Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 354, Juin 2009

Cas no 2633 (Côte d'Ivoire) - Date de la plainte: 24-JANV.-08 - Clos

Allegations: The complainant alleges acts of anti-union discrimination and violation of the right to collective bargaining in several Ivorian enterprises, as well as the failure of the authorities to ensure respect for freedom of association and social dialogue

1. 681. The complaint is contained in communications from the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Côte d’Ivoire (DIGNITE) dated 24 January and 13 March 2008.
2. 682. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 26 March 2009.
3. 683. Côte d’Ivoire has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 684. In its communications dated 24 January and 13 March 2008, the DIGNITE Confederation alleges acts of anti-union discrimination and violation of the right to collective bargaining in several Ivorian enterprises, as well as the failure of the authorities to ensure respect for freedom of association and social dialogue.
   • The Operating Company for the Vridi-Abidjan Container Terminal (SETV)
2. 685. The complainant explains that in March 2004, a concession agreement creating and granting operating rights to the Operating Company for the Vridi-Abidjan Container Terminal (SETV) was concluded between the State of Côte d’Ivoire and the Bolloré Group. Under section 5-4 of the Agreement the wages of the workers of various enterprises were to be brought into line and increased substantially three months after the new company was created. However, no effect has been given to this clause.
3. 686. Furthermore, as soon as the company had been created, it was necessary to find a common insurance company. To that end, the workers negotiated and obtained medical coverage from SONARCI (an insurance company). A management committee chaired by the workers was set up to serve as the liaison point between the insurance company and the workers. However, according to the complainant, the company’s managers, who were opposed to the insurance company chosen by the workers, imposed two of their colleagues on the management committee, which could meet only with the authorization of those persons.
4. 687. Faced with the workers’ desire to see the management committee function in complete freedom, the company’s management dissolved the committee and threatened to dismiss its chairman. None of the appeals lodged have resulted in any action being taken. Furthermore, the management then confiscated the cheques intended for the insurance company before terminating the contract with the insurance company concerned against the will of the insured parties. The workers suddenly lost all medical coverage.
5. 688. The workers made it known to the management by means of a petition that they were satisfied with the benefits being provided by SONARCI and definitely wished to continue the contract with the insurance company. Faced with the management’s refusal to reconsider its decision, a notice of strike action was given but then withdrawn at the request of the DIGNITE Confederation, which gave preference to dialogue with the company’s management. The management not only refused to hold any discussions but also requested and obtained authorization from the labour inspectorate to dismiss the union’s General Secretary, Ahonon Anasta, for defiance.
6. 689. Faced with the unfulfilled promises of a wage increase, the lack of medical coverage, the incomprehensible dismissal of the union’s General Secretary and above all, the refusal of the company’s management to consent to any form of dialogue, the workers observed a work stoppage on 3 March 2006. At the start of the afternoon, at around 2.30 p.m., the workers resumed work at the request of the DIGNITE Confederation, which considered that since the port was the hub of the national economy, it was inconceivable to cripple it by a strike.
7. 690. Having been informed of the situation, the Minister for the Public Service and Employment dispatched the Director of the Abidjan Labour Inspectorate to the scene to discuss the matter with the company’s management. However, once again, the management categorically refused to engage in any discussion.
8. 691. On the evening of 3 March 2006, the company appointed a bailiff to draw up the list of workers who had participated in the strike. The workers in turn decided to appoint a bailiff to record the actual resumption of work and to produce an accurate report of the operation of the security doors. However, against all expectations, the bailiff appointed by the workers was bluntly turned away by the port gendarmerie, who had been called in for that purpose by the company’s management. On the authorization of the labour inspectorate, all members of the union’s executive committee, the staff representatives and a number of other workers were dismissed. In total, 26 workers were thrown out into the street. Since these dismissals, the management has barricaded itself behind its authority, refusing to engage in any discussion with workers’ representatives or the labour administration.
9. 692. The complainant indicates that, following these dismissals, the DIGNITE Confederation referred the matter to the labour court. In November 2007, the court ruled partly in favour of certain workers while the cases of other workers were dismissed. The appeal cases are still pending.
   • UNIWAX
10. 693. The complainant alleges that on 16 November 2005, the company’s management dismissed all the members of the trade union executive in the context of staff cutbacks. The union was in negotiations with the company concerning the terms of a temporary lay-off. The complainant adds that this is the third time since 2000 that the union executive has seen the company make dismissals. According to the complainant, the reason behind the company’s dismissal of the trade union members is its desire to smother any industrial action and any possibility of dialogue or even rallying together within the company.
    • THANRY GUILGLO
11. 694. The complainant alleges that the enterprise dismissed Atse Yapi, a staff representative, on the authorization of the labour inspector but without the preliminary investigation provided for by law. Atse Yapi filed a complaint with the General Labour Directorate, which revoked the decision of the labour inspector. The enterprise then lodged an appeal on 10 October 2005 with the Minister for the Public Service and Employment.
12. 695. The decision of the Minister for the Public Service and Employment, issued on 14 August 2006 and sent by the complainant, confirms the decision of the General Labour Directorate and orders the worker’s reinstatement. In his decision, the Minister notes that no prior investigation was carried out and that the reason cited by the employer for the dismissal hides the employer’s true intentions. Furthermore, he notes that cutting a single post would not solve the economic difficulties which the employer claims to be facing. The complainant indicates that despite this decision, the enterprise refused to reinstate Atse Yapi.
    • National Social Insurance Fund (CNPS)
13. 696. The complainant alleges that the enterprise dismissed Krigbo Seiko, the General Secretary of the Independent Union of Employees of the CNPS (SYNTRA-CNPS) as a result of his trade union activities. According to the complainant, the National Social Insurance Fund (CNPS) management did not appreciate the existence of the trade union affiliated to the DIGNITE Confederation alongside another trade union, the SYNA-CNPS, led by the Human Resources Director of the CNPS. The enterprise refused to reinstate Krigbo Seiko despite the decision issued by the Director-General of Labour on 2 October 2007 (attached to the complaint) concluding that the dismissal represented a manoeuvre by the enterprise to interfere with the trade union activities of Krigbo Seiko and ordering his reinstatement.
14. 697. The complainant also sends a communication dated 2 October 2007, from the CNPS management indicating its refusal to reinstate Krigbo Seiko and noting that the enterprise has lodged an appeal with the competent administrative authority against the decision of the Director-General of Labour.
    • SITARAIL
15. 698. According to the complainant, a number of members of the National Union of Railwaymen (FIESSOU) were the victim of anti-union discrimination following their demands for improved working and living conditions. In particular, the General Secretary of FIESSOU, Dogbo Lazare, and his entire executive committee were transferred to Burkina Faso, without their consent, which put their lives in danger. The complainant adds that, in addition to being transferred, Dogbo Lazare was also demoted from his post as accountant to ordinary salesman. The complainant states that the transfers have had the effect of preventing the trade union from carrying out its activities properly. Furthermore, the complainant notes that these measures infringe section 85(2) of the inter-occupational collective agreement, under which no staff representative may be transferred without his consent.
    • Fund for the Development and Promotion of the Activities of Coffee and Cocoa Producers (FDPCC)
16. 699. The complainant explains that, in order to improve the management of the coffee and cocoa industry, the Government promoted the creation of entities responsible for its management, such as the Fund for the Development and Promotion of the Activities of Coffee and Cocoa Producers (FDPCC). To guarantee their occupational activity and defend their interests better, the workers involved in these various entities created the Union of Employees of the Management Bodies for the Coffee/Cocoa Industry (SYNASGFICC), led by its General Secretary, N’Goran Kouassi Augustin, an employee of the enterprise since July 2002.
17. 700. The complainant alleges that, shortly after the creation of the SYNASGFICC, the union’s General Secretary was demoted and, in violation of section 85(2) of the inter-occupational collective agreement, relocated against his will to a destination far from the trade union’s base. Following his refusal to relocate to his new post, he was dismissed for abandoning his post, as indicated in the communication from the enterprise dated 21 September 2007, sent by the complainant.
    • BIP assistance
18. 701. According to the complainant, the company’s workers staged a strike following several refusals by the management to hold discussions with the trade union, which was demanding improved working and living conditions for its members. The national army intervened and around 30 workers, in particular trade unionists, were detained for 11 days. The complainant adds that the company’s management ignored the calls from the competent administrative authorities, including from the Minister for the Public Service and Employment, to settle this dispute.
    • Bureau Veritas
19. 702. The complainant alleges that Meledje Macaire, a staff representative from the Syntras-BV trade union, was transferred without his consent to a lower position by the company’s management. He refused to comply with the decision without a written order and was dismissed on the authorization of the labour inspector. Meledje Macaire filed an appeal with the Director-General of Labour who, in a decision of 12 September 2007, revoked the decision of the labour inspector. The employer lodged an appeal with the Minister for the Public Service and Employment which was rejected in a decision of 7 December 2007. The complainant indicates that despite the Minister’s decision, Meledje Macaire has not been reinstated.

B. The Government’s reply

• The Operating Company for the Vridi-Abidjan Container Terminal (SETV)
  703. 703 In a communication dated 26 March 2009, the Government states that the employer dismissed 26 of its employees, including 24 staff representatives, following a work stoppage carried out on 3 March 2006. It also states that the company’s management refused to engage in any dialogue with the government representative sent by the Minister for the Public Service and Employment, who happened to be the Director of the Labour Inspectorate. The Government adds that both the workers and the complainant referred the matter to the labour courts. A ruling was handed down in favour of some workers while others had their cases dismissed. The workers and the complainant lodged an appeal which is currently pending. The Government considers that it is no longer competent to deal with this matter since the case now falls within the jurisdiction of the courts and it admits that it is powerless to interfere in judicial work. However, the Government undertakes to send the judge’s ruling to the Committee.
• UNIWAX
  704. 704 The Government notes that on 16 November 2005, the company requested authorization to dismiss the following workers for economic reasons: Zanhouo Tié François, Sika Yapo Christophe, Aman Bouadi, Ehouman Kouakou, Goze Nahounou Claude, Kouadio Ol Kouadio, Mamadou Keita, Asseman Koua Eugène, Gbagou Gouédan Hyacinthe, all staff representatives, and N’Depo Anon Aristide, a trade union representative. The Government notes that authorization was granted for the dismissal of Ehouman Kouakou, Aman Bouadi, Asseman Koua Eugène, Kouadio Ol Kouadio, Goze Nahounou Claude and Gbagou Gouédan Hyacinthe, but denied for Mamadou Keita, N’Depo Anon Aristide, Sika Yapo Christophe and Zanhouo Tié François.
  705. 705 The Government explains that, to ensure its survival, the company partially laid off the production and administrative staff by means of a 20 per cent reduction in working time. Despite these reforms, the company’s financial situation did not improve. The employer therefore decided to implement a restructuring and took steps to dismiss some of its staff for economic reasons. For this reason, the employer requested authorization to dismiss the abovementioned workers.
  706. 706 In the context of the investigation required under the legislation of Côte d’Ivoire in the case of the dismissal of workers’ representatives, the persons questioned recognized the company’s difficult financial situation. However, according to the Government, certain criteria applied by the employer with regard to the dismissals had no link with the employment of the workers. Finally, seven of the 11 (sic) workers dismissed are members of the DIGNITE Confederation. For the Government, this proves that the company dismissed them because of their trade union membership. Furthermore, N’Depo Anon Aristide was replaced by Kouadio Ol Kouadio from the General Union of Workers of Côte d’Ivoire (UGTCI). By dismissing Zanhouo Tié François and recruiting three temporary workers to strengthen its workforce, the employer committed a further abuse. On the other hand, Sika Yapo Christophe had an industrial accident and his post was not cut.
  707. 707 Furthermore, the Government provides the following information concerning certain other trade union leaders or staff representatives:
       • - Koffi Julien, a trade union leader, informed his employer on 14 January 2005, that he would not comply with the decision to reduce his working time and salary by 20 per cent. The Government explains that workers have the right to refuse a substantial revision of the terms of their contract in accordance with section 16 of the inter-occupational collective agreement. In this case, the employer is regarded as being responsible for a breach of contract. On 4 February 2005, the company requested authorization to record the worker’s decision. The requested authorization was granted with payment of all compensation due to the worker for breach of contract.
       • - Kouame Kouame Kan, Yapi Michel and Ettien Koua Antoine, all trade union leaders, were laid off temporarily for a renewable period. On 24 December 2004, the company requested authorization for the dismissal of these three protected workers for economic reasons but this was denied due to its failure to complete the relevant formalities. The employer was supposed to reinstate these workers but, taking into account that a number of posts had been cut, it was impossible for it to do so immediately. The employer offered these workers other posts which were lower than their original posts but with no change in salary or grade. The workers refused. For that reason, the employer requested authorization for their dismissal. The Government explains that an employer may decide to transfer an employee to a lower position for operational reasons or to avoid unemployment provided that the employee retains the same salary and benefits as in his previous post. By refusing to agree to this transfer, the workers breached their respective employment contracts. Given that this change affected only minor conditions of employment, the employer was able to hold the workers responsible for the breach of contract. Despite this, the employer agreed to pay compensation for breach of contract. These dismissals cannot therefore be regarded as being anti-union in nature.
       • - Zea Léon Robert, a staff representative, informed the company that he would not agree to be laid off in a letter dated 14 March 2005. The company therefore requested authorization for his dismissal. The authorization was granted because Zea Léon Robert freely refused to be laid off temporarily and even asked the labour inspectorate to expedite its handling of the employer’s request so that he would be liberated as soon as possible.
       • - Bekounoudjo Aka Henri, a staff representative, refused to comply with the extension of his temporary unemployment in a letter dated 25 July 2005. The company therefore requested authorization for his dismissal on 26 July 2005. The authorization was granted since the person concerned had freely refused to be laid off temporarily and even asked the labour inspectorate to expedite the handling of the employer’s request so that he would be liberated as soon as possible.
       • - Abouet Koua Georges, a staff representative, was dismissed for lack of discipline and respect towards the employer. The person concerned denied these allegations and explained that he had intervened at the request of the workers who wished to negotiate the reduction in their wages. According to the employer, the representative stormed into his office and spoke in a disrespectful manner. Due to the clash between two opposing positions, the labour inspector considered that collaboration between this worker and his employer would be difficult and granted the authorization requested with the payment of all compensation linked to the breach of contract.
  708. THANRY GUILGLO
  708. 708 The Government indicates that Atse Yapi, a staff representative, was dismissed for economic reasons with the authorization of the labour inspectorate. The Government states that the Director-General of Labour first of all, followed by the Minister for the Public Service and Employment, revoked the decision of the labour inspector and demanded the reinstatement of the worker who had been wrongfully dismissed. They also demanded that his rights be restored. The employer refused to comply. Faced with the employer’s refusal to comply with the decision of the Minister for the Public Service and Employment, which is the highest administrative authority for labour, the Government notes that it can do nothing and suggests that the complainant refer the matter to the competent courts.
• National Social Insurance Fund (CNPS)
  709. 709 The Government explains that Krigbo Seiko, the General Secretary of the Independent Union of Employees of the CNPS, was dismissed for two reasons: his refusal to abide by the assessment system in use within the enterprise (which consists of a preliminary interview with the superior and an appraisal), on the grounds that this system is random and does not taken into account realities on the job, and his refusal to relocate to Daloa. While revoking the labour inspector’s decision to authorize the dismissal, the Director-General of Labour demanded, in accordance with the legislation in force, that the worker be reinstated and his associated rights restored. The employer refused. The Government considers itself to be powerless to deal with the employer’s attitude and recommends that the complainant refer the matter to the courts.
• SITARAIL
  710. 710 The Government indicates that on 28 September 2006, the company requested authorization from the labour inspectorate for the dismissal of Dagbo Lazare, a trade union representative. The company, which had been a victim of the crisis affecting the whole of Côte d’Ivoire, was obliged to cease its entire activities completely for more than one year. After its operations resumed, the company offered Dagbo Lazare a new position based in Ouangolodougou (Burkina Faso). He refused this promotion for reasons of personal safety and asked the company to find him another relocation post. He was then offered a second post in Niangoloko. This time, it was his position as trade union representative and his accounting training which were cited as reasons for again refusing this transfer. His refusal led to a deadlock. Considering the employee to be insubordinate, the company requested authorization for his dismissal. The labour inspectorate launched an investigation, during which it noted that each of the parties was ready and willing to agree to a negotiated breach of contract. Dagbo Lazare sent a letter to that effect to the labour inspectorate on 28 November 2006. The inspector therefore sought to reconcile the two parties based on the standards established under the regulations in force, and the two social partners opted for an amicable settlement of the dispute. After lengthy discussions and negotiations under the auspices of the labour inspector, the parties came to an agreement and reached a settlement. Since the parties clearly expressed their wish to terminate their relationship, the labour inspectorate merely took note of that wish.
• Fund for the Development and Promotion of the Activities of Coffee and Cocoa Producers (FDPCC)
  711. 711 The Government indicates that it only became aware of this case after a notice of strike action was given to the labour inspectorate. The workers did not turn up for the conciliation proceedings convened by the inspector and the following day, they launched the work stoppage. Other dismissals were made by the employer following this strike, which it deemed to be illegal. The workers brought their cases before the competent courts.
• BIP assistance
  712. 712 The Government explains that a strike was staged by electronic surveillance workers due to the employer’s refusal to increase the hazard pay and company insurance contributions, as agreed upon by the employer but not implemented. In response, the workers refused to work and confiscated the equipment, including vehicles. The employer immediately implemented a lockout. Following the labour inspector’s call for negotiations, the company’s management demanded the return of the vehicles and weapons as a condition for opening negotiations. The police intervened at the employer’s request to ensure the protection of the company equipment. The company then paid the wages of those who had not participated in the strike. Following the collapse of the negotiations initiated by the General Secretary of the union for the security sectors, the strikers barricaded the entrance to the company on 26 March 2007.
  713. 713 The Government indicates that the company suspended the employment contracts of the workers who had participated in the strike from 19 February 2007. It was reported that new people would be recruited in place of these workers.
  714. 714 According to the Government, an investigation has confirmed that nine staff representatives were questioned and arrested following an investigation carried out by the Abidjan police authorities which was then referred to the public prosecutor. They were charged with the seizure of company property, violence and assault, forcible entry, verbal death threats, interfering with the freedom to work, kidnapping and theft. On 2 May 2007, the persons concerned were released. The company’s director was asked to report to the labour inspectorate for the purposes of amicable conciliation on 9 August 2007, but did not attend. To date, no solution has been found to put an end to the suffering of these numerous workers who are without employment. The personal involvement of the Minister for the Public Service and Employment with the company, did not produce the expected results and the referral of the matter to the courts remains the only option available to the workers and the complainant.
• Bureau Veritas
  715. 715 According to the Government, Meledje Macaire, a staff representative, was dismissed for refusing to comply with a mission ordered by his employer. The Minister for the Public Service and Employment ordered the employer to reinstate the worker without loss of rights. The Minister considered that the employer’s order was not a mission but rather an outright transfer which had to comply with a number of rules which the employer had not observed. Despite the Minister’s decision, the company has not reinstated Meledje Macaire. The Government recommends that the worker and the complainant refer the matter to the labour courts.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 716. The Committee notes that the complainant alleges acts of anti-union discrimination, in the form of transfers, demotions and dismissals, and violation of the right to collective bargaining in several Ivorian enterprises, as well as the failure of the authorities to ensure respect for freedom of association and social dialogue. The Committee notes in particular the following alleged acts of anti-union discrimination:
   • - SETV: 26 employees were dismissed following a notice of strike action (withdrawn at the request of the DIGNITE Confederation) and a work stoppage for several hours. Following these dismissals, the DIGNITE Confederation referred the matter to the Labour Court. In November 2007, the Court ruled partially in favour of certain workers while the cases of other workers were dismissed. The appealed cases are still pending.
   • - UNIWAX: several members of the union’s executive were dismissed during negotiations with the company.
   • - THANRY GUILGLO: one staff representative was dismissed on the authorization of the labour inspector but without the preliminary investigation provided for by law. The enterprise lodged an appeal with the Minister for Public Service and Employment who confirmed the decision of the General Labour Directorate and ordered the worker’s reinstatement. Despite this decision, the enterprise refused to reinstate the staff representative.
   • - CNPS: the general secretary of the SYNTRA-CNPS was dismissed. The enterprise refused to reinstate him despite the decision issued by the Director-General of Labour concluding that the dismissal represented a manoeuvre by the enterprise to interfere with the trade union activities of the worker concerned and ordering his reinstatement. The enterprise has lodged an appeal with the competent administrative authority against the decision of the Director-General of Labour.
   • - FDPCC: the union’s general secretary was dismissed following his refusal to accept a demotion and transfer to a post located far from the union’s base.
   • - Bureau Veritas: a staff representative was dismissed following his refusal to accept a transfer to a lower post. The Director-General of Labour revoked the decision of the labour inspector. The employer lodged an appeal with the Minister for Public Service and Employment. Despite the Minister’s decision, the staff representative has not been reinstated.
   • - BIP assistance: refusal to bargain collectively and detention of workers by the national army following a strike.
2. 717. The Committee notes the detailed reply from the Government. In particular, it notes that the Government confirms that the management of the SETV dismissed 26 of its employees including 24 staff representatives following a work stoppage carried out on 3 March 2006. It also states that the company’s management refused to engage in any dialogue with the director of the labour inspectorate. The Government adds that both the workers and the complainant referred the matter to the labour courts. A ruling was handed down in favour of some workers while others had their cases dismissed. The workers and the complainant lodged an appeal which is currently pending. Moreover, the Government confirms that ten workers were dismissed from UNIWAX because of their trade union membership. The Government further refers to four cases of breach of contract with payment of all compensation due, two cases where the staff representative asked to be released and one case where a staff representative was dismissed for lack of discipline and lack of respect for the employer. In the latter case, due to the clash between two opposing positions, the labour inspector considered that collaboration between this worker and his employer would be difficult and granted the authorization requested with the payment of all compensation linked to the breach of contract. With regard to the THANRY GUILGLO, CNPS and Bureau Veritas, the Government confirms the allegations of the complainant organization and declares itself “powerless” to deal with the employers’ attitude and recommends that the complainant refer the matters to the competent courts. With regard to the FDPCC, the Government indicates that the workers did not turn up for the conciliation proceedings convened by the inspector and the following day, they launched the work stoppage. Other dismissals were made by the employer following the strike which it deemed to be illegal. The workers brought their cases before the competent courts. Finally, the Government indicates that a number of workers have been dismissed by the BIP Assistance for having exercised the right to strike and that the personal involvement of the Minister for Public Service with the company did not produce the expected results and the referral of the matter to the courts remains the only option available to the workers and the complainant.
3. 718. The Committee notes the Government’s overall confirmation that these dismissals, transfers and demotions took place and that in some instances they were illegal and/or anti-union in nature. The Committee also notes that, in some cases, the employers refused to reinstate the employee(s) concerned despite decisions to that effect by the competent authorities. In respect of some of these matters, the Government admits having little influence over the situation and defers to the national judiciary, recommending that the workers concerned and the complainant representing them refer the matter to the competent courts.
4. 719. The Committee recalls that anti-union discrimination is one of the most serious violations of freedom of association, as it may jeopardize the very existence of trade unions [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 769]. No person should be prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, such as a strike. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should cover not only dismissal, but also any discriminatory measures during employment, in particular transfers, downgrading and other acts that are prejudicial to the worker [see Digest, op. cit., para. 781]. Furthermore, the Committee considers that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee considers that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. It further draws attention to the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), ratified by the Government, and Recommendation (No. 143), 1971, in which it is expressly established 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 workers’ representatives 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 [see Digest, op. cit., paras 799 and 800].
5. 720. Furthermore, the Committee emphasizes that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and that, if there is discrimination, the Government should take all necessary steps to eliminate it, irrespective of the methods normally used [see Digest, op. cit., paras 816 and 817]. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that, those trade union leaders and members who were dismissed because of their legitimate trade union activities and who have not concluded an agreement with the enterprise concerned terminating their respective employment contracts, are reinstated without loss of salary and to impose the relevant legal sanctions on the enterprises. In the event that the reinstatement of the trade union leaders and members would be impossible for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the workers concerned are paid adequate compensation which would constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union dismissals and requests it to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.
6. 721. Noting that a number of cases of dismissal are in the process of being examined by the courts (dismissals which were made by the SETV, CNPS and FDPCC), the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final rulings. While waiting for these cases to be examined, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to enable the trade union leaders and members concerned to be reinstated without loss of pay. In the event that the judicial authority finds, in a final ruling, that the reinstatement of the dismissed workers would be impossible, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the workers concerned are paid adequate compensation which would constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union dismissals and requests it to keep it informed in this regard.
7. 722. With regard to SITARAIL, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the General Secretary of FIESSOU, Dagbo Lazare and his entire executive committee, were transferred to Burkina Faso without their consent and in violation of the collective agreement. The Government confirms that, faced with a financial crisis, the company took the decision to change the place of work of Dagbo Lazare. The trade union leader refused to comply with this decision and chose instead to leave the company, which was confirmed by the labour inspector. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that, following conciliation efforts led by the labour inspector, the parties reached a settlement.
8. 723. The Committee further notes that the violations of trade union rights stem, to some degree, from the refusal by some companies to engage in dialogue. In particular, the complainant and the Government refer to the refusal of the SETV management to engage in any dialogue with the Director of the Labour Inspectorate, who was given responsibility by the Minister for the Public Service and Employment for finding a solution to the dispute between the management and the trade union; the refusal of the management of BIP Assistance to participate in the conciliation organized by the labour inspectorate; and the refusal of the employers to comply with the decisions of the competent labour authorities ordering the reinstatement of the workers’ representatives illegally dismissed (THANRY GUILGLO, the CNPS and the Bureau Veritas). The Committee notes with regret that the Government declares itself incapable of ensuring respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining within some of the enterprises concerned. The Committee recalls that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for the principles of freedom of association lies with the Government [see Digest, op. cit., para. 17]. The Committee urges the Government to take steps, in consultation with the social partners concerned, including through the adoption of legislative measures, to protect the right to organize by workers and their right to collective bargaining and to ensure comprehensive protection against anti-union discrimination in the future, providing for swift recourse to mechanisms that may impose sufficiently dissuasive sanctions for such acts. The Committee encourages the Government to seek technical assistance from the Office.
9. 724. With regard to the alleged detention of 30 trade unionists for 11 days following a strike, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that the investigation carried out to examine these allegations noted that nine persons were questioned and arrested following an investigation carried out by the Abidjan police authorities which was then referred to the public prosecutor, and that they were charged with the seizure of company property, violence and assault, forcible entry, verbal death threats, interfering with the freedom to work, kidnapping and theft. According to the Government, the persons concerned were released on 2 May 2007. The Committee requests the Government and the complainant to indicate whether the trade unionists in question have been prosecuted and, if so, to provide a copy of the rulings handed down, or whether the charges initially brought against them have been dropped.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 725. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that those trade union leaders and members who were dismissed because of their legitimate trade union activities, and who have not concluded an agreement with the enterprise concerned terminating their respective employment contracts, are reinstated without loss of salary and to impose the relevant legal sanctions on the enterprises. In the event that the reinstatement of the dismissed workers concerned would be impossible for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the workers concerned are paid adequate compensation which would constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction against anti-union dismissals and requests it to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final rulings handed down by the courts in the cases of the trade union leaders and members. While waiting for these cases to be examined, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the trade union leaders and members concerned are reinstated without any loss of salary. In the event that the judicial authority notes in a final ruling that the reinstatement of the dismissed workers would be impossible, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the workers concerned are paid adequate compensation which is a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union dismissals and requests it to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (c) The Committee urges the Government to take steps, in consultation with the social partners concerned, including through the adoption of legislation, to protect the right to organize of workers and their right to collective bargaining and to ensure comprehensive protection against anti-union discrimination in the future, providing for swift recourse to mechanisms that may impose sufficiently dissuasive sanctions for such acts.
   • (d) The Committee encourages the Government to seek technical assistance from the Office.
   • (e) The Committee requests the Government and the complainants to indicate whether the trade unionists detained by the Abidjan police authorities have been brought before a competent court and, if so, to provide a copy of the rulings handed down, or whether the charges initially brought against them have been dropped.