Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 244, Junio 1986

Caso núm. 1355 (Senegal) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 22-NOV-85 - Cerrado

1. 47. The complaint of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions is contained in a communication dated 22 November 1985. The Government replied to the allegations made in this case in communications dated 22 January and 24 April 1986.
2. 48. Senegal has ratified 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. Allegations of the complainant federation

1. 49. The World Federation of Teachers' Unions alleges that the Government has taken repressive measures against activists of one member of its affiliated trade unions, the Sole and Democratic Teachers' Trade Union of Senegal (SUDES) .
2. 50. The complainant federation encloses with its complaint a copy of the letter it sent to the Ministry of Education in Senegal listing its grievances against the penalties imposed on Mr. Mamadou N'Doye and other SUDES militants.
3. 51. According to this letter, the Minister of Education, in an order of 24 September 1985, cancelled Mr. N'Doye's appointment at the Ecole normale supérieure (Higher Teachers' Training College) in Dakar and the person concerned found himself without a job. Mr. N'Doye was allegedly reproached for taking part in the 13th Statutory Conference of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions in Sofia and for his trade union activities. Furthermore, other activists in this trade union have allegedly been penalised for their trade union activities in a branch which has split off from the main SUDES, whose tendencies apparently do not please the Government. The World Federation of Teachers' Unions points out that Mr. Mamadou N'Doye is Secretary-General of SUDES and Vice-President of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions.

B. The Government's reply

1. 52. In an initial reply of 22 February 1986, the Government conveys a letter which the Ministry of National Education has written to the ILO on this case, in which it is stated that the person concerned is no longer officially a member of SUDES and that the trade union to which he claims to belong is not at present recognised by the Government of Senegal. In this letter, the Minister points out that the person concerned left his post to go to the Conference of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions without being authorised to do so, that he bypassed the regulations and that the Minister, without suspending him from office, transferred him to another post 26 km from his work, although he would have been at liberty to make use of the harshest measures. According to the Minister, the person concerned refused to take up the position to which he had been assigned and to reply to a request for information sent to him through the bailiff by order of court. He states further that the allegations submitted by Mr. N'Doye are completely unfounded and are pure fabrication and promises to submit a detailed file on this case.
2. 53. In a second very detailed reply dated 24 April 1986, the Government explains that Mr. N'Doye's case can be summarised in the following way:
   • From 22 May to 4 June 1985, Mr. N'Doye, a basic training inspector placed at the disposal of the Ecole normale supérieure to conduct training, left his post for 13 days without previous authorisation to go to Sofia, in Bulgaria, where the 13th Conference of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions was to be held from 24 to 29 May. In order to justify his forthcoming absence, Mr. N'Doye had submitted a letter requesting authorisation on 18 May but, without waiting for the answer, he left by air on the evening of 21 May. As soon as he returned from Sofia, he received a letter dated 4 June 1985 from the Rector of the University of Dakar, who exercises authority over the Ecole normale supérieure, asking Mr. N'Doye to explain his unauthorised absence and for documentation relating thereto. In his reply, Mr. N'Doye merely stated that he had submitted a request to authorise his absence on 18 May 1985 had then left on 21 May. He did not inquire as to whether there had been a reply to his request for leave of absence. In order to justify his attitude, he submitted a document from the World Federation of Teachers' Unions entitled "Invitation", which did not mention either his own name or that of his trade union organisation.
3. 54. The Government considers that, in view of the fact that international meetings are planned months in advance, the person concerned had enough time to signify his intention of travelling and to receive permission from his immediate superiors within the allotted time. By failing to take these steps, Mr. N'Doye had deliberately bypassed the University of Dakar regulations, in which it is stated that "any request for an authorisation of absence or a mission should henceforth be submitted three weeks before the planned date of departure" (circular No. 4712/4 of 25 October 1983). The Government adds that Mr. N'Doye's absence occurred during the period of final examinations for trainee inspectors and deputy inspectors at the Ecole normale supérieure, for whose training, supervision and examination he was responsible. This period is all the more important because any dereliction of duties on the part of an examiner causes disturbances which have serious repercussions. Mr. N'Doye had therefore voluntarily committed a flagrant administrative misdemeanour and his immediate superiors considered that a trainer who leaves his position, abandons his students without authorisation and deliberately infringes the regulations does not fulfil the criteria of a model trainer. They therefore decided to transfer him to the Ministry from which he had come, so that he could continue to work as a basic education inspector there.
4. 55. The Ministry of National Education could have assigned him to any one of the ten regions in Senegal, of which some are more than 400 km from the capital and they could have penalised him immediately. However, not even a formal notice of action was issued to the person concerned. On the contrary, account had been taken of his dependants, of the fact that he has lived in Dakar for a long time, of the fact that there was no vacant post in Dakar itself, and the Minister assigned him to Ruffisque (26 km from Dakar) which is linked to Dakar by bus, train and coach. What is more, when he received Order No. 6626/MEN of 24 September 1985 on 28 October 1985, the person concerned at first claimed that there was a mistake in the administrative number, which was not the case. He then refused to take up his new post and even refused to accept the decision No. 013807/MEN of 17 November 1985 assigning him to Ruffisque, which had been delivered to him personally at home by an administrative official. This refusal to take up his new post did not prevent Mr. N'Doye from receiving his salary to the end of 1985, as he continued to be paid by the University of Dakar. The Government goes on to say that as from December 1985, the Ministry of Economy and Finance was given jurisdiction over the University of Dakar.
5. 56. Furthermore, the Government points out that Mr. N'Doye had ceased to be Secretary-General of SUDES in December 1981, at which time Mr. Madior Diouf was elected to the head of this trade union. It adds that the person concerned was expelled from SUDES on 29 April 1984 by a resolution of the national committee of this organisation, which was upheld by the administrative committee on 10 June 1984 and the Fourth Ordinary Congress of SUDES held from 27 to 30 December 1985. The Government encloses the copy of the trade union decisions taken on these lines and states that the person concerned is free to set up a new trade union in accordance with the regulations in force if he so wishes.
6. 57. Finally, the Government considers that the World Federation of Teachers' Unions is very much responsible for the situation at present reigning within SUDES. Its decision to send a cable to Mr. N'Doye, announcing that he would receive an air ticket made out in his name to go to Sofia, is not entirely straightforward. Its secretariat decided to have the leading officials of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions elected as soon as the the 13th Statutory Conference had opened, so that the true SUDES delegate (who was only able to arrive in Sofia long after Mr. N'Doye, because he had not received the air ticket paid by the World Federation of Teachers' Unions) was presented with a fait accompli. According to the Government, the World Federation of Teachers' Unions deliberately favoured one side in this matter, for reasons which it is fair to describe as political.
7. 58. In conclusion, the Government considers that nobody is above the law and that a circular of 21 May 1963 regulating the desertion of a post applies to all public officials who desert their posts.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 59. The present case concerns measures allegedly taken by a Government against a trade union official who attended an international trade union meeting. The accounts given by the complainant organisation and the Government are extremely contradictory. The complainant organisation alleges that the person concerned had had his appointment at the Ecole normale supérieure in Dakar cancelled and was now unemployed because he was reproached for having attended the 13th Statutory Conference of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions in Sofia. On the other hand, according to the Government, the person concerned, who is a basic education inspector, left his post of trainer at the Ecole normale supérieure, without having been authorised to do so, from 22 May to 4 June 1985, to attend the Conference of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions. He had therefore been transferred to the post of inspector 26 km from his workplace but had refused to take up his new post and to reply to a court order requesting him to explain the reasons for his absence. Furthermore, contrary to the account given by the complainant organisation, the person concerned had been paid by the University of Dakar until 31 December 1985.
2. 60. When the Committee has previously had cases of this nature before it, it has pointed out that, generally speaking, refusal by a State to grant leave to one of its officials who holds trade union office for the purpose of attending a trade union meeting does not, in itself, constitute an infringement of the principles of freedom of association, unless this refusal relates to the trade union activities or functions of the person concerned. (See 177th report, Case No. 853, (Chad) para. 85.)
3. 61. In this case, the Government has stressed that the person concerned did not wait for authorisation from his superiors to attend a trade union meeting abroad and that he was absent for 13 days, therefore disrupting the final examinations of trainee inspectors and deputy inspectors of the Ecole normale supérieure for whom he was responsible. In these circumstances, the Committee is of the opinion that, although the public authorities must do their utmost to facilitate the travel of trade union officials so that they may attend international trade union meetings, these officials, in turn, must attempt to respect the regulations concerning requests for authorised absence or missions which are in force in their countries, in the same way as other civil servants engaged in professional duties in the public service. The Committee considers that as the person concerned did not give the required three weeks' advance notice, he bypassed the regulations and that the principles of freedom of association were not called into question. It therefore decides that this case does not call for further examination.
4. 62. As the Committee does not have any details on the measures which the complainant alleges were taken against other SUDES trade unionists, it is not in a position to go further into this aspect of the case.

The Committee's recommendations

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