain collectively as a result of Decree No. 16, issued on 28 January 2004, which recognized the Iraqi Federation of Workers’ Trade Unions (IFTU) as the only legitimate and legal organization in Iraq.
4. 995. While taking note of the process of reconstruction ongoing in the country and the rebuilding of national institutions, as well as the underlying climate of violence, the Committee insists on the importance it places on the right of workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing in full freedom. While it is generally the advantage of workers and employers to avoid the proliferation of competing organizations, a monopoly situation imposed by law is at variance with the principle of free choice of workers’ and employers’ organizations [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 288]. Workers should be free to choose the union which, in their opinion, will best promote their occupational interests without interference by the authorities. In this respect, the right to establish and to join organizations “of their own choosing”, contained in Convention No. 87, is in no way intended as an expression of support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union diversity. It is intended to convey, on the one hand, that in many countries there are several organizations among which the workers or the employers may wish to choose freely and, on the other hand, that workers and employers may wish to establish new organizations in a country where no such diversity has been found. This diversity should remain possible in all cases. Therefore, any governmental attitude involving the “imposition” of a situation of monopoly would be contrary to the basic principles of freedom of association and measures taken against workers because they attempt to constitute organizations outside the official trade union organization would be incompatible with the above principle [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 291 and 301].
5. 996. In view of the foregoing, the right of workers who do not wish to join the IFTU and wish to join another organization in defence of their interests should be protected. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Decree No. 16 so as to ensure that workers may affiliate with the workers’ organization of their own choosing free from interference by the public authorities. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard.
6. 997. As regards the allegation of threats and attacks against Iraqi trade unionists, as a consequence of the ban on the right to strike in all public enterprises, the Committee considers that the allegation is too vague for it to draw any conclusions and therefore requests the complainants to provide further information in this regard. It would however recall the importance it attaches to the principle that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests. In this respect, public servants in state-owned commercial or industrial enterprises should have the right to negotiate collective agreements, enjoy suitable protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and enjoy the right to strike, provided that the interruption of services does not endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population [Digest, op. cit., paras. 475 and 532]. The Committee requests the government to review its legislation to ensure that this principle is fully respected with regard to workers in public enterprises.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 998. In light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to the allegation, despite the fact that it was invited to do so on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal, and urges it to reply promptly.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Decree No. 16 so as to ensure that workers may affiliate with the workers’ organization of their own choosing free from interference by the public authorities and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard.
   • (c) As regards the allegation of threats and attacks against Iraqi trade unionists as a consequence of a 1987 law banning the right to strike in public enterprises, the Committee requests the complainants to provide further information in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to review its legislation in order to ensure that only those workers in public enterprises that may be providing essential services in the strict sense of the term may be prohibited from undertaking strike action.