Definitive Report - Report No 56, 1961

Case No 233 (France) - Complaint date: 19-MAY-60 - Closed

1. 35. The Committee has already examined this case at its meeting of November 1960, when it submitted a report to the Governing Body, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 147th Session (15-18 November 1960). The report contains the final decision of the Committee with respect to certain of the allegations. Consequently, only the outstanding allegations are dealt with below.
2. 36. On becoming a Member of the International Labour Organisation on 10 November 1960 the Government of the Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) stated that it recognises that the Republic of the Congo remains bound by the obligations of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the provisions of which had formerly been declared applicable by France to French Equatorial Africa.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Arrest of Trade Union Leaders
  37. 37 The complainants allege that on 10 May 1960, after a strike called on 2 May by the Water and Electricity Company workers, Mr. Julien Boukambou, General Secretary of the C.G.A.T, was arrested, together with Mr. Tauley Nganga, Mr. Matsika Aimé and Mr. Déoudi Ganga, all three being officers of the C.G.A.T.
  38. 38 In its reply dated 30 June 1960 the Government admitted the arrests of the persons named by the complainants, but denied that the arrests had any connection with the strike of the Water and Electricity Company workers.
  39. 39 In support of this statement the Government affirmed that none of the officials of the trade union taking part in the strike were disturbed, except in the case of the Confederation, that the strike continued after the police operations complained of, that negotiations between the workers, the employers and the Government were never broken off, and that the strike concluded with a joint agreement.
  40. 40 The Government stated that it was not as trade union leaders that the persons concerned were arrested but as the promoters of a political movement known under the title of Union of Congolese Youth which, the Government stated, disturbed law and order and infringed state security by illegal means.
  41. 41 At its meeting in November 1960 the Committee observed that it appeared from the detailed explanations given by the Government that the C.G.A.T and its leaders, perhaps alongside authentic trade union activities, were engaged in political activities outside the normal scope of action in defence of the occupational interests of their members. The Committee considered that, on this basis, it might have been possible for it to recommend the Governing Body to decide that in the absence of proof of infringement of freedom of association, this aspect of the case did not call for further examination. However, the Government having indicated in its reply that the matter was the subject of judicial examination, the Committee, following its usual practice, requested the Director-General to obtain from the Government information as to the outcome of the pending proceedings.
  42. 42 In a communication dated 29 March 1961 the Government gives the following information in this connection. The proceedings in question were opened on the basis of charges of subversive intrigue, an offence dealt with in and punishable under the Act of 2 October 1959; the proceedings were conducted with full regard for existing rules of penal procedure. The lawyers chosen by certain of the accused were informed, in the manner and within the period prescribed by law, concerning the various steps in the proceedings and, apart from the exchange of written correspondence with them, they were enabled freely to visit their clients in custody whenever they so demanded.
  43. 43 In conclusion the Government states that the proceedings ended in a verdict of " no true bill "pronounced on 27 December 1960, which was itself preceded by the liberation of the accused during the course of November 1960.
  44. 44 In these circumstances, in view of the explanations given by the Government, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Infringements of Trade Union Rights by Legislation
  45. 45 In a communication dated 13 October 1960 the W.F.T.U alleges that a number of emergency enactments voted on 11 May 1960 by the National Assembly and promulgated on 12 May infringed trade union rights.
  46. 46 According to the complainants the first of these enactments makes it compulsory for associations to file a previous declaration and authorises their dissolution; it is provided that, within a period of 30 days, associations already in existence must renew their declarations and must, at the same time, furnish details as to the composition of their movable and immovable property, and their financial position.
  47. 47 In its reply the Government declares that, contrary to the allegations of the W.F.T.U, Act No. 19/60 of 11 May 1960 making compulsory the filing of a previous declaration by associations and authorising the dissolution of associations contrary to the general interest of the nation, is not applicable to trade union organisations but only to associations defined by Act of 1 July 1901. Consequently, continues the Government, trade unions are not obliged to furnish information as to their movable and immovable property or as to their financial position.
  48. 48 The W.F.T.U alleges that a further enactment limits the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression, thus infringing the rights of workers and trade unions.
  49. 49 The Government states that Act No. 20/60 of 11 May 1960, criticised by the complainants as infringing the rights of workers and trade unions by limiting freedom of expression, merely represses incitement to disorder or resistance to the application of legislation by the public authority.
  50. 50 The complainants declare that a third enactment permits the Government to order the banishment, internment or expulsion of dangerous citizens, " as it has done in the case of trade union leaders and other democrats ".
  51. 51 In its reply the Government declares that Act No. 21/60 of 11 May 1960 empowering the Government to take certain measures against dangerous individuals is in no way aimed at trade union leaders " or other democrats ", but only at fomenters of trouble and, in general, persons whose activities are dangerous to public order and security.
  52. 52 According to the W.F.T.U a further enactment enables the authorities to prohibit public meetings, thus restricting the fundamental right of every trade union to organise meetings of its members and so paralysing all trade union activity.
  53. 53 Section 3 of Act No. 23/60 of 11 May 1960 respecting public meetings, states the Government, provides that the requirement of previous notification does not apply in the case of meetings of a strictly occupational character held by occupational organisations or unions and federations thereof.
  54. 54 Finally, the W.F.T.U alleges that the right to requisition workers in undertakings and to impose forced labour have again been legalised, thus dealing a serious blow to the right to strike.
  55. 55 With regard to Act No. 24/60 of 11 May 1960 respecting requisitions, states the Government, " it should be pointed out that its purpose is to ensure, in cases of imperative necessity, the continued functioning of undertakings and services indispensable for the satisfaction of the vital needs of the population ".
  56. 56 The Government explains that Decree No. 60-170 of 28 May 1960 limited the undertakings and services covered by the Act to activities in connection with hospitals, fighting epidemics, fire prevention, the supply of water and electricity, transport and protection of air navigation.
  57. 57 The Government adds that the principle set forth in section 2 of the Labour Code, according to which forced or compulsory labour is absolutely prohibited, remains the basic principle of labour law in the Republic of the Congo, and recalls that " the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) excludes from this category work exacted in any circumstances endangering or likely to endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population ".
  58. 58 With regard to this last allegation, the Committee observes that the requisitions authorised by the Act are limited to certain branches of activity only, as defined by a decree. On the whole, it would seem that these branches are in fact vital to the security of the population. Among them, however, the Committee observes that transport is included and this, if the term is not otherwise qualified, considerably enlarges the concept of essential services.
  59. 59 In this connection the Committee, in an earlier case relating to the Argentine Republic, observed that, although a measure to mobilise the railwaymen adopted by the Government was not designed to curtail trade union rights as such but was intended to cope with the emergency created by the railway strike, in practice these rights were nevertheless affected. It considered, therefore, in that case, that there did not appear to have existed a state of acute national emergency such as the Committee had observed in a case involving the United States, in which it had had to deal with a seizure of the railways which had been placed under army control, and in which it had found that the case did not call for further examination only after observing that the seizure in question did not constitute an arbitrary measure, but was essentially dictated by considerations of public interest in a national emergency situation, since it was a question of guaranteeing despatch of supplies and munitions to the United Nations forces in Korea and since the measure had been taken only after exhaustion of all other methods of settlement of the dispute provided by law.
  60. 60 While recognising that it is not alleged in the present case that, in fact, the law complained of has been utilised for anti-trade union purposes, the Committee nevertheless considers it desirable to draw the attention of the Government to the possibility of abuse involved in the mobilisation and requisitioning of workers - especially in industrial disputes and to emphasise the undesirability of recourse to such measures except for the purpose of maintaining essential services in circumstances of the utmost gravity. The Committee also draws the attention of the Government to the importance which it has always attached, in cases in which strikes are prohibited in essential occupations, to ensuring adequate guarantees to safeguard to the full the interests of the workers thus deprived of an essential means of defending occupational interests.
  61. 61 Further, it would seem to be clear from the detailed and precise observations furnished by the Government concerning the different allegations made by the W.F.T.U with respect to the legislative texts referred to above, that these texts, far from being intended to restrict freedom of association, specifically reserve certain of the essential rights of workers and their organisations, the exercise of which might otherwise have been restricted by the application of the enactments in question.
  62. 62 In these circumstances, having regard to the fact that it is not alleged that the legislation complained of has in fact been applied in such a manner as to restrict freedom of association, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that, subject to the observations contained in paragraphs 58 to 60 above, this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 63. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that, subject to the observations contained in paragraphs 58 to 60 above, the case as a whole does not call for further examination.