Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 328, June 2002

Case No 2124 (Lebanon) - Complaint date: 29-MAR-01 - Closed

Allegations: Interference by the administrative authorities in trade union affairs in favour of one faction

1. 448. This complaint is contained in a joint communication from the Federation of Road Transport Taxi Drivers’ Trade Unions and the Professional Federation of Chemical Industry Workers, dated 29 March 2001.
2. 449. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 4 January 2002.
3. 450. Lebanon has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has, however, ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 451. In their communication of 29 March 2001, the Federation of Road Transport Taxi Drivers’ Trade Unions and the Professional Federation of Chemical Industry Workers explain that on 21 February 2001, some members of the Executive Council of the General Labour Confederation (CGTL) requested the Ministry of Labour to set a date for the election of a new Bureau for the Confederation. An authorization for holding these early elections (the mandate of the previous Bureau was not supposed to end until two-and-a-half years after 21 February) was granted by the Ministry of Labour through Decision No. 24/1 (of 1 March), violating several articles of the internal rules and regulations of the Confederation.
2. 452. Pursuant to article 21 of CGTL rules, the Bureau’s mandate, renewed one-and-a-half years ago, lasts for four years. Furthermore, in accordance with article 22 of the CGTL rules, only the President of the Confederation has the right to chair and convene meetings of the Executive Council, the Bureau and the General Conference (...), in consultation with the Secretary-General, who, together with the President, signs statements and correspondence. In spite of this, the request to hold elections was made by certain members of the Bureau, none of whom were competent to make such a request, and the previous Bureau was not duly convened to take the necessary decision for such a step. Lastly, the provisions of article 23 of the rules, which state that a member of the Bureau can only be removed from office if he or she is absent without a legitimate excuse on three consecutive or five separate occasions during a single year, or through resignation or decease, were ignored by the Bureau when it decided to dissolve itself.
3. 453. Thus, since the requested elections were eventually held on 15 March 2001, and won by the dissident faction, the previous Bureau alleges that the elections and results thereof are null and void.
4. 454. The complainants add that, consequently, they made appeals for the annulment of Decision No. 24/1 to the Council of State as well as to the Ministry of Labour, and that they will make further appeals to the competent judicial authorities.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 455. In a communication of 4 January 2002, the Government contends that none of the anomalies alleged by the complainants applied to the contested elections, since they were held in accordance with procedures and the internal rules of the General Labour Confederation. The Government attaches for information the decisions issued by the Council of State dismissing the complainants’ allegations.
2. 456. The Council of State, after examining the appeal seeking to defer implementation of Decision No. 24/1, which granted an authorization for early elections to be held, ruled that a deferral was not justified. None of the evidence presented by the complainants to the Council of State, a judicial body, proved that the decision subject to the appeal "would cause serious prejudice to the complainant or that there were serious and important grounds for appeal". Furthermore, the decision is fully justified from a legal perspective, since it aims at protecting the public interest by preventing an electoral delay that might lead to serious disturbances within the Confederation. The Council of State thus confirmed the validity of the elections and the legitimacy of their results.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 457. The Committee notes that this case concerns alleged interference by the public authorities in the internal affairs of the General Labour Confederation. It notes in particular that, according to the complainants, the Ministry of Labour granted an authorization for early elections of the trade union Bureau to be held, in violation of the rules and constitution of the Confederation, and that these elections were won by a dissident faction of the trade union. The Committee further notes that the complainants’ appeal seeking to defer implementation of the authorization was rejected by the Council of State, which, instead of issuing judgement on the legality of holding the elections, made its decision on the basis of the electoral process itself, thereby confirming the election results.
2. 458. Noting that this case relates to disputes between two rival factions within the same trade union organization, the Committee indicates first of all that it is not competent to make recommendations on internal dissensions within a trade union organization, so long as the Government did not intervene in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal functioning of an organization [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 965].
3. 459. The Committee recalls that at its November 1997 meeting [308th Report, paras. 501-585] it examined a previous case involving Lebanon (No. 1920), in which the complainant denounced, inter alia, the Government’s promulgation of Decree No. 8275 of 19 April 1996, which empowered the Government to intervene, in certain circumstances, to set the date of trade union elections. The Committee had specifically recalled that excessively detailed government regulation of union elections may be regarded as a limitation of the right of trade unions to elect their own representatives freely.
4. 460. Noting further that, in this case, in Decision No. 24/1 of 1 March 2001, the Government authorized the dissident faction of the CGTL Bureau to hold early elections two-and-a-half years before the end of the mandate of the previous, duly established, Bureau, the Committee reminds the Government that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that public authorities exercise great restraint in relation to intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions and that it should not do anything which might seem to favour one group within a union at the expense of another [see Digest, op. cit., para. 761].
5. 461. Noting finally that the complainants appealed to the Council of State to defer implementation of Decision No. 24/1, and that the Council of State rejected their appeal on the grounds that the contested Decision did not cause them serious prejudice and that there were no serious or important grounds for the appeal, without issuing judgement on the alleged violation of the constitution and rules, the Committee considers that the rejection of the appeal effectively endorses the alleged interference of the authorities in trade union affairs.
6. 462. Under these circumstances, the Committee reminds the Government, as it already did in Case No. 1920, that trade union elections should be held in accordance with the procedures and modalities for electing trade union leaders freely established in union constitutions, without interference from public authorities. Noting that, in this case, the interference of the authorities was based on provisions that are contrary to freedom of association principles, giving the Ministry of Labour the power to authorize and confirm trade union elections, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the principles of non-interference by the authorities in the internal affairs of trade unions are respected and reflected in national legislation, so that in future administrative intervention in a manner which might affect the course of trade union elections may be avoided, from the moment elections are called until their results are announced. The Committee therefore requests the Government to avoid having recourse to decrees allowing interference by the authorities. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken in this regard.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 463. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee reminds the Government that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that the public authorities exercise great restraint in relation to intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions and that they should not do anything which might seem to favour one group within a union at the expense of another.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the principles of non-interference by the authorities in the internal affairs of trade unions are respected and reflected in national legislation, so that in future administrative intervention in a manner which might affect the course of trade union elections may be avoided, from the moment elections are called until their results are announced.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to avoid having recourse to decrees allowing interference by the authorities.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken in this regard.