Interim Report - Report No 147, 1975

Case No 677 (Sudan) - Complaint date: 28-JUL-71 - Closed

1. 217. This case was last examined by the Committee at its session in November 1973 when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report which is contained in paragraphs 431-436 of the 139th Report of the Committee.
2. 218. Sudan has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 219. At its sessions in February and May 1974 the Committee had adjourned its examination of the case since the observations of the Government concerning the allegation that many trade union militants and officials had been dismissed had not been received. In a communication dated 6 August 1974 the Government transmitted its observations on this question.
2. 220. The Committee recalls that, on 3 April 1973, the complainants supplied information to the effect that the Government had dismissed a large number of elementary and secondary schoolteachers without any charges being brought against them. According to the complainants, many lost their pension rights. In this connection, the complainants supplied a list of thirty-seven national and provincial trade union officials and militants affected by these measures.
3. 221. In its communication dated 6 August 1974, the Government states that a thorough investigation was made into the names appearing on the list supplied by the complainants. It was discovered, states the Government, that, in spite of some difficulty in identifying the names on the list, some persons named were not teachers, and that others had been treated fairly according to the Officials' Discipline ordinance, which applies to all persons who are regularly and continuously employed by the Government. The Government adds that the application of this ordinance does not necessarily mean the dismissal of the official who is charged with one or more of the offences stated in the ordinance. Dismissal is, however, one of the penalties provided for in the ordinance. It is true, continues the Government, that some of the persons listed in the complaint, and who could be identified, were dismissed, although their dismissal had nothing to do with their trade union activities. According to the Government, these persons were dismissed for having committed acts which are considered offences under the abovementioned Ordinance. The Government supplies a list of fifteen names of persons who were dismissed but who, according to the Government, were given their full pension or gratuity rights. The Government also states that Sid Ahmed Mahmoud has been reinstated, and Fayza Abu Baker has not been dismissed. Finally, the Government states that, for reasons of clemency, the Government has decided to reconsider these cases of dismissal with a view to mitigating the punishment inflicted, and that information in this connection will be communicated to the Committee in due course.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 222. The Committee has, on a number of occasions', pointed out that one way of ensuring the protection of trade union officials is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter except, of course, for serious misconduct. The Committee also considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee would also recall that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has stressed the danger that the dismissal of a worker who is a trade union leader may, by reason of the fact that dismissal causes him to lose his status as a trade union officer, infringe the freedom of his organisation and its right to elect its representatives in full freedom, and may even leave the way open for acts of interference by the employer.
2. 223. The Committee notes that in the present case the fifteen names, supplied by the Government, of trade unionists who were dismissed for breach of the Officials' Discipline Ordinance, and the names of two others, one of whom has been reinstated and the other not dismissed, correspond to seventeen of the names supplied by the complainants. The Committee also notes that the Government has had difficulty in identifying some of the names given by the complainants. Apart from stating that some of the persons concerned were dismissed under the Officials' Discipline Ordinance, the Government gives no information as to the specific acts said to have been committed by these persons, and which caused their dismissal. The Committee is, therefore on the information at its disposal, unable to reach its conclusions on the matter in full knowledge of the facts. The Committee notes, however, the Government's statement that a decision has been taken to reconsider the cases in question with a view to mitigating the punishment inflicted.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 224. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to note with interest that the Government has decided to reconsider the cases of dismissal with a view to mitigating the punishment inflicted, and that information in this connection will be communicated in due course;
   • (b) to request the Government to supply information indicating the precise reasons for which the trade unionists named by the Government were dismissed under the Officials' Discipline Ordinance; and
   • (c) to adjourn its examination of the case, it being understood that the Committee will submit a further report when the information requested above has been received.