Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association

Protection against acts of interference14

Forms of interference

1. As regards allegations of anti-union tactics in the form of preventing the establishment of workers organizations or bribes offered to union members to encourage their withdrawal from the union and the presentation of statements of resignation to the workers, as well as the alleged efforts made to create puppet unions, the Committee considers such acts to be contrary to Article 2 of Convention No. 98, which provides that workers and employers organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each others agents in their establishment, functioning or administration.

1. The intervention by an employer to promote the establishment of a parallel trade union constitutes an act of interference by the employer in the functioning of a workers association, which is prohibited under Article 2 of Convention No. 98.

1. The Committee recalled that it has had the opportunity to review the question of employers freedom of expression in a case where, observing that the protection afforded by unfair labour practices in the country included protection against freedom of speech that would interfere with the formation of any labour organization or with the selection of a trade union as a representative for the purpose of bargaining collectively, found that the principles of freedom of association did not appear to be violated.

1. The Committee requested a government to ensure that employers did not express opinions which would intimidate workers in the exercise of their organizational rights, such as claiming that the establishment of an association is unlawful, or warning against application with a higher level organization, or encouraging workers to withdraw their membership.

1. Any coercion of workers or trade union officers to revoke their union membership constitutes a violation of the principle of freedom of association, in violation of Convention No. 87.

1. Coercing trade union members into leaving the trade union constitutes a serious violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 that consecrate the right of workers to freely join the organization of their own choice and the principle of the adequate protection of this right.

1. Management drafting of a union resignation letter constitutes a grave interference in the functioning of workers organization.

1. The Committee considered that the distribution of resignation forms and the setting up of a toll-free telephone line providing information on how to resign from the union constitute interference in the internal affairs of the union. In that regard, the Committee recalls that Article 2 of Convention No. 98 stipulates that workers and employers organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each others agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration, and requested the Government to put into place a mechanism that would enable it to rapidly redress any effects of this type of interference, including through the imposition of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions on the employer, where appropriate, and to avoid such incidents in the future.

1. The distribution of resignation forms to trade union members and one-on-one interviews to obtain the withdrawal of members from the union constitute acts of interference.

1. Paid full-time union officers should be able to carry out their trade union duties in accordance with the rules of their organization without having to account for each activity to the management. Such activities should include educational activities, activities carried out under the aegis of the relevant federation or confederation and those related to the preparation of action on a collective dispute.

1. Extending an invitation to participate in the meetings with the enterprise management to one organization and not to another, may be an informal way of showing favouritism to one organization and thereby influencing the trade union membership of workers.

1. The closure of trade union offices, as a consequence of a legitimate strike, constitutes a violation of the principles of freedom of association and, if carried out by management, interference by the employer in the functioning of a workers organization, which is prohibited under Article 2 of Convention No. 98.

1. The intervention by an employer to promote the constitution of the executive board of a trade union, and interference with its correspondence, are acts which constitute a grave violation of the principles of freedom of association.

1. Attempts by employers to persuade employees to withdraw authorizations given to a trade union could unduly influence the choice of workers and undermine the position of the trade union, thus making it more difficult to bargain collectively, which is contrary to the principle that collective bargaining should be promoted.

1. The alleged offer of conditional benefits by the company provided that it would not be required to enter into a collective bargaining relationship with the union, if true, would be tantamount to employer interference in the right of workers to form and join the organization of their own choosing to represent their occupational interests.

1. Legal provisions which allow employers to undermine workers organizations through artificial promotions of workers constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association.

1. The maintenance of camera surveillance in rooms set aside for trade union meetings is likely to produce an intimidating effect on trade union bodies and members and may give rise to employer interference in a manner contrary to the principles of freedom of association in relation to trade union meetings.

1. The issue of a management requesting its employees to state whether or not they belong to a union, even though this may not be intended to interfere with the exercise of trade union rights, may naturally be regarded as such an interference and felt to be intimidating to union members.

1. The issue of circulars by a company requesting its employees to state to which trade union they belong, even though this is not intended to interfere with the exercise of trade union rights, may not unnaturally be regarded as such an interference.

1. The fact that one of the members of a government is at the same time a leader of a trade union which represents several categories of workers employed by the State creates a possibility of interference in violation of Article 2 of Convention No. 98.

1. Recalling the importance of the independence of the parties in collective bargaining, negotiations should not be conducted on behalf of employees or their organizations by bargaining representatives appointed by or under the domination of employers or their organizations.