Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 177, June 1978

Case No 883 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 28-JUN-77 - Closed

1. 114. The complaint of the Democratic Independent Union was contained in a communication dated 28 June 1977. This was transmitted to the Government which sent its observations on the complaint in a communication dated 8 December 1977.
2. 115. 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. 116. The complainant union alleged that the workers in the Zaldivar bakery, having decided to join the union, were intimidated by the manager of the bakery, Mr. Roger Zaldivar, following an approach by the union to discuss the negotiation of a collective agreement. The complainants stated that the Government was encouraging these unfair labour practices against the workers. According to the complainants, the manager had visited a certain Mr. Ramos of the Labour Department who had advised him that he could give the workers concerned notice to terminate their services. Mr. Zaldivar did so but discontinued his action when the matter was taken up by the press. However, continued the complainants, he admonished the workers, saying he would terminate their services one by one and started to do so, by terminating the services of one worker, Mr. Francis Waight, who had more than eight years of service. This action, according to the complainants, led to a one day strike which caused the owner of the bakery, Mrs. Elvera Zaldivar, to intervene and rehire the dismissed worker.
2. 117. Mrs. Zaldivar then commenced negotiations with the union but, stated the complainants, although agreeing with some clauses she had no intention of concluding an agreement. Negotiations, accordingly, broke down.
3. 118. The complainants added that the Labour Department, which had been kept informed of events, was unable to persuade the company to resume negotiations. This situation continued for some time until - again during the absence 6f Mrs. Zaldivar - another worker who was a member of the union was dismissed. According to the complainants this led to another strike during which the Labour Commissioner, the Minister of Labour and the Labour Department failed to protect the workers. The company brought in strike-breakers who were afforded police protection.
4. 119. The Government of Belize, in its reply to the allegations, stated that the principles contained in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 were covered by section 30 of Labour Ordinance No. 15 of 1959. This provision creates rights which are not to be subject to any restriction, but it does not create an offence if restrictions do exist. It was the policy of the Labour Department, continued the Government, to use persuasive methods in applying strictly the principles set out in the Conventions.
5. 120. The Government stated that the allegation that an officer of the Labour Department had advised the management of Zaldivar bakery to terminate the services of its workers was erroneous, and added that the union's accusation that the Government encouraged unfair labour practices was irresponsible.
6. 121. The Government continued that the Labour Department was actively pursuing measures to satisfactorily conclude this long outstanding labour dispute. It added that 3 out of 11 workers who went on strike had been reinstated. More could have been achieved, continued the Government, if it had not been for the union President's bad faith in handling the dispute.
7. 122. A board of inquiry, stated the Government, had now been set up by the minister of Labour to inquire into the cause and circumstances of the dispute and into any other relevant matters. This board would make recommendations relating to the matters examined.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 123. The Committee notes that the case refers mainly to the attitude allegedly adopted by the management of the Zaldivar bakery following the adherence of the workers in that factory to the complainant union, the failure to conclude a collective agreement, and the dismissal of a number of the workers involved in a strike. The complainant organisation has also alleged that the Government has failed to enforce the principles established by the ILO.
2. 124. As regards in particular the allegations relating to anti-union discrimination, the Committee would draw attention to the importance which it attaches to the standards contained in Article 1 of Convention No. 98, which provides that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment and such protection should apply more particularly in respect of 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 union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or with the consent of the employer, within working hours.
3. 125. The Committee has noted the Government's statement that section 30 of Labour Ordinance No. 15 of 1959, while creating certain rights which are not to be restricted, does not create an offence when these rights are infringed, and that, until the labour laws are amended, the Labour Department will continue to use persuasive methods in applying Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Section 30 of Labour Ordinance No. 15 of 1959 reads as follows: "Nothing in any contract of service shall in any manner restrict the right of any worker who is a party to such contract - (a) to join a registered trade union or (b) to participate in the activities of a registered trade union, whether as an officer of such union or otherwise or (c) to associate with any other persons for the purpose of organising a trade union in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Union Ordinance, 1941."
4. 126. The Committee recalls that in a number of other cases relating to Belize it has had occasion to draw attention to the principles contained in Convention No. 98 relative to the protection that should be enjoyed by workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee considers that it may now be appropriate for the Government to consider reinforcing the existing legislation so as to ensure that the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination is adequate as required by Article 1 of Convention No. 98.
5. 127. The Committee notes that the Government has now set up a board of inquiry to examine the causes and circumstances surrounding the dispute and to make recommendations. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to keep it informed as to the outcome of this inquiry and the recommendations made by the board.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 128. In these circumstances, and with regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (i) to draw attention to the considerations and the principles set forth in paragraph 125 above concerning the protection of workers against anti-union discrimination;
   • (ii) to suggest to the Government that it may be appropriate to consider reinforcing the existing legislation so as to ensure that the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination is adequate, as required by Article 1 of Convention No. 98;
   • (iii) to request the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the investigation into the dispute by the board of inquiry and of the recommendations made by the board.