Definitive Report - Report No 147, 1975

Case No 759 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 30-MAY-73 - Closed

1. 169. The Committee has already examined this case at its 66th Session (February 1974), when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 157 to 165 of its 143rd Report.
2. 170. The Government of 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 these Conventions to be applicable without modification to Belize.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 171. The complaint concerns the dismissal of Feliciano Sutherland, who had been employed by the Public Works Department of Belize for ten years. It is alleged that a dispute arose between Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Clegg, the site engineer, as a result of which Mr. Sutherland was dismissed. At the request of the Democratic Independent Union, of which Mr. Sutherland was a member, the Labour Department was requested to mediate in the dispute. The mediator agreed to by both parties to the dispute was Mr. S.E. Tillett, Acting Labour Commissioner.
2. 172. The complainants have forwarded the transcript of the proceedings before the mediator, from which it appears that both sides were duly represented and heard. On the basis of oral testimony and written submissions from both sides, the Acting commissioner found that Mr. Sutherland should be reinstated without loss of pay, but that he should be officially warned against further conduct of the nature of that which led to his dismissal.
3. 173. Since his reinstatement was not forthcoming, Mr. Sutherland sought audience of the Prime Minister of Belize and was allegedly informed by him that the Government had no intention whatever of complying with the Acting Commissioner's award and, further, that Mr. Sutherland "would not ever again work for the Public Works Department, as he had joined the wrong union, the DIU". Mr. Sutherland has not been reinstated, nor has any other action been taken on the Acting Commissioner's award.
4. 174. The Government has replied that it has not prevented any worker from joining the union of his choice and that the DIU represents workers in several government departments. It also states that there has been no breach of Convention No. 87, which has been implemented in Belize since 1963 by the Trade Unions Ordinance and the Trade Unions Regulations.
5. 175. At its 66th Session the Committee noted that the complainants had formulated precise and detailed allegations which, if not refuted, would implicate a breach of the principles of freedom of association as expressed in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 in the form of a refusal to implement a mediation recommendation made by a lawfully constituted mediatory body on the grounds of the union affiliation of the individual in whose favour the recommendation was made. Thus far the Government had not supplied information of a nature to refute the allegations.
6. 176. The Committee also stated that, where precise allegations are made, it cannot regard as satisfactory replies from governments which are confined to generalities. The purpose of the whole procedure is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and the Committee is confident that, if it protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments for their part will recognise the importance, for the protection of their own good name, of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such detailed factual charges as may be put forward against them.
7. 177. The Committee therefore recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to supply it with precise information on the allegation that Mr. Sutherland has not been reinstated, as recommended by the Acting Commissioner in his capacity as mediator, because of his membership of the DIU.
8. 178. The Government forwarded the reply of the Government of Belize in a communication dated 14 August 1974. The latter Government emphatically denies that the Prime Minister acted as he is alleged to have done or that he threatened Mr. Sutherland in any way. It explains that Mr. Sutherland was found guilty of offences justifying his dismissal and that the two officers who had taken the decision to dismiss him (the second having reviewed the case and confirmed the decision of his colleague) acted within the powers conferred on them by the regulations concerning government workers. Neither of them was working under the orders of the Prime Minister and neither had received any instructions from him.
9. 179. The Government goes on to state that the mediatory role played by the Acting Labour Commissioner was an advisory one. The mediator subsequently stated that his recommendations had no binding force on the parties and that they amounted to his personal opinion on the severity of the punishment which Mr. Sutherland's offence merited.
10. 180. The Government of Belize also points out that the matter has ceased to be a question of a simple industrial dispute and has now become a political issue; furthermore, the issue is being raised during an election year by a union with close associations with the opposition party.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 181. The Committee would, first of all, recall the principles enunciated in paragraph 29 of its first report in connection with the consideration of complaints which the Government concerned feels are of a political nature. It recalls its decision to the effect that, although an allegation may be political in origin or present political aspects, it should be examined in substance if it raises questions directly concerning the exercise of trade union rights.,
2. 182. On a number of occasions, and in particular in two cases affecting the same non-metropolitan territory, the Committee has stressed the importance it attaches to the principles enunciated in Convention No. 98, Article l, i.e. that workers should enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such protection applying more especially to acts calculated to : (a) make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership; (b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of his trade union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.
3. 183. In the present case, the Committee has before it diametrically opposed statements from the complainant and from the Government. The former alleges that the failure to reinstate Mr. Sutherland following the mediator's recommendation was decided on the grounds of his' trade union membership; the Government categorically denies this allegation. As the Committee has already pointed out, a worker may frequently find it difficult or even impossible to furnish proof that he has been the victim of an act of anti-union discrimination. In situations such as this the importance of Article 3 of Convention No. 98, which provides that machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise, becomes fully apparent.
4. 184. In this particular case the worker concerned, who was employed by the Public Works Department, resorted to the procedures in force to obtain his reinstatement following his dismissal on account of an altercation he had had with his direct superior. However, the final decision in this matter seems to have lain with the Prime Minister, representing the Government, and consequently with the employer. The complainant argues that this final decision, rejecting his application, was based on considerations of anti-union discrimination. The Committee is of the view that, where a worker feels that he is the subject of anti-union practices, he should be able to appeal to a court or to some other authority independent of the parties concerned.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 185. In these circumstances, the Committee feels unable to reach any specific conclusions on the particular case before it owing to the conflicting nature of the evidence submitted; it recommends the Governing Body, however, to draw the attention of the Government to the principles set forth in the previous paragraphs.