Interim Report - Report No 70, 1963

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

1. 219. The complaint of the Confederation of Arab Trade Unions is contained in two communications dated 7 April and 25 November 1962, that of the I.C.F.T.U in four communications dated 1 August, 18 September, 3 October 1962 and 26 March 1963, that of the W.F.T.U in a communication dated 11 December 1962, that of the Aden Trades Union Congress (T.U.C.) in two communications dated 15 December 1962 and 6 April 1963, and that of the P.T.T.I in a communication dated 1 April 1963.
2. 220. The Government forwarded its observations on the communication from the Confederation of Arab Trade Unions dated 7 April 1962, and on the communication dated 1 August 1962 from the I.C.F.T.U, by a communication dated 29 October 1962; on 4 February 1963 the Government forwarded its observations on the communications from the I.C.F.T.U dated 18 September and 3 October 1962; on 28 March 1963 the Government forwarded its observations on the communication from the Confederation of Arab Trade Unions dated 25 November 1962; on 18 April 1963 the Government forwarded its observations on the communications from the W.F.T.U and the Aden T.U.C dated 11 and 15 December 1962 respectively. It has not yet furnished observations on the communication from the I.C.F.T.U dated 26 March 1963, that from the P.T.T.I dated 1 April 1963 and that from the Aden T.U.C dated 6 April 1963.
3. 221. 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
  222. 222 In its communication dated 1 August 1962, the I.C.F.T.U contends that the enforcement of the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960, has infringed trade union rights and that trade union officers have been prosecuted, pursuant to its provisions, on a great number of occasions, when they took or contemplated taking action to defend the interests of their members. The complainant states that, although the Committee on an earlier occasion found soon after its enactment that the provisions of the ordinance in general were not incompatible with I.L.O standards concerning trade union rights, the experience of the two years which have elapsed since its enactment shows that in practice trade union rights have been impeded and the principle of free collective bargaining has been infringed in Aden.
  223. 223 The complainants consider that the penalties prescribed by the ordinance in the event of contraventions of its provisions are excessive. They cite the following provisions. Section 13 (2) of the ordinance prescribes a fine of 1,000 shillings and/or imprisonment not exceeding six months in respect of the offence of committing or assisting, abetting or inciting the commission of any act in violation of a settlement of a dispute reached through the conciliation of the labour officer at any time before the expiry of one month after any notice of repudiation of such a settlement. Section 15 (4) renders liable to a fine of up to 1,000 shillings any person who fails to attend the Industrial Court after having been ordered to do so or fails to furnish particulars or to answer questions as ordered by the Court. Section 22 provides that fines can be imposed upon anyone bound by an award of the Court for wilful breach or failure to observe any condition of the award. Section 23 prescribes a fine of up to 2,000 shillings and/or imprisonment not exceeding six months in respect of the offence of inciting to boycott an award and in other ways attempting to frustrate it (e.g. by inciting restriction of production); section 24 prescribes the same penalties for taking part in or inciting a strike or imposing a lockout. Finally, declares the complainant, there can be fines or imprisonment under section 26 for breach of contract in essential services (or incitement to it) and fines for interfering with posters displayed in places of employment reproducing this section of the law.
  224. 224 According to the I.C.F.T.U, the situation has become such that disputes which under other circumstances would have been considered normal industrial conflicts led to the prosecution of trade unionists, some of whom were severely penalised for contravening the ordinance. The complainants cite a number of specific cases affecting the officers of trade unions affiliated to the Aden T.U.C. These particular cases are considered as separate allegations subsequently.
  225. 225 In the light of these facts, the complainants submit, the combination in the ordinance of compulsory arbitration, prohibition of strikes and severe penalties for any contravention restricts trade union rights and represses legitimate trade union activities, whatever the legislative intention may have been. The stated purpose of the ordinance was, according to the complainants, to encourage the development of voluntary collective bargaining by exempting from compulsory arbitration and from the prohibition of strikes cases in which collective agreements contain satisfactory arrangements for the settlement of trade disputes; in fact, it is alleged, a system of coercion has in many cases taken the place of free collective bargaining.
  226. 226 The complainants call for the repeal of the Aden Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960, the reprieve of the imprisoned or detained trade unionists and the encouragement of the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation in the spirit of Article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
  227. 227 In conclusion the complainants request that the Governing Body should ask the Government to consent to the appointment of an I.L.O commission of inquiry to investigate on the spot the industrial relations situation in Aden and to submit proposals for establishing adequate voluntary negotiation machinery safeguarding full trade union freedom of action, including the right to strike, and protecting the generally admitted principles of free collective bargaining.
  228. 228 In its communication dated 29 October 1962 the Government began by referring to its letter dated 13 February 1961, in which it set out its views concerning the relationship between the ordinance and 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). The earlier communication referred to was analysed in paragraphs 74 to 76 of the 57th Report of the Committee dealing with Case No. 221 relating to Aden. The Government, at that time, explained that the essential purpose of the ordinance was to encourage the development of voluntary collective bargaining and the establishment of working conditions and wages by collective agreement and declared that it precisely fulfilled the objectives of Article 4 of the said Convention No. 98. The Government stated that the failure of both sides to negotiate agreements and the refusal of the unions to accept voluntary arbitration or exhaust negotiation before calling strikes had been among the reasons for the enactment of the ordinance. At that time the ordinance had been in force for six months and a number of agreements had been negotiated and the more constructive trend in industrial relations showed, in the Government's view, that the original assessment of the I.C.F.T.U had been too pessimistic.
  229. 229 After referring the Committee to these earlier observations, the Government went on, in its communication of 29 October 1962, to review more recent trends in industrial relations in Aden. The Government claimed that statistics showed that, since the enactment of the ordinance, considerable progress had been made in the development of voluntary collective bargaining; ten procedural agreements had been concluded, whereas none existed before, and there had been considerable progress in the improvement of wages and conditions of service and a reduction in the time lost in industrial disputes. In the eight months of 1960 preceding the coming into force of the ordinance there were 39 strikes, resulting in a loss of 134,831 man-days involving 9,698 men; in the 27 months since the enactment of the ordinance the loss has been 29,391 man-days involving 11,811 men. In that same period in 185 out of 194 disputes (the other nine being still outstanding), the trade unions had taken part in the negotiations and the workers concerned had benefited in the final result after the disputes had been settled by direct negotiation, conciliation and arbitration. In the view of the Government, therefore, the facts did not bear out the allegation that the ordinance had impeded the establishment of ordinary industrial relations but, on the contrary, showed that it had been an incentive to trade unions and employers to negotiate voluntary agreements.
  230. 230 Further, the Government declared that the Minister of Labour of Aden had recently invited representatives of employers' and employees' organisations to sit on an Aden Joint Industrial Council, which would advise the Government of Aden on labour policies, 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. This procedure would seem to be fully in accordance with the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), concluded the Government, and to make it unnecessary to consider any suggestion for review by any outside commission.
  231. 231 At its meeting in February 1963 the Committee recalled that, when it examined, in Case No. 221 relating to Aden, allegations relating to the provisions of the ordinance which place restrictions on the right to strike and institute a system of arbitration, it took the view that they did not appear to be incompatible with Article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), under which the Government of the United Kingdom has undertaken, with respect to Aden, 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 or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.
• The only aspect of those provisions to which the Committee gave further detailed consideration concerned those which accord to the Crown a special position, in certain respects, with regard to submission to arbitration. As regards these latter provisions, which have been the subject of a Direct Request to the Government by the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the Committee, when it reported further to the Governing Body on Case No. 221 in its 58th Report, concluded by recommending the Governing Body to take note of certain statements on the matter made by the Government. This latter issue was not raised in the allegations being considered in the present case and, as the Committee had already pronounced on the legal compatibility of the other provisions of the ordinance relating to arbitration with the said Convention No. 98, it decided that there was no occasion for it to reopen this legal aspect of the case.
  232. 232 What did appear to the Committee to be to a certain extent a new element in the present case was the allegation that the experience of the past two years showed that, in practice, those legal provisions had not promoted but had defeated the application of Article 4 of the said Convention No. 98. When the Committee examined Case No. 221 the ordinance had only recently been enacted and the Committee had before it conflicting views expressed by the I.C.F.T.U and the Government as to whether the ordinance would encourage the conclusion of collective agreements or whether, on the contrary, it would encourage employers to go to arbitration because that would be to their advantage. On the issue thus presented at that time the Committee declined to express a view.
  233. 233 In the present case, observed the Committee, the complainant, two years after the enactment of the ordinance, adhered to the view that the system established had not promoted or encouraged voluntary negotiation, but had replaced it essentially by compulsory arbitration, which, allied to the prohibition of strikes, had prevented normal trade union activity. The Government denied that this was true, pointing out that there had been fewer stoppages of work and a smaller loss of working days and that, of 194 disputes, 185 had been settled advantageously to the workers. It was not clear, however, from the evidence furnished, whether this result had been due to a greater tendency towards free collective bargaining or to the fact that restrictions placed on strikes had led to settlement by compulsory means. This, obviously, was a matter on which divergent views were held and on which the Committee felt that it would find it extremely difficult to express a firm view on the basis of the evidence available to it.
  234. 234 In this connection, however, the Committee noted that the Government had announced a new development, the consequences of which might throw further light on this aspect of the case. The Minister of Labour had recently invited representatives of employers' and employees' organisations to sit on an Aden Joint Industrial Council, which would advise the Government of Aden on a number of matters 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 ".
  235. 235 In these circumstances the Committee, noting that this statement was made by the Government in a letter addressed to the I.L.O nearly four months ago, requested the Government to be good enough to furnish information as to further developments in this connection and, in particular, as to the response which had been received to the invitations made by the Minister of Labour of Aden. The Committee also requested 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 ordinance.
  236. 236 This request for information was brought to the notice of the Government by a letter dated 14 March 1963, but the Government has not yet furnished its comments on this aspect of the case. The Aden T.U.C, however, refers to the matter in its communication dated 6 April 1963, in which, after criticising 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 £2,000 legal costs on the workers, the Aden T.U.C states that it has informed the British Government that the T.U.C and the Employers' Federation have agreed to the establishment of a Joint Advisory Council under the chairmanship of the Labour Commissioner, but not of the Labour Minister, because they believe that industrial issues should be kept away from politicians.
  237. 237 In these circumstances the Committee again requests the Government to be good enough to furnish the information in question and also to comment on the proposal alleged to have been agreed upon by the workers' and employers' central organisations concerned.
• Allegations relating to the Application of the Penal Provisions of the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960
  238. 238 In its communication dated 1 August 1962 the I.C.F.T.U alleges that in October 1961, after negotiations with the building employers broke down, a general meeting of the General and Technical Workers' Union decided to call a 48-hour strike in the industry. Some strikers were fined and the General Secretary of the Union, Mr. A. Murshed, is stated to have been sentenced to 27 months' rigorous imprisonment on charges of incitement to strike and sedition, a sentence reduced on appeal by six months.
  239. 239 In January 1962, it is alleged, Mr. A. Obeid, President of the Refinery Workers' Union, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment and ten members of the union executive committee to six weeks' imprisonment on a charge of having called a trade union meeting during working hours.
  240. 240 At the end of January 1962, declare the complainants, the Forces Local Workers' Union contemplated strike action because a satisfactory agreement could not be secured; the general meeting accorded full powers to a five-member emergency committee. Before any strike had taken place, it is alleged, the five were brought before the court and required to enter into a one-year bond to abide by the ordinance; on their refusing, they were sentenced to detention for the period of the bond.
  241. 241 It is further alleged that, when the Forces Local Workers' Union finally called a 24-hour strike on 11 April 1962, the Assistant General Secretary of the Aden T.U.C, Mr. A. Aswadi, and the President of the Union, Mr. A. Latif, were sentenced to four months' imprisonment. When a second strike was called on 9 and 10 May 1962, 30 strikers were fined.
  242. 242 With regard to these matters the Government declared in its communication dated 29 October 1962 that the provisions of section 24 of the ordinance (referred to in paragraph 223 above) were the only ones of the final provisions of the ordinance to which recourse had been had and that prosecutions had been brought under the section in respect of only three disputes; sentences of imprisonment were imposed on persons involved in those disputes but only in two cases did they exceed three months and most were less. In the Government's view the sanctions prescribed by the ordinance had been exercised with restraint.
  243. 243 At its meeting in February 1963 the Committee, noting especially that the General Secretary of the General and Technical Workers' Union was sentenced to 27 months' rigorous imprisonment, requested the Government to be good enough to furnish more detailed information on the specific cases referred to above, including information as to the reasons on which the judgments of the courts in these cases were based.
  244. 244 This request for further information was brought to the notice of the Government by a letter dated 14 March 1963.
  245. 245 Further allegations related to those analysed above are contained in other documents of complaint.
  246. 246 In its communication dated 11 December 1962, the W. F.T.U refers to the arrest of Mr. Aswadi and Mr. A. Latif (see paragraph 241 above), but alleges that they were sentenced to three months' imprisonment-not four, as stated by the I.C.F.T.U.
  247. 247 In the same communication the W.F.T.U alleges that a demonstration on 24 September 1962 and a general strike called on 19 November 1962, in support of the workers' economic demands, in protest against violation of trade union rights " and also in opposition to the proposed incorporation of Aden in a Federation of Southern Arabia ", led to the arrest of over 100 trade union members. These are stated to include Mr. Abdulla Al Asnag, General Secretary of the Aden T.U.C, and his colleague, Mr. Idris Hambala, accused of seditious publication.
  248. 248 The W.F.T.U states also that a strike was called on 22 October 1962 by the Forces Local Employees' Union against dismissals and refusal to meet claims outstanding since 1960, following which the authorities arrested 165 strikers and expelled 102 of them from Aden; 86 names of persons alleged to have been deported are furnished. The Aden T.U.C, in its communication dated 15 December 1962, alleges that over 400 trade unionists, including union presidents, secretaries and shop stewards, were taken from their workplaces and deported in trucks, without being brought before any court, and even without being allowed to see their families or collect their wages or dispose of their property, even in the case of those who had lived and worked in Aden for over ten years.
  249. 249 The I.C.F.T.U refers to alleged measures taken after the strike of 19 November 1962 in a further communication dated 26 March 1963. On the basis of information supplied to it by the Aden T.U.C, it makes the following allegations. In the light industries sector 23 workers were summoned for trial and prosecuted; 24 bank employees were prosecuted; 23 airline employees were prosecuted and fined from £5 to £70 each; two dockworkers were deported and five summoned to appear in court; 12 employees of the Aden Port Trust were tried in court, those on whom prison sentences were inflicted being dismissed from their jobs, the others being fined; 11 workers employed by the British Forces in Aden were sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment, 93 others being fined from £5 to £25; 27 Aden government employees were prosecuted and 40 were dismissed.
  250. 250 The Government furnished observations on the allegations in communications dated 28 March and 18 April 1963.
  251. 251 The Government states that Mr. Ali Aswadi and Mr. Abdul Latif Mohammed Ismail (see paragraphs 241 and 246 above) were sentenced to three months' imprisonment in April 1962 for an offence against section 24 (3) of the Industrial Relations (Conciliation and Arbitration) Ordinance, 1960, following the calling of an illegal strike on 11 April 1962 during the course of negotiations between their union and employers in which the latter had made concessions on certain matters, while other matters were still under discussion. The magistrate commented on the dishonesty of the accused in withholding from the union membership information as to the concessions made by the employers. The Government considers that the object of the union in calling the strike was political and that it was intended to challenge the ordinance and coerce the Government of Aden.
  252. 252 The Government confirms that in May 1962, following another withdrawal of labour by the Forces Local Employees' Union while the negotiations referred to above were still proceeding, 30 members were charged under section 24 (1) of the ordinance with having taken part in an illegal strike. They were not arrested. One case was withdrawn; in the others 23 persons were fined 50 shillings each or, in default, were to serve a term of 14 days' imprisonment; the remaining six cases were not proceeded with.
  253. 253 On 22 October 1962, declares the Government, a further illegal strike was called by the Forces Local Employees' Union, although negotiations were then proceeding with employers on a number of outstanding points under a conciliator appointed by the Governor.
  254. 254 In connection with this strike the Government furnished an extract from a statement issued by the Headquarters (Middle East Command) on 20 October 1962. The statement announces that the reasons given for the strike by the union were that the employer (H. M. Forces) refused to go to arbitration on two of six points in dispute and that the Forces had refused to reinstate all the civilian employees who had been dismissed; in fact the Forces had not refused to go to arbitration but the conciliator had informed the union that its request was premature as progress towards a settlement was still being realised, the employers having just offered further concessions. As regards dismissals, cases were being reviewed according to a procedure agreed with the union and 30 per cent had been offered re-employment. The statement then lists the concessions made by the Forces to their employees in the past three-and-a-half years and certain others which the union had not yet accepted.
  255. 255 In view of the foregoing the Government considers that the strike of 22 October 1962 could not be justified on economic grounds, as all prospects of settlement had not been exhausted, and that it was called on political grounds. Following this strike, states the Government, 90 persons who had no legal right to reside in Aden were deported as undesirables.
  256. 256 The Government states that no persons were charged under the ordinance following the demonstration on 24 September 1962. The general strike of 19 November 1962 was called for political purposes and was not connected with any industrial dispute; in support of this contention, the Government refers to the protest in the complaint of the Aden T.U.C dated 15 December 1962 concerning the deportation of persons who have supported strikes against the British plan for the political future of Aden.
  257. 257 The Committee observes that the Government has furnished evidence on several of the cases of prosecutions of strikers referred to in the complaints. It has not, however, commented on the case of Mr. A. 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 239 above). It has 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 240). Nor has it referred to the case of which particular note was taken by the Committee at its last session-that of the alleged sentencing to 27 months' rigorous imprisonment of Mr. Murshed, General Secretary of the General and Technical Workers' Union (see paragraph 243). With regard to the alleged deportations of trade union officers and members referred to in paragraph 248 above, the Government has confined itself to a statement that 90 persons who had no right to reside in Aden were deported as undesirables. Finally, the Government has not yet furnished its observations on the complaint of the I.C.F.T.U dated 26 March 1963, which refers to some 200 alleged prosecutions following the strike of 19 November 1962 (see paragraph 249 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-are serving a sentence of imprisonment for conspiring to publish a seditious booklet.
  258. 258 In these circumstances the Committee, while thanking the Government for the observations which it has been good enough to furnish, requests it 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.
• Allegations relating to the Maltreatment of Imprisoned Trade Unionists
  259. 259 The Confederation of Arab Trade Unions, in its communication dated 25 November 1962, and the W.F.T.U, in its communication dated 11 December 1962, allege that ten imprisoned trade unionists, including Mr. Al Asnag, General Secretary of the Aden T.U.C, and Mr. Idris Hambala, were subjected to vicious treatment and flogged.
  260. 260 In its communications dated 28 March and 18 April 1963 the Government categorically denies that any such treatment, hunger strike or flogging ever took place.
  261. 261 While there is thus a direct conflict of evidence between the statements of the two international organisations in question and the Government, it may be significant that the Aden T.U.C, the national organisation directly concerned and more in a position to be well informed in such a case, does not, either in its communication dated 15 December 1962 or in that dated 6 April 1963, refer to any such incidents.
  262. 262 In these circumstances the Committee considers that the complainants have not furnished sufficient proof in support of their statements and recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Proposed Legislative Amendments
  263. 263 With its communication dated 1 April 1963, the P.T.T.I encloses a copy of a letter stated to have been sent on the same day to the British Prime Minister. In this letter the P.T.T.I refers to reports of a proposal to enact legislation in Aden which will 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. The complainant contrasts this with the situation in the United Kingdom and refers also to the standards laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
  264. 264 As the Government has not yet commented on these matters the Committee requests the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations thereon.
• Allegations relating to the Sponsorship of a Rival Trade Union Organisation by the Authorities in Aden
  265. 265 In its communication dated 18 September 1962, the I.C.F.T.U alleges that it has been informed by the Aden T.U.C that the Aden Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. A. Bayoomi, has publicly stated his intention to establish a trade union organisation as a rival organisation to the Aden T.U.C, a development which, contends the complaint, would be contrary to Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
  266. 266 In its communication dated 15 December 1962, the Aden T.U.C alleges that " there is enough evidence " to show that the Minister of the Interior in the Federation of South Arabian States and the Minister of Labour of Aden are attempting to encourage officially the creation of an Aden Free Trade Union Movement, as a rival to the Aden T.U.C, and that money is being provided to induce workers to join it.
  267. 267 The Government, in its communication dated 4 February 1963, states that Mr. Bayoomi denies ever making any such statement as is alleged. A Free Trade Union Movement has recently been set up in Aden but, in the Government's view, this represents an effort by certain workers to dissociate themselves from the politics of the Aden T.U.C and does not infringe the said Convention No. 87. The Government repeats these comments in its communication dated 18 April 1963.
  268. 268 The Committee observes that the I.C.F.T.U does not specify the date when the Minister of Labour of Aden made the alleged statement and does not give any indication as to where or in what circumstances it is claimed to have been made. Nor does the Aden T.U.C offer any concrete facts to support its claim that " there is enough evidence " to show that a rival organisation is being sponsored. The Government, while admitting that a new organisation appears to have come into being, denies that there has been any sponsorship of it as alleged.
  269. 269 In these circumstances the Committee, considering that the complainants have not offered sufficient proof to show that a rival organisation is being encouraged by the authorities concerned, 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
  270. 270 In its communication dated 3 October 1962 the I.C.F.T.U alleges that the Governor of Aden revoked the licence of Al Ommal, the newspaper of the Aden T.U.C, contrary to Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). The W.F.T.U, in its communication dated 11 December 1962, alleges that this measure was taken on 2 February 1962, but the Aden T.U.C, in its communication dated 15 December 1962, gives the date as 30 September 1962.
  271. 271 In its communication dated 4 February 1962 the Government states that the Governor, pursuant to his powers under the Press and Registration of Books Ordinance (Cap. 125), revoked the licence of Al Ommal and of another newspaper, following the publication of seditious items likely to inflame racial animosities. Before the licence for Al Ommal was issued in November 1961, states the Government, the editors gave an assurance-subsequently not observed-that the licence would not be abused by the issue of subversive or seditious material.
  272. 272 Since that reply was received the Aden T.U.C has submitted further information on the matter in its communication dated 6 April 1963.
  273. 273 The Aden T.U.C claims that the situation of depriving the trade unions of the right to issue a newspaper is particularly unjust, because, at the moment, the Federal Minister of Education and the younger brothers of the Chief Minister of Aden and of the Aden Minister for Works publish three anti-trade union daily papers and the employers publish two. The complainant states that three applications for licences to publish a trade union newspaper are still outstanding. The Aden T.U.C denies that Al Ommal published seditious matter and makes the statement that, while the authorities prosecuted the General Secretary of the T.U.C for conspiring to issue a seditious booklet, they never prosecuted the editors of the suppressed newspaper for having printed seditious matter, a course they would normally have followed if they had had any grounds.
  274. 274 The Government has not yet furnished its observations on the communication from the Aden T.U.C dated 6 April 1963.
  275. 275 In a number of cases in the past the Committee has expressed the view that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is clearly one of the essential elements of trade union rights. In certain cases, where allegations as to the banning or suppression of trade union newspapers have been met by governments with the statement that the measure was taken because they published seditious matter or matter of a political and anti-national character, the Committee has formulated its conclusions to the Governing Body only after it has had before it extracts from the publications concerned which the governments regarded as justifying their prohibition, and has requested the governments to furnish such extracts where they have not already done so in their observations.
  276. 276 In these circumstances the Committee requests the Government to be good enough 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, and to furnish its observations on the communication from the Aden T.U.C dated 6 April 1963.
• Allegations relating to Non-Recognition of Trade Union Rights in the States of the Federation of South Arabia
  277. 277 It is alleged by the Aden T.U.C in its communication dated 6 April 1963 that in the states of the Federation of South Arabia other than Aden trade unions are illegal. The complainants state further 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 of South Arabia, other existing unions as well as proposed new ones, it is alleged, are no longer recognised. The complainants add that, in Abyan state, employees who asked for a revision of wages have been arrested.
  278. 278 As the Government has not yet commented on this communication from the Aden T.U.C, the Committee requests the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations on these allegations.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 279. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide that the allegations relating to the maltreatment of imprisoned trade unionists and to the sponsorship of a rival trade union organisation in Aden do not call for further examination;
   • (b) to take note of the present interim report of the Committee on the remaining allegations, it being understood that the Committee will report further thereon when it has received additional information and observations which it has decided, as indicated in paragraph 258 above, to request the Government to be good enough to furnish.