Interim Report - Report No 81, 1965

Case No 393 (Syrian Arab Republic) - Complaint date: 22-APR-64 - Closed

1. 153. The Committee already examined this case at its 38th Session in November 1964. At that time it made its final recommendations to the Governing Body on certain aspects of the case, namely the allegations respecting the formation of trade unions, the registration of trade unions and access to trade union books and registers. The Committee submitted an interim report on other points, in which it recommended the Governing Body to request the Government for certain additional information as regards the allegations respecting free trade union elections and compulsory affiliation of primary unions to trade federations. The Committee's recommendations to the Governing Body appear in its the Governing Body will not be called upon to examine and approve until its 161st Session (March 1965). Consequently, the conclusions and requests for information mentioned above have not yet been brought to the notice of the Government. On the other hand, with respect to two sets of allegations-those relating to the dismissal of trade union leaders and those relating to the exercise of the right to strike-the Committee itself requested the Government to furnish certain additional information. This request was made in a letter dated 17 November 1964 addressed to the Government, which replied by a communication dated 30 December 1964. The following paragraphs deal only with these two sets of allegations.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations respecting the Dismissal of Trade Union Leaders
  154. 154 The complainants alleged that many trade union leaders have been dismissed from the waterworks, railways, textile factories and sugar refineries " to prevent them from exercising their trade union rights and activities ".
  155. 155 On this aspect of the case the Government, in its observations contained in its communication of 9 June 1964, dealt with by the Committee at its 38th Session, merely stated that it considered these dismissals " as purely internal measures such as take place daily in every country of the world ".
  156. 156 The above observation being too brief to permit elucidation as to whether the dismissals in question were or were not measures of anti-union discrimination, the Committee considered that before it could make its final recommendations to the Governing Body it must know the exact grounds on which the persons concerned were dismissed, and consequently it requested the Government to supply further information on this point.
  157. 157 In its reply of 30 December 1964 the Government stated first of all that the dismissals in question were made prior to the promulgation of the Legislative Decree of 2 March 1964 to which the complaints referred. The Government then goes on to say that these dismissals were made on grounds relating to operating needs or to working conditions and were therefore wholly unrelated to trade union affairs. The reasons given by the Government for these dismissals are absence of a worker for a period longer than that established by law (ten successive days without a valid reason); sickness for a period longer than that established by law (180 days without interruption); unfitness revealed during the probationary period; the reaching of the age limit; and theft.
  158. 158 The Government adds that any worker dismissed or notified of dismissal is entitled to appeal to the courts. The court determines whether or not dismissal is justified according to the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 49 of 1962, which is applicable to such cases and, if it appears that dismissal was not justified, delivers a judgment ordering the worker to be reinstated.
  159. 159 The Government ends by stating that both under former legislation and under the present law trade union activities cannot in any case constitute grounds for dismissal, adding that a worker who is dismissed is not thereby deprived of his right to belong to a union or to carry on trade union activities, " as is clearly indicated in section 12 of Legislative Decree No. 31 of 1964 to reorganise the trade union movement, now in force, as well as in section 6 of Legislative Decree No. 50 of 1962, which was in force before the present law ".
  160. 160 It is evident from the explanations furnished by the Government that the dismissals complained of were made on grounds unrelated to the trade union membership or activities of the persons dismissed. Considering, moreover, that any worker dismissed may appeal to the courts against the measures taken against him, the Committee, in view of the fact that the complainants did not prove that the dismissals in question constituted an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations respecting the Exercise of the Right to Strike
  161. 161 The complainants alleged that the President of the Revolutionary Council promulgated a Decree on 30 April 1964 providing that any person inciting to strike will be brought before a court martial.
  162. 162 This allegation was contained in the I.C.F.T.U communication of 29 May 1964, copy of which was sent to the Government on 18 June 1964. The Government had not yet presented its observations thereon when the Committee dealt with the case at its meeting in November 1964.
  163. 163 Consequently, at the above session the Committee requested the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations on this aspect of the case.
  164. 164 In its communication dated 30 December 1964 the Government states that a military ordinance (and not a decree) was in fact issued on 30 April 1964 providing that any person inciting another to close his establishment or to disturb public order and security will be brought before a court martial. The Government, however, goes on to say that this order was promulgated under circumstances in which the country's security was threatened by plots, a fact which compelled the military authorities, then responsible for maintaining security, to issue this military ordinance " for the purpose of restoring law and order ".
  165. 165 The Government states that, even at the time of the disturbances which had given rise to this ordinance, it was never applied in practice. Since normal conditions were restored shortly after, the Government has never adopted any measures to enforce it.
  166. 166 The text criticised by the complainants clearly appears to have been promulgated at a time of crisis, solely for coping with special circumstances and not for the purpose of restricting the exercise of trade union rights as such. Moreover, it seems clear from the explanations furnished by the Government not only that this ordinance was never enforced but that-since the situation has become normal again-there is no longer any reason for its existence.
  167. 167 However, since the Government does not state whether this ordinance has formally been declared null and void, the Committee, before formulating its final recommendations on this aspect of the case to the Governing Body, considers that it must first know if the Government has repealed or intends to repeal this ordinance. It therefore recommends the Governing Body to request the Government for further particulars on this point.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 168. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide, for the reasons set forth in paragraph 160 above, that the allegations relating to the dismissal of trade union leaders do not call for further examination;
   • (b) to request the Government, as regards the allegations relating to the exercise of the right to strike, to be good enough to indicate if it has repealed or intends to repeal the Military Ordinance of 30 April 1964;
   • (c) to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will report further to the Governing Body when it has received the additional information mentioned in subparagraph (b) above.