Definitive Report - Report No 137, 1973

Case No 724 (Philippines) - Complaint date: 09-OCT-72 - Closed

1. 43. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Metalworkers' Federation dated 9 October 1972. The IMF subsequently supplied additional information by three communications dated 6 and 17 November and 22 December 1972. All these communications were transmitted to the Government, which furnished its observations thereon by a communication dated 11 April 1973.
2. 44. The Philippines has ratified both 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).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 45. In its communication of 9 October 1972 the IMF alleged that the Government of the Philippines had prevented three metalworkers' union leaders from that country, namely Messrs. Mendoza, Luzano and Sauza, from attending a conference held by the complaining organisation in Australia and referred in general terms to restrictions upon freedom of association in the Philippines and the detention of trade unionists. The communication of 6 November 1972 contained additional information on these allegations, including a statement by the Philippines Secretary of Labour to the effect that the Government would have allowed these trade union leaders to attend the conference in question and that other labour leaders in custody had been released. By the communication dated 17 November 1972 the complainants forwarded the texts of certain legal provisions adopted by virtue of the martial law which had been promulgated on 21 September 1972, whereby, in particular, strikes were prohibited and new machinery was set up for the settlement of labour disputes. On 22 December 1972 the IMF announced that in January 1973 it would be sending a delegation to the Philippines to investigate the situation.
2. 46. In a fresh communication dated 14 March 1973 the complaining organisation stated that, in view of the more detailed information it had obtained, including that procured by a mission of inquiry which had visited the Philippines, it wished to withdraw its complaint.
3. 47. In its communication the Government states that it consulted the three trade union leaders and indicates that its reply is based on the statements made by them. The Government points out that nothing prevented these leaders from leaving the country to attend the Conference. Mr. Mendoza stated that, at the time of promulgation of martial law, he had decided to stay in the country in order to do whatever might be necessary for the welfare of the members of his organisation. Mr. Sauza stated that he had not received his plane ticket in time and that he informed a representative of the IMF in Sydney that this was his reason for not attending the Conference. The same reason was given by Mr. Luzano. The IMF mission visited Manila from 2 to 9 February 1973 and is quoted as stating in its report that it is satisfied that the three trade union leaders were not prevented from leaving the country. As regards the allegation that the trade unions in the country were faced with a very difficult situation, the Government points out that the implementation of the martial law has been stretched sufficiently to assure for workers virtually the same rights and privileges as they previously enjoyed. Even if the right to strike had been temporarily withdrawn, there were countervailing measures, embodied in Presidential Decree No. 21, which safeguarded workers' rights during the present emergency.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 48. The Committee has always considered that the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw a complaint, while constituting a factor to which the greatest attention must be paid is not, however, in itself sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. The Committee has considered that it should be guided in this respect by the conclusions approved by the Governing Body in 1937 and 1938 with regard to two representations submitted in accordance with article 23 of the Constitution of the Organisation (now article 24). The Governing Body at that time established the principle that, from the moment that a representation was submitted to it, it alone was competent to decide what effects should be given to it, and that "the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not receivable or is not well founded". The Committee has considered that in implementing this principle it is free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether these appear sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the withdrawal was made in complete independence. It has observed that cases might exist in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it would be a result, not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose but of pressure exercised by the Government against the complainants, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if they did not consent to this withdrawal.

49. The Committee has taken note of the information supplied by the Government and considers that the complaining organisation, which has international status and whose headquarters are not in the Philippines, has acted independently in withdrawing its complaint and has what it considers to be valid reasons for so doing. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.