Definitive Report - Report No 17, 1956

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

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 78. 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.
2. 79. The complainant alleges that, following the Liberation in 1944, the responsible secretaries of the Paris Printing Trades Chamber (C.G.T) and the General Publishing Workers' Union (C.G.T) managed to obtain from the then Press Director, Mr. Francisque Gay, acting on behalf of the Secretary for Information in the Provisional French Government, an Order whereby the C.G.T unions in the trade were granted a monopoly for the hiring of printing workers in newspaper plants.
3. 80. According to the complainant this Order has formed the basis for all the infringements of freedom of association in this trade which have occurred since that time. However, although the Government has always confirmed the existence of this text, it has been impossible for the complainant to obtain an official copy of the Order and, lacking this document, the complainant has been unable to produce the concrete evidence to enable legal proceedings to be taken with a view to having the Order rescinded.
4. 81. Because of this Order the presses started up again with workers belonging only to the C.G.T, except in the case of the " Small Posters Printing Company ", which continued to employ workers affiliated to the C.F.T.C. In this situation, the Paris Printing Trades Chamber and the General Publishing Workers' Union, both affiliated to the C.G.T, applied for an arbitration by Mr. Georges Dangon, Chairman of the Newspaper Printers' Group, who, on the basis of the Order in question, found against the C.F.T.C members, and the latter were forced to choose between losing their jobs with the Small Posters Printing Company or joining the C.G.T. General Publishing Workers' Union.
5. 82. The complaining Organisation states that it has many times made representations to the Government to bring about a change in the position, but that every effort has been in vain and that throughout France Christian Trade unionists employed in the newspaper trade have gradually been forced to give up their jobs or to leave the trade union of their choice.
6. 83. The complainant declares that, while several judgments have been given in favour of Christian trade unionists who were dismissed because of their union membership ordering their employers to pay damages for wrongful dismissal, action of this kind has concerned isolated cases and has not become general.
7. 84. In support of its allegations the complaining Organisation cites three specific cases, as being merely typical among many, in which members of Christian trade unions have been dismissed because of their union affiliation (Continental Daily Mail) or in which employers have refused to engage workers belonging to the C.F.T.C (Le Figaro and La Nouvelle République).
8. 85. Faced by government indifference the complaining organisation addressed letters to all the members of the National Assembly calling on them to intervene directly to secure the drafting of a law which would effectively protect freedom of association. This step resulted in a Bill being presented (No. 5889) on 22 December 1948 for the purpose of protecting freedom of association and guaranteeing its free exercise by all workers. When the complaint was made to the I.L.O the National Assembly had still not considered this text.
9. 86. The complainant also points out that, in its annual reports concerning the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98) the French Government states that a Bill intended to strengthen the guarantee of the free exercise of freedom of association had been lodged with the Officers of the National Assembly on 11 February 1954 and that the proposal had been approved in principle by the governmental authorities. The complainant observes in this connection that, while it is true that the adoption of the proposal was voted by the National Assembly on 26 May 1955, it must be remembered that the enactment has still to go through a long series of Parliamentary meanderings before it is promulgated. According to the complaining Organisation, the length of this procedure may be still further increased because, it has been given to understand, the text of the Bill has now been distributed to the Council of the Republic so that the latter may draft its amendments to it.
10. 87. In conclusion the complaining organisation points out that the French Government has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bar gaining Convention (No. 98) and states that the facts set forth above show that the provisions of these Conventions are far from being respected by the Government. It therefore appeals to the I.L.O to make the necessary representations to the French Government to bring about an alteration in a situation which is contrary to the principles enunciated in the International Labour Conventions referred to above.
11. 88. The complaint and the further information forwarded to the Office by the complainant were communicated to the French Government by two letters dated 27 June and 22 July 1955.
    • ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S REPLY
12. 89. 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.
13. 90. The Government points out that the complaint makes reference to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98) and alleges that the situation in respect of which it is made is contrary to the provisions of those Conventions. The Government recalls, in this connection, that the Conference discussions prior to the adoption of the two Conventions in question show that they do not deal with union security or closed-shop clauses.
14. 91. The Government, on the other hand, considers that the enactment of new legislation would be an appropriate means of finding a solution for the difficulties referred to by the complainant and that, with this precise purpose in view, a draft Bill intended to protect freedom of association and to guarantee its free exercise by all workers was adopted on 26 May 1955 by the National Assembly. This Bill, which is now before the Council of the Republic, would, among other things, prohibit any employer from taking into consideration trade union affiliation or activity when making his decisions concerning engagement of workers, conduct and allocation of work, vocational training, promotion, remuneration and granting of social advantages, disciplinary measures and dismissals ; it also provides that any provision or agreement requiring an employer to engage or maintain in his employment only adherents of a union bearing a particular label shall be null and void and prescribes penal sanctions in the event of the contravention of these provisions by any employer.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 92. The complainant alleges that press and printing trade workers who are not members of trade unions affiliated to the C.G.T are 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 is incompatible with the provisions of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98), both of which have been ratified by the French Government.
2. 93. In its reply the Government declares that the discussions prior to the adoption of these two Conventions show that they do not deal with union security and closed shop clauses.
3. 94. The Government states further that a draft Bill has been adopted by the National Assembly-and is now before the Council of the Republic-which will protect freedom of association and guarantee its free exercise by all workers and which also provides that any provision or agreement requiring an employer to engage or maintain in his employment only adherents of a particular union shall be null and void and prescribes penal sanctions in the event of the contravention of these provisions by any employer.
4. 95. When the Committee examined Case No. 96, relating to the United Kingdom, and Case No. 114, relating to the United States, it 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.
5. 96. It would appear, therefore, that the allegation that the French Government, by applying the text criticised by the complainant, has violated a Convention which it has ratified cannot be maintained.
6. 97. It would appear further, from the Government's reply, that a new legal text is in process of being enacted which will bring about a change in the situation against which the complainant protests. 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 (No. 98).

The Committee's recommendations

1. 98. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.