Definitive Report - Report No 241, November 1985

Case No 1336 (Mauritius) - Complaint date: 07-MAY-85 - Closed

1. 37. The Federation of Progressive Unions (FPU) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights in a communication of 7 May 1985 and further information in a letter of 24 May 1985. The Government replied in communications dated 10 June and 14 October 1985.
2. 38. Mauritius has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.087); it has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.098).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 39. In its letter of 7 May 1985, the FPU complains of a government decision to prevent it celebrating May Day. It alleges that the Commissioner of Police decided to ban the union's public meeting and cultural gathering to be held in a village in the south of the country for no apparent reason. A copy of the Commissioner's notice of refusal addressed to a body called the "Organisation Southern Unity" is supplied; no reason for the refusal appears in the notice. From a newspaper clipping attached to the complaint, it appears that the FPU and the "Organisation Southern Unity" had intended to organise the festivities jointly.
2. 40. In its letter of 24 May 1985, the FPU alleges that on 17 May 1985, following an incident in an export processing zone factory in which two female workers were assaulted by the factory manager, all the workers in that factory decided to stop work; some 20 other factories in the zone, whose employees are covered by the same union, decided to strike in solidarity. According to the FPU, upon the intervention of the police and the army, the President of the union concerned and three other workers were arrested. Two of the workers have since been released. The FPU states that the Government has supported the employers by agreeing to withdraw recognition of the union in all the factories affected by the strike and is studying the cancellation of the check-off system. The complainant points out that the assault of the two female workers was reported to the police but has not been followed up.

B. The Government's reply

1. 41. In its communication of 10 June 1985, the Government states that the strike in one export processing zone factory on 16 May and the solidarity strike of the following day were unlawful because the procedures prescribed by law had not been complied with. Moreover, the workers' representatives had seen the Minister of Labour the day before with various complaints about employment conditions and had been assured of immediate action. The strike was called off on 18 May.
2. 42. The Government stresses that police presence at the factories during the strike was purely to ensure the preservation of law and order; workers assembled in one place became riotous, stoned factories and injured two police officers with stones. Three persons were arrested for throwing stones and others were arrested to aid in police inquiries into their contravention of the law of the land; the latter have been released on bail after completion of the inquiry.
3. 43. The Government denies that the employers have asked for the cancellation of the registration of the unions concerned in the strike. It states that some 30 workers have been suspended from their employment pending disciplinary hearings at the end of May and some others have not been allowed to resume work, both actions being legal since the workers had breached their employment contracts by participating in an unlawful strike. The Government adds that it has pleaded for their reinstatement. A number of workers have also filed statements with the Labour Inspectorate alleging unjustified dismissal and these are being examined.
4. 44. In its communication of 14 October 1985, the Government states that the FPU did not submit any application to the authorities concerned to hold public celebrations on May Day 1985. However, an unregistered body (Organisation Southern Unity) had applied for permission to stage a public show on 1 May. According to the Government, that organisation did not produce any documentary evidence proving that permission had been obtained from the appropriate authorities for the use of the premises where the show was to be performed. In addition, the Censorship Board found the show unsuitable for young persons. Consequently, the holding of the show was not authorised but the organisation was given leave to organise a procession in the south of the country.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 45. As regards the prohibition of May Day celebrations, the Committee notes from the Government's reply that the prohibition of May Day 1985 festivities did not affect the complainant union since the application to hold the event was lodged by a body (the Organisation Southern Unity) which apparently is not trade union in character. At no time does the complainant union mention any link with this body although it appears from a newspaper clipping attached to the complaint that the two organisations had intended to organise the festivities jointly. Given the mandate of the Committee, it considers that this aspect of the case - which does not affect trade union rights - does not call for further examination.
2. 46. As regards the strike on 16-17 May 1985 in several export processing zone factories and the alleged retaliatory action of the Government (arrests, withdrawal of union recognition, etc.), the Committee notes the Government's statements that the strike was unlawful, that the arrests were based on the violent acts of the individuals concerned and that no cancellation of the union's registration has been sought. The Committee observes that s. 92 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1973 declares strikes unlawful unless a written report of the industrial dispute has been made to the Minister, a cooling-off period of 21 days has elapsed and the strike commences within 56 days of notice. It is therefore clear that the strike in the present case was unlawful under the legislation in force. The Committee considers that it should call the attention of the complainant to Article 8 of Convention No. 87 which provides that, in exercising the rights provided for in this Convention, workers and their organisations shall respect the law of the land. The Committee also considers that there is no evidence that the arrests were made for reasons other than preservation of law and order.
3. 47. On the other hand, the Committee notes that the Government mentions the suspension of some 30 workers and the dismissal of others for participating in the unlawful strike. A number of these workers are challenging their dismissals with the Labour Inspectorate and the Government has interceded for their reinstatement. Since the normal processes in connection with the suspensions (disciplinary hearings) and dismissals (complaints before the Labour Inspectorate) are under way and the Government has interceded with the employers for reinstatements, the Committee considers that the principles of freedom of association have not been called into question and decides that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 48. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case as whole does not call for further examination.