Interim Report - Report No 376, October 2015

Case No 3081 (Liberia) - Complaint date: 27-MAY-14 - Follow-up cases closed due to the absence of information from either the complainant or the Government in the last 18 months since the Committee examined the cases

Allegations: Unilateral cancellation by the employer of the collective bargaining agreement, unfair dismissal of trade union leaders

1. 705. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 27 May 2014 from the Petroleum Oil Chemical Energy and General Services Union of Liberia.
2. 706. As the Government has not replied, the Committee has been obliged to adjourn its examination of this case on several occasions. At its June 2015 meeting [see the Committee’s 375th Report, para. 8], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government, indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the observations or information requested had not been received in due time. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
3. 707. Liberia 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 708. In its communication dated 27 May 2014, the complainant organization indicates that on 2 January 2013, following a tedious process of organizing and unionizing the Liberian aviation workers, a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was signed between the management of Roberts International Airport (RIA) and the National Brotherhood of Teamsters Union of Liberia (NBT, referred to as the mother union). A copy of the CBA is attached to the complaint, which provides in its article 2(a) that “the duration of the Agreement shall be three years, commencing 2 January 2013 and ending 31 December 2015. Either party may give a 30 days written notice of its intention to terminate the Agreement at its expiration, and the notice must be issued at least two months prior to the expiration date of the Agreement; but until a new Agreement is signed between the two parties, this Agreement shall continue to be in effect as required under the Labour Laws of Liberia”. Article 2(b) of the CBA between the RIA and the workers’ union provides for the binding force of the agreement in the following terms: “both parties to this Agreement will ensure compliance with the following standards set out in the current framework of National and International convention laws”. Article 49(a) of the CBA states that: “Both parties recognize that the Agreement imposes serious duties and responsibilities on the Union as well as the Employer” and article 49(b) states that “the union and the employer jointly confirm that the agreement shall become operative from the date of signature and will remain in force for three years after which it shall be deemed to be automatically extended for further periods of one year unless either party gives notice to the other at least three months in advance of its expiry date or date of extensions, that it does not wish renewal”. The complainant further emphasizes that CBAs are binding instruments under Liberian law, and once signed by the negotiating parties and attested to by the Government no party can cancel them unilaterally, which is precisely what the employer nevertheless did in this case.
2. 709. In a memo dated 27 December 2013 (a copy of which is attached to the complaint), the acting Human Resource Manager of the RIA, Ms Regina Ajavon-Benson, informed all employees who were members of the union that with the suspension/dissolution of the CBA the payment of union dues ($8.00) was also suspended with immediate effect and the employees’ previous contributions would be included in their net pay henceforth. The memo also advised union member employees to call the officials of the union into account for the total of the union dues that the management had remitted in the past.
3. 710. On the same day of 27 December 2013, Roberts International Airport Workers Union (RIAWU) issued a “statement of dissociation” referring to a leaflet that was circulated in the RIA on 26 December, in which it was stated that RIA employees anticipated a strike as a result of dissatisfaction with the conduct of management regarding payment of salaries and benefits as agreed in the CBA. In this statement of dissociation, the union indicates that the director of police convened a meeting on the evening of 27 December, with the participation of the leadership of the RIAWU, representatives of the Liberia Labour Congress, the United Seaman Ports and General Workers’ Union and the International Transport Workers’ Federation. The meeting was also attended by the Acting Minister of Justice and a representative of the Civil Society Network. The representatives of workers’ organizations dissociated themselves from the threat leaflets and reiterated that they had no plan to engage in any strike action at the RIA; however, the union raised some concerns, including the dissolution of the union by the management, the suspension of payment of union dues and some benefits to which they were entitled under the CBA. The Acting Minister of Justice undertook to discuss these issues including the status of the CBA with the employer. The workers confirmed that pending resolution of the issues they would continue to work and would not do anything that would disrupt the operations of the corporation.
4. 711. According to a letter of the RIAWU to the Minister of Labour dated 16 January 2014, on 6 January in a meeting at the Ministry of Labour chaired by the Minister, the management agreed to retract the 27 December memo, but later refused to adhere to that agreement. The union further indicates in this letter that Ms Ajavon-Benson has addressed a communiqué to the RIAWU informing them that workers will not receive their overdue monthly housing and transportation allowance until the Ministry of Labour officially instructs her. The RIAWU requested the intervention of the Ministry.
5. 712. In a letter dated 15 April 2014, the RIAWU informed Mr Alfred Thomas, the President General of Liberia Labour Congress of the suspension/cancellation of the CBA which, the union mentioned would result indirectly in its dissolution. In another letter dated 16 April 2014, the RIAWU informed the Minister of Labour that the acting General Manager, Mr Richelieu A. Williams, and board Chairman, Mr Beyan Kessellie, have orally nullified the CBA without consultation with or the knowledge of the RIAWU. In this letter, the RIAWU expressed concern that the cancellation or suspension of the CBA would mean that all of the provisions enshrined therein would no longer be implemented and stated that the implications of such a turn of events could not be overstated. Reference was made, in particular, to provisions governing workers’ monthly transportation allowances; workers’ monthly salary scheduled increment; workers’ housing allowances and workers’ overall welfare health insurance coverage. The RIAWU further indicated that the acting General Manager developed unilaterally and without the involvement of the union and the Ministries of Transport and Labour, a RIA Workers’ Handbook and was imposing it on workers as a substitute to the CBA.
6. 713. The complainant further indicates that, dismissal letters dated 1 April 2015 and signed by the Director of Human Resources were communicated to Mr Melliah P.G. Weh and Mr Jaycee W. Garniah, respectively the President and the Secretary General of the RIAWU. The dismissal letters declared termination of employment with immediate effect, on the grounds of absence from work for ten or more consecutive days without an excuse. The employees were required to return all company properties and were given 14 days to vacate the housing units assigned to them. The complainant states that articles 29 and 33 of the signed CBA exempt the two officials of the union from doing regular airport duties, but restricted them to union activities, which the complainant qualifies as an acceptable conventional strategy necessary to guarantee industrial peace and harmony in line with the doctrine of social dialogue. The complainant further states that it views the action of the employer as an attempt to silence union activities at that entity.
7. 714. According to a letter of the RIAWU to the Minister of Labour dated 16 April 2014, following the dismissals of Mr Weh and Mr Garniah on 1 April, Senator Matthew Jaye, the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Labour was mandated by the plenary to put a stay on the actions of the management against the union while the investigation of the situation was under way.
8. 715. The complainant further indicates that the actions of the RIA management benefit from the support of the Ministry of Labour, adding that all requests made by the complainant to the Minister of Labour, the Senate and House Chairmen on Labour and the RIA management seeking audience so as to have a dialogue and amicably resolve the matter were turned down without any form of notification.
9. 716. The complainant finally provides a list of public sector workers’ leaders which it states were wrongfully dismissed between 2007 and 2014, without redress from the Ministry of Labour. In addition to the two RIAWU leaders mentioned in this case, this list refers to the President and Secretary General of the workers’ organization at the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (2014); the President of the workers’ organization of the Liberia Broadcasting System (2014); the President, Vice-President and Secretary General of the workers’ organization of the National Transit Authority (2011); the Vice-President of the workers’ organization of the National Port Authority (2008); the President of the workers’ organization of the National Housing Authority (2008); and the President, Vice-President and Secretary General of the workers’ organization of National Social Security and Welfare Corporation (2007).

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 717. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint in May 2014, the Government has not provided a reply to it even though it has been invited to do so on several occasions, including through an urgent appeal. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future and reminds the Government of the possibility to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.
2. 718. Under these circumstances and in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee finds itself obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without the benefit of the information which it had expected to receive from the Government.
3. 719. The Committee once again reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violation of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations made against them [see the Committee’s First Report, para. 31].
4. 720. The Committee observes that this case concerns allegations of unilateral cancellation by the employer of a CBA signed between the management of the RIA and the workers’ union; the anti-union dismissal of Mr Melliah P.G. Weh and Mr Jaycee W. Garniah, respectively the President and the Secretary General of the RIAWU, and the failure by the Government to ensure that Conventions Nos 87 and 98 are applied in practice.
5. 721. With regard to the CBA, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that on 27 December 2013, the acting Human Resources Manager of the RIA published a memo referring to the suspension/dissolution of the CBA and affirming that the payment of union dues has been suspended with immediate effect. The complainant further indicates that the acting General Manager of the RIA orally nullified the CBA. The Committee notes that according to Article 2(a) of the CBA, the agreement was entered into for a duration of three years, the term of which was to conclude on 31 December 2015, while, according to the complainant, the employer has unilaterally annulled it less than a year after its coming into force. The Committee notes the RIAWU’s concern that the cancellation or suspension of the CBA would deprive the workers of the benefits agreed to therein, including monthly transportation allowances; monthly salary scheduled increment; housing allowances and overall welfare health insurance coverage. The Committee further notes the concern expressed by the RIAWU that the cancellation of the CBA would result indirectly in the dissolution of the trade union itself. The Committee notes the complainant’s assertion that the management of the RIA is trying to impose a unilaterally drafted a Workers’ Handbook as a replacement for the CBA.
6. 722. The Committee recalls that agreements should be binding on the parties. Mutual respect for the commitment undertaken in collective agreements is an important element of the right to bargain collectively and should be upheld in order to establish labour relations on stable and firm ground and failure to implement a collective agreement, even on a temporary basis, violates the right to bargain collectively, as well as the principle of bargaining in good faith [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 939, 940 and 943]. If collective bargaining agreements could be cancelled unilaterally, there could be neither reasonable expectation of industrial relations stability, nor sufficient reliance on negotiated agreements. The Collective Agreements Recommendation, 1951 (No. 91), which guides governments in their understanding of these principles, explicitly recognizes in its Paragraph 3 that “collective bargaining agreements should bind the signatories thereto and those on whose behalf the agreement is concluded”. The Committee further notes that articles 2(b) and 49 of the CBA provide for the binding force of the agreement, while no other provision therein provides for particular or exceptional circumstances in which a unilateral cancellation of the agreement could be envisaged.
7. 723. The Committee expresses its deep concern at the alleged actions of the RIA management which would be in contradiction with the abovementioned principles. The Committee therefore requests the Government to immediately conduct an independent inquiry into the complainant’s allegations with regard to the unilateral cancellation of the CBA, and the employer’s refusal to comply with the obligations established therein, and if these allegations were proved true, to take immediate measures to ensure that the employer abides by the commitments it has freely assumed, including deduction and payment of union dues in accordance with article 20 of the CBA and to keep it informed of developments.
8. 724. The Committee further notes that in the 27 December 2013 memo, the employer not only declared the end of deduction and remittance of union dues to the RIAWU, but also advised all members of the union to hold the trade union officials accountable for the amount of US$50,903 already remitted, “should members be interested in the accountability of their money”. The Committee expresses its concern at such statements which would appear to unilaterally undermine an agreement freely entered into. The Committee also expresses its concern at the impact that such statements might have on the exercise of trade union rights at the RIA. The Committee requests the Government to reply in full to these allegations.
9. 725. With regard to the dismissals of Mr Melliah P.G. Weh and Mr Jaycee W. Garniah, respectively the President and the Secretary General of the RIAWU, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that they were dismissed on the grounds of absence from work for ten or more consecutive days without an excuse, while articles 29 and 33 of the CBA exempted them from regular airport duties so as to enable them to exercise their trade union activities. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to Paragraph 5 of Recommendation No. 143 which states that the workers’ representatives in the undertaking should enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as a workers’ representative or on union membership or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements. The Committee requests the Government to conduct an immediate inquiry into the grounds for Mr Weh and Mr Garniah’s dismissal, and should it appear that they have been dismissed due to their trade union activity, including for actions in conformity with the CBA, which the employer is said to have unilaterally annulled, ensure that they are reinstated in their positions without loss of pay and keep it informed of developments.
10. 726. In more general terms, the Committee takes due note of the serious concern expressed by the trade union that the unilateral cancellation of the CBA in this case can effectively threaten the very existence of its organization, as it has resulted in the employer’s refusal to deduct and remit union dues and the dismissal of union officials, while at the same time substituting terms and conditions of employment that are no longer the product of collective bargaining, but rather a unilateral employer-drafted handbook. In view of the serious consequences of this situation for the representation of workers, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures as a matter of urgency to ensure full compliance with the freely concluded collective agreement and to ensure that the RIAWU can continue to fulfil its functions in representing the workers and defend their occupational interests without fear of intimidation or reprisal. The Committee also requests the Government to solicit information from the employers’ organizations concerned, with a view to having at its disposal their views as well as those of the enterprise concerned on the questions at issue and to keep it informed of developments.
11. 727. The Committee requests the complainant to furnish further details on its reference to public sector workers’ leaders wrongful dismissals from 2007 to 2014 should it wish the Committee to examine this allegation.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 728. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was presented in May 2014, the Government has still not replied to the complainant’s allegations, despite having been invited on several occasions to do so, including by means of an urgent appeal [see 375th Report, para. 8]. The Committee urges the Government to provide its observations on the complainant’s allegations without further delay.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to immediately conduct an independent inquiry into the complainant’s allegations with regard to the unilateral cancellation of the CBA, and the employer’s refusal to comply with the obligations established therein, and if these allegations were proved true, to take immediate measures to ensure that the employer abides by the commitments it has freely assumed, including deduction and payment of union dues in accordance with article 20 of the CBA and keep it informed of developments.
   • (c) Expressing its concern at the employer’s alleged statements with regard to the remittance of union dues that would appear to undermine a CBA freely entered into, and at the impact that such statements might have on the exercise of trade union rights at the RIA, the Committee requests the Government to reply in full to these allegations.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to conduct an immediate inquiry into the grounds for Mr Weh and Mr Garniah’s dismissal, and should it appear that they have been dismissed due to their trade union activities, including for actions in conformity with the CBA, which the employer is said to have unilaterally annulled, to ensure that they are reinstated in their positions without loss of pay and keep it informed of developments.
   • (e) The Committee requests the Government to solicit information from the employers’ organizations concerned, in order to have at its disposal their views as well as those of the enterprise concerned on the questions at issue.
   • (f) In more general terms, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures as a matter of urgency to ensure full compliance with the freely concluded collective agreement and to ensure that the RIAWU can continue to fulfil its functions in representing the workers and defend their occupational interests without fear of intimidation or reprisal and to keep it informed of developments.
   • (g) The Committee requests the complainant to furnish further details on its reference to public sector workers’ leaders wrongful dismissals during the period 2007–14, should it wish the Committee to examine this allegation.