Interim Report - Report No 52, 1961

Case No 194 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 17-FEB-59 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

INTRODUCTION
Allegations relating to Deregistration of Trade Unions
The Committee's recommendations

123. The complaint of the W.F.T.U is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 17 February 1959. The Government of the United Kingdom forwarded its observations by a letter dated 13 May 1959. At its meeting on 25 and 26 May 1959 the Committee decided to request the Government to furnish further information on certain points. The Government did so by a communication dated 28 October 1959. At its meeting on 9 and 10 November 1959 the Committee decided again to request further information from the Government. The Government forwarded further information by a letter dated 12 February 1960. At its meeting on 17 and 18 February 1960 the Committee decided to request the Government to furnish further information on certain aspects of the case and recommended the Governing Body to ask for further information in respect of other allegations. At the same time, the Committee recommended the Governing Body ° to dismiss allegations relating to searches of and removal of documents from trade union premises. The Governing Body approved the Committee's recommendations at its 144th Session (1-4 March 1960). Further information was furnished by the Government in a communication dated 13 May 1960. At its meeting on 20 May 1960 the Committee again recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish further information on certain aspects of the allegations and the Governing Body approved this recommendation at its 145th Session (27-28 May 1960). Further information was forwarded by the Government on 4 November 1960, but this was received too late to permit of its being examined by the Committee when it met on 8 November 1960, and the case was adjourned. The Government furnished further observations in a letter dated 3 January 1961.
124. The Government of the United Kingdom has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), and has declared its provisions to be applicable without modification to Singapore.

Allegations relating to Deregistration of Trade Unions

125. The complainants allege that 17 trade union organisations, including the Seamen's Federation of Malaya and the Dockers' Federation, were deregistered during 1958.
126. In its letter dated 13 May 1959 the Government declared that two of these organisations were deregistered because of their voluntary dissolution, nine because they had ceased to exist and six because they had wilfully contravened certain provisions of the Trade Unions Ordinance after repeated warnings had been given to them.
127. According to section 15 (1) (b) (v) of the Trade Unions Ordinance, 1940, as amended, the Registrar of Trade Unions may withdraw or cancel the certificate of registration of a trade union if, inter alia, he is satisfied that the trade union has wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of the ordinance. Appeals against such decisions by the Registrar lie to the competent Minister but not to the courts. Under section 18 (c) of the ordinance, a trade union whose registration is withdrawn or cancelled shall be dissolved.
128. At its meeting in May 1959 the Committee observed that, in a number of previous cases, it has emphasised the importance which it attaches to the generally accepted principle that workers' and employers' organisations should not be liable to be suspended or dissolved by administrative authority. Deregistration of a trade union in Singapore automatically entails its dissolution, and the only appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions to deregister a trade union is to the competent Minister and not to the courts. In this connection the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has suggested that appeals against decisions of registrars should lie to the Supreme Court. In its annual report for the period 1957-58 on the application of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), in Singapore, the Government stated that steps were being taken to amend the legislation accordingly in the near future.
129. The Committee observed, therefore, that it would seem clear from the Government's reply and from the provisions of the Trade Unions Ordinance that six of the 17 unions alleged to have been dissolved in 1958 were in effect dissolved, against their will, by an administrative authority. At the same time it noted that, although the legislative amendment referred to in paragraph 128 above has not yet been made, deregistration is not a discretionary power but can be ordered only for one of the reasons specified in section 15 of the ordinance, including the reason given by the Government in the case of the six unions in question:" that the trade union has wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provision of the ordinance ".
130. In these circumstances with regard to the six unions which were deregistered-in effect, dissolved-for contravention of the Trade Unions Ordinance, the Committee decided, before formulating its conclusions on these allegations, to request the Government to state the precise nature of the contraventions in respect of which these unions, including the two mentioned by name in the complaint, were deregistered.
131. In its letter dated 28 October 1959 the Government gave information in respect of only two of the six unions referred to above, namely the two mentioned by name by the complainant. It declared that the Malayan National Seamen's Union (referred to in the complaint as the " Seamen's Federation of Malaya ") appealed successfully to the Minister of Labour and Welfare against cancellation of its certificate of registration, which it had since regained, and the Singapore Harbour Board Stevedores' and Wharf Workers' Union (referred to in the complaint as the " Dockers' Federation ") had, since the cancellation of its registration, reorganised itself and obtained registration under the title of the " Singapore Harbour Board Wharf and Stevedores Workers' Trade Union ".
132. At its meeting in November 1959 the Committee decided, before formulating its conclusions on this aspect of the case, to request the Government to furnish, with respect to the remaining four of the six unions concerned, information similar to that forwarded in the cases of the Malayan National Seamen's Union and the Singapore Harbour Board Stevedores' and Wharf Workers' Union. This request was conveyed to the Government by the Director-General in a letter dated 23 November 1959. The further observations forwarded by the Government on 12 February 1960 did not contain information on this point. In these circumstances the Committee, at its meeting on 17 and 18 February 1960, again decided to request the Government to state the precise nature of the contraventions in respect of which the remaining four of the six unions referred to in paragraph 129 above were deregistered.
133. In its reply dated 13 May 1960 the Government refers to the remaining four of the trade unions in question-Singapore Amusement Workers' Union, Singapore Cement Loading and Unloading Labourers' Union, Pakistan Seamen's Union of Singapore and Asian Maritime Officers' Union. The Government declares that, as at 1 April 1960, none of the four unions, deregistered in 1958, had reorganised or applied for a new registration, although it is " possible that the members had either earlier or subsequently joined other existing unions ". Only the Asian Maritime Officers' Union appealed against the cancellation of registration, the appeal being rejected by the then Minister of Labour and Welfare.
134. At its meeting in May 1960 the Committee noted that, although it had previously requested the Government to state the precise nature of the contraventions of the Trade Unions Ordinance in respect of which the six trade unions referred to earlier were deregistered against their will, this deregistration having, as the Committee observed in paragraph 111 of its 44th Report, in effect constituted dissolution by administrative authority, the Government still gave no information, in its communication dated 13 May 1960, as to the precise reasons for their deregistration.
135. In these circumstances, and noting the Government's statement, referred to in paragraph 131 above, that the Malayan National Seamen's Union successfully appealed against deregistration while the Singapore Harbour Board Stevedores' and Wharf Workers' Union reorganised and obtained a new registration, the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, decided:
(a) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which it attaches to the principle that workers' organisations should not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority and to the principle that appeals against the refusal or cancellation of registration of organisations by trade union registrars should lie to the courts;
(b) to request the Government to state the precise nature of the contraventions of the Trade Unions Ordinance in respect of which each of the four trade unions named in paragraph 9 above was deregistered and therefore had to be dissolved.
136. In its letter dated 3 January 1961 the Government of the United Kingdom forwards observations prepared by the Government of Singapore. The Government of Singapore declares that the four unions in question were closed down after recourse to the procedures laid down in the Trade Unions Ordinance and that, therefore, " there was no arbitrary exercise of administrative authority when these unions were dissolved ". The Government of Singapore states that proceedings with regard to the refusal or cancellation of registration of unions are matters within the executive purview and as such should not be left to the courts and expresses its view that " cases of appeal against the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions should still lie to the Minister ", but that " appeal lies to the High Court from the Minister's decision in the nature of certiorari proceedings, and in that way the I.L.O. Convention is substantially observed ".
137. The observations prepared by the Government of Singapore give the following detailed information. In accordance with subsection (1) of section 44 of the Trade Unions Ordinance (Chapter 154) the secretary of every registered trade union should furnish annually to the Registrar a general audited statement in the prescribed form of all receipts and expenditure during the period of 12 months and of the assets and liabilities of the trade union as at 31 March. This statement will have to be submitted on or before 30 June in each year as laid down by Regulation 18 of the Trade Unions Regulations, 1941. Despite the fact that prior notice together with the prescribed forms for such annual returns were sent to the four unions concerned, none submitted annual returns on the prescribed date. The Registrar of Trade Unions, therefore, in accordance with section 15 (1) (b) (v) of the ordinance cancelled the registration of these four unions as he was satisfied that these trade unions had wilfully and after notice from him contravened the provisions of the ordinance. Before the cancellation of the certificates of registration of these four unions in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 15 of the ordinance he gave each of them not less than two months' notice specifying the ground of the proposed cancellation and calling upon them to show cause within the two months' period why their certificates of registration should not be cancelled. During this two months' period none of the unions showed any cause why their certificates of registration should not be cancelled. Accordingly after the expiry of the two months' notice the certificates of these four unions were cancelled on the ground that the four unions had wilfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened section 44 of the ordinance.
138. The Committee considers therefore that the trade unions in question were in fact deregistered, this involving their dissolution, because they failed to comply, after having been given due warning, with the provisions of the Trade Unions Ordinance requiring trade unions to furnish to the Registrar of Trade Unions prescribed annual statements of their receipts and expenditure and their assets and liabilities.
139. With respect to the Government of Singapore's statement that an appeal lies to the High Court from the Minister's decision " in the nature of certiorari proceedings ", it is difficult to comment without having fuller knowledge as to how the procedure by way of certiorari operates in Singapore. Under English law, if the position has been correctly understood by the Committee, a writ of certiorari is a writ proceeding from a superior court and directing a lower court before which proceedings are pending to transmit the record of proceedings to the superior court. This step is taken only when there are exceptional circumstances which cause the superior court to feel that the case will be dealt with more satisfactorily by the superior court. The procedure is not normally one of appeal but one which operates before judgment is given in the lower court concerned. Such a writ cannot be issued freely by a plaintiff in the same way as the ordinary writs used to institute court proceedings. It can be obtained through the offices of the Supreme Court only when sufficient cause is shown by a plaintiff to justify the invocation of an extraordinary remedy.
140. In these circumstances the Committee considers that it is not in a position, on the basis of the information before it, to judge how far this special procedure should be regarded as giving effect, in Singapore, to the generally accepted right of trade unions, as indicated by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, to appeal directly to the High Court, by way of normal legal procedure, from decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions. It is to be observed further that, although the Government of the United Kingdom stated (see paragraph 128 above) in its annual report for the period 1957-58 on the application of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), in Singapore that steps were being taken to amend the legislation in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of Experts, in the report recently forwarded to the Office for the period 1958-60 this possibility is negatived and the report is accompanied by the text of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959, which provides that decisions of the Minister on appeals from the Registrar " shall be final and shall not be called into question in any court ".
141. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body:
(a) to draw the attention of the Government once again to the importance which it attaches to the principle that workers' organisations should not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority and to the principle expressed by the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations that appeals against the refusal or cancellation of registration of organisations by Trade - Union Registrars should lie to the courts;
(b) to note that the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959, provides that decisions of the Minister on appeals from the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called into question in any court and to request the Government of the United Kingdom to explain the certiorari procedure by which, according to the statement of the Government of Singapore, a trade union can appeal from the decision of the Minister and how this statement is to be interpreted in the light of the said provisions of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959.
Allegations relating to Arrests and Detention of Trade Unionists
142. It is alleged that many trade unionists were arrested during 1958 under the Public Security Ordinance, these including Mr. Ang Gim Chew, Secretary of the Maritime Workers' Association. It is further alleged that 19 trade union militants who were arrested two years prior to the presentation of the complaint are still held in custody without having been brought to trial, these persons including Mr. Lim Chin Siong, former General Secretary of the Factory Workers' Union, Mr. Fong Swe Suan, of the Autobus Employees' Union, Messrs. Davan Nair, James Putcheary and Chuan Chian Tor, Miss Peggy Ng Hong and Miss Chan Poh. Finally, the complainants contend, 13 trade union leaders were among the 1,120 persons who were deprived of their civic rights on 16 December 1958.
143. In its reply dated 13 May 1959 the Government stated that no person has been detained without trial or deprived of his civic rights " on account of any legitimate trade union activity ", and that when any individual has been detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, this has been because he or she " has participated in subversive activities threatening the life of the nation ".
144. At its meeting in May 1959 the Committee observed that, in a number of earlier cases, it has emphasised the importance which it has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the government considers have no relation to their trade union functions. In the past, moreover, where allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests, particularly in connection with the legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the result of such proceedings. The Committee, therefore, decided to request the Government to be good enough to inform it whether any of the trade unionists referred to by the complainants, including the eight whose names are given, were still in custody, and to furnish information as to the legal or judicial proceedings taken in respect of such persons and as to the results of these proceedings.
145. In its letter dated 28 October 1959 the Government stated that information on the matters referred to above had not yet been received from the governmental authorities in Singapore.
146. At its meeting on 9 and 10 November 1959 the Committee recalled that the Governing Body decided, at its 140th Session (18-21 November 1958), thenceforth to draw a distinction between urgent and less urgent cases. One criterion adopted in this connection was that matters involving personal freedom should be regarded as urgent. The Governing Body decided that in such cases the special attention of the government should be called, when the complaint was communicated to it, to the fact that the case falls within the category of cases regarded by the Governing Body as urgent, and that the government should be specially requested on behalf of the Governing Body to furnish for this reason a particularly speedy reply in regard to the urgent aspects of the case.
147. In these circumstances the Committee decided to request the Government to furnish, as a matter of urgency, the information previously requested as indicated in paragraph 145 above with respect to the allegations relating to arrests and detention of trade unionists.
148. This request for further information was conveyed to the Government by the Director-General in a letter dated 23 November 1959. The Government furnished further observations in a letter dated 12 February 1960.
149. In that letter the Government stated that, of the 19 trade unionists referred to in paragraph 142 above, 13 had been released, including the eight whose names are given in paragraph 142. Six were still in detention. No legal or judicial proceedings had been taken against them, except in so far as their cases were considered by the Appeal Tribunal appointed under the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and in so far as they had subsequently been reviewed at regular intervals by a Reviewing Officer appointed under the same ordinance.
150. Having considered this aspect of the case at its meeting on 17 and 18 February 1960, the Committee observed that, while the Government stated that 13 of the trade unionists referred to in the complaint had been released, six of them were still in custody without having been brought to trial. The Committee, therefore, made the following recommendation to the Governing Body in paragraph 125 of its 44th Report:
125. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
......................................................................................................................................................
(b) to note the Government's statement that 13 of the 19 trade unionists referred to by the complainants have now been released;
(c) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which a government considers have no relation to their trade union functions;
(d) to request the Government to state as a matter of urgency, having regard to the above principle and to the fact that the six trade unionists are still under detention and have not been brought to trial, what steps it intends to take to afford a fair trial at an early date to the persons concerned, or, alternatively, whether their early release is contemplated.
151. This recommendation having been approved by the Governing Body at its 144th Session (1-4 March 1960), the Government was requested, by a letter dated 17 March 1960, to furnish as a matter of urgency the information specified in subparagraph (d) cited above. In its letter dated 13 May 1960 the Government states that it had asked the Government of Singapore to comment on the matter.
152. In these circumstances the Committee, at its meeting in May 1960, recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government once again to the importance which it attaches to the principle enunciated in paragraph 125 (c) of the Committee's 44th Report and to repeat the request made in paragraph 125 (d) thereof. These recommendations were embodied in paragraph 123 (c) and (d) of the Committee's 47th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 145th Session (27-28 May 1960).
153. In its letter dated 4 November 1960 the Government of the United Kingdom furnished information to the effect that one more of the trade unionists referred to in paragraph 125 (d) of the Committee's 44th Report cited in paragraph 150 above had been released from detention. In its communication dated 3 January 1961 the Government states that further observations in this connection will be forwarded as soon as possible.
154. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government once again to the importance which it attaches to the principle of fair trial enunciated in paragraph 125 (c) of the Committee's 44th Report, to note the Government's statement that another of the 19 trade unionists referred to by the complainants has been released and to request the Government to furnish the same information as was asked for previously in respect of the five trade unionists still under detention.

The Committee's recommendations

155. As regards the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
- (a) to draw the attention of the Government once again to the importance which it attaches to the principle that workers' organisations should not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority and to the principle expressed by the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations that appeals against the refusal or cancellation of registration of organisations by trade union registrars should lie to the courts;
- (b) to note that the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959, provides that decisions of the Minister on appeals from the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called into question in any court, and to request the Government of the United Kingdom to explain the certiorari procedure by which, according to the statement of the Government of Singapore, a trade union can appeal from the decision of the Minister and how this statement is to be interpreted in the light of the said provisions of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959;
- (c) to draw the attention of the Government once again to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which a government considers have no relation to their trade union functions;
- (d) to note the Government's statement that another of the 19 trade unionists referred to by the complainants has been released, and to request the Government once again to state as a matter of urgency, having regard to the above principle and to the fact that five trade unionists are still under detention and have not been brought to trial, what steps it intends to take to afford a fair trial at an early date to the persons concerned, or, alternatively, whether their early release is contemplated.