Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2014, Publication: 103rd ILC session (2014)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Algeria (Ratification: 1962)



A Government representative expressed his appreciation of the efforts made by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association to assess the compliance of countries with ILO Conventions and Recommendations so that they could improve their national legislation. His Government took note of the observations of the Committee of Experts regarding the application of Convention No. 87, but he insisted that that it had supplied all its observations requested within the required deadline. It should be recalled that 94 workers’ organizations were currently operating in Algeria in every branch of activity, both in the public service and in the private sector. Algerian legislation on labour relations set out the principle of social dialogue and collective bargaining as the foundation of the relationship between the partners at the work place. On the basis of that principle, some 3,000 collective workers agreements, 80 sectoral collective agreements, over 16,000 collective workplace agreements and 156 branch accords had so far been concluded a National Economic and Social Pact that had been concluded in 2006 and renewed in February 2014 at the 16th tripartite meeting, in the form of a National Pact for Economic and Social Growth. The Algerian experience in the area of social dialogue had been the subject of a detailed presentation at the 309th Session (November 2010) of the ILO Governing Body, when it had been unanimously welcomed. With regard to the observations of the Committee of Experts’ on the registration of trade unions, the Government indicated that, once its by-laws had been modified to conform to the country’s legislation, the National Autonomous Union of Secondary and Technical Education Teachers (SNAPEST) had been registered and was conducting its affairs without any problem in accordance with the rules and regulations in force. The National Autonomous Union of Public Administration Staff (SNAPAP) was also conducting its affairs in compliance with the existing laws and regulations. The internal dispute within SNAPAP had been ended by a ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter. For its part, the Government had maintained a position of neutrality, as recommended by the Committee on Freedom of Association. Moreover, the ILO Director-General himself had met the leader of the SNAPAP, and with the parties to the dispute, when he had visited Algiers in April 2013. Since the ruling handed down by the country’s highest judicial body had resolved the dispute, the Government requested that the case before the Committee on Freedom of Association be dropped. The Committee of Experts had also noted with satisfaction the registration of the National Union of Vocational Training Workers (SNTFP), which was standard procedure when requests for registration were submitted in conformity with the law. The delays in registering certain trade unions could not be seen as an attempt to hamper freedom of association, but rather as arising from the need to ensure that the by-laws complied with the law. Ten unions had been registered since 2012.

As to the acts of intimidation and the death threats that had allegedly been made against union leaders and members, which was punishable under the Penal Code in Algeria, the Government observed that no complaints had been lodged with the competent courts, and that the allegations were not backed by any concrete evidence. Concerning the implementation of section 6 of Act No. 90-14 on the exercise of freedom of association, the Government had already stated that foreign workers were free to join trade unions. A worker’s nationality was therefore no obstacle to union membership, and foreign workers enjoyed the same rights and the same protection as Algerian workers. However, the question of the nationality of persons seeking to establish a trade union was currently being examined for inclusion in the final draft of the new Labour Code. With regard to the application of section 4 of Act No. 90-14, the new Labour Code would also spell out the criteria governing the right of workers’ organizations to establish federations and confederations of their own choosing, irrespective of the sector. Finally, regarding the implementation of section 43 of Act No. 90-02 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, the Government observed that the Convention did not deal with the right to strike. That said, the right to strike was embodied in the Algerian Constitution, and as such it was set out in the legislation and governed by legal procedures of prevention, conciliation, mediation and arbitration. The number of strikes recorded each year showed that the right to strike existed for trade unions in the country. The latest strike had been called by trade unions in the national education sector, and had been resolved to the workers’ satisfaction following negotiations with the public authorities. Algeria had ratified 59 ILO Conventions, including the eight fundamental Conventions and three governance Conventions, and was among the countries that had ratified the highest number of international labour Conventions. The world of work was constantly evolving in order to adapt to new economic and social circumstances, and the Government welcomed any recommendations or observations that might help it improve the country’s labour legislation and foster a more peaceful social climate.

The Worker members noted that the issues raised in the present case mostly concerned the public sector, i.e., workers employed by the State. That did not exclude the private sector, which encountered the same problems. In its reply, the Government had not replied to accusations of intimidation and threats, including death threats, reported by the International Trade Union Confederation and a number of Algerian trade unions in the public sector. Speakers would take the floor to bear witness to the alleged occurrences. The Government had also not replied to the observations of the Committee of Expert on the compliance of the law with ILO standards. In that regard, it should be recalled that Algerian law reserved the right to establish trade unions for persons who had acquired Algerian nationality at birth or at least ten years ago, and that the trade unions had limited possibilities of establishing federations or confederations of their choice. While it could be accepted that national legislation might require founders of a trade union to respect certain clauses concerning publicity and other similar provisions, those provisions should not be tantamount to prior authorization or be applied in such a way as to prohibit the establishment of organization. In a case examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in March 2013 (Case No. 2944), the Committee had asked the Government to indicate whether the two trade union complainants, the Higher Education Teachers Union (SESS) and the National Autonomous Union of Postal Workers (SNATP) had obtained registration. The Worker members understood that those organizations had still not been registered.

As to the acts of intimidation and the death threats that had allegedly been made against union leaders and members, which was punishable under the Penal Code in Algeria, the Government observed that no complaints had been lodged with the competent courts, and that the allegations were not backed by any concrete evidence. Concerning the implementation of section 6 of Act No. 90-14 on the exercise of freedom of association, the Government had already stated that foreign workers were free to join trade unions. A worker’s nationality was therefore no obstacle to union membership, and foreign workers enjoyed the same rights and the same protection as Algerian workers. However, the question of the nationality of persons seeking to establish a trade union was currently being examined for inclusion in the final draft of the new Labour Code. With regard to the application of section 4 of Act No. 90-14, the new Labour Code would also spell out the criteria governing the right of workers’ organizations to establish federations and confederations of their own choosing, irrespective of the sector. Finally, regarding the implementation of section 43 of Act No. 90-02 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, the Government observed that the Convention did not deal with the right to strike. That said, the right to strike was embodied in the Algerian Constitution, and as such it was set out in the legislation and governed by legal procedures of prevention, conciliation, mediation and arbitration. The number of strikes recorded each year showed that the right to strike existed for trade unions in the country. The latest strike had been called by trade unions in the national education sector, and had been resolved to the workers’ satisfaction following negotiations with the public authorities. Algeria had ratified 59 ILO Conventions, including the eight fundamental Conventions and three governance Conventions, and was among the countries that had ratified the highest number of international labour Conventions. The world of work was constantly evolving in order to adapt to new economic and social circumstances, and the Government welcomed any recommendations or observations that might help it improve the country’s labour legislation and foster a more peaceful social climate.

Trade unions were subject to various limitations on their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes in full freedom. It was not a question of the mere problem of the right to strike. According to Algerian law, strikes were prohibited when there was likely to provoke a “serious economic crisis”. The Government stated that the notion was substantially the same as the phrase “acute national crisis” commonly employed by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association. Nevertheless, the latter had asked the Government to clarify that notion and to provide examples. In reality, all notices of strike action submitted over recent years in the public sector had been subject to interim proceedings before an administrative court and, in all cases, the strike had been declared illegal. That procedure was unilateral, as the trade unions concerned were not invited to present their views. The orders were not reasoned and could only be appealed before the State Council, which issued its decisions within an average of two years. The Worker members recalled that, according to jurisprudence of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the decision to declare a strike illegal should not come from the Government, but from a body independent of and entrusted by both parties. However, when such an excessive number of strikes was declared illegal, at the simple request of the public authorities party to the conflict, without any grounds and without the opportunity for the parties involved to set out their view, there was grounds for questioning the independence of the judiciary and the confidence that the parties could have in it. The Committee of Experts also mentioned the National Arbitration Commission, to which the Government could refer in order to intervene in collective disputes. The Worker members questioned the composition of that body in the absence of trade union elections or of an independent membership count in Algeria. The independence of the National Arbitration Commission and the confidence that the parties could have in it was once again open to question. In reality, trade union activity, like the organization of assemblies or training meetings, was dependent on authorization from the Ministry for the Interior and the procedure almost systematically gave rise to intimidation, delays and harassment.

As to the acts of intimidation and the death threats that had allegedly been made against union leaders and members, which was punishable under the Penal Code in Algeria, the Government observed that no complaints had been lodged with the competent courts, and that the allegations were not backed by any concrete evidence. Concerning the implementation of section 6 of Act No. 90-14 on the exercise of freedom of association, the Government had already stated that foreign workers were free to join trade unions. A worker’s nationality was therefore no obstacle to union membership, and foreign workers enjoyed the same rights and the same protection as Algerian workers. However, the question of the nationality of persons seeking to establish a trade union was currently being examined for inclusion in the final draft of the new Labour Code. With regard to the application of section 4 of Act No. 90-14, the new Labour Code would also spell out the criteria governing the right of workers’ organizations to establish federations and confederations of their own choosing, irrespective of the sector. Finally, regarding the implementation of section 43 of Act No. 90-02 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, the Government observed that the Convention did not deal with the right to strike. That said, the right to strike was embodied in the Algerian Constitution, and as such it was set out in the legislation and governed by legal procedures of prevention, conciliation, mediation and arbitration. The number of strikes recorded each year showed that the right to strike existed for trade unions in the country. The latest strike had been called by trade unions in the national education sector, and had been resolved to the workers’ satisfaction following negotiations with the public authorities. Algeria had ratified 59 ILO Conventions, including the eight fundamental Conventions and three governance Conventions, and was among the countries that had ratified the highest number of international labour Conventions. The world of work was constantly evolving in order to adapt to new economic and social circumstances, and the Government welcomed any recommendations or observations that might help it improve the country’s labour legislation and foster a more peaceful social climate.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the very constructive submission and its clear receptivity to the constructive feedback from the Committee of Experts on how to improve its labour relations and legislation. The Employer members appreciated that the Government recognized social dialogue and collective bargaining as essential pillars, as well as its submission with respect to negotiation and consultation with the social partners. There appeared to be two broad themes observed by the Committee of Experts with regard to the application of the Convention. The first issue, raised in past observations of the Committee of Experts, concerned section 6 of Act No. 90-14 of 1990 that restricted the right to establish trade unions to persons who were Algerian by birth or had been of Algerian nationality for at least ten years. The Committee of Experts had noted that the right to organize had to be provided to workers and employers without distinction concerning their nationality. Also in its prior observations, the Committee of Experts had repeatedly called on the Government to ensure legislative reforms to deal with this issue and to provide information on the action taken. In addition, in its past observations, the Committee of Experts had repeatedly called on the Government to amend its legislation to remove all obstacles preventing workers from establishing federations of their own choosing. The Employer member had heard the Government’s explanations that nationality was not a barrier to registration. However, it was a factor in the ability to establish trade unions. They understood that the comments of the Committee of Experts would be taken into account in the context of the current revision of the Labour Code and encouraged the Government to provide more information in this regard. The second issue was of concern to the Employer members. The Committee of Experts, in its observations for the past few years had referred to section 43 of Act No. 90-02, under which strikes were forbidden in essential services when they were liable to give rise to a serious economic crisis. The Committee of Experts had not only requested the Government to amend the language of its legislation, but had also proposed draft language in this respect. Moreover, the Committee of Experts had requested specific examples of cases where, in light of this language, strikes had been prohibited because of their possible effects. In the view of the Employer members, this was problematic, as the Committee of Experts had exceeded its mandate in this regard. It was important that the right to strike not be addressed in the conclusions of the Conference Committee because there was no tripartite consensus that it was dealt with in the Convention. In its submissions, the Government also considered that the Convention did not deal with the right to strike. In conclusion, the Employer members considered that the Government had been very constructive and encouraged it to provide the information that the Committee of Experts had requested. The Government should be commended for its openness in accepting constructive feedback from the Conference Committee to improve labour relations in the country, as well as the efforts it had already made and would continue to make.

As to the acts of intimidation and the death threats that had allegedly been made against union leaders and members, which was punishable under the Penal Code in Algeria, the Government observed that no complaints had been lodged with the competent courts, and that the allegations were not backed by any concrete evidence. Concerning the implementation of section 6 of Act No. 90-14 on the exercise of freedom of association, the Government had already stated that foreign workers were free to join trade unions. A worker’s nationality was therefore no obstacle to union membership, and foreign workers enjoyed the same rights and the same protection as Algerian workers. However, the question of the nationality of persons seeking to establish a trade union was currently being examined for inclusion in the final draft of the new Labour Code. With regard to the application of section 4 of Act No. 90-14, the new Labour Code would also spell out the criteria governing the right of workers’ organizations to establish federations and confederations of their own choosing, irrespective of the sector. Finally, regarding the implementation of section 43 of Act No. 90-02 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, the Government observed that the Convention did not deal with the right to strike. That said, the right to strike was embodied in the Algerian Constitution, and as such it was set out in the legislation and governed by legal procedures of prevention, conciliation, mediation and arbitration. The number of strikes recorded each year showed that the right to strike existed for trade unions in the country. The latest strike had been called by trade unions in the national education sector, and had been resolved to the workers’ satisfaction following negotiations with the public authorities. Algeria had ratified 59 ILO Conventions, including the eight fundamental Conventions and three governance Conventions, and was among the countries that had ratified the highest number of international labour Conventions. The world of work was constantly evolving in order to adapt to new economic and social circumstances, and the Government welcomed any recommendations or observations that might help it improve the country’s labour legislation and foster a more peaceful social climate.

The Worker member of Algeria observed that, despite the specific situation that the country had been facing for a number of years, this had not hindered the development of trade union pluralism, at least in certain sectors. The major trade union federations had had to face, in the past years, new political choices which had been brought about by the economic and social situations. He expressed solidarity with the unionists of his country facing difficulties. While these difficulties were undeniable, they could be resolved within the framework of social dialogue at the national level. Describing the situation of workers and trade unionism in the region, he emphasized that the situation required understanding, conciliation and the adoption of certain measures.

As to the acts of intimidation and the death threats that had allegedly been made against union leaders and members, which was punishable under the Penal Code in Algeria, the Government observed that no complaints had been lodged with the competent courts, and that the allegations were not backed by any concrete evidence. Concerning the implementation of section 6 of Act No. 90-14 on the exercise of freedom of association, the Government had already stated that foreign workers were free to join trade unions. A worker’s nationality was therefore no obstacle to union membership, and foreign workers enjoyed the same rights and the same protection as Algerian workers. However, the question of the nationality of persons seeking to establish a trade union was currently being examined for inclusion in the final draft of the new Labour Code. With regard to the application of section 4 of Act No. 90-14, the new Labour Code would also spell out the criteria governing the right of workers’ organizations to establish federations and confederations of their own choosing, irrespective of the sector. Finally, regarding the implementation of section 43 of Act No. 90-02 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike, the Government observed that the Convention did not deal with the right to strike. That said, the right to strike was embodied in the Algerian Constitution, and as such it was set out in the legislation and governed by legal procedures of prevention, conciliation, mediation and arbitration. The number of strikes recorded each year showed that the right to strike existed for trade unions in the country. The latest strike had been called by trade unions in the national education sector, and had been resolved to the workers’ satisfaction following negotiations with the public authorities. Algeria had ratified 59 ILO Conventions, including the eight fundamental Conventions and three governance Conventions, and was among the countries that had ratified the highest number of international labour Conventions. The world of work was constantly evolving in order to adapt to new economic and social circumstances, and the Government welcomed any recommendations or observations that might help it improve the country’s labour legislation and foster a more peaceful social climate.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) recalled that, following the events of October 1989, the ruling party, under force by popular revolt, had ceded small reforms on trade union pluralism, which were however restricted to sectoral trade unions. As such, the SNAPAP had been registered in 1990. However, 90 per cent of sectoral trade unions registered during this period of revolt had been dissolved following the halting of the electoral process in 1992. The trade unions that had been spared remained the constant target of a power which sought to control or neutralize them. Algeria had ratified Convention No. 87 in 1962, but trade union pluralism had not been written into the national Constitution until 1989. Even though article 132 of that Constitution provided that ratified Conventions prevailed over national laws, the content of the Convention could not be cited in the courts in relation to the free exercise of trade union rights. With regard to the suspension and dismissal of trade unionists, in September 2013 nine members of the federal bureau in the public works sector had been suspended for one month following a strike. Today 137 trade unionists, mostly women, were still suspended following a general strike which had started in April 2012. In reference to the ban on demonstrations and physical and judicial repression, hundreds of protesters and strikers had been assaulted and arrested in 2012, in particular Mr Abdel Khader Kherba and Mr Tahar Bel Abes, of the SNAPAP Committee for the Unemployed, and Mr Yacine Zaïd, a representative from the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF). In February 2013, police forces had surrounded the trade union premises to prevent the Maghreb forum for unemployed graduates from taking place, and had then detained and deported the delegations of Morocco, Mauritania and Tunisia who were due to participate. In March 2013, the border police prevented a delegation of 100 people from SNAPAP from travelling to Tunisia for the World Social Forum. With regard to interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and the “cloning” of unions, which was common practice by the authorities, a “clone” trade union of SNAPAP had been created by the authorities in 2001 which was under the leadership of a retired member of Parliament. The objective of this “clone” union was to discredit SNAPAP with the ILO. The regional or national trade union congresses were held under court order, and yet it was surprising that the Ministry of Labour refused to consider the records relating to SNAPAP resulting from the congresses. Moreover, the general intelligence services had summoned the founders of the solidarity trade union of higher education teachers with the aim of putting pressure on the workers and at the same time attempting to identify people likely to help the administration in creating a “clone” organization. With regard to the refusal to register autonomous trade unions or umbrella organizations, the refusal to register trade unions or confederations was a discretionary decision not based on any regulatory text. Years later, the registration requests of new trade unions were still pending, with the aim of dissuading the creation of any new trade unions. The requests for authorization from the Ministry for the Interior for the organization of meetings, training seminars or trade union congresses were consistently refused. In reality, there was a complete lack of social dialogue. When a trade union had finally been registered, the employer could still refuse to recognize it, or harass its officers, as was the case with the workers’ trade union SONELGAZ (gas and electricity sector). In conclusion, SNAPAP had already lodged several complaints with the Committee on Freedom of Association, which had made recommendations that had been ignored by the Government. The repression against SNAPAP members had even increased. ILO technical assistance had not produced any results. The severity of the situation meant that other possible options set out in the ILO Constitution invited consideration.

The Government member of Egypt commended the efforts of the Government to draw up the draft Labour Code, which took account of the comments of the Committee of Experts, particularly with regard to the possibility of creating trade unions, federations and confederations freely in all sectors of activity and the recognition of the trade union rights of foreign workers. Moreover, measures had been taken to strengthen dialogue with the social partners and consultations were being held on all aspects of trade union activity. Furthermore, the right to strike was recognized by the national Constitution, and strikes were not therefore prohibited, but simply regulated. The justice system took account of ILO Conventions and its operation deserved respect. The far-reaching reforms undertaken in Algeria were ongoing and were not without their problems and challenges. The population was fully involved in that process and Algeria was thus a guardian of fundamental human rights, good governance and trade union pluralism.

An observer representing Education International denounced the use of precarious employment contracts in education, which made it impossible to foster a social climate that was conducive to unionization advocated in the Convention. Since 2006 the Algerian Federation of Education of SNAPAP had been demanding permanent contracts for tens of thousands of teachers on precarious contracts. Their movement had been met with repression. Over 7,000 protesting teachers on precarious contracts had been arrested, 5,000 had been fined like common criminals and dismissed, sometimes after teaching for more than ten years. Most of them were women who now had no source of income, and many reported that they had suffered brutality by the forces of order. The advent of the Arab spring and the fear that the protests might get out of hand had created an opening, and 35,000 teachers had been given permanent contracts by Presidential decree. But the regularization of their situation had not been negotiated with the trade unions, and 30,000 other teachers were still on precarious contracts. With SNAPAP’s support they had, since 2011, maintained their demand for permanent contracts. The struggle between the two sides was still continuous, as were harassment, arrests and termination of contracts. At the start of the 2013–14 school year the temporary contracts of over 1,000 teachers had not been renewed. All of them were union members.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela emphasized that the Committee of Experts had noted with satisfaction the progress made in relation to freedom of association, particularly with regard to the registration of trade unions. The progress made by the Government through social dialogue should be highlighted. Evidence of this was the signing of many collective agreements and the renewal of a National Economic and Social Pact in February 2014. The Government demonstrated goodwill by considering the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts in the framework of the draft Labour Code. The Government denied any alleged acts of intimidation or threats against trade union delegates and trade unionists, and emphasized no complaints had been made in this regard to the competent bodies, nor was there any evidence of such acts. There was no doubt that the Government would continue its efforts and progress in this regard, guaranteeing freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. As a result, the conclusions of the Committee needed to recognize and draw attention to the progress made by the Government, as well its commitments and good faith in relation to the application of the Convention.

The Worker member of the United States, also speaking on behalf of the Worker members of Canada, Spain and Switzerland, pointed to the various forms of intimidation to which Algerian trade unionists had been subjected for many years. These included the Government practice of “cloning” unions, dismissal, physical violence and threats, imprisonment based on false charges and restrictions on the freedom of trade unionists to travel. The attempts to intimidate trade union leaders and activists were blatant and unrelenting, and she particularly referred in this regard to: the death threats received by the President of SNAPAP in 2011 after his meeting with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing; his termination for “unlawful absence from his position” in 2013; and the arbitrary decision to revoke his union leave of absence granted to him over a decade earlier. Most troubling was the murder of Professor Ahmed Kerroumi, an activist for the National Council for Democratic Change, an organization which SNAPAP had helped to form, after his meeting with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression in April 2011. The Government had not undertaken any official investigation into this killing. She provided further examples of false charges against and prison sentences of trade union activists, including for organizing a strike, participating in meetings or in hunger strikes or, recently in April 2014, for distributing leaflets likely to undermine national interest. Regarding restrictions on the freedom of trade unionists to travel, the President of SNAPAP had been arbitrarily deprived of his passport while attempting to travel to France in 2009 and had been banned from travelling for one month. Another union activist had been arrested in 2012 and imprisoned while attempting to travel for the purpose of organizing workers, and had been detained recently when he had tried to board a flight to attend the Dublin Platform for Human Rights Defenders. In July 2013, the authorities had not allowed the delegation of SNAPAP to travel to attend the World Social Forum in Tunisia. In addition, workers had faced serious repercussions for participating in peaceful protest action, strikes or demonstrations, including in February 2014. These had included arrest, physical assault, non-payment of wages and the stopping of social security and health benefits. The right of unions to function freely was also restricted, as illustrated by the repeated attacks and harassment against the “House of Labour” of SNAPAP over the past five years. All of these examples, which were only a few of many, illustrated that the acts of repression faced by trade unionists of Algeria were severe and widespread. The Government therefore needed to undertake serious reforms in order to meet its obligation to ensure freedom of association, as required by the Convention.

The Government member of Angola expressed support for the statement by the Government, which had made substantial progress in the implementation of ratified Conventions. Freedom of association was respected in the country as trade unions were formed and collective agreements were signed, and particularly the National Economic and Social Pact. The right to strike was also respected and it appeared that the Government had answered the questions asked regarding the application of the Convention in the country.

An observer representing Public Services International (PSI) noted that, although Algeria had ratified 53 ILO Conventions, including Convention No 87, freedom of association was constantly undermined by the administration’s abusive practices. Trade union delegates in various sectors of activity had had their rights infringed; they had been banned from taking part in trade union activities and been refused to allow their members to hold general assemblies. “Cloned” trade unions had been set up, trade union members and delegates had been suspended and struck off lists, and the secondment of trade unionists, even with a national mandate, had been prohibited. According to the law to be considered representative, a trade union had to cover at least 20 per cent of the total workforce of the enterprise. However, in practice, it was the employer who determined the representativeness of the trade unions, thereby preventing their right to recognition and the exercise of their right of collective bargaining. In addition, trade unionists were victims of threats, suspensions, arbitrary dismissals, judicial harassment and police violence, and were prevented from freedom of movement and proceedings before the courts to denounce these facts produced no outcome. The social situation of women trade unionists was also deteriorating because women who had taken part in a strike in April 2012 had been subjected to restrictive measures since then. Finally, in May 2013, a trade unionist at the Training University had been dismissed because of trade union activities and his commitment to human rights. The Convention should be fully applied, and the technical assistance provided should be extended with the participation of SNAPAP and the Autonomous General Confederation of Algerian Workers (CGATA).

The Government member of Cameroon indicated that the information provided demonstrated that Algeria took the Committee of Experts’ observations seriously. It should be noted that the revision of labour laws in Africa was a complex process since the reforms had to go through various advisory committees before being brought before Parliament. The Government should therefore be given time to implement the reform that had been called for. The Government was showing genuine willingness to respond to the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts in the context of the revision of the Labour Code, which was being finalized. There were many different trade unions in the country and the Government might be accused of promoting the splintering of the trade union movement but not of obstructing freedom of association, when its exercise in practice was so clear. The Government should be encouraged to speed up the process of revision of the Labour Code taking into account the Committee of Experts’ observations.

The Worker member of Libya, also speaking on behalf of the Worker members of Bahrain, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia and Yemen said that the judiciary did not enjoy independence in Algeria. When trade union members of SNAPAP and SNAPEST appealed to the Supreme Judicial Council and the Council of State, their cases remained pending for years without any result. A lawsuit by unions against the Minister of Labour in 2005 in relation to public financial support had resulted in the establishment of a parallel rival union by the Government, which had received the same registration number as the original union. In addition, the Government had transferred workers’ union contributions from the original union to the parallel union. Numerous international labour conventions had not been published in the Official Gazette, which denied workers the opportunity to use these Conventions in legal proceedings. Teacher trade union members faced harassment, intimidation, non-payment of wages and arbitrary arrest, and under these circumstances members of teachers’ unions had had no choice but to call a strike in 2012, which had been followed by 95 per cent of the workers in the sector. Some members who had participated in the strike continued to face the same kind of reprisals, but the Government had not undertaken any proper investigations. He also accused the Government of having attempted to assassinate the president of one union, but the alleged perpetrator of this criminal act had not been subject to any action by the justice system. The silence of the judiciary in these cases was sufficient in itself to understand that it currently had no power. The Government suppressed trade unionists and eliminated independent unions. There was no other option than to turn to this distinguished Committee for justice.

The Worker member of Bahrain noted the statement by the observer representing the ITUC, which showed that Algeria was currently facing economic difficulties which required the collaboration of all the social partners to reach agreed solutions. Under the current circumstances, the trade union situation in Algeria did not require any intervention by the Committee and he considered that the ITUC had taken an extreme position with respect to this case. Certain parties appeared to be exploiting the ILO to undermine the role played by Arab trade union federations. The situation in Algeria should be examined in an equitable manner based on the evidence.

The Government representative indicated that he intended to respond calmly and confidently to the accusations levelled against his country. Algeria had made enormous sacrifices to recover and preserve its stability, was nowadays a safe haven where there were no restrictions, no death threats, and no curbs on the organization of national or international events so long as the country’s laws and regulations and its procedures were respected. Testimony to that was the recent holding in Algiers of the Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries. Some of those who claimed to have been threatened were actually present in the room where the Committee was meeting. If they were really under threat, it should be asked how they had managed to leave the country to take part in an international Conference. The discussion of the case before the Committee was based on completely false premises and on baseless accusations that could prejudice the ILO and have unforeseeable harmful consequences. Algeria respected human rights and the ILO’s international standards, as was obvious from the number of Conventions it had ratified. As had been explained in detail in his Government’s statement at the start of the discussion, Algeria fully respected trade union rights. Considering the number of trade unions that were active in the country, it was inconceivable that Algeria should be accused of impeding freedom of association, just as it was inconceivable that it should be accused of impeding the right to strike when one knew just how many strikes were called each year. Every country needed laws that everybody respected to avoid anarchy. Employers could not therefore be blamed for taking legal action when strikes were called in total violation of established procedures. No diktat from the employers or from the workers could be tolerated, and that was why the country’s entire social legislation was built on dialogue and negotiation when any disputes arose between parties. Regarding the allegation that a Maghreb forum had not been allowed to take place, should be recalled that no country in the world could tolerate the organization of an international meeting on its territory that violated its laws and regulations. The ITUC had been informed of the meeting via the ILO in a report issued on 8 May 2013. As for the allegation that restrictions had been placed in the way of the CGATA’s constitution, for over a year it had still not responded to the Government’s observations based on the legislation in force concerning the CGATA’s by-laws and its administrative files. As to the cloning of trade unions as alleged by the ITUC, it should be noted that trade unionists in Algeria had never heard of any such practice, if it existed. If some trade unions did not take part in tripartite meetings, that was simply because the most representative organizations were recognized as having certain prerogatives, in accordance with relevant international standards. Sectoral trade unions participated fully in discussions concerned their area of activity and they were consulted on all matters related to the material and moral interests of the workers concerned. Finally, with respect to trade unionists whose dismissal had been allegedly unjustified, they enjoyed the full protection of the law and were entitled to defend their rights in court. It was everybody’s duty to maintain the Committee’s credibility by making sure that the complaints brought before it were based on facts. Algeria reaffirmed its absolute readiness to collaborate with the Committee in order to improve its legislation, which was inevitably a long-term process.

The Worker members indicated that the organizations concerning which the Committee on Freedom of Association had issued a decision in 2013 had still not been registered one year later. Workers’ organizations faced a variety of obstacles on their activities that went beyond mere restrictions on their right to strike, for reasons which were not legally plausible and which were not in conformity with ILO standards. Moreover, the bodies that were called upon to rule on the legality of union action did not meet the requirements of the standards either. Their independence was highly questionable, they were not trusted by the parties concerned and the procedures they applied did not meet the criteria of a fair trial. For all those reasons, the Government should be asked to accept a visit from a direct contacts mission in order to verify with the interested parties the conformity of the laws and regulations and administrative practices with international standards.

The Employer members welcomed the readiness of the Government to cooperate with the Committee and the ILO with a view to improving its national law and practice on freedom of association. There was apparently consensus that the Government should be encouraged to report on the measures it was taking relating to freedom of association, including information on the reform of the Labour Code and measures related to the establishment of trade unions, their registration and social dialogue in general. This information needed to be reflected in the conclusions to the present discussion. In light of the discussions and the submissions of the Worker and the Employer members, as well as those of the Government representative regarding the scope of the Convention, the conclusions should also include reference to the fact that the Committee did not address the right to strike in this case, as the Employers did not agree that there was a right to strike recognized in Convention No. 87. It should be noted that there was no consensus between the groups in the Committee on the right to strike as being part of Convention No. 87. Proposed conclusions which called upon the Government to bring its national law and practice into line with the principles of the right to strike set out by the Committee of Experts were to be avoided.