Definitive Report - Report No 125, 1971

Case No 642 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 29-SEP-70 - Closed

1. 15. This complaint by the Democratic Independent Union of British Honduras is set forth in a letter sent to the ILO dated 29 September 1970. Additional information in connection with the complaint is contained in four further communications sent to the ILO, dated 27 October and 2 December 1970 and 24 March and 8 April 1971, respectively. The complaint was duly referred to the Government for its comments and these were received in the form of a communication dated 10 March 1971.
2. 16. 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 British Honduras.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 17. In the communication dated 29 September 1970 the complainants allege that, on 11 September 1970, the domestic staff of the Belize City Hospital held a sit-down strike following the Government's refusal to negotiate with the complainants in respect of higher wages and better working conditions.
2. 18. In particular, the complainants allege that written representations were made several times to the hospital authorities and to the Minister of Health requesting a meeting between the complainants and the medical authorities to discuss the issue, but that the Minister of Health refused to meet the complainants' request.
3. 19. As a result of this refusal the complainants reported the matter to the Governor of British Honduras, who stated that he had no legal power to intervene and that the dispute should be referred to the Minister of Labour. The complainants accordingly informed the Minister of Labour of the situation in a letter dated 21 August 1970, to which no reply was received. A further letter dated 7 September 1970 was addressed to the Minister of Labour in which the complainants stated that, according to the law relative to essential services, he should act and settle the dispute within 21 days. The complainants allege that this letter was also ignored by the Minister.
4. 20. The complainants state that the Minister of Health sought the intervention of the Commissioner of Police, who broke up the sit-down strike and removed the maids from their place of work. The strikers were replaced by others (" scabs ") who were escorted through the pickets by the police. Because of the refusal of the Government to negotiate, the strike was, at the date of the complainants' first communication, in its twentieth day.
5. 21. The complainants also allege that as a result of the strike, the Minister of Health had issued instructions for the dismissal of the strikers and advertised the vacant posts in a newspaper.
6. 22. On 27 October 1970, in a further communication, the complainants stated that the strike was then in its fiftieth day, no attempt having been made by the Government to negotiate. According to the complainants, the Minister of Health had made " an appalling statement " in the House of Representatives against the maids because they had gone on strike, and in taking charge of the matter, he had acted ultra vires, any matter relating to labour disputes being the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.
7. 23. In a communication dated December 1970 the complainants repeated that numerous communications which they had addressed to the Government had been ignored. The strike was now in its eighty-seventh day and the Government still refused to negotiate. Enclosed with the same communication was a copy of a dismissal notice dated 5 November 1970 addressed to one of the domestic staff, in which it was stated that the person concerned was being dismissed consequent on her absence from domestic duties in the Medical Department since 11 September 1970, resulting in the employment of a person to fill the post made vacant by her absence. The complainants allege that their objection to this kind of action proved useless, and that their lawyer, Mr. A. Lindo, would shortly initiate court proceedings.
8. 24. In a communication dated 24 March 1971 the complainants state that no change has taken place in the situation. They allege that the Minister of Labour has still taken no action to settle the dispute despite numerous requests to take action. The matter, say the complainants, was brought before the Supreme Court of British Honduras on 12 and 15 March 1971 and was adjourned for a further two weeks.
9. 25. The Government, in its communication dated 10 March 1971, states that there was no question of a " sit-down strike " on 11 September 1970 since all the strikers sat off-post in groups and in various places on the hospital premises.
10. 26. The Government also states that the Ministry of Health was aware of the grievances presented to it in writing by the domestic staff but intended to attempt to settle them within the Ministry's machinery itself, and was dealing with the matter when the strike was called. The Government points out that the complainants wrote for the first time direct to the Minister of Health on 7 October 1970. It states that, on 9 September 1970, a Medical Department official called the domestic staff together telling them that it was understood by the Ministry that a strike was contemplated and that the matter had been referred to the Minister of Health. Asked to refer the matter to the complainants, the official stated that they had already been written to. Thus, states the Government, the Medical Department had already made an attempt to avert a strike in the matter. The Government adds that, later, the Department of Health spoke to the President of the Union offering to help in averting the strike but was told by him that nothing could be done.
11. 27. The Government further states that the complainants wrote to the Minister of Labour on 21 August 1970. The Minister, however, adds the Government, hesitated to reply to a letter which threatened a strike and which showed no feeling for the people occupying the hospital beds.
12. 28. The Government admits that the Minister of Labour received from the complainants a further letter dated 7 September 1970, which contained the following passage: " unless this dispute is settled in the manner prescribed in Chapter 146 of the said Laws of British Honduras by 10 September 1970, the date on which the 21 days' notice given for the settlement of disputes in Essential Services will end, you leave us no choice but to withdraw our labour on the 11th day of September 1970 until you are prepared to deal with the dispute in the appropriate manner prescribed by law with the view of reaching an amicable and early settlement ". The Minister, states the Government, did not reply to this letter because the domestic staff of the hospital went on strike before he could do so. This strike, the Government contends, was clearly illegal.
13. 29. As a result of the strikers' obstruction of other members of the staff in the performance of their duties, the police ordered them to leave the building. The Commissioner of Police, the Government points out, was carrying out his duty in preserving law and order and it could not be said that he intervened and " broke down " the strike. Subsequently the strikers set up picket lines outside the hospital compound, although some still remained inside.
14. 30. The Government further states that in view of the refusal of the domestic staff to return to work it was found necessary to utilise the services of staff from the Seaview (Mental) Hospital and also of student nurses from the Bliss School of Nursing. Volunteers were supplied from the Red Cross Corps, and helpers also had to be employed, some of whom had been on the waiting list, one being recruited through the Labour Department.
15. 31. The Government adds that, on 19 October 1970, the President of the Union was informed by the Ministry of Health that:
16. (1) despite several invitations sent in goodwill, the strikers had refused to go back to work while their case was being considered;
17. (2) the union had failed to take the opportunity to show goodwill by asking the staff to comply with the Government's request;
18. (3) the hospital services, classified as essential, had to be continued without serious interruption for the sake of the patients, and that steps had therefore to be taken to fill the strikers' places with new workers and, as there were no longer any vacancies, that it had been decided to pay their terminal benefits to all the workers who had the required amount of service and were eligible under the Government Workers' Rules, and not to re-engage other workers who did not qualify for such benefits, most of whom had short service in any case. On the termination of their services the strikers concerned were offered pay in respect of all their accrued vacation leave and from one to four weeks' pay in lieu of notice, depending on their particular service. The Government states that none were dismissed as alleged, although absent from work without authority or legal right.
19. 32. In its communication the Government states that no official request was made to any newspaper for domestic staff vacancies to be advertised.
20. 33. The Government explains that the Minister of Health has responsibility for the general direction and control of the departments within his portfolio and has every right to act in the settlement of a dispute in the Medical Department. The Minister of Labour has authority to intervene if he so wishes. In the present case, states the Government, the Minister of Labour was of the opinion that the Minister of Health was taking steps to settle the dispute when he was advised of it by the complainants on 21 August 1970, and that he would not act in furtherance of an illegal strike once that had commenced on 11 September 1970.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 34. The Committee observes that the complainants had, on 28 July and 6 and 11 August 1970, addressed communications to the medical authorities setting forth the grievances of the domestic maids at Belize City Hospital. The Committee also notes that, in a letter dated 17 August 1970, the chief medical officer stated that these communications had been passed to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health. In a letter dated 20 August 1970 addressed to the complainants by the Governor of British Honduras it was stated that the Governor had no authority to act in the dispute, such authority having been transferred to the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 11 of Chapter 196 of the Consequential Amendments Ordinance 1963, promulgated by Statutory Instruments, No. 4 of 1964.
2. 35. The Committee notes the Government's explanation that the Ministry of Health intended to settle the dispute within the Ministry's machinery and was dealing with the case when the strike was called on 11 September 1970. The Committee also notes the Government's admission that the Minister of Labour did not reply to the complainants' letter dated 21 August 1970, and that he was satisfied that steps were being taken by the Minister of Health and his Department to settle the dispute.
3. 36. As regards the allegation that the strikers were dismissed by the medical authorities and replaced, the Committee notes the Government's statement that, despite several invitations sent in goodwill, the strikers had refused to go back to work, while their case was being considered and that the hospital services, being essential, had to be continued without serious interruption for the sake of the patients. Steps, therefore, had to be taken to fill the strikers' places with new workers, and to terminate the services of the strikers.
4. 37. The Committee observes that, while the Government refers in general terms to the matter being under consideration by the Ministry of Health with a view to settlement of the dispute, no details are given of what negotiations were taking place, or of how settlement was to be effected. From the information supplied it would appear to the Committee that even if machinery exists for the settlement of labour disputes in the hospital service, this does not in the present case appear to have been utilised in such a way as to provide the complainants with any possibility of participation in the negotiations concerning the grievances submitted on behalf of the domestic staff of Belize City Hospital.
5. 38. The Committee has always applied the principle that allegations regarding the right to strike lie within its competence so far, but only so far, as they affect the exercise of trade union rights, and has pointed out on several occasions that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests is generally recognised. In this connection, the Committee has stressed the importance it attaches, where strikes are prohibited or are subject to restrictions in essential services or in the civil service, to the establishment of adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interests, and has pointed out that such restrictions should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties concerned may participate at every stage and that the awards given should in all cases be binding on both parties. Since, therefore, the considerations set forth above are relevant to the present case, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to them and it recommends the Governing Body likewise to draw the Government's attention to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to these considerations.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 39. In these circumstances, and with regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the considerations set forth in the preceding paragraph regarding, in particular, the establishment of adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the workers where strikes are prohibited or are subject to restrictions in essential services or in the civil service.