Definitive Report - Report No 2, 1952

Case No 31 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 01-JUL-51 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  71. 71 The complainants make the five following allegations:
      • (a) In Nigeria it is impossible for workers to exercise their trade union rights.
      • (b) On 7 November 1949 miners struck at the Government-owned coal mine at Enugu. On 18 November, 900 police concentrated on the scene attacked the strikers, killing 21 and wounding 51. A Commission of Enquiry was appointed and found that the police officer who gave the order to fire had made an error of judgment. This officer was dismissed but the complainants demand that he be prosecuted and that greater compensation should be paid to the families of those killed.
      • (c) In July 1950 police used tear gas to disperse strikers at the Bukuru tin mines.
      • (d) In August 1950, 30,000 employees of the United Africa Company went on strike after months of fruitless effort to obtain wage increases. Scores of strikers were arrested and others beaten and intimidated by armed police. At Lagos, according to a press report, when strikers arrived to picket the Kingsway Stores they were attacked by the police with batons.
      • (e) The General Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of U.A.C. African Workers was arrested, charged with inciting strikers to commit assault against unknown persons and taking part in an unlawful assembly and sentenced to five months' imprisonment and a fine of £52.10.0.
  72. Analysis of the Reply
  72. 72 On the first allegation, the Government states that trade union rights are guaranteed by legislation and that there are in Nigeria nearly 150 unions with a membership of about 110,000.
  73. 73 Regarding the second allegation, miners at the Enugu mine started a go-slow movement. In view of the tense situation, police were sent to the area with the object of maintaining order. On 18 November 1949, as a precaution, the authorities decided to remove explosives from the mine. Seventy-five police, not 900 (the latter was the total number in the district), covered this operation and encountered a large crowd of miners. The officer in charge apprehended a threat to his party and ordered them to open fire. Twenty-one miners were killed and 51 wounded. An independent Commission of Enquiry endorsed the precaution of concentrating police in the area to keep order but found that the police officer in charge, in ordering his men to fire, made an error of judgment in difficult circumstances. The Commission enquired further into the course of industrial relations at the mine and found faults on both sides and, especially, that the influence of the miners' union secretary had done much to cause tension. Subsequently, experts in industrial relations were sent out from the United Kingdom to give assistance, a new union has been set up and recognised by the employers, district consultative committees have been established and steps are being taken to establish a joint industrial council for the industry.
  74. 74 Regarding the third allegation, some 150 men adopted a hostile attitude and threw stones at the police, who had to use tear gas to disperse the crowd. No one was injured or arrested. The police did not act as strike breakers.
  75. 75 Regarding the fourth allegation, the strike in question was called although the employers had agreed with the union's demand for arbitration and was marked by violence by strikers against non-strikers. The allegation is greatly exaggerated; a crowd was simply made to move on from the Kingsway Stores and two arrests were made after a stone had been thrown through a window. The police did not more than maintain public order and did not act as strike breakers. The strike was called off and the dispute went to arbitration.
  76. 76 Regarding the last allegation, the union official in question was arrested in connection with breaches of public order and was convicted of incitement to assault and of taking part in an unlawful assembly. The penalties imposed were alternative and not cumulative as alleged.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 77. As regards the first allegation, which is a general statement unsupported by any details or evidence, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the complainants have not offered sufficient evidence to justify reference of the matter to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission.
2. 78. In the case of the second allegation, the independent Commission of Enquiry appointed by the Nigerian Government found as a fact that a difficult situation arose involving the question of maintaining public order, but that the police chief who gave the order to fire made an error of judgment in his method of dealing with the situation. According to the complainants, compensation has been paid but the sum is not sufficient. The Committee considers that this aspect of the matter is one for the civil courts or other domestic procedure and is not appropriate for consideration by the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission. The Commission of Enquiry appointed by the Nigerian Government, while finding there was an error of judgment, endorsed the general action taken by the authorities for the preservation of public order. In view of this finding and the action subsequently taken to improve industrial relations, the Committee considers that the police, in seeking to keep order, were not preventing the exercise of the right to strike or of any fundamental trade union right and that, accordingly, the facts alleged, if proved, would not constitute an infringement of the exercise of freedom of association. It accordingly recommends that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
3. 79. With regard to the third and fourth allegations, the Government again insists that the police did not act as strike breakers but solely to prevent or deal with breaches of public order, while in the case of the fifth allegation it declares that the union official concerned was convicted solely of offences against public order. In all the circumstances of the case as previously stated, the Committee considers that the action of the authorities was not directed against the exercise of fundamental trade union rights but only to maintain order and that the alleged facts, if proved, would not constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights and, accordingly, it recommends that these allegations do not call for further consideration by the Governing Body.

80. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to note with satisfaction the appointment by the Nigerian Government of an independent Commission of Enquiry and the terms of its report and the further action subsequently taken to improve industrial relations, and to place on record its view that the appointment of such an independent Commission of Enquiry is a particularly appropriate method of dealing with situations such as that under review, and to decide that in the circumstances the case as a whole does not call for further examination.