Interim Report - Report No 76, 1964

Case No 291 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 07-APR-62 - Closed

1. 118. The Committee, after having considered this case at its meeting in February 1963, examined it further at its meeting in May 1963, when it submitted to the Governing Body the interim report contained in paragraphs 219 to 279 of the 70th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body on 1 June 1963 in the course of its 155th Session.
2. 119. In that report the Committee recommended the Governing Body to dismiss certain allegations relating to the maltreatment of imprisoned trade unionists and to the sponsorship of a rival trade union organisation by the authorities in Aden. With regard to the remaining allegations, which are dealt with in the present report, the Committee requested the Government of the United Kingdom to furnish additional information or, in some cases, to forward its observations. Since that time, as will be seen below, a number of further documents of complaint have been received and the Government has furnished further information and observations.
3. 120. The United Kingdom has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and has declared them to be applicable, without modification, to Aden.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960
  121. 121 At its meeting in February 1963 the Committee had before it a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (I.C.F.T.U.), dated August 1962, in which various provisions of the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960, were criticised. In particular, this complainant referred to the penalties prescribed by the ordinance in respect of strikes and acts in violation of awards or procedures of the Industrial Courts. More generally, the complainants contended that these penal provisions, together with the provisions establishing compulsory arbitration and prohibiting strikes, had replaced free collective bargaining by a system of coercion. These allegations were analysed more fully in paragraphs 101 to 103 and 108 to 110 of the 68th Report of the Committee.
  122. 122 The Committee also had before it a letter from the Government dated 29 October 1962 in which the Government, after recalling its earlier observations on the ordinance which the Committee had examined in Case No. 221 relating to Aden, reviewed recent industrial trends in Aden, giving statistics and facts relating to strikes and collective agreements concluded. In addition, the Government stated that the Minister of Labour of Aden had invited representatives of employers' and employees' organisations to sit on an Aden Joint Industrial Council, which would advise the Government of Aden on labour problems, labour legislation and methods of improving industrial relations, and whose first task would be to furnish the Minister with the advice necessary to enable the Government of Aden to carry out a review of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. These observations of the Government were analysed more fully in paragraphs 112 to 114 of the 68th Report of the Committee.
  123. 123 In paragraphs 116 to 118 of its 68th Report the Committee reviewed its earlier examination, in Case No. 221 relating to Aden, of the provisions of the ordinance in question in the light of the provisions of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), declared by the Government of the United Kingdom applicable without modification in respect of Aden, and then considered the evidence before it, as indicated in the two preceding paragraphs, as to the operation of the ordinance in the two years following this enactment.
  124. 124 Finally, in paragraph 120 of its 68th Report, having noted the Government's proposals concerning an Aden Joint Industrial Council, the Committee decided to request the Government to be good enough to state, if possible, when it was anticipated that the Joint Industrial Council would embark upon its initial task of advising the Minister concerning a review of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
  125. 125 This request for information was conveyed to the Government of the United Kingdom by a letter dated 14 March 1963.
  126. 126 At its meeting in May 1963 the Committee had not yet received the information in question, but it had before it a further communication from the Aden Trades Union Congress (Aden T.U.C.) dated 6 April 1963, in which, after criticising the effectiveness of the Aden Industrial Court because in two of the three or four cases in which its awards favoured the workers the Court of Appeal reversed the awards and imposed f 2,000 legal costs on the workers, this complainant stated that it had informed the British Government that the Aden T.U.C and Aden Employers' Federation had agreed to the establishment of a Joint Advisory Council under the chairmanship of the Labour Commissioner, but not of the Labour Minister, because they believed that industrial issues should be kept away from politicians.
  127. 127 Accordingly, as indicated in paragraph 237 of its 70th Report, the Committee decided to request the Government to be good enough to furnish the information previously requested and comment on the proposals referred to by the Aden T.U.C in its communication dated 6 April 1963.
  128. 128 In a communication dated 11 November 1963 the Government of the United Kingdom stated that, following discussions in July 1963 between the Government of Aden and the employers and workers, it was agreed that the Joint Advisory Council should be established under the chairmanship of the Labour Commissioner. The inaugural meeting of the Council was held on 17 September and its first business session on 16 October. It was planned to hold meetings of the Council at least monthly but it was too early to say what proposals might emerge for amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
  129. 129 No further communication has been received from the Government within the context of the present case before the Committee. However, in its report furnished for the period 1961-63, pursuant to article 35 of the Constitution of the I.L.O, with respect to the application in Aden of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), received on 20 November 1963, the Government of the United Kingdom stated that urgent consideration was being given to the repeal of the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance and its replacement by a new ordinance concerning the conduct of industrial relations.
  130. 130 In these circumstances the Committee requests the Government to be good enough to inform it as to whether the discussions in the Joint Advisory Council in Aden are still continuing and the Aden T.U.C is participating in the Council and as to what proposals have emerged from these discussions concerning the possible amendment of the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960, having regard especially to its statement, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, that urgent consideration was being given to the repeal of the ordinance.
• Allegations relating to the Application of the Penal Provisions of the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960
  131. 131 Several of the complainants made allegations with respect to sentences of imprisonment passed on workers pursuant to the provisions of the ordinance and to dismissals and deportations of workers following a number of different strikes in 1961 and 1962. These allegations and the Government's observations thereon were examined by the Committee at its meeting in May 1963 and analysed in paragraphs 238 to 256 of its 70th Report.
  132. 132 In particular, the first group of allegations made related to the fining of strikers belonging to the General and Technical Workers' Union, following a strike in October 1961, and to the sentencing of Mr. A. Murshed, the General Secretary of the Union, to 27 months' rigorous imprisonment on charges of incitement to strike and sedition ; to the sentencing of Mr. A. Obeid, President of the Refinery Workers' Union, to four months' imprisonment and ten members of the union executive to six weeks' imprisonment, in January 1962, on a charge of having called a trade union meeting during working hours; to members of a five-man emergency committee appointed by the Forces Local Workers' Union being brought before a court in January 1962, before a contemplated strike took place, and sentenced to detention for one year when they refused to enter into a bond to abide by the ordinance ; to the sentencing of Mr. A. Aswadi, Assistant General Secretary of the Aden T.U.C, and Mr. A. Latif, President of the Forces Local Workers' Union, to three months' imprisonment, following a strike on 11 April 1962; and to the fining of 30 strikers following a strike on 9 and 10 May 1962 called by the same union.
  133. 133 The Committee had before it a letter dated 29 October 1962 from the Government stating that the prosecutions for strike offences were all instituted pursuant to section 24 of the ordinance, which prescribes penalties for taking part in or inciting a strike, and that the sanctions prescribed by the ordinance had been exercised with restraint.
  134. 134 In a communication dated 18 April 1963 the Government confirmed the sentencing of Mr. Aswadi and Mr. Latif, stating that the strike of 11 April 1962 was an illegal political strike called in Aden to coerce the Government at a time when collective negotiations were in progress. Only 23 of the 30 strikers charged after the strike of 9 and 10 May 1962 were fined 50 shillings each for participating in an illegal strike.
  135. 135 The next group of allegations was made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (W.F.T.U.), the Aden T.U.C and the I.C.F.T.U with regard to a later period.
  136. 136 The W.F.T.U alleged that a general strike on 19 November 1962, partly in support of economic demands and partly against the proposal to form a Federation of South Arabia, led to the arrest of over 100 trade unionists, including Mr. Abdulla Al Asnag, General Secretary of the Aden T.U.C, and his colleague, Mr. Idris Hambala, accused of seditious publication, and that a strike called on 22 October 1962 by the Forces Local Workers' Union against dismissals and two years' refusal to meet economic demands led to 165 strikers being arrested, 102 of these being deported. The Aden T.U.C stated on 15 December 1962 that over 400 trade unionists, including union presidents, secretaries and shop stewards and persons who had worked in Aden over ten years, were taken from their workplaces and deported, without being brought before a court or even being allowed to see their families and collect their wages. The I.C.F.T.U, also referring to events following the strike of 19 November 1962, mentioned the prosecution of 23 industrial workers, 24 bank employees, the fining of 23 airline employees, the deportation of two dockworkers, the prosecution and imprisonment or fining of 12 port trust employees, the sentencing to two months' rigorous imprisonment of 11 British Forces employees and the fining of 93 others, and the prosecution of 27 government employees and the dismissal of 40 others.
  137. 137 The Government commented on this second group of allegations in a communication dated 18 April 1963, stating that the strike of 22 October 1962 was illegal and called when negotiations were in progress. The union's reason for the strike was the alleged refusal of the employer (H.M. Forces) to go to arbitration on two of six points in dispute and refusal to reinstate dismissed civilian employees. The Government said that arbitration had not been refused but that the conciliator considered it premature in view of the progress being made, while seven dismissal cases were being reviewed according to a procedure agreed with the union, 30 per cent of those concerned having been offered re-employment. Ninety persons who had no legal right to reside in Aden were deported as undesirables.
  138. 138 The Government stated that the general strike of 19 November 1962 was called for political purposes and was not connected with any industrial dispute, and referred to the statement of the Aden T.U.C, in its communication dated 15 December 1962, that workers were being deported "because they demonstrate full solidarity during the Aden T.U.C call for general strikes and public demonstration when need be to mark protest against the British new plan to merge Aden with backward feudal States
  139. 139 At its meeting in May 1963 the Committee observed that the Government had furnished evidence on several of the cases of prosecutions of strikers referred to in the complaints. It had not, however, commented on the case of Mr. Obeid, President of the Refinery Workers' Union, and the ten members of the union executive alleged by the I.C.F.T.U, in its communication dated 1 August 1962, to have been sent to prison for having called a union meeting in working hours (see paragraph 132 above). It had also not made observations on the alleged detention of five representatives of the Forces Local Workers' Union who refused to enter into a bond to abide by the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960 (see paragraph 132). Nor had it referred to the case of the alleged sentencing to 27 months' rigorous imprisonment of Mr. Murshed, General Secretary of the General and Technical Workers' Union (see paragraph 132). With regard to the alleged deportations of trade union officers and members referred to in paragraph 136 above, the Government had confined itself to a statement that 90 persons who had no right to reside in Aden were deported as undesirables. Finally, the Government had not yet furnished its observations on the complaint of the I.C.F.T.U dated 26 March 1963, which referred to some 200 alleged prosecutions following the strike of 19 November 1962 (see paragraph 136 above), beyond stating that two of the persons named by the W.F.T.U as having been among those arrested-Mr. Al Asnag, General Secretary of the Aden T.U.C, and his colleague, Mr. Idris Hambala-were serving a sentence of imprisonment for conspiring to publish a seditious booklet.
  140. 140 In these circumstances the Committee, as indicated in paragraph 258 of its 70th Report, decided to request the Government to be good enough to furnish fuller information with regard to the deportations which followed the strike of 22 October 1962, information concerning the cases of Mr. Obeid, Mr. Murshed, Mr. Al Asnag and Mr. Hambala and the five persons alleged to have been preventively detained for refusing to enter into a bond-including information as to the reasons on which the judgments of the courts were based-and its observations on the communication from the I.C.F.T.U dated 26 March 1963.
  141. 141 In a communication dated 13 June 1963 the Aden T.U.C declares that, by virtue of the application of the provision of section 24 (1) of the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960, prohibiting strikes, hundreds of persons have been imprisoned, fined or deported "because they have participated in a general cessation of work by every person in the country whether he is a workman, labourer, trader, free lancer and whether or not there is a trade dispute", and that "the ordinance was in fact used to suppress a general cessation of work in the whole country as a protest against government policies in merging Aden in a very much unwanted Federation".
  142. 142 The Aden T.U.C refers also to further cases of alleged mass deportations of persons because "they belong to the trade union movement and participate either directly or indirectly in its legitimate activities and aspirations". The complainant states that "following a day's token strike by the workers, thousands were deported". No one, says the complainant, can challenge the Governor's "arbitrary powers to deport any person who is not a British subject born in Aden ".
  143. 143 This complainant then goes on to criticise the provisions of the Aden Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which allows the courts to order a person to be remanded in custody, instead of granting bail, when he is charged with any of certain offences. The complainant states that it was pursuant to these provisions that bail was refused in the aforesaid cases of Messrs. Al Asnag, Hambala and Murshed and in the case of another person not previously mentioned, Mr. Abdulla Wahti.
  144. 144 The complainant gives further details of the case of Mr. Al Asnag, General Secretary of the Aden T.U.C, declaring that prosecution for sedition is being resorted to increasingly by the authorities as a means of gaoling anyone who opposes the plans. It is alleged that, after being remanded in custody for two-and-a-half months, his application for bail having been refused by the Supreme Court, he was held in prison for a further nine months during and after his bail, following which his conviction and sentence were quashed by the Nairobi Court of Appeal. By this time he had served his full sentence, but the laws of Aden do not enable him to claim compensation.
  145. 145 In a communication dated 11 November 1963 the Government begins by giving further information with regard to the alleged deportations following the strike of 22 October 1962: 54 persons were deported to Yemen, 26 to the Aden Protectorate, ten to Somalia. They were deported under orders made pursuant to section 4 (1) (c) of the Vagrants and Undesirables Ordinance.
  146. 146 The Government then comments on certain of the specific cases concerning which further information had been requested by the Committee.
  147. 147 Mr. Abdullah Ali Obeid, President of the B.P. Refinery Workers' Union, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for having procured a strike, contrary to section 24 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Further, he and ten members of the union executive were charged under section 24 (1) of the ordinance with taking part in a strike and each sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. On 2 December 1961 almost all the workers were called away from their work, without permission, to attend a Refinery Workers' Union general meeting. According to the Government, this left process and power station plant undermanned, with the gravest risk to life and property at a moment when the firemen also, without permission, had left their posts. The action taken was also in breach of the agreed disputes procedure, according to which no major demand shall become a point of issue unless it has been discussed at the normal fortnightly meeting of representatives and, if no agreement is reached, either party can demand a further meeting within seven days to discuss the matter. If there is still no agreement, the matter shall be referred, subject to the consent of both parties, to a bipartite Conciliation Commission under a neutral chairman. No strike action shall be taken until after the first two joint meetings have been held and the possibility of conciliation considered, after which seven days' notice of a strike must be given. After these incidents, on 20 April 1962, an agreement was concluded between the parties which embodied improvements in conditions of service.
  148. 148 Mr. Murshed, General Secretary of the General and Technical Workers' Union, was charged with sedition under section 124A of the Penal Code and on three counts under section 24 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. He was sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment on the first charge and to three months on each of the other three. As one of the latter terms was concurrent the total sentence was one of 24 months' rigorous imprisonment. The Nairobi Court of Appeal reduced the total sentence to one of 18 months (including 12 months on the sedition charge). In a telegram dated 16 October 1961 the General and Technical Workers' Union threatened a strike on 20 October. The Union resolved to call the strike at a meeting on 17 October. Half an hour after that meeting ended the Civil Contractors' Association informed the Union of its decision to increase the number of paid public holidays, to increase paid annual leave and wages and to reduce weekly hours of work. On 21 October this offer was submitted to the Union representatives in writing, but the latter, says the Government, failed to inform the members of the offer when it was decided, at a general meeting on 22 October, to extend the strike for a further 48 hours. On 24 October the employers notified the dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and informed the secretary of the union accordingly on the same day. But, declares the Government, on the same night the strike was extended for a further 48 hours and the Union representatives refused to attend any meeting pursuant to the ordinance. On 24 October Mr. Murshed made a speech at the Aden T.U.C premises which led to his being charged with uttering seditious words and was found guilty under section 124A of the Penal Code. The workers resumed work on 28 October 1961, and a collective agreement was concluded in February 1962.
  149. 149 Mr. Al Asnag was arrested on 8 November 1962 and charged under section 124A of the Penal Code with conspiring to publish a seditious publication-a pamphlet entitled "24 September, the Immortal (Eternal) Day". In mid-December he was sentenced to 12 months' rigorous imprisonment. The Aden Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to one of eight months. On 3 June 1963 the conviction and sentence were quashed by the Nairobi Court of Appeal. Mr. Al Asnag had been released on 21 April 1963, after serving his sentence less earned remission. Mr. Hambala had been sentenced on the same charge to nine months' rigorous imprisonment, reduced to six months on local appeal. His conviction and sentence were also quashed by the Nairobi Court of Appeal after he had served his sentence and had been released on 11 March 1963.
  150. 150 On 28 February 1962 five members of the "emergency committee" of the. Forces Local Employees' Union were summoned to appear before the Chief Magistrate to sign a bond to be of good behaviour and keep the peace for 12 months. They were summoned before the court under section 74 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance for inciting and encouraging persons to go on strike in that they had issued leaflets to union members calling for strike action in contravention of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. On refusing to sign the bond, they were committed to prison under section 77 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. Their appeal was dismissed in April 1962. One of them then signed the bond and was released. The other four again appealed, and in August 1962 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the situation in Aden had changed and no longer required signatures of the bond. They were then released.
  151. 151 The third group of allegations relating to measures taken against strikes are contained in a communication from the Aden T.U.C dated 27 November 1963, in which it is alleged that, in connection with a strike of civilian employees of the military forces, 50 workers were arrested and 40 of them deported.
  152. 152 The Government comments on these allegations in a communication dated 19 March 1964. The strike in question lasted from 21 November to 5 December 1963. The Union claimed that the Forces authorities had failed to negotiate on long-standing issues but, says the Government, those authorities had offered to negotiate if they called off the strike. The Government states that, as it developed, " the strike ceased to be a purely industrial matter " and received political encouragement from opponents of the Government, while there was offensive picketing and union officials exercised intimidation by acts such as the photographing of non-strikers. During the strike 34 Forces employees were deported under section 4 (1) (c) of the Vagrants and Undesirables Ordinance. Twenty-one further persons, not in Forces employment, were also deported. Those deported did not belong to Aden, and their deportation was considered necessary on security grounds in view of the tense situation then prevailing. Agreement has now been reached between the parties on several of the issues in dispute.
  153. 153 Finally, the Arab Federation of Petroleum Workers alleges, in a communication dated 12 December 1963, that the Aden Government, on 27 and 30 November 1963, respectively, arrested and deported without valid reason Mr. Ali Naser Obahi and Mr. Mohammed Ahmed Hammadi, executive members of the Aden Petroleum Workers' Union.
  154. 154 In a communication dated 13 May 1964 the Government states that the first of the two names given probably refers to Mr. Ali Naser Ubahi Radas, deported to Yemen under the Vagrants and Undesirables Ordinance. The case of Mr. Hammadi is being investigated, and details will be furnished.
  155. 155 The information now before the Committee with respect to the various cases alleged by the complainants is almost complete. They may be divided into two groups. Firstly, most of them are cases of strikes or instigation of strikes contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960, in respect of which terms of imprisonment or fines have been imposed or, as regards the persons concerned whom the Government states are aliens or persons not entitled legally to reside in Aden, deportation orders have been made. Secondly, there are the convictions of Mr. Al Asnag and Mr. Hambala pursuant to the laws relating to sedition. The case of Mr. Murshed belongs to both groups.
  156. 156 In so far as the first group of cases is concerned, the Committee has always been guided by the principle that allegations relating to the exercise of the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far, but only in so far, as they affect the exercise of trade union rights', and has recommended the Governing Body to affirm on numerous occasions that the right to strike of workers and workers' organisations constitutes an essential means of promoting and defending their occupational interests. The Committee, however, has rejected allegations relating to strikes by reason of their non-occupational character, or where they have been designed to coerce a government with respect to a political matter, or have been directed against the government's policy and not " in furtherance of a trade dispute ".
  157. 157 In the present case, while it would seem clear from the evidence that the strikes of October 1961 and November 1962 were, at least to a considerable extent, of a political nature, the strikes of 22 October 1962, October 1963 and November - December 1963 were apparently in support of economic demands, although in contravention of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In either event, the prosecutions of strikers which ensued were based on the penal provisions of the ordinance. In view of the two statements of the Government in different contexts (see paragraphs 122, 128 and 129 above), that the ordinance may be amended or repealed and of the fact that the Committee has decided to request the Government for further information as to developments in this connection, the Committee considers that it should await the further information requested in respect of the ordinance in general before submitting its final recommendations to the Governing Body concerning the application of particular provisions of that ordinance in specific cases.
  158. 158 The cases of prosecution for sedition are, however, not directly related to that ordinance at all.
  159. 159 The first relates to Mr. Murshed, General Secretary of the General and Technical Workers' Union, sentenced, apart from charges of strike offences, to 18 months' imprisonment (reduced on appeal to 12 months) on the sedition charge alone. The Government, in reply to the Committee's request for further information, has furnished details with regard to Mr. Murshed's strike offences but has added nothing to the fact previously known to the Committee that he was convicted of sedition pursuant to section 124A of the Penal Code.
  160. 160 In past cases, where allegations that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested or detained for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests or detentions 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 or detentions. If in certain cases the Committee has concluded that allegations relating to the arrests or detentions of trade union militants did not call for further examination, this has been after it had received information showing sufficiently, precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests or detentions were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere, which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
  161. 161 In the present case Mr. Murshed was convicted of sedition on the basis of a speech which he is said to have made on 24 October 1961 at the Aden T.U.C premises. The Committee considers that it would be of assistance to it in its examination of this aspect of the case to have precise details of and contents of the speech in question before it and therefore requests the Government to be good enough to furnish such details.
  162. 162 The case of Messrs. Al Asnag and Hambala is different in that their conviction (for having conspired to issue a seditious publication) was subsequently quashed.
  163. 163 In certain cases the Committee has pointed out that the arrest or detention of trade unionists concerning whom no grounds for conviction are subsequently found is liable to involve restrictions of trade union rights. In the present case, the two accused were actually convicted, but the Nairobi Court of Appeal quashed the conviction ; whether it was on the merits of the case or on technical grounds is not known to the Committee.
  164. 164 Further, in the past the Committee has followed the practice of not proceeding to examine matters which were the subject of pending national judicial proceedings, where such proceedings might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations were well founded. The Committee points out that it has repeatedly asked governments to furnish information on judicial proceedings and their results.
  165. 165 In the present case, therefore, the Committee requests the Government to be good enough to furnish a copy of the judgment of the Nairobi Court of Appeal quashing the conviction and sentence imposed on Messrs. Al Asnag and Hambala.
• Allegations relating to the Political and Legislative System in Aden
  166. 166 In its communication dated 13 June 1963 the Aden T.U.C criticises the power accorded to the Governor of Aden to disallow ordinances adopted by the Legislative Council and the sovereign powers reserved to the United Kingdom in respect of Aden, and complains that subsidiary legislation never comes before the Legislative Council. The complainant then makes allegations as to the voting rights of the public and as to the failure to hold Legislative Council elections at the due time, and goes on to make objections concerning the method of electing the Federal Council of the Federation of South Arabia.
  167. 167 The Government, in its communication dated 16 March 1964, rejects this part of the complaint and states that it has no relation to the exercise of trade union rights.
  168. 168 These allegations relate purely to political and Constitutional arrangements in Aden and are not accompanied by any reference to freedom of association or the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee considers this part of the complaint to be so purely political in character as to make it undesirable to pursue this aspect of the case further.
  169. 169 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Suppression of a Trade union Newspaper
  170. 170 In paragraphs 270 to 273 of its 70th Report the Committee considered allegations relating to the suppression in February 1962 of Al Ommal, the press organ of the Aden T.U.C, which the Government maintained had been due to its having published subversive or seditious material. The Aden T.U.C contended that, while the authorities claimed that it published seditious material, they never prosecuted the editors on this ground. The Aden T.U.C also claimed, in its communication dated 6 April 1963, that three applications for licences to publish a trade union newspaper were still outstanding.
  171. 171 The Committee recalled, at its meeting in May 1963, that in a number of cases in the past it had expressed the view that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is clearly ore of the essential elements of trade union rights, and that in certain cases, where allegations as to the banning or suppression of trade union newspapers had been met by governments with the statement that the measure was taken because they published seditious matter or matter of a political and antinational character, it had formulated its conclusions to the Governing Body only after it had had before it extracts from the publications concerned which the government regarded as justifying their prohibition, and had requested the government to furnish such extracts where they had not already done so in their observations.
  172. 172 The Committee, therefore, requested the Government to furnish extracts from Al Ommal on the basis of which its licence was revoked on the ground that it published subversive or seditious material.
  173. 173 In a further communication dated 13 June 1963 the Aden T.U.C claimed that the High Commissioner (formerly the Governor) can prohibit any newspaper without showing any reason and that his action is not subject to review by any court of law.
  174. 174 In its communication dated 11 November 1963 the Government states that the revocation of the licence of the newspaper was not caused by a single article or a single issue but resulted from long-continued misrepresentation of news and was considered in conjunction with the security situation existing at that time. The Government adds that no application from the Aden T.U.C to publish a newspaper is outstanding " at the moment " nor has any application been received since the present National Government of the State of Aden was established under the new Constitution of 18 January 1963.
  175. 175 The latest reply from the Government adds no new information to the general statement in its earlier reply that the newspaper was suppressed for publishing subversive or seditious material, which, apparently, did not lead to the prosecution of the editors of the newspaper, nor does the Government comment on the allegation that the revocation of a newspaper's licence is entirely within the discretion of the public authority, without the right of appeal to a court of law, an allegation which, if it is well founded, would appear to raise a question as to compatibility with the right of an organisation to organise its activities without interference on the part of the public authorities, pursuant to Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been declared applicable without modification to Aden.
  176. 176 In these circumstances the Committee requests the Government to be good enough to furnish fuller information on the aspects of the matter referred to in the preceding paragraph.
• Allegations relating to the Banning of Public Meetings, Gatherings and Demonstrations
  177. 177 In its communication dated 13 June 1963 the Aden T.U.C alleges that all public meetings, gatherings and peaceful demonstrations are banned, that Government Notice No. 21 of 1963 prohibits the exhibition of symbols, placards or pictures on any building, public or private, and that the police have removed flags, pictures and other symbols from trade union buildings.
  178. 178 In its reply to the complaint of the Aden T.U.C the Government does not mention this matter. The Committee therefore requests the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations thereon.
• Allegations relating to Non-Recognition of Trade Union Rights in the States of the Federation of South Arabia
  179. 179 In its communication dated 6 April 1963 the Aden T.U.C alleges that in the states of the Federation other than Aden trade unions are illegal. It is alleged that the Aden Teachers' Union, recognised for the last seven years, is no longer recognised by the Federal Minister of Education because education concerns the whole Federation and not just the state of Aden. Since the formation of the Federation, it is alleged, other existing unions, as well as proposed new ones, are no longer recognised. The complainants add that, in Abyan state, employees who asked for a revision of wages have been arrested.
  180. 180 The Government states in its communication dated 11 November 1963 that under the Constitution of the Federation of South Arabia labour matters are the responsibility of the individual states. In the states other than Aden life depends on agriculture and there has been no demand for the formation of trade unions. " In fact ", says the Government, " there is no trade union organisation in these states but it would be a misinterpretation to claim that trade unions are illegal in these states."
  181. 181 The Aden Teachers' Union is a registered union. In the past it has not sought recognition as a body with which the Government, as an employer, should negotiate, although in the past it has held informal discussions with the Education Department. On 6 February 1962 it applied for formal recognition and was requested to supply details of its Constitution and membership. It did not reply to this request, but if it does reply, states the Government, further consideration will be given to the question of recognition.
  182. 182 To the formal allegation that trade unions are illegal in the states of the Federation, other than Aden, the Government replies that there are no trade unions in these states but that " it would be a misinterpretation to claim that trade unions are illegal in these states". The Committee requests the Government to state whether it would be correct to assume from this statement that workers in the states in question are legally entitled to form and join trade unions and carry on trade union activities if they wish to do so. The Committee also requests the Government to furnish its observations on the allegation that employees in Abyan state who asked for a revision of wages were arrested.
• Allegations relating to the Employment (Registration and Control of Employment) Bill
  183. 183 In its communication dated 13 June 1963 the Aden Trades Union Congress alleges that a proposed enactment, the Employment (Registration and Control of Employment) Bill, infringes trade union rights in a number of ways. The complainant furnishes a purported text of the Bill.
  184. 184 The complainant declares that the Bill provides for the registration of all workers-other than employees of the Government and semi-governmental bodies and would prevent them from being employed unless registered and recommended by the Labour Exchange. When seeking to be registered, it is alleged, the worker would be asked personal questions concerning his political beliefs and affiliations and, if his answers were not satisfactory, would be refused registration and blacklisted. Even if a worker were registered and recommended, declared the complainant, the employer would not be bound to employ him and, in particular, would be able to refuse him employment because of his past trade union record. The complainant claims that this would be the effect of section 13 (3) of the Bill, which permits an employer to refuse to engage a registered worker where the employer " has good grounds for refusing to employ such person ". The complainant contends further that, because section 21 of the Bill prohibits the conclusion of contracts of employment in contravention of the proposed ordinance, this will allow employers to ignore the collective agreements to which they have become parties and, in particular, to ignore closed-shop agreements which provide for "first in, last out" in the case of jobs by creating a vacancy in any way they like to get rid of troublesome union elements.
  185. 185 The complainants state that they are powerless to resist the Bill or make their views known because the legislature will automatically adopt it without consulting the trade union movement, while any public speech against the Bill is punishable with a minimum of three years' imprisonment on a charge of sedition.
  186. 186 In a communication dated 16 March 1964 the Government, without commenting on the specific points put forward by the complainant, declares that the Joint Advisory Council (see paragraph 128 above) "provides the Aden T.U.C with an appropriate and effective means of expressing its detailed views on the proposed legislation, and these will be given full consideration by the Government of Aden ".
  187. 187 In certain previous cases the Committee has considered how far it should comment on pending legislation. While the Committee has in certain cases dismissed allegations relating to proposed legislation, either because of the vagueness of the allegations' or because the proposed enactment was not government-sponsored, it has declared on the other hand that, when it has before it precise and detailed allegations concerning a proposed enactment submitted to the legislature by the Government, the fact that the allegations relate to a text which does not have the force of law should not of itself prevent the Committee from expressing its opinion on the merits of the allegations made. The Committee expressed the view that in such circumstances it is desirable that the Government and the complainant should be made aware of its point of view with regard to a proposed Bill before it is enacted, in view of the fact that it is open to the Government, on whose initiative such a matter depends, to make any amendments which may seem desirable.
  188. 188 In the present case the complainant has furnished the full purported text of a government Bill and claims that its registration provisions would enable employers to commit acts of anti-union discrimination, in refusing to engage workers or dismissing them, and to ignore the provisions of existing collective agreements. These allegations, if justified, would appear to raise questions as to the application, particularly, of the provisions of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), ratified by the Government of the United Kingdom and declared applicable, without modification, to Aden.
  189. 189 The Government has not suggested in its reply that the purported text of the Bill furnished by the complainant and transmitted to the Government with the complaint is not a true copy of the Bill.
  190. 190 It appears from this text of the Bill that workers must be registered indifferent registers according to whether they are Aden-born or not. It is common practice for governments to make the employment of aliens subject to special rules, e.g. registration and/or the issue of work permits. In these circumstances the Committee considers that, at the present stage at least, it should confine its observations to the position under the Bill of workers in Aden who are not aliens.
  191. 191 In view of its declaration applying the said Convention No. 98 without modification to Aden the Government of the United Kingdom has assumed the obligation of ensuring that, pursuant to Article 1 thereof, workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment.
  192. 192 The Government has also undertaken to ensure, pursuant to Article 4 of the Convention, that measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers and employers' organisations and workers' organisations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.
  193. 193 Moreover, Article 3 of the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), also declared applicable without modification to Aden, provides that all practicable measures shall be taken to assure to trade unions which are representative of the workers concerned the right to conclude collective agreements with employers or employers' organisations.
  194. 194 It also appears from the text of the proposed Bill that, if it were to be enacted in its present form, access to employment in general and to particular employments would depend on a worker being registered and that a wide discretion would be accorded to the competent registering authority when deciding to grant or refuse registration. The Committee has drawn attention in the past, where job reservations have been determined by legislation, to the fact that such provisions may tend to prevent the negotiations by collective agreement of better terms and conditions, including terms and conditions governing access to particular employments, and thereby to infringe the rights of the workers concerned to bargain collectively and to promote and improve their working conditions which are generally regarded as essential elements of freedom of association.
  195. 195 The Committee, while taking note of the Government's statement that the Aden T.U.C will be able to express its views through the Joint Advisory Council and that these views will be given full consideration by the Government of Aden, draws the attention of the Government of the United Kingdom to the importance which it attaches to the observance of the guarantees and principles referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, and trusts that due regard will be had to their implementation in the process of enacting the Bill in question.
  196. 196 Subject to the above observations, the Committee has decided to adjourn further examination of these allegations for the time being and to request the Government to be good enough to keep it informed as to further developments in this connection.
• Allegations relating to the Registration of Societies Bill
  197. 197 In its communication dated 1 April 1963 the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International (P.T.T.I.) refers to a proposal to enact legislation in Aden which would leave the ultimate decision whether a trade union should be allowed to exist or not in the hands of the Trade Union Registrar, or, in some cases, of the Registrar together with the Governor-in-Council.
  198. 198 The Aden T.U.C in its communication dated 13 June 1963 alleges that the Registration of Societies Bill would oblige all existing societies to apply to register or apply for exemption from registration. The complainant contends that the Bill would empower the Registrar to refuse registration to the Aden T.U.C if he were satisfied merely that it had any " connection with " any organisation or group " of a political nature " established outside the colony, and would oblige him to refuse registration (a) if it " appeared " to him that it was " likely " to pursue or be used for any unlawful purpose or " any purpose prejudicial to or incompatible with peace, welfare or good order of the colony" or that "the interests of peace, welfare or good order in the colony would otherwise be likely to suffer prejudice by reason of the registration of such society; or (b) if it appeared to him that the rules of the Aden T.U.C were in respect " repugnant to or inconsistent with " the provisions of any law for the time being in force in the colony "and other circumstances as well".
  199. 199 Clearly, if such a text were to pass into law and it were established that the societies to which it would apply included trade union organisations, as is alleged would be the case, its provisions referred to above would call for examination in the light of the provisions of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been declared applicable without modification to Aden.
  200. 200 However, in its communication dated 4 September 1963, referring to the P.T.T.I complaint, the Government states that the Bill has not yet been introduced into the Aden Legislative Council and that it is not intended to introduce it in the immediate future.
  201. 201 In its communication dated 16 March 1964, referring to the complaint of the Aden T.U.C dated 13 June 1963, the Government again refers to the statement mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
  202. 202 In these circumstances the Committee, without prejudice to its attitude in the future if a Bill in the terms alleged were to be introduced in the legislature, considers that no useful purpose would be served by pursuing further its examination of this aspect of the case at the present time and, therefore, subject to the above reservations, recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Measures Taken during the State of Emergency
  203. 203 A series of complaints were submitted to the I.L.O following the declaration of a state of emergency on 10 December 1963.
  204. 204 In a complaint dated 16 December 1963 the I.C.F.T.U states that it received a report to the effect that Mr. Al Asnag, General Secretary of the Aden T.U.C, and most of the other leading trade unionists had been placed in detention and had gone on a hunger strike after being maltreated, that members of a trade union delegation who saw the High Commissioner had been arrested, and that Aden T.U.C office equipment had been confiscated. In a communication dated 17 December 1963 the I.C.F.T.U states that it received a report that three trade union leaders, Messrs. Al Asnag, Khalifa and Mia, had been tortured.
  205. 205 The I.C.F.T.U furnishes further details in a communication dated 6 February 1964. The complainant states that the Government of the Federation of South Arabia declared a state of emergency on 10 December 1963 following the throwing of a grenade at an official party at Aden Airport and that on 11 December the Aden T.U.C wrote to the High Commissioner condemning the outrage. Many trade unionists were arrested until, in the first few weeks after the incident, some 50 trade unionists were in detention outside Aden state, including almost all the Aden T.U.C executive committee. No charges were made. Four trade unionists who went to see the High Commissioner about the arrests were themselves arrested.
  206. 206 On 6 February 1964-the date of the complaint-it is alleged that 15 trade unionists were held in a detention camp at Alittihad, the federal capital, without having been charged. These were Messrs. Al Asnag, Ali Hussein Qadi, Muhamed A. Dahab, Abdu Khalil, Muhamed Saeed Basharein, Ahmed Haider, Ali Aswadi, Mohamed Shamsheir, Ahmed Abdul Malek, Salahudin A. Rehman, Othman Saif, Ibrahim Zokari, Abdulla Baidhani, Saleh Uriggi and Amin Aswadi. Three more trade unionists were in prison in Aden, but only one had been charged, on 22 January 1964, in connection with the bomb outrage. It had also been reported to the I.C.F.T.U that the only member of the Aden T.U.C executive still at liberty by early February, Mr. Khalid Abdo Ali, was arrested at that time.
  207. 207 The complainant alleged that office equipment belonging to the Aden T.U.C and the trade unions was confiscated by the police in the first days after the bomb outrage and were not returned until a month later.
  208. 208 It is further alleged that, since 10 December 1963, all meetings of five or more persons held without the written permission of a person authorised by the Minister of Internal Security, in public or in a private place, for any purpose other than religion, sport, recreation or social intercourse, are prohibited, and that this renders illegal, unless previous authorisation is obtained, any trade union or union committee or shop stewards' meeting.
  209. 209 In its communication dated 24 January 1964 the W.F.T.U alleges that, after the bomb outrage, the authorities arrested and deported thousands of persons, including hundreds of trade union members, including Mr. Al Asnag and Mr. Ali Hussein Qadi, Secretary and President of the Aden T.U.C, and other members of its executive. The W.F.T.U says that the bomb outrage, with which these persons had no connection, has been used as a pretext to repress anti-colonial movements. In addition to confirming the allegations of the I.C.F.T.U regarding confiscation of union property and the restriction of meetings, this complainant alleges that the Aden T.U.C is refused access to its premises.
  210. 210 The Arab Federation of Petroleum Workers, in its communication dated 12 December 1963, declared that, on 11 December 1963, the Government of Aden arrested 200 Aden oil workers and all the members of the Aden Petroleum Workers' Union. In its communication dated 30 January 1964 this complainant states that of the 19 members of the executive of the Aden Petroleum Workers' Union 15 were in prison and two had been deported, while the authorities had confiscated the union's press and funds.
  211. 211 In its communication dated 16 March 1964 the Government declared that Mr. Al Asnag and some other trade union officials were among a considerably larger number of persons detained in December 1963 under the state of emergency declared after the bomb incident at Aden on 10 December which caused the deaths of two persons and injuries to 42 others. Those detained were not necessarily suspected of direct complicity in the bomb outrage. They were taken into custody because in the prevailing situation their activities were a threat to public security. The detention, contends the Government, had no connection with legitimate trade union activities. Some detainees were released very quickly and most of the remainder, including Mr. Al Asnag and the Aden T.U.C and union officials, were released on 10 February 1964, leaving only one person-not a leading trade unionist-in detention in Aden under emergency powers.
  212. 212 Mr. Khalifa, an officer of the Aden Airway Employees' Union, named in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 17 December 1963, was one of those detained but was later charged with murder, as being the person who actually threw the bomb, and is awaiting trial.
  213. 213 When the detentions were made rumours spread fast that persons had been tortured. These rumours were proved to be untrue, says the Government, by three Labour Members of Parliament who visited Aden and saw the detainees, by the medical officer who visited them and by the report of the judicial inquiry conducted by the Chief Justice of Aden.
  214. 214 After the bomb outrage, states the Government, leaflets were circulated inciting further violence and describing the bomb thrower as a hero. During investigations the police removed typewriters and documents from the Aden T.U.C office which they suspected to have been used in connection with these leaflets. They were returned to the Aden T.U.C. At no time were the offices of the T.U.C closed.
  215. 215 In a letter dated 7 April 1964 the Government states that under the Emergency Decree a meeting of five persons or more requires prior authorisation. This applies to all organisations and not just trade unions. Such permission would not be withheld for trade union meetings for genuine industrial purposes. A permit has recently been granted to the Aden T.U.C valid for one month to hold executive and branch representatives' meetings provided that only industrial matters are discussed and that the attendance is limited to 30 persons.
  216. 216 In its communication dated 13 May 1964 the Government declares that no oil workers or members of the Aden Petroleum Workers' Union were arrested on 11 December 1963 as alleged. At no stage during the state of emergency were more than 59 persons from Aden state detained. On 31 December 1962 the estimated membership of the Aden Petroleum Workers' Union was 2,627. On 31 March 1964, 2,575 members signed check-off certificates. At all times in this period the petroleum firms in Aden functioned normally. These facts, says the Government, prove the falseness of these allegations. Only one person, according to the Government, is detained in Aden state under the emergency regulations, and he is not a member of the Aden Petroleum Workers' Union. The Government denies that the press or any funds of the union were ever confiscated.
  217. 217 In a further communication dated 28 May 1964 the Government states that five members of the executive of this union were detained under emergency regulations, four being released by 10 February 1964 and the fifth being deported to Qaiti state in the Protectorate of South Arabia, where he was born.
  218. 218 It is public knowledge that the political situation in Aden has been extremely tense for some time. In addition, a bomb was thrown on 10 December 1963 which killed two persons and injured 42 others. The Government immediately declared a state of emergency, temporarily detained a large number of persons, including several trade union leaders, restricted the holding of all meetings of five or more persons, whether trade union meetings or not, granted a month's dispensation to the Aden T.U.C for genuine trade union meetings of up to 30 persons and states that permission would not be withheld for any trade union meetings for genuinely industrial purposes. Finally, it would appear that the only leading trade unionist still in custody is the person awaiting trial on the charge of actually throwing the bomb on 10 December 1963.
  219. 219 The complainants have produced no evidence to show that any of the detentions in question were related to the trade union activities of the persons concerned or that the emergency regulations were applied in the case of trade unions in any way to their disadvantage compared with their application to other organisations and to the community as a whole.
  220. 220 In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the complainants have failed to show proof that the measures taken under the emergency regulations of 10 December 1963 constituted an infringement of trade union rights and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 221. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide that the allegations relating to the political and legislative system in Aden and to measures taken during the state of emergency do not call for further examination ;
   • (b) to decide, subject to the reservation made in paragraph 202 above, that the allegations relating to the Registration of Societies Bill do not call for further examination;
   • (c) to take note of the present interim report of the Committee with regard to the remaining allegations, it being understood that the Committee will report further thereon when it has received further information and observations which it has decided to request from the Government.