Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 144, 1974

Caso núm. 690 (Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 21-OCT-71 - Cerrado

1. 37. This case, in which the complainants allege that the Government of Belize (formerly British Honduras) has resorted to unfair labour practices by taking certain action which has interfered with the workers' freedom to join the organisation of their choice, has already been examined by the Committee, at its sessions in May 1972, February 1973, and November 1973.
2. 38. The Government of 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. 39. On its first examination of the case the Committee found that the complainant union had requested the holding of a poll among the workers of the Citrus Company upon the expiry of the then current collective agreement, to determine which union should represent them in collective bargaining. The Committee considered that a prima facie case existed for the holding of a poll since a letter from the Labour Commissioner to the Company had stated that 1,035 of the 1,500 employees of the Company were members of the complainant union Although it appeared that the Company was willing initially to hold the poll, after lengthy discussions with the Ministry the Company was advised by the latter that a poll ought not to be held, and from this the Committee concluded that the opportunity had not been afforded to the workers concerned to make a clear decision concerning the union which should represent them for collective bargaining purposes.
2. 40. The Committee recalled the importance which should be attached to the principle that employers should recognise, for collective bargaining purposes, organisations that are representative of workers in a particular industry. The Committee also expressed the view that if there was a change in the relative strength of unions competing for a preferential right or the power to represent the workers exclusively for collective bargaining purposes, then it would be desirable that there should be a possibility of reviewing the factual basis on which that right or power was granted. The Committee added that in the absence of such a possibility a majority of the workers concerned might be represented by a union which, for an unduly long period, could be prevented - either in fact or in law - from organising its administration and activities with a view to fully furthering and defending the interests of its members. The Committee further pointed out that in cases where the authorities have the power to hold polls for determining the majority union which is to represent the workers for the purposes of collective bargaining, such polls ought always to be held in cases where there are doubts as to which union the workers wish to represent them.
3. 41. The Committee recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to these considerations and to request the Government to take appropriate action as soon as possible for the determination of the majority union in the Citrus Company.
4. 42. At its meeting in February 1973, the Committee considered a communication from the Government indicating that it was unaware of any evidence to support the claim by the Democratic Independent Union that there existed doubts concerning which union: the workers wished to represent them and that the Government did not think it possible or necessary to institute a poll during the continuance of the contract covering a two-year period. The Committee recommended the Governing Body to regret the fact that the Government should have declined to take the necessary measures to remedy the situation which both was contrary to the principle of promoting collective bargaining and brought into question the workers' organisation's right to organise its activities. The Committee also recommended the Governing Body to urge the Government, upon the expiry of the then current collective agreement, to take appropriate action for the determination of the majority union in the Citrus Company and to request it to keep the Governing Body informed of any action taken in that connection.
5. 43. In a communication dated 8 November 1973, the complainant union refers to the latter recommendation and states that, the collective agreement in question having expired, it wrote to the Company, sending a copy of the letter to the Minister of Labour, recalling the recommendation of the Governing Body in this regard. Nevertheless, the Company signed a new collective agreement with the rival union and, according to the complainant, this new agreement was witnessed by a senior labour inspector sent from the Ministry for that purpose.
6. 44. This communication of the complainant was forwarded to the Government for its comments and the latter replied in a letter dated 11 February 1974 in which it is stated:
   • "The Democratic Independent Union closed its office in the Stann Creek District (in which the citrus industry operates) in December 1972 and has not been active in the industry since that date.
   • "In compliance with the ILO request the Labour Department officials have maintained constant contact with the industry. They reported that no worker had sought representation by the Democratic Independent Union and that no opposition had been expressed to the Southern Christian Union representation. There was no demand for a poll.
   • "Negotiations by the Southern Christian Union and the Citrus Company of Belize on the renewal of the collective agreement commenced in early October 1973 with the submission of the Union's claims and concluded on 3 November 1973 when a new collective agreement was signed. During the period of negotiations the Acting Labour Commissioner was active in the role of conciliator and at no time did any matter come to his notice concerning representation by workers opposing the Southern Christian Union or requesting Democratic Independent Union representation."

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 45. The Committee notes the Government's reply according to which there was no demand for a poll by the workers of the Citrus Company. However, the Government omits any reference to the communication mentioned in paragraph 43 addressed by the President of the Democratic Independent Union to the Company and the Minister requesting the determination of the majority union upon expiration of the existing collective agreement.
2. 46. The Governing Body has already regretted the fact that the Government has failed to take appropriate action to remedy a situation which brings into question the right of workers' organisations to organise their activities and is contrary to the principle of promoting collective bargaining. The Committee now notes that another collective agreement has been signed under government auspices without prior determination of the majority organisation as requested by the Democratic Independent Union.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 47. In these circumstances the Committee can only recommend the Governing Body to inform the Government that it deeply deplores this situation and to request the Government once more to rectify matters by ordering as soon as possible a poll amongst the workers of the Citrus Company in order to determine which union these workers wish to represent them.