Definitive Report - Report No 70, 1963

Case No 288 (South Africa) - Complaint date: 20-MAR-62 - Closed

1. 74. The complaint of the S.A.C.T.U is contained in a communication dated 20 March 1962. The Government furnished its observation in a communication dated 3 October 1962.
2. 75. The Republic of South Africa has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
3. 76. When it examined the case at its meeting in October 1962 the Committee, in paragraphs 118 to 135 of its 67th Report, submitted its recommendations to the Governing Body on certain allegations relating to measures taken against the National President of the South African Congress of Trade Unions, together with an interim report relating to other allegations relating to the breaking up of a workers' meeting. The 67th Report was approved by the Governing Body on 8 March 1963, in the course of its 154th Session. The present report is confined to the allegations relating to the breaking up of a workers' meeting which are still outstanding.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 77. It is alleged that on 11 March 1962 the police broke up a workers' meeting at Kliptown, Johannesburg, on the pretext that no permission had been obtained by the S.A.C.T.U, which organised the meeting, to hold a meeting " on that site ", and that five people were arrested.
2. 78. In its communication dated 3 October 1962 the Government declared that the police action in question was necessitated by the fact that the organisers of the meeting had not obtained the prior approval of the authorities for holding it. Six persons were arrested on charges of disturbing the peace or obstructing the police.
3. 79. At its meeting in October 1962 the Committee observed that, in many cases in the past, it has emphasised the importance which it has always attached to the fact that freedom from government interference in the holding and proceedings of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights, and to the principle that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
4. 80. It did not appear clear to the Committee, however, whether the meeting in question was a public meeting sponsored by a trade union or whether it was a private meeting in particular premises or on a site not open to the public at large. The Committee, therefore, decided to request the Government to furnish information as to the public or private nature of the meeting in question and as to the premises in which or on which it was held and information as to the legal provisions or regulations under which prior permission for the holding of the meeting was required.
5. 81. The Government furnished information on this matter in a communication dated 28 March 1963.
6. 82. The Government states that the meeting in question was a public meeting, held on a vacant stand adjoining Second Street, Klipriviersoog, which is under the control of the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board. According to section 2 of the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board By-Laws in respect of meetings and processions, published in the Transvaal Provincial Gazette of 20 April 1960, under the Administrator's Notice No. 308, no person shall hold, convene or organise any public meeting without the written permission of the Secretary-, Treasurer of the Board. The application must reach him not later than seven days before such meeting. The Government declares that no permission was sought to hold the meeting on 11 March 1962. In accordance with section 6 of the said by-laws, an authorised official of the Board or a member of the police may in such circumstances require the persons concerned to leave the premises forthwith. Any contravention of the by-laws is punishable, on conviction, by a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.
7. 83. It would appear from the Government's reply that the meeting in question, although sponsored by a trade union, was a public meeting held in a public place and subject, accordingly, like all public meetings in the area concerned, to prior permission by the competent authority pursuant to published by-laws, but that no application for permission was made in this particular case.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 84. In similar circumstances the Committee has refused to entertain allegations relating: to the holding of a meeting in a public place when the sponsors of the meeting did not apply for permission to hold the meeting and, accordingly, did not comply with the formalities required for the holding of meetings on public premises, pointing out that the right to hold trade union meetings cannot be interpreted as releasing those concerned from the obligation to comply with reasonable formalities when it is desired to make use of public premises x

The Committee's recommendations

1. 85. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the allegations relating to the breaking up of a workers' meeting do not call for further examination.