Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 342, Juin 2006

Cas no 2376 (Côte d'Ivoire) - Date de la plainte: 10-JUIL.-04 - Clos

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 104. The Committee examined the substance of this case at its November 2005 session. The case relates to the alleged infringement of the trade union rights of Mr. Thompson, General Secretary of the Union of Workers of the Autonomous Port of Abidjan, who was initially dismissed by the port authority with the authorization of the Vridi district branch of the labour inspectorate. This decision was later revoked by the Labour Inspection Directorate. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that the trade union official in question was reinstated in his post, in accordance with the decision of the Labour Inspection Directorate, without loss of pay or of other social benefits [see 338th Report, paras. 822-843].
2. 105. In a communication dated 9 January 2006, the Government confirms that the Labour Inspection Directorate, having ruled that Mr. Thompson’s actions did not constitute serious misconduct, revoked the decision to dismiss him and ordered his immediate reinstatement. However, there are no legislative provisions whereby the authorities can oblige an employer to maintain a contractual relationship with a worker or reinstate him. If an employer refuses, he or she is liable to be required to pay, in addition to compensation for dismissal, special compensation of from 12 to 36 months of gross wages, depending on the seniority of the worker. Given that the port authority refused to reinstate the worker in question in his post, the latter took the case to court, where it is still pending.
3. 106. The Committee notes this information and recalls the provisions of Article 1 of Convention No. 135, ratified by Côte d’Ivoire, which provides that workers’ representatives in the undertaking shall enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as a workers’ representative. The Committee also recalls that it would not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as set out in Convention No. 98, is granted by legislation where employers can, in practice, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal, dismiss any worker, if the true reason is the worker’s trade union membership or activities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 707]. The Committee further recalls that, if Mr. Thompson’s reinstatement is not possible, the Government should ensure that he receives full compensation, which should be such as constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction against the employer for anti-union practices. The Committee requests the Government to bring these principles to the attention of the court with which Mr. Thompson lodged his appeal, and expects it to take them fully into consideration when ruling on the case. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with a copy of the ruling in question as soon as one is handed down.