Definitive Report - Report No 160, March 1977

Case No 709 (Mauritius) - Complaint date: 10-JUL-72 - Closed

1. 19. This case was examined by the Committee in February and November 1975 and in February 1976 and on each occasion an interim report was submitted to the Governing Body. These reports are contained in paragraphs 89-112 of the Committee's 149th Report, paragraphs 133-145 of its 153rd Report and paragraphs 106-117 of the 157th Report. Since the Committee's last examination of the case, two communications have been received from the Government, on 26 May and 2 September 1976.
2. 20. Mauritius has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (1948) No. 87; it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 21. When it last examined this case (in its 157th Report), the Committee had before it information supplied by the Government concerning the matters which were still outstanding, viz., the suspension of the registration of several trade unions (including the General Workers' Federation) and the arrest of some trade union leaders following a labour dispute and the proclamation, in December 1971, of a state of emergency.
2. 22. As regards the trade unionists who were said to have been arrested, the Government explained that these persons, who had been arrested following the proclamation of the state of emergency, had been freed. As regards the suspension of registration of certain trade unions, the Committee (in its 153rd Report) had noted from the information supplied by the Government, that 13 unions had been suspended under the Trade Union (Suspension of Registration) Order, 1971, and that, after the coming into force of the Industrial Relations Act, 1973, nine of the suspended unions had formed again under the same or similar names and had applied for registration under the Act. The Government had stated, in this connection, that five of these had been reregistered, three others had been refused registration under the terms of section 9 of the Act, and an objection had been lodged against the registration of the other union. The objection was being heard by the Central Whitley Council. The other four unions had not applied for registration.
3. 23. In its 157th Report, the Committee took note of the fact that the three unions mentioned had been refused registration pursuant to a directive of the Industrial Relations Commission. In each case, the refusal had been based on the grounds that a registered trade union already existed which was sufficiently representative of the interests which the applicant trade unions intended to safeguard (section 9(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Act). On appeal against this decision, the Government added, the Permanent Arbitration Tribunal had ordered that the trade unions be provisionally registered, and directed that the Commission reopen the case and decide whether such provisional registration should be maintained. The three trade unions were accordingly registered on 11 August 1975.
4. 24. Subsequently, according to the Government, the objecting trade unions applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and prohibition against the judgment of the Permanent Arbitration Tribunal. Consideration of the cases by the Commission had, therefore, been deferred pending the decision of the Supreme Court. The Government also mentioned the objections lodged by two other unions against the application for registration of the Association of Government Hospital Employees. These unions claimed that they already catered for some of the grades concerned and that various rules of the applicant union were not in order. The Government had stated, in this connection, that the first of these objections had been rejected and that consideration of the second objection had been deferred pending a decision on the application for permanent registration of the objecting union.
5. 25. In the light of the information supplied by the Government, the Committee recalled that it had stressed, in its previous reports on this case, certain principles and considerations affecting the registration system provided for in the Industrial Relations Act of 1973. It had pointed out, in particular, that a provision authorising the rejection of an application for registration (which is compulsory to enable a union to obtain legal recognition), if another union already registered is sufficiently representative of the interests which the union seeking registration proposes to defend, means that in certain cases workers may be denied the right to join the organisation of their choosing, contrary to the principles of freedom of association. Whilst fully appreciating the desire of a government to promote a strong trade union movement and avoid the defects resulting from a multiplicity of small and competing trade unions, the Committee considered that it was desirable in such cases for the Government to endeavour to encourage the unions to join together voluntarily to form united organisations, rather than to impose upon them by legislation a compulsory unification which deprives workers of their right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing.
6. 26. In drawing the attention of the Government to the above principles, the Committee requested the Government to communicate the terms of the decisions ultimately taken regarding the four unions for which registration had been held in abeyance.
7. 27. In a communication dated 26 May 1976, the Government stated that on 30 April 1976 the Supreme Court had decided that the Permanent Arbitration Tribunal had been wrong to direct the provisional registration of the three trade unions concerned. The Supreme Court, accordingly, quashed the decision of the Tribunal and directed the Registrar of Associations to strike off the provisional registration from the registers. The Government added that the Supreme Court, however, maintained the Tribunal's decision to direct the Industrial Relations Commission to reconsider these cases. The Government added that the Commission would be reconsidering the cases as soon as possible. As regards the registration of the Association of Government Hospital Employees, the Government pointed out that the objecting union had now been registered and the application for registration of the Association of Government Hospital Employees would be reconsidered as soon as possible.
8. 28. In its communication of 6 September 1976, the Government refers to an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act of 1973 which came into force on 31 July 1976. This Amendment Act removes the provision authorising the rejection of an application for registration if another union, already registered, is sufficiently representative of the interests which the applicant union intends to safeguard. The Government states that following the coming into force of this amendment, the Industrial Relations Commission ordered the Registrar of Associations, on 20 August 1976, to register the three unions in question. Regarding the Association of Government Hospital Employees, the Government states that it may submit a new application for registration.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 29. The Committee notes the adoption of an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act of 1973, deleting a provision serving as basis for the refusal to register the three unions in question, regarding which the Committee had made certain observations. The Committee also notes that, following this amendment, the Industrial Relations Commission ordered the registration of these unions and that the Association of Government Hospital Employees may submit a new application for registration.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 30. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to note with particular interest the adoption of an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act of 1973, which takes into account the observations made by the Committee during its earlier examinations of this case and to decide that the case calls for no further examination.