Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 2006, Publicación: 95ª reunión CIT (2006)

Convenio sobre la libertad sindical y la protección del derecho de sindicación, 1948 (núm. 87) - Zimbabwe (Ratificación : 2003)

The Government communicated the following written information.

The Government of Zimbabwe has been appearing before the Conference Committee on Application of Standards since 2002. In the previous four appearances, Convention No. 98 - Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949, was used as the basis of the listing. This year, Convention No. 87 - Freedom of Association and the Protection of the Right to Organise, has been used as the basis of listing the Government of Zimbabwe. In all the previous appearances, the interventions from the Workers' group and indeed from the representatives of the European Union and its associated members focused on political issues of Zimbabwe which were not linked to the terms of the appearances. In addition, the conclusions of the Officers of the Committee were in all instances biased hence the contestation and rejection by the Government of Zimbabwe of the suggested direct contacts mission in 2005.

The Government of Zimbabwe is of the view that unless the International Labour Conference's Committee on Application of Standards' working methods are urgently revised, it runs the risk of gradually being transformed into a political platform for castigating and ridiculing developing countries which are perceived otherwise by the West. In the case of Zimbabwe, its former colonial power has, since 2000, internationalized the political differences between the two countries over the land issue. Workers' organizations, mainly from Europe, being coordinated by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) are working in cahoots with individuals in the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) who have an appetite for donor money to advance the political agenda of Zimbabwe's former colonial power at every session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) as well as in Zimbabwe.

The listing of Zimbabwe at this session of the ILC is premised on Convention No. 87 - Freedom of Association and the Protection of the Right to Organise. In the report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations on page 132, reference is made to individual cases which fall within the purview of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA). These cases were ably responded to by the Government and some were finalized by the CFA. In addition, the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) was cited. It is interesting to note that the majority of the cases cited on page 132 are the same cases which the Workers' group, ZCTU included, were making reference to during the previous appearances. These cases were dismissed by the Government as either unfounded or of a political nature. Some of the incidences covered in the cases are still to be finalized by the CFA due to lack of adequate information and in some instances, unconvincing arguments on the part of the complainant, in this case, ICFTU. The Committee of Experts noted that POSA does not apply to trade union activities or public gatherings which are not political. Surprisingly, it remains concerned that POSA "may be used in practice so as to impose sanctions on Trade Unionists for conducting a strike, protest, demonstration or other public gathering".

The Committee of Experts' fears are unfounded and it is unfortunate that its position was influenced by the incidences cited in Cases Nos. 2313 and 2365 which were examined by the CFA. As responded to by the Government, the cited incidences did not relate to trade union activities but rather political matters. It is common knowledge that certain individuals within the ZCTU are political and work in cahoots with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the National Constitutional Assembly (a quasi-political organization) and the Crisis Coalition of Non-Governmental Organizations led by the current Secretary-General of the ZCTU. Their agenda is to topple the democratically elected Government of Zimbabwe at the instigation of the foreign powers which want a regime change in Zimbabwe. POSA is about protecting the sovereignty of Zimbabwe and its citizens. It has nothing to do with trade union activities pursued by an insignificant percentage of the population. Accordingly, POSA will remain intact notwithstanding the outcry which is associated with the trade union organizations with political inclinations. Legislation, similar to POSA, exists in several countries whose governments are mindful of their duties to protect their citizens against internal or external elements which are motivated to bring about disorder. Genuine trade unionists in Zimbabwe have no problems with POSA and no reasons to fear it as it does not apply to its meetings. It is only those who are promoting a foreign political agenda of regime change that are against POSA. POSA is not at cross-purpose with the Labour Act (28:01) which governs industrial relations in Zimbabwe.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative (Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare) recalled that the Conference Committee had discussed the application by his country of Convention No. 98 in four consecutive sessions between 2002 and 2005 and that the only difference this year was Zimbabwe's listing for discussion on the application of Convention No. 87. In his Government's view, the interventions in previous sessions had not focused on the issues arising from the application of Convention No. 98 and had shifted to a political discourse. Hence there was the perception by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member States, especially the Africa group, that Zimbabwe's appearance on the case list was politically motivated. He urged the Committee to focus on matters falling within its competence and leave aside issues of a political nature. Turning to the comments of the Committee of Experts, the speaker stated that individual cases of workers dismissed taken up by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association were trivial and political in nature. He questioned whether the Committee would really wish to examine workplace disputes, ordinarily handled by national dispute settlement machineries. Regarding the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), the speaker assured the Committee that the relevant Act was never meant to interfere with trade union activities. Instead, the POSA had been enacted with a view to dealing with the problem of terrorism and protecting Zimbabwe's sovereignty, order and peace. He recalled that POSA had been adopted on the behest of governments who had urged his country to toughen its laws after the terrorist attacks of 2001. Issues pertaining to trade union activities were dealt with by the Labour Act, which was in full conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 87.

The Employer members recalled that the Conference Committee had discussed the application by Zimbabwe of Convention No. 98 on a number of occasions. They acknowledged that some progress had been made but pointed out that important issues had still to be resolved. Since it was the first time that the Committee discussed the case of Zimbabwe under Convention No. 87, it was important for the Government to understand what its obligations were under both Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 98. A key aspect of Convention No. 87 concerned the interdependence of civil liberties and trade union rights. According to the ILO supervisory bodies, restrictions on civil and political activities constituted serious inhibitions of freedom of association. Free and independent trade unions could only develop in an environment of freedom and respect of civil and political rights. In this context, the speaker made a reference to the case of Nicaragua, which was of major importance for the Employer members. Although they understood the Government's wish to separate the political issues from those arising under Convention No. 87, they maintained that the two were inseparable. The provisions of Convention No. 87 presupposed the right to freedom and security of person, the right to freedom of movement, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the right to freedom of assembly and association. This meant that trade union activities could not be restricted solely to trade union matters, since they were intertwined with political questions.

The Worker members expressed their regret about the fact that in its reply the Government had hardly touched on the concerns voiced by the Committee of Experts but had rather confined itself to general comments which had not responded to the latter's requests. In their view, there was no doubt that the Government of Zimbabwe engaged in gross and flagrant violations of fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of association, despite the fact that it had ratified and hence undertaken to abide by the ILO Conventions on freedom of association. They stressed that Zimbabwe was not being discussed for a consecutive sixth year because of its land reform policy, its international status or geographical size, but merely because of its flagrant disregard of Convention No. 87. The Worker members drew the Committee's attention to the fact that the Government had often relied on the provisions of the POSA for the purpose of imposing a ban on gatherings, demonstrations and strikes and harassing trade union leaders. In support of their submissions, the Worker members presented to the Committee a number of refusals by the authorities to carry out public meetings and demonstrations. In one case where the request to commemorate women's day was granted, the restrictions imposed by the authorities included the prohibition of singing or shouting slogans, of explicitly or implicitly raising or discussing political issues, and a strict timetable for the event and the monitoring by security forces. In this context, the Worker members invited the Government to acknowledge the importance of the resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1970, according to which "the rights conferred upon workers' and employers' organizations must be based on respect for those civil liberties which have been enunciated, in particular in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that the absence of these civil liberties removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights".

The Worker members also referred to the cases pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association as evidence of Zimbabwe's disrespect of trade union rights. They pointed to instances of arbitrary arrest and injury of trade unionists and trade union leaders (Case No. 2313), dismissal and deportation of South African trade unionists for participation in strike action (Case No. 2365), anti-trade union dismissal of the recently re-elected president of the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), Mr. Lovemore Matombo, and the withholding of owed payment (Case No. 2328), police raiding the headquarters of the ZCTU (Case No. 2184) and manhandling of its recently elected Secretary-General, Wellington Chibebe (Case No. 2238). In closing, the Worker members also brought to the attention of the Conference the recent case of deportation of foreign trade unionists who were invited to participate in the congress of the ZCTU.

The Government member of Cuba stated that Zimbabwe had been placed on the list of countries called upon to provide explanations to the Committee, and on each occasion the Government had provided explanations that were easily understood by all. In particular, when perusing the report of the Committee of Experts, it could be seen that this was a case relating to the application of the national legislation of a State, which was merely an internal matter of a sovereign State. Therefore, the Government of Zimbabwe should be trusted to give proper effect to the POSA without violating its international commitments deriving from Convention No. 87, particularly as the Government had guaranteed that the Act did not apply to trade union activities or public assemblies which were not of a political nature, as indicated in document D.12. For this reason it was necessary to be careful when noting the present case, in which an attempt was being made to relate the internal situation of a country to compliance with international labour standards, which was tantamount to taking a position on a subject that was not within the mandate of the Committee. What should be done was to offer ILO technical assistance and cooperation.

The Government member of Austria took the floor on behalf of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union; the Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania, the Candidate Countries Turkey, Croatia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Country of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the EFTA countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, aligned themselves with this declaration. He stated that, in the light of the Government's reply to the observations of the Committee of Experts contained in document D.12, a reaction was warranted. He strongly rejected Zimbabwe's assertion that the comments made by European Union Members States in earlier sessions of the Conference Committee on the country's obligations under Convention No. 98 focused on political issues, not directly linked to the question falling within the Committee's mandate. Social and labour standards were inseparable from human rights issues and by their very nature "political". It was therefore absolutely legitimate for the members of the Conference Committee to refer to the human rights situation in a given country in general when examining its compliance with the labour standards under scrutiny. In the opinion of the European Union, the language employed by the Government in document D.12 was polemic, even insulting and detrimental to the authority and work of the ILO supervisory system and called for its further strengthening. The speaker noted however that the oral presentation by the Government representative was more moderate in its tone than in document D.12. Turning to the application by Zimbabwe of Convention No. 87, the European Union Member States endorsed the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts concerning the implications for the freedom of assembly of the POSA, which provided for the prohibition of trade union public meetings and gatherings that were deemed not to be for "bona fide purposes", without at the same time stipulating specific criteria for the determination of what constituted "bona fide purposes", thus opening the door for arbitrary decisions. They emphasized that workers' organizations should be free to voice their opinions on political issues in the broad sense of the term and to express their views publicly on a government's economic and social policies. They endorsed the requests made by the Committee of Experts in relation to Zimbabwe's application of Convention No. 87.

The Government member of Canada expressed his delegation's concern that the Government used the POSA to deny the rights of trade unionists to conduct a strike, protest, demonstration or other public gathering. In addition, the Canadian Government had protested against the arrest and detention of leaders and members of the ZCTU and had made representations for the respect of the right of freedom of expression and assembly and freedom of association. In particular, Canada had called on the Government of Zimbabwe to refrain from violence or undue force against peaceful protestors. Moreover, it was disturbing to note the frequent prevention of international labour union representatives from entering the country to meet with national trade unions and the Government should facilitate international exchanges between labour union representatives. The speaker mentioned his country's support for the labour movement in Zimbabwe, including research on the informal economy. He concluded by encouraging the Tripartite Negotiation Forum talks between the Government, business and the ZCTU that resumed last year.

The Government member of Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the Africa group, stated that the request of the Africa group for regional balance in the representation of countries in the selection of cases, formulated in 2005, had been acknowledged. Turning to the case under discussion, the speaker recalled that in its report, the Committee of Experts had stated that section 24 of the POSA, which had been criticized for conferring to the authorities a discretionary power to prohibit public gatherings, did not apply to gatherings of members of professional, vocational or occupational bodies held for non-political purposes or bona fide trade union purposes. The Africa group appreciated the concerns of the Committee of Experts, but since this particular issue was currently pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association under Cases Nos. 2313 and 2365, the Conference Committee should not have taken up the same issue before the former body was given sufficient time to conclude its examination. The Africa group believed that the simultaneous examination of the case by two supervisory bodies was counter-productive, putting the country in a position of feeling haunted and harassed. Turning to the question of the manner in which trade unions should articulate their demands, the speaker supported the idea of a practice that favoured tripartism and social dialogue instead of the threatening and antagonizing practices of holding protests, demonstrations and strikes. She referred to the experience of her country, which, in an effort to overcome similar problems, had discovered the value of social dialogue. African trade unionists should learn from this experience that workers' rights were best safeguarded through negotiation. She called upon the Committee to drop the case from the list of individual cases and invited the Office to strengthen the capacity of the social partners so that they would engage in meaningful social dialogue.

The Government member of Namibia stated that the Government of Zimbabwe had fully addressed the requests by the Committee of Experts. With respect to the POSA, its response had clearly shown that it did not limit or ban trade union activities. Noting his surprise at the inclusion of this case on the conference list, he called for more clarity and transparency in the methods in determining the list of individual cases, and for the discussions to avoid focusing on political issues.

The Government member of Kenya stated that the Government of Zimbabwe had responded to the issues raised, and pointed out that the situation in Zimbabwe was a particular mix of national and international politics. Given the close relationship between the ZCTU and the Movement for Democratic Change, the supervisory bodies should apply the principles of fairness and honesty and set aside cases where trade union activities were flavoured with politics.

The Government member of South Africa stated that this case was very general and lacked specific charges. He appealed to the Committee to separate political issues from trade union matters, since part of the problem was a trade union in Zimbabwe that was pursuing a political agenda. He also called on the Committee to grant its confidence to the Government of Zimbabwe in order to pursue the application of Convention No. 87 without the feeling of being harassed.

The Worker member of Zimbabwe stated that during the last five years the ZCTU had been harassed by the police and other security agencies, and in all cases of arrest the detained had been charged under the POSA, despite the fact that section 24 of the Act explicitly stated that trade unions were exempted from applying for permission to hold trade union meetings or processions. For the last five years the courts had ruled that the trade unions were innocent but the uniformed police continued to harass them. In order to be able to freely assemble for trade union activities, special permission was needed from the police, which very often was denied. He further expressed concern about the ruling of the Supreme Court that had overturned the legality of a strike for the very first time. Furthermore, during the 6th Congress held by the ZCTU, some of the invited guests were deported. The speaker pointed out that reforms regarding the prison services had not taken place, despite a Government majority in the parliament, and that civil servants remained without a collective bargaining framework. He concluded by stating that the situation in his country was confirmed in the observations of the Committee of Experts and that industrial relations and dispute settlement were now treated under POSA.

The Worker member of Germany stated that she was speaking as the Workers' spokesperson in the Committee on Freedom of Association. Whatever was discussed in the Committee on Freedom of Association with regard to specific cases was of utmost importance to the work of the present Committee.

The Government member of Nigeria raised a point of order claiming that the findings of the Committee on Freedom of Association were not the subject of discussion before the present Committee.

The Chairperson ruled on the point of order, that any kind of illustrative information was admissible before the Committee and requested the Worker member of Germany to restrict herself to providing such information.

The Worker member of Germany stated that the Committee on Freedom of Association had had to deal with the case of Zimbabwe only two weeks ago. Case No. 2365 concerned several trade union leaders who were in jail since 2004 without indication of reasons; with the dismissal of 56 workers of the Netone factory, who had participated in a strike because management had left the bargaining table; and the expulsion from Zimbabwe of a trade union delegation from South Africa. The case had been dealt with in the Committee for the third time. Since the Government had not yet answered the Committee's questions from June last year, two weeks ago the Committee had to deal with the Case without any reports from the Government. The case touched upon one of the most basic trade union rights concerning the defence of their economic and social rights - the right to strike.

In the case of the strike at the state telecommunications enterprise, Zimpost and TelOne, management had not paid the wage increases, to which it had been sentenced by a court of law. Management decided unilaterally to pay less than half of the wage increases decided by the court. The workers from TelOne approached the Minister in charge and the State Secretary, Karkoga Kasela, instructed management to find an out-of-court solution. Upon the management's refusal, the workers announced a strike, which began two weeks later, on 6 October 2004. On 12 October, some 25,000 workers (half of the workers of the post and telecommunications sector) joined the strike. On 21 October, the Government set up armed sentries in the major post and telecommunications offices throughout the country. The guards were used to intimidate the striking workers and local trade union leaders. One day before the beginning of this massive strike, the trade union leader Sikosana was arrested in Bulawayo, six further trade unionists were arrested in Gweru and only released after payment of a penalty. The speaker pointed out that the Committee on Freedom of Association had found that the arrest of trade unionists in this context, even briefly, was a fundamental violation of the right to freedom of association. The arrest of trade unionists in connection with their trade union activities related to the representation of their members constituted a serious interference into civil rights in general and in trade union rights. The present Government had only ratified Convention No. 87 in 2003. The question arose why the Government was not prepared to implement Convention No. 87.

Law and practice were, unfortunately, further than ever from being in accord with Convention No. 87. The Government should do all to implement the Convention, so that the workers of Zimbabwe and trade unionists could exercise their right of association without fear of repressive measures. She hoped that the Government would also be prepared to accept the offer of a direct contacts mission. This would be an important sign that the Government was prepared to cooperate with the ILO in the observance of Convention No. 87.

The Worker member of Brazil stated that the flagrant contradiction arising in the case of Zimbabwe was not between workers and the Government, but between a government of a poor and exploited African country and certain weighty superpowers which wished to continue to dominate and control the wealth of the planet. It exemplified the contrast between justice and injustice. For four consecutive years, the pretext for sanctioning Zimbabwe had been Convention No. 98. As had occurred the previous year, the report of the Committee of Experts clearly showed that there was no technical justification for Zimbabwe to appear on the list of the Conference Committee, although the pretext had changed, as the case now related to Convention No. 87. In reality, it was just a matter of finding a pretext to attempt to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, which amounted to political interference that was totally beyond the principles of the ILO. She emphasized that the ILO could not let itself be taken over by the racial hatred of those who had upheld apartheid for centuries and who wished to continue dominating the land and wealth that belonged to the people of Zimbabwe. If it adopted this type of discrimination towards developing countries which were seeking to follow their own path, without respecting multilateral principles, the ILO would run the risk of becoming a political tool of the major powers which wished to impose their domination.

The Worker member of Nigeria stressed the solidarity between workers in different countries and between States. If his own and other African governments could live with strikes, they should encourage their sister government in Zimbabwe to do the same in the true spirit of sharing experiences. The speaker pointed out that the only job creation in Zimbabwe occurred in the informal sector and attempts by the ZCTU to organize them had been seriously hampered by the Government. This issue being at the heart of Convention No. 87, he called on the Government to stop interfering with the freedom of association, which was also detrimental to the prospect of social dialogue, and he asked the Government to fully respect the Convention and to engage in genuine social dialogue with the ZCTU.

The Worker member of Malaysia expressed his serious concern over the magnitude of the violations of Convention No. 87 and recalled that international trade union cooperation and solidarity were fundamental elements of the Convention. He recalled union-related workshops that had been broken up by the authorities. In this respect, he denounced the Government's deportation of international trade union delegations, including the General Secretary of COSATU, and urged the Government to immediately stop the repression of its own citizens and its interference against international trade union solidarity, to which the speaker himself had been exposed. He condemned the Government for its lack of respect for workers' rights and Convention No. 87.

The Worker member of South Africa noted that in most of Zimbabwe's neighbouring countries there was the freedom of association and the right to demonstrate. In her country, workers "toy-toyed" against everything they were unhappy about, a right enjoyed in most Southern African Development Community countries. She disagreed with the position of some government members that this case was a conspiracy by developed countries against Zimbabwe. This case was an unambiguous case of violation of Convention No. 87 and all countries should take a strong stand so that one day the workers in Zimbabwe could be free.

The Employer member of Zimbabwe stated that for the very first time the Government had instigated discussions with the social partners to bring about a turnaround in the economy. In his opinion, the present case stemmed from the Government's efforts to achieve macroeconomic stability. The Government had appeared several times before this Committee in connection with Convention No. 98 and this had resulted in certain steps to amend labour legislation, for which all social partners had to be complimented. However, the employers in Zimbabwe found the issues under discussion in this case too broad and distant from labour legislation. For example, the reference made to the POSA was connected to political issues. In addition, some cases referred to by the Committee of Experts dated back to 1997 while others were still pending either before the Committee on Freedom of Association or other authorities. The Zimbabwean employers did not feel comfortable to comment upon these pending cases. The speaker expressed his hope for stronger social dialogue which appeared to be developing through the tripartite Negotiating Forum and the National Economic Revival Council. He welcomed continued technical assistance from the ILO to facilitate the creation of an environment for business and investment to prosper and to create more wealth and employment.

The Government representative, in response to a comment by the Worker member of Germany, indicated that no trade union leader had been imprisoned since 2004. He stated that while there existed the right to make a procession, the Government had also to protect private property and the rights of other persons. For this reason, the police in Zimbabwe prescribed conditions on ZCTU demonstrations, which were often violent. He stressed the efforts that had been made to address labour issues through last year's meeting with the social partners. It was hoped this dialogue would lead to the adoption of a protocol for the stabilization of income and prices. Regarding the postal workers who were dismissed, the speaker pointed out that the courts had upheld these dismissals, and this was the rule of law. This did not prevent a discussion of certain administrative matters for helping dismissed workers in this case, and the Government was willing to pursue such discussions. No specific fault could be found with Zimbabwean labour law, and even the ZCTU had hailed the Labour Act as progressive. The speaker maintained that, in his country, certain trade unions were agitating for the destabilization of the country and had an open political agenda. For example, permission had been given for a commemoration of occupational safety and health week, at which a senior official from his Ministry was to speak. Yet, the attendees all sported political T-shirts and caps, which was inappropriate for a trade union event. Demonstrations of this nature occurred as his delegation was about to depart for Geneva to attend the International Labour Conference, and the demonstrators hoped to gain international attention. As for the expulsion of foreign trade unionists from Zimbabwe, he pointed out that all countries had immigration laws which allowed sovereign States to determine who could enter their country. He concluded by stating that this was a politically motivated case. He hoped the issues in this case could be addressed through social dialogue and he welcomed any usual technical assistance from the ILO.

The Employer members expressed their appreciation for the reasoned tone in which the Government had addressed the issues in the present session. It was evident from the discussion that the Government did not understand the difference between protection of trade union rights by the Committee on Freedom of Association, the obligations under Convention No. 87, or the difference between Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. They recalled that the ratification of Convention No. 87 required law and practice to be brought into line with the Convention, including the protection of the civil liberties of workers' or employers' organizations. While the Government had engaged in social dialogue, this was not the same thing as freedom of association. Social dialogue was a means, however, through which the Government could solve the problem, with ILO technical assistance. They hoped the Government would accept technical assistance in this case.

The Worker members expressed their regret about the fact that a large number of African governments had supported the Government of Zimbabwe in its defiance of Convention No. 87. They declared they would not be intimidated and were resolved to continue their quest for the recognition of their inalienable fundamental freedoms, as enshrined in the African Charter of Human and People's Rights, which, in their view, was flagrantly betrayed by those members of the Committee that supported the Government of Zimbabwe. They also disassociated themselves from the Worker member of Brazil, whose assertions did not represent the trade union movement. The Worker members asserted their right to address all issues arising under Convention No. 87, explaining that these were directly linked to their ability to find work and ensure adequate working conditions. They recalled that in August 2001 three workers of the government-owned ZISCO Steel Company were shot dead during a strike calling for better working conditions and pay. Despite their repeated calls to President Mugabe to order an investigation into the deaths, no inquiry had been carried out up to the present day. The Worker members further condemned the Government for systematically "politicizing" all socio-economic issues legitimately raised by the ZCTU as well as for its systematic and abusive attacks on the ICFTU whenever it raised issues of fundamental rights. In their opinion, it would be an abdication of duty if the collective voice of labour remained silent in the face of violations. Every country had security laws, but not every country used these laws against legitimate trade union rights. They expressed the hope that the support demonstrated by the African countries for the Government of Zimbabwe was merely an act of public relations or diplomatic solidarity and that behind the scenes the same countries would encourage the Government to comply with the standards set out in Convention No. 87.

The Government representative stated that his Government had never turned down technical assistance from the ILO. It would not, however, accept a direct contacts mission. It would accept a strengthening of the Subregional Office in Harare.

Following a pause prior to the adoption of the conclusion, the Workers members wished to draw the Committee's attention to the unacceptable attitude of the Zimbabwean Government delegation - they had committed some intolerable verbal and physical aggression on certain Worker delegates and ILO staff. The Worker members demanded the Government's excuses for this behaviour, otherwise they would request the incident to be reflected in the Provisional Record.

Another Government representative stated that he was not familiar with any "incident" and he had no intention of apologizing to a purely vacuous intervention by the Workers.

The Government representative refused to accept the conclusions in their present form. He reiterated that the high-level technical assistance mission emanating from the Conference Committee was not acceptable, rather the Government was willing to accept the usual technical cooperation. He further pointed out that his delegation was aware of the difference between a high-level technical assistance mission directed by the Committee and the usual technical assistance.

The Employer members affirmed that the Minister had accepted to receive enhanced technical assistance.

The Worker members concurred with the statement of the Employer members. Technical assistance had been accepted several times during the Committee's present session. The envisaged high-level technical cooperation would be carried out by the Office, and not by this Committee. They, therefore, felt that the conclusions were not out of context.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the debate that followed.

The Committee observed that the comments of the Committee of Experts referred to the use of the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) in the arrest of, and the placing of charges against, trade unionists and union officers by reason of their trade union activities, as well as the discretionary power granted to authorities to prohibit public meetings and to impose fines or imprisonment in case of violations of any such prohibitions. The Committee also noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association examined several complaints against the Government regarding these serious issues.

The Committee noted in the Government's statement that the cases of the Committee on Freedom of Association that had been referred to by the Committee of Experts were not new and concerned small and trivial matters and that they had not been raised by the social partners with the Government. It further noted in the Government's statement that the POSA did not apply to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities. Trade union meetings that did not have a political purpose could take place without interference.

The Committee also noted with concern, however, the information provided concerning the situation of trade unions in Zimbabwe, the abusive use of the POSA to ban public demonstrations and the barring of entry into the country of certain international trade unionists.

The Committee requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the POSA was not used to impede the right of workers' organizations to exercise their activities, or to hold meetings and public protests relating to government economic and social policy. The Committee emphasized that the exercise of trade union rights was intrinsically linked to the assurance of full guarantees of basic civil liberties, including the rights to express opinions freely, and to hold assemblies and public meetings. Like the Committee of Experts, the Committee recalled that the development of the trade union movement and the acceptance of its ever-increasing recognition as a social partner in its own right meant that workers' organizations must be able to express their opinions on political issues in the broad sense of the term and, in particular, that they may publicly express their views on the Government's economic and social policy. The Committee insisted that no trade unionist should be arrested or charged for legitimate trade union activities. The Committee requested the Government to consider accepting a high-level technical assistance mission from the Office aimed at ensuring the full respect for freedom of association and basic civil liberties not only in law, but also in practice. The Committee expressed the firm hope that, in the very near future, it would be in a position to note concrete progress as regards observance of the rights embodied in the Convention and requested the Government to send a detailed report thereon in time for the next meeting of the Committee of Experts.

The Government representative refused to accept the conclusions in their present form. He reiterated that the high-level technical assistance mission emanating from the Conference Committee was not acceptable, rather the Government was willing to accept the usual technical cooperation. He further pointed out that his delegation was aware of the difference between a high-level technical assistance mission directed by the Committee and the usual technical assistance.

The Employer members affirmed that the Minister had accepted to receive enhanced technical assistance.

The Worker members concurred with the statement of the Employer members. Technical assistance had been accepted several times during the Committee's present session. The envisaged high-level technical cooperation would be carried out by the Office, and not by this Committee. They, therefore, felt that the conclusions were not out of context.