Definitive Report - Report No 19, 1956

Case No 120 (France) - Complaint date: 31-MAY-55 - Closed

HISTORY OF THE CASE

• HISTORY OF THE CASE
  199. 199 By a communication dated 31 May 1955, supplemented subsequently by three letters dated respectively 27 June, 1 July and 16 July 1955, the National Federation of Christian Publishing, Paper, Cardboard and Allied Trade Unions (Paris) presented a complaint to the Director-General alleging infringements of the exercise of trade union rights by the French Government.
  200. 200 The complainant alleged that press and printing trade workers who were not members of trade unions affiliated to the French C.G.T were systematically excluded from the occupation in question by virtue of the application of an enactment dating back to 1944 and intended to ensure to the C.G.T a monopoly in the hiring of workers in press undertakings. In the view of the complainant the resulting situation was incompatible with the provisions of 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), both of which had been ratified by the French Government.
  201. 201 By a communication dated 5 November 1955 the French Government forwarded to the Director-General its observations on the complaint presented by the National Federation of Christian Publishing, Paper, Cardboard and Allied Trade Unions.
  202. 202 In its reply the Government declared that the discussions prior to the adoption of these two Conventions showed that they did not deal with union security and closed-shop clauses. The Government stated further that a draft Bill had been adopted by the National Assembly - and was before the Council of the Republic-which would protect freedom of association and guarantee its free exercise by all workers and which also provided that any provision or agreement requiring an employer to engage or maintain in his employment only adherents of a particular union should be null and void and prescribed penal sanctions in the event of the contravention of these provisions by any employer.
  203. 203 When it examined the case at its 13th Session (Geneva, November 1955), the Committee recalled that in several earlier cases it had observed that the Conference had taken the view that union security arrangements were matters for regulation in accordance with national practice. In this connection, the Committee on Freedom of Association referred to a statement of the Committee on Industrial Relations set up by the Conference to examine this matter in which the latter Committee declared : " The Committee finally agreed to express in the report their view that the Convention [No. 98] could in no way be interpreted as authorising or prohibiting union security arrangements, such questions being matters for regulation in accordance with national practice ". This view was accepted by the Conference when it adopted the report.
  204. 204 The Committee therefore considered that the allegation that the French Government, by applying the text criticised by the complainant, had violated a Convention which it had ratified could not be maintained.
  205. 205 The Committee also noted that it appeared from the Government's reply that a new legal text was in process of being enacted which would bring about a change in the situation against which the complainant protested. The Committee observed that if the Government should enact a measure of this kind, this, in view of the interpretation by the Conference referred to above, would also be compatible with the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
  206. 206 In those circumstances, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to decide that the case did not call for further examination. This recommendation was approved by the Governing Body when it adopted the 17th Report of the Committee.
• REQUEST THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REOPENED
  207. 207 Since the adoption by the Governing Body of the Committee's conclusions, which, in accordance with the procedure in force, were communicated to the complaining organisation, the latter had addressed a letter dated 22 December 1955 to the Director-General of the I.L.O, in which it protests against the decision of the Governing Body and requests that the whole case should be re-examined.
  208. 208 The International Federation of Christian Trade Unions, in a communication dated 2 February 1956 addressed to the Director-General, states that it is aware of the letter of 22 December 1955 from the complaining organisation and supports its request for a reopening of the case.
  209. 209 In its communication dated 22 December 1955 the complaining organisation states that it is indignant " at the facility with which the I.L.O has decided that there is no violation of Convention No. 98 in France ", and expresses the view that the system of trade union pluralism as it exists in France has nothing in common with the system in the Anglo-Saxon countries, where pluralism, in the view of the complainant, is more a question of form than of substance ; it describes the Committee's conception as quite wrong because it assimilated the situation described to a kind of closed-shop. The complainant also criticises the Committee for not having tried to obtain the text against which it protested and which accorded a trade union monopoly to the C.G.T. Publishing Workers' Federation. After expressing its disappointment at the decision, the complaining organisation concludes with a specific request that the case should be re-examined.
  210. 210 In its communication dated 2 February 1956, the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions also deplores the decision of the Governing Body. It endorses the observations made by the National Federation of Christian Publishing, Paper, Cardboard and Allied Trade Unions in its letter of 22 December 1955. It then intimates that the Governing Body rejected the complaint after the French Government had given an assurance that a Bill to change the situation would be adopted within a short time, and adds that the Bill in question had remained in suspense before the Council of the Republic and that no conclusions thereon were near to being reached. It is this last fact-together with the observations of the complaining organisation in its letter of 22 December-which, in the view of the I.F.C.T.U, justifies a re-examination of the case, and it requests that such re-examination be made.

A. A. The Committee's conclusions

1. 211. The Committee notes that the interpretation of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) which it adopted in its previous report was that approved by the Conference itself when adopting the Convention. According to this interpretation, countries--and especially those having trade union pluralism-would in no way be bound, under the provisions of the Convention, to permit union security clauses either by law or as a matter of custom, while other countries which allow such clauses would not be placed in the position of being unable to ratify the Convention.
2. 212. In this connection the Committee notes the promulgation, on 27 April 1956, of Act No. 56-416 (Official Gazette of 28 April 1956), which provides guarantees against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment.
3. 213. Article 1 (a) of this Act prohibits any employer " from taking into consideration trade union affiliation or the exercise of trade union activities when making decisions relating to engagement, the conduct or distribution of work, vocational training, advancement, remuneration, the granting of social advantages, disciplinary measures or dismissals ". The article also states that employers shall not exercise pressure by any means in favour of or against any trade union organisation. The Act further stipulates that the use of trade union marks or labels may not have the effect of contravening the provisions of article 1 cited above and provides that " any provision or agreement shall be null and void which would oblige an employer to engage or retain in his service only adherents of trade unions owning a particular mark or label ". Finally, the Act prescribes penal sanctions in the event of contravention of its provisions, consisting in a fine of from 4,000 to 24,000 francs, or of from 24,000 to 240,000 francs in the case of a repeated offence.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 214. In these circumstances, having regard to the observations made in paragraph 211 above, the Committee maintains the conclusions which it formulated in its 17th Report and, having regard further to the fact that the Act analysed in paragraph 213 above puts an end to the actual situation against which the complaining organisation protested, recommends the Governing Body to decide that there is no ground for taking further action in this case.
   • Geneva, 29 May 1956. (Signed) Roberto AGO, Chairman.