Definitive Report - Report No 33, 1960

Case No 187 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 12-SEP-58 - Closed

1. 22. The complaint of the Miners' International Federation (London) is contained in two communications addressed directly to the I.L.O on 12 September and 2 October 1958 respectively.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 23. It is alleged that the Northern Rhodesia Mine Workers' Union, an affiliate of the complaining organisation, placed advertisements in the press, pursuant to its rules, in Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom, inviting applications to fill the position of General Secretary of the union, which had become vacant. On 14 May 1958 the union appointed as its Secretary, from among the said applicants, Mr. A. E. Lewis, who had been up to that time an employee of the British Trades Union Congress. The complainants allege that Mr. Lewis applied to the High Commissioner for the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, on 15 May 1958, for a residence permit, but that this was refused on 19 June 1958, as a result of which he has been forced to resign the trade union office to which he had been appointed. In the view of the complainants, the action of the authorities constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which provides that workers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
2. 24. In a communication addressed to the Director-General on 23 January 1959, the Government of the United Kingdom forwarded observations on the complaint on behalf of the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The latter Government contends that Article 3 of Convention No. 87 referred to above cannot be construed as exempting trade unions from the operation of the ordinary and reasonable laws of the country in which they are established. It declares that the Immigration Act, under which Mr. Lewis was refused a permit, " is not designed to interfere with the freedom of organisation of trade unions, but to give effect to the right which any country must have to control the composition of its own population ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 25. The United Kingdom has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but the Government has communicated no declaration to the International Labour Office accepting the obligations of the Convention on behalf of Northern Rhodesia. It has, however, communicated a declaration accepting the obligations of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84) on behalf of Northern Rhodesia.
2. 26. In Case No. 27 relating to Hong Kong, the Committee expressed the view, in general terms, that it is not called upon to deal with the general question of the status of aliens not covered by international Conventions. In Case No. 16 relating to Morocco, the Committee declared that it should not " deal with matters falling within national legislation concerning aliens unless they have direct repercussions on the exercise of trade union rights ". The allegations in that case related to the expulsion from Morocco of trade union leaders not of Moroccan nationality, but the Committee has been guided by the same principle when it has been called upon to examine allegations relating to the refusal to admit persons to national territory. In Case No. 38 relating to Cyprus, the Committee stated that " the real question involved is not one of alleged infringement of trade union rights but rather a question as to the sovereign right of a country to grant or refuse " to aliens permission to enter its territory.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 27. Mr. Lewis had no previous connection of any kind with Northern Rhodesia. In these circumstances, the refusal to him of a residence permit would appear to be a matter of immigration policy outside the competence of the Committee rather than an infringement of freedom of association appropriate for consideration by it, and the Committee recommends that no further action be taken.