Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2003, Publication: 91st ILC session (2003)

A Government representative, with reference to the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the application of Convention No. 87 in his country, denied the existence of any restrictions on freedom of association. He said that the Convention was indeed applied in Cameroon and that freedom of association was a reality. He recalled that the ten provinces and 58 departments which made up his country were covered by workers' organizations, which were coordinated at the provincial level by a vice-president and at the departmental level by a departmental confederation. The country currently had over 580 first-level unions affiliated to two major confederations, which were amongst the most representative. Of the 20 national collective agreements, 11 had been negotiated and signed by these two confederation, while five others were nearing completion. An establishment agreement had been concluded on 6 March 2002, in the context of the construction project of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline, with the co-contractor Doba-Logistic Cameroon. Industrial action had been taken against the Government on several occasions concerning, among others, the above pipeline, privatization, the wage claims of public servants, public hospitals and public education establishments. This all showed that freedom of association was not subject to any restriction and that trade union activists were not muzzled.

He said that what appeared to be causing a problem was the fact that these practices were not enshrined in the law. It appeared that it was necessary to repeal Act No. 68/LF/7 of 18 November 1968 and its implementing Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969. Moreover, it would be necessary to repeal section 6(2) of the Labour Code respecting the recognition of the legal existence of a trade union, as well as sections 6 to 11 of the Labour Code respecting the documents to be supplied for the registration of a trade union. However, he maintained that these amendments would have no effect on freedom of association. He drew attention to the origins of the 1968 Act under the former Federal Ministry of Territorial Administration, now the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization, and indicated that it had been adopted at a time when the concepts of peace and stability were still nebulous. At that time, its scope covered not only labour matters, but also anything related to the security of the State. He added that the 1968 Act and the Act of 1992 issuing the Labour Code were the responsibility of two different ministerial departments. All of this added to the complexity of the situation. The advent of a multi-partite system in 1990 had meant that it was possible to hold a vote and enact a whole series of laws setting forth public freedoms. The 1968 Act was now obsolete and completely unknown. With regard to the above sections of the Labour Code, he informed the Office and the Committee of Experts of the fact that the file, including the reservations expressed recently by the USLC, had been transmitted to the National Advisory Labour Commission for advice before being forwarded to the Commission for Legislative Reform. In conclusion, he said that in his opinion the problem did not consist of the failure to apply or to comply with the Convention, but at the level of the deletion of the above sections of the Labour Code. In this respect, he said that the procedures were under way and results were awaited.

The Worker members emphasized that freedom of association in Cameroon had been the subject of several observations by the Committee of Experts since 1989. Furthermore, the present Committee had considered the case of Cameroon in 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000. The circumstances had hardly changed for over ten years and the Committee of Experts had commented on the following points: the legal existence of trade unions or occupational associations of public servants; the possibility of judicial proceedings against the founders of a trade union which had not been registered; prior authorization from the authorities for affiliation to an international organization; and excessive formalities allowing for wide discretion with regard to the registration of trade unions. The Worker members also recalled that the Committee had included a special paragraph on this case in its conclusions in 1999 and 2000. In 2000, the Committee had suggested that an ILO mission should visit the country. This mission had taken place in April 2001 in order to provide technical assistance with respect to the outstanding legal issues. However, the Worker members, in the same way as the Committee of Experts, noted that no information had been supplied on any progress made. They reiterated their request for the Government to provide the Committee with information on the progress made following the technical assistance mission and in response to the comments of the Committee of Experts. They noted that certain practices appeared to be no longer in existence. However, they recalled that it was the Government's responsibility, on an urgent basis, to ensure in a clear and unequivocal manner that, in addition to practice, the laws were also in conformity with the Convention. In conclusion, the Worker members regretted the lack of progress and the Government's continued failure to comply with its obligations.

The Employer members recalled that this case had been examined by the Committee for a long time, and most recently in 1999 and 2000. Following a three-year break in the Committee's examination of the case, it was disappointing that the desired improvements did not appear to have materialized. In the same way as on previous occasions, the Government representative had once again denied that certain of the comments of the Committee of Experts were correct, or had indicated that changes in the national law meant that they were no longer valid, or had cited certain difficulties in the process of bringing the national legislation into line with the requirements of the Convention. The Employer members regretted that they had heard similar statements on many occasions in the past and were distressed that the case had dragged on for so many years. With regard to Act No. 68/LF/19 of 19 November 1968, under which the existence in law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants was subject to prior approval by the Minister, they noted that despite the constant indications that the situation was about to be changed, the Committee of Experts had received no information on any actual changes. With reference to Decree No. 2000/287, which offered broader possibilities for the release of public servants for trade union activities, they acknowledged that this amounted to some progress, but pointed out that prior authorization was still required for the establishment of trade unions in the public service and that a further amendment would be required to the legislation to allow their affiliation to international organizations. In conclusion, they deplored the fact that the Government representative appeared to prefer to provide indications which obscured the situation rather than clarifying it. They deeply regretted that, despite the examination of the case for such a long period, no progress had been made with regard to a very clear violation of the principles of freedom of association.

A Worker member of Cameroon indicated that the Government, without modifying the laws on prior authorization of trade union organizations, had nevertheless facilitated this aspect in practice. However, this improvement should no longer be considered as a favour and should be definitely set out in the law. Furthermore, the requirement of prior authorization for the affiliation of a trade union to an international organization was set out in emergency legislation, dating from the turbulent period following the independence of Cameroon. It was now appropriate to repeal this law in order to adapt to a time of peace, which was so rare in Africa and was priceless. He emphasized that the trade unions placed great expectations in their effective contribution to the development, as well as their tripartite participation in the harmonization of African labour law. He indicated in this connection that the trade unions had been regularly invited to be involved in this work, and he hoped that, as in the case of the countries of the European Union, a supranational instrument for the harmonization of labour law would definitively correct all the existing imperfections in national law.

He indicated that the organizations of public servants now had the right to exist. However, it was necessary to remain vigilant so that their existence contributed to the strengthening of social dialogue in Cameroon. Finally, he invited the Committee to assist the Government of Cameroon in making further progress so that the laws under discussion would no longer be considered as a favour or as a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of trade union organizations.

The Worker member of France stated that despite the fact that the Minister of Labour of Cameroon had recently been appointed, in this Committee he embodied the continuity of the State. In fact, it appeared that the Government believed that by changing the Minister of Labour every three years it would restart its international obligations from zero. With regard to the imprisonment of trade union members working for the Cameroon railway company (CAMRAIL), an enterprise of the French group BOLLORE, she said that the director-general of this company maintained a climate of trade union repression in his enterprise. In 2002, he had stated that if possible he would fire all trade union members. Today, it had to be said that he was using devious methods to achieve what he was not able to do directly. Over the past two years, the old railway equipment had caused several derailments. He claimed that the trade union members of CGT-liberté had themselves caused these derailments, but she emphasized that affiliates of the ICFTU did not resort to such techniques. On 2 February 2003, following these accusations, 14 trade union members had been imprisoned. On 13 February, as a result of the intervention of the ICFTU, the ILO and Force Ouvrière, 13 of them had been released. The last one had been released only on 20 February 2003, despite his health problems. On 2 April 2003, the wife of this trade union member, an employee of CAMRAIL, had been informed that she would be transferred 300 km from Yaoundé. This woman, the mother of a child of 11/2 years of age, had refused to move. She had been dismissed following her refusal, and on 14 April, 12 days after her dismissal, she had been accused of stealing 14 million CFA francs. Following this accusation, she had been arrested and imprisoned. International pressure had led to her release after three days of detention. On 20 April, her husband was been imprisoned again because he refused to participate in the investigation of his case as the enterprise had not provided evidence to support the serious charges brought against him. He was released two-and-a-half weeks later. She indicated that her organization had been summoned to Yaoundé because it supported CGT-liberté. These facts illustrated the gravity of the situation that existed in Cameroon and indicated the need for the conclusions on this case to be placed in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

The Worker member of Côte d'Ivoire, referring to the application of Convention No. 87 in developing countries, denounced certain practices which were harmful to workers and their organizations. As indicated in the report of the Committee of Experts, the amendment of certain laws had unfortunately remained frozen for a long time in the offices of the ministries. During that time, the workers had been suffering and the Committee had been waiting. Governments had found a way of wasting time, namely the need for an authorization issued by the State for the operation of a trade union. During the period prior to the granting of such an authorization, the founders of trade unions were dismissed on the pretext of imaginary offences.

The Committee on Freedom of Association had received many complaints concerning freedom of association in Cameroon over recent years. He therefore called for the appropriate legislation to be adopted. The application of a Convention depended essentially on the existence of a legal framework which respected its provisions. He also emphasized that workers in the public service, in the same way as in the private sector, had the right to establish organizations of their own choosing and to affiliate to the international organizations that they wished without prior authorization from the State or the employer.

He said that Convention No. 87 was the key to real freedom in Africa, true mutual respect between Africans and the development of workers. While the ratification of the Convention was to be warmly welcomed, it also had to be applied throughout the continent. If this was achieved, it would be a very favourable development for all Africans and would consolidate a continent under the rule of law, justice and freedom of association.

Another Worker member of Cameroon indicated that the debate on freedom of association in Cameroon was of interest to millions of workers. In order to ensure that its work was more effective, the Conference Committee should take due account of the activities undertaken in the country. He gave the example of his recent participation in a strike in his country, although the Committee of Experts had not mentioned by name the main trade union organization involved. With respect to the detentions mentioned by the Worker member of France, he declared that they were the result of an internal conflict between trade unions and that this conflict did not prejudice the principle of freedom of association in the country.

Another Worker member of Cameroon, referring to the intervention made by the Worker member of France, indicated that he would have liked to be informed earlier of the accusations raised in order to prepare a reply and provide further information. He indicated that he agreed with the intervention made by the Worker member of Cameroon who preceded him as it related to the need for the Conference Committee to confine itself to the general examination of cases. However, he voiced his concern over the examination of the problem of an individual, particularly when that person was a colleague who was close to a Worker member of the Committee. He also warned of the dangers of outsiders imposing their perception on events which had occurred far from them.

The Government representative warned the members of the Committee against the dangers of making false accusations. For example, the speaker who had falsely indicated that a trade unionist had been imprisoned had, the previous year, made allegations concerning a shooting incident which had since been proven to be fabricated. Finally, he said that he had noted the positive statements made during the discussion and that his Government was fully prepared to provide the information requested.

The Worker members noted that, even after receiving high-quality technical assistance from the ILO, the Government had not demonstrated respect for the ILO or this Committee. They therefore called for this case of continued failure to comply to be placed in a special paragraph of the report of the Committee.

The Employer members reiterated that the discussion of the situation in Cameroon had been going on for years in the Conference Committee. Yet the statement by the Government representative provided no precise information on what measures would be taken and exactly when. Despite all the previous efforts made by the Conference Committee, no substantive progress had been achieved. In view of the continued failure to comply with the Convention, they believed that it would be totally justified to place the Committee's conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee emphasized with concern that for many years serious divergences had been noted between national law and practice and the Convention. These grave problems of application related in particular to the requirement of prior authorization to establish a trade union, the right of organization of public servants and the limitations placed upon affiliation to an international organization by organizations of workers in the public service.

The Committee recalled that this case had been discussed on many occasions and regretted to note that no progress had been achieved in practice in the application of the Convention despite the technical assistance provided in 2001. The Committee emphasized that full respect for civil liberties was essential for the application of the Convention and that the Government had to refrain from any interference in the internal affairs of trade unions. It urged the Government to amend its legislation on an urgent basis in order to ensure that workers in both the private and the public sectors could establish and freely administer their organizations without the intervention of the public authorities. The Committee also urged the Government to provide a detailed report on all the matters raised by the Committee of Experts and expressed the firm hope that the Government's next report to the Committee of Experts would reflect concrete and positive progress. The Committee decided that its conclusions would be included in a special paragraph of its report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2000, Publication: 88th ILC session (2000)

A Government representative, Minister of Labour, Employment and Social Protection, stated that the process of revising all the texts had been under way since 1990, and significant advances had been made with regard to civil liberties, democracy and human rights. It was in this framework that the 1968 Act and section 6 of the Labour Code were in the process of being modified.

With regard to texts in the social domain, the Labour Code of 1992 provided for tripartite committees (the National Consultative Labour Committee and the National Committee on Occupational Health and Safety) to take note of and validate texts prior to their submission to the Government and their transmission to the National Assembly. As the composition of the committees was tripartite and as acute problems had been encountered concerning the representativeness of the workers' organizations, it had not been possible to set up these committees. These committees had not therefore been convoked, although significant means had been provided in the state budget. What was primordial for Cameroon was not the modification of a law which itself was henceforth null and void, but the reality. This reality had been brought to the attention of the ILO and this Committee. On the other hand, the normal functioning of unions in the public service had been established. The unions operated without interference from the Government regarding their constitution, calling strikes and carrying out these strikes. This was the case of the strikes which had recently taken place in secondary and higher education. The Government had been careful to negotiate with the unions, which on this occasion obtained the release of more than CFA2 billion of arrears for payment of the correction of examinations. At this level, the Government thought its practice was in compliance with the objectives of the ILO. The reality of collective bargaining was demonstrated by a document dated 24 May 2000, which he submitted to the Committee.

The real situation was always more important than fantasies. The Government denounced the incessant harassment to which it was subject coming from those whose aim was to present a distorted picture of the truth. If it was through ignorance of this reality, the Government strongly suggested sending a mission of inquiry on site to verify the normal functioning of unions in the public service and the reality of the process of reformulating legislative and regulatory texts in the field. Failing such an on-site mission, it would be difficult for the Government to provide other information to prove that the objectives of the ILO were respected in practice.

The Worker members recalled that this was an old case which had not shown signs of any meaningful progress. This was mainly due to the Government's repeated refusal to cooperate with the Committee and its failure to react to the comments of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association. This case was not complicated; the only obstacle was the Government's reluctance to address the relevant issues. They recalled that Act No. 68/LF/19 and Decree No. 69/DF/7 were in contravention of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Moreover, certain sections of the Labour Code made persons forming a trade union that had not yet been registered liable to prosecution. While this provision mainly applied to civil servants and persons working in the public sector, they recalled that the public sector was a significant employer in Cameroon.

Responding to the Government's claim that the discrepancies between legislation and the requirements of the Convention were small, and that the practice was all that mattered, they recalled that the Convention required conformity in both law and practice. Moreover, there was no indication that the Convention was respected in practice at all. Persons leading unregistered trade unions continued to be suspended, intimidated, and harassed. In the private sector, there continued to be frequent interference in the main trade unions, the CCTU and the CSTC, and the Government continued to be active in fomenting dissent and establishing rival trade unions in order to weaken the trade union movement. There were also allegations of deregistration of unions and interference in May Day celebrations, and it was recalled that Cameroon had refused to include the CSTC in the Ninth African Regional Meeting in 1999. Finally, since the last International Labour Conference in June 1999, the Cameroonian Parliament had met three times, yet no amendment to the legislation in question had ever been submitted.

Since this case showed no progress and appeared to be deadlocked, the Worker members noted that it would be logical for the Committee simply to repeat its conclusion from last year. However, in the hope of finding a breakthrough in the case, they proposed to the Government that it firmly commit itself to submitting to Parliament, before the session of the Committee of Experts this year, draft legislation amending Act No. 68/LF/19, Decree No. 69/DF/7, and certain sections of the Labour Code, so that such proposed legislation could also be examined by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee next year. Since the Government did not reject the comments of the Committee of Experts, but simply claimed that it would rectify the situation in the near future, it should avail itself of assistance offered by the ILO, the MDT in Yaoundé, and the social partners. If the Government was prepared to do this, then the conclusions from last year could be repeated. If not, the case should be included in a special paragraph to the report to the Conference.

The Employer members pointed out that this was a very old case with which the members of the Committee were all familiar and noted that they did not intend to depart much from the proposal made by the Worker members. The Committee had discussed this case twice in the 1980s and four times in the 1990s, including last year, but no progress had been achieved. The Government representative had supplied the same facts to the Committee as those reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts, namely, that the legislation in question was being revised and new legislation would be enacted. Accordingly, the Government representatives' statements today were merely a repeat of previous years. The national legislation still provided that public sector unions could only be registered with prior approval from the Minister for Territorial Administration and that any infraction was subject to prosecution. They agreed with the Worker members that the law must be amended to bring it into conformity with the Convention. With regard to the requirements of prior approval for affiliation to an international organization, the Employer members noted the Government's statements that the legislation in question was being revised. However, the Government had made the same statements in 1984 and in 1992. This was therefore an extreme case of delay which the Employer members considered unacceptable. They considered it necessary to express the Committee's regret at the lack of progress in this case and agreed with the proposal of the Worker members.

The Worker member of Cameroon said that there was effective freedom of association in his country, since there were two central trade union organizations, occupational federations in the various sectors and national trade unions affiliated to confederations and independent trade unions. Semi-public enterprises were organized in occupational trade unions affiliated to confederations. Section 6(2) of the Labour Code which had been incorporated into the Labour Code in 1992 was not applied in practice. Workers formed trade unions by filing their applications with the trade union registry of the Ministry of Employment, Labour and Social Protection. In the meantime, their unions engaged in all manner of activities including, on occasion, strike action. Nevertheless, under the proposals to revise the Labour Code, all the workers' organizations concurred that it was necessary to remove a clause which appeared to be hiding something and was not in conformity with Convention No. 87. The discord in one central trade union organization should not affect the whole of the trade union movement in the country. He explained the current situation with regard to workers in the public sector. Public employees and contractual workers covered by the Labour Code were organized in trade unions and registered with the trade union registry. Their unions enjoyed the same freedoms as all other trade unions in the private sector. Public servants were currently organized in the Central Public Sector Trade Union Organization (CSP), although it was not clear how this Organization would operate; it might not, for example, enjoy the same prerogatives as central trade unions in the private sector if Act No. 68/LF/19, of 18 November 1968, and Act No. 68/LF/7, of 19 November 1968, were not repealed. The Committee should request the Ministry of Employment, Labour and Social Protection to do its utmost within the Government to ensure that these two Acts were repealed in order to strengthen freedom of association for public servants in keeping with the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

The Worker member of Senegal recalled that the application of Convention No. 87 by Cameroon was a case which was frequently examined by the Conference Committee. The deliberate attempts by the Government to find refuge in the flexibility of a process of the constant modification of legislative texts was not acceptable, since the Committee had been calling for the repeal of the implementing Decree of Act No. 68/LF/7 of 1968. It was evident, despite the Government's posturing, that the issue of freedom of association was not measurable by the yardstick of the mere existence of several trade unions. Otherwise, how was it possible to understand the existence of this evil provision which established that the promoters of a trade union which had not yet been registered, but who acted as if the trade union had been registered were liable to legal action? He considered that this was a very peculiar way of respecting freedom of association. If prior authorization for affiliation to an international organization did not constitute a restriction on freedom of association, what would qualify as a restriction? The information at his disposal demonstrated that the Cameroonian authorities did not, in practice, comply with the obligations deriving from the ratification of Convention No. 87. What was important was not the commitments of governments, which did not last longer than the Conference session, but the adoption of measures, in practice, such as the inclusion of this country in a special paragraph. In most African countries, there was a very real desire to subjugate trade unions, and the so-called prior authorization for the registration of a trade union was a provision which violated their freedom. The existence of a minister responsible for supervising public liberties also demonstrated the will of the public authorities to restrain them. The effective and integral application of Convention No. 87 still represented a conquest to be achieved for Cameroon, as well as his own country. The ratification by Cameroon of Convention No. 87 dated from 1960, which was already 40 years ago. In conclusion, he subscribed to the comments of the Committee of Experts and statement by the Worker members, and especially his proposal to include Cameroon in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of France noted that in view of the importance of this case, the Committee had decided to place it in a special paragraph last year and to urge the Government to take effective measures to eliminate the restrictions on freedom of association and to submit a detailed report on the application of the Convention. The Government had also been requested to set a provisional timetable for the revision of the legislation at issue. No progress had been noted, however. In the context of the discussion of the automatic cases, the Government representative of Cameroon had referred to "reasonable delays". The question remained of what "reasonable delays" constituted in his view. The repeal of the 1968 Act and of section 6(2) of the Labour Code, which was required to ensure the proper application of the Convention, did not require any significant administrative, legislative or regulatory work. However, no bill had been submitted to the Parliament of Cameroon. The repeal of the Decree of 6 January 1969, which was required for the application of Article 5 of the Convention, would be even easier and more rapid.

The obstacles and difficulties of achieving progress in the democratization process were focused on the right to organize of teachers or, in other words, of those who were entrusted with the task of making children into free citizens with a critical sense. Since 1991, the Government had refused to recognize the National Trade Union for Higher Education (SYNES). The absence of any union activity in the export processing zones should also be noted. Furthermore, several acts of interference by the Government in the internal affairs of the Cameroon Workers' Trade Union Confederation (CSTC) were the object of a complaint filed with the Committee on Freedom of Association in March 2000. Note should also be taken of the recent intervention by the Minister of Labour to dismiss the President of the CSTC from his post in a private enterprise for having called a legal strike. Finally, the May Day demonstration of 2000 had been prohibited by the militarization of the area designated for the holding of the meeting, thereby preventing trade union leaders from having access to it and leading to the wounding by gunshot of three workers.

In conclusion, the lack even of apparent goodwill by the Government was unacceptable and to its discredit. The lack of progress is all the more worrying as it was contributing to a deterioration in the situation. In its conclusions, the Committee should set clear time limits for the Government to ensure that national law and practice was brought into conformity with the Convention.

The Government representative strongly objected to the statements of some speakers, among them the Worker member of France. He dismissed as allegations the information according to which trade union activists had been wounded by gunshot following the militarization of an area where the May Day holiday had been celebrated this year, and he demanded the names and other details of the alleged victims. He stated that the area had never been militarized. As to the allegation that he had demanded the dismissal of a trade union official, he also demanded copies of the documentary evidence of the allegation. Such was the accumulation of untruths for which there was not a shred of evidence that he considered it urgent for the Committee of Experts to visit the country so that it could make up its own mind, not on the basis of information spread outside the country, but on the actual situation there. Such a mission would make it possible at long last to put an end to the serious and intolerable stains upon his country's honour. Returning to the problem of prior authorization, he observed that the Cameroon Workers' Trade Union Confederation (CSTC) had developed two heads. However, two executives could not run one and the same confederation, even in Cameroon. This "two-headedness" was not a government jibe, it was merely related to the depths to which the trade union had sunk. The Government was waiting for an office to be set up to be able to register the organization. This did not prevent it in the meantime from working with organizations affiliated to the Confederation and, in proof of its good faith, it informed the Committee that two Cameroonian Worker members were attending its sitting. One was a member of the Union of Cameroon Trade Unions (USC) and the other belonged to the Cameroon Workers' Trade Union Confederation (CSTC). Contrary to the statements made with distressing flippancy by certain speakers, the Worker member of the CSTC had not been appointed by the Government. Instead of congratulating the Government on its objectivity and neutrality, it had been the object of recriminations, unfounded allegations and, in short, harassment. He repeated that, although the challenged Decree had not yet been amended, there had been progress in practice and the fact that the Government had entered into negotiations with the CSTC, which it was said not to have recognized, bore this out. As to the pace of government action, he emphasized that it was not within the competence of the unions and that neither they nor the ILO could run the country in the Government's stead. Nor could the Government set the pace for Parliament. Some speakers had referred to "a reasonable delay". He rejoined that in his country a reasonable delay would be whatever the Government set itself. The Government had no wish to chop up the 1968 Act or the 1992 Labour Code to make some people happy at a time when it was engaged in the global reform of the country's labour legislation. The Government had political will and the changes suggested by the Committee of Experts would be taken into account when the time was ripe. Lastly, he raised the question of the real representativeness of the individual who was passing himself off as the President of the CSTC.

The Worker members explained that the aim of their proposal was to get some movement from the Government, given the lack of progress in the case. In response to the Government representative's statements, the Worker members indicated that the national legislation was simply not in compliance and needed to be amended immediately. The Worker members considered that the Government had not demonstrated any political will to resolve the problems before the Committee. If their proposal of a timetable were rejected, the Worker members cautioned that they would have no choice but to request that the Committee repeat its conclusions of last year in a special paragraph, with the additional conclusion that the Committee regretted the Government's delay in this case.

The Employer members, in response to the Government representative's statements, considered that the Committee was faced with the same situation as in previous years and indicated that the same conclusions from last year would need to be repeated again this year in a special paragraph.

The Government representative declared that it was useless to focus on the need to change a word or a section in a decree. It was more appropriate to concentrate on reality. Hence the need to send an investigatory mission to Cameroon which would make it possible to establish the facts and to verify the truth of the allegations. While dialogue with the supervisory bodies was necessary, their interference was unacceptable. The proposal to set up an investigatory mission, which would allow the Committee of Experts to go to Cameroon, should be taken into consideration in the conclusions of the Committee.

The Worker members, responding to the comments of the Government representative inviting the ILO to come to Cameroon, thought that this invitation was interesting. They hoped the mission would take place quickly and permit an objective investigation into the facts so that the Committee could examine the relevant law and practice in this case.

The Government representative had noted the conclusions adopted by the Committee and had wondered about the respective weight of certain expressions such as " to take note" or "appear in its report". He demanded that excuses be presented to the Government if the defamatory allegations made by certain speakers, in particular those concerning the injured trade unionists and a request for the dismissal of a trade unionist, could not be proven. Finally, he reiterated the wish of his Government for a delegation of experts to come to Cameroon to observe the real situation prior to requiring a time limit for bringing the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker member of Cameroon stated that he had been shocked by certain points in the discussion, especially by the intervention of the Worker member of France, who had demonstrated his total ignorance of the trade union situation in Cameroon. The allegations concerning the prohibition of the demonstration on 1 May 2000 and the events that had taken place were completely false. While this Committee was empowered to interrogate the Government on the non-application of a ratified Convention, any extrapolation which might lead people to create a false impression of the real situation was unacceptable.

The Committee took note of the oral statement made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee recalled that this case had been discussed on numerous occasions over the last two decades. The Committee recalled with great concern that for many years the Committee of Experts had been formulating comments on the discrepancies between national legislation and the requirements of the Convention. In particular, it stressed the need to delete the imposition of previous authorizations for the constitution of trade unions of public servants and for joining foreign occupational organizations. It also urged the Government to repeal provisions allowing for the prosecution of persons forming trade unions not yet registered who would behave as if they were registered. The present Committee also noted that several complaints had been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning interference by the public authority in union matters and anti-union reprisals. The Committee deeply regretted once again that no progress had been achieved in the application of the Convention. It strongly urged the Government once again to remove without delay the obstacles to full freedom of association contained in its law. In this respect, it firmly asked the Government to submit draft bills to Parliament and to the ILO before the next session of the Committee of Experts. The Committee recalled that technical assistance from the ILO with the help of the multidisciplinary team present in Yaoundé was at the Government's disposal. It welcomed the invitation of the Minister to send a mission on the spot in Cameroon. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the next report due this year would describe measures actually taken to ensure full compliance in law with this Convention. The Committee decided that these conclusions would appear in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative had noted the conclusions adopted by the Committee and had wondered about the respective weight of certain expressions such as " to take note" or "appear in its report". He demanded that excuses be presented to the Government if the defamatory allegations made by certain speakers, in particular those concerning the injured trade unionists and a request for the dismissal of a trade unionist, could not be proven. Finally, he reiterated the wish of his Government for a delegation of experts to come to Cameroon to observe the real situation prior to requiring a time limit for bringing the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker member of Cameroon stated that he had been shocked by certain points in the discussion, especially by the intervention of the Worker member of France, who had demonstrated his total ignorance of the trade union situation in Cameroon. The allegations concerning the prohibition of the demonstration on 1 May 2000 and the events that had taken place were completely false. While this Committee was empowered to interrogate the Government on the non-application of a ratified Convention, any extrapolation which might lead people to create a false impression of the real situation was unacceptable.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1999, Publication: 87th ILC session (1999)

The Government has supplied the following information:

The Government reiterates the following explanations given last year to the Conference Committee: Article 6(2) of the Labour Code and Law No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 on trade unions and associations of civil servants are currently being modified along the lines of the observations of the Committee of Experts. The process of revising the texts began in 1990 and continues according to the circular on Government work. This involves texts concerning all sectors of national activity which should be in conformity with the universal principles contained in the various declarations and charters which Cameroon has signed. This work is hard and proceeds according to a schedule. The Committee can thus be reassured that the work is continuing and that it will finish by satisfying the specific concerns regarding freedom of association, in particular by coordinating national texts with the provisions of the Convention.

However, in practical terms, although the texts have not yet been modified, freedom of association does exist in practice as can be seen by the existence of the following unions: the National Union of Contractual Staff of the Administration (SYNCAAE); the National Union of Civil and Financial Service Public Servants (SYNAFCIF); the National Union of Pre-school and Primary School Teachers (SNEPMA); the Cameroon National Teachers' Organization (ONEC); the National Union of State Technical Services Staff (SYNAPTEC); the Cameroon Public Service (CPS); the National Teachers' Union of Cameroon (SYNEC); and the National Union of Higher Education (SYNES).

These unions conduct their activities in full independence and without interference from the Government; they are affiliated to international organizations as can been seen by the frequent trips abroad by their leaders to attend meetings organized by these organizations.

As the Committee can observe, freedom of association is alive and well in Cameroon. In the public sector bringing texts into line with Convention No. 87 will occur in due course; this should not be interpreted as a desire to gag the trade union movement in the public sector in Cameroon.

In keeping with the suggestions of the Committee, the Government will do its best to take the necessary measures in the near future.

In addition, a Government representative referred to the comments made by the Committee of Experts regarding his country. With respect to the requirement that civil servants' trade unions should obtain prior authorization before they could be established, he indicated that the relevant laws and regulations had been under revision since 1990. He recognized that the pace of the revision was slow, but pointed out that this delay was due to the fact that such a broad revision necessarily touched upon many different areas. He assured the Committee that all of the texts examined would be brought into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Urging that a practical and realistic approach should prevail over a formal, theoretical approach, he emphasized the importance of the practical application of the Convention. He referred in particular to the Government's written communication in which it was mentioned that a number of unions had been formed in recent years. He therefore considered that, in actual practice, there was trade union pluralism in Cameroon in both the public and private sectors. He also maintained that trade unions in the country were able to operate with complete independence. With regard to their affiliation to international organizations, he indicated that trade unions could become affiliated to organizations of their own choosing, and noted that the many trips abroad made by union representatives attested to this fact.

In conclusion, he asserted that above all, it was necessary to examine the actual practice in the area of freedom of association, as such an examination would permit the Committee to determine that there was no basis for criticizing Cameroon in this regard.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for his presence and for the information provided. They recalled that the ILO supervisory machinery could only work if governments fulfilled their reporting obligations which presupposed a minimum of willingness on the part of governments to take into account the comments of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. In this respect, they deplored that the Government had not sent a report. The written information provided by the Government showed that no new elements were provided by the Government. They recalled that the main difficulty concerned the 1968 legislation on civil servants' trade unions. While the Labour Code had been partially amended in 1992, several elements were severely criticized by the Committee of Experts with no tangible reaction on the part of the Government. Another problem was the refusal of the Government to recognize the National Union of Teachers of Higher Education (SYNES) since 1991. Concerning the requirement of prior approval before affiliating with an international federation, this requirement was to be deleted from the legislation; affiliation was to be unrestricted. Concerning the issue of the right to organize of the public service, they recalled that the Government had declared in the 1994 debate that the difficulties were only of legalities and formalities. While the Government had mentioned in the 1996 debate that draft legislation on the right to organize of civil servants had been prepared, the 1998 debate did not bring anything new. Since the Government declared that the revision of the legislation started nine years ago, the workers wanted to know what was the exact timetable concerning this issue. In addition, they pointed out that there had been repeated reports of interference from the Government in trade union affairs. These were obviously more than formalities.

In conclusion, they firstly requested the Government to explain why these delays were taking place. Secondly, they asked the Government whether it was ready to accept ILO technical assistance. Finally, they asked the Government representative when his Government would bring its legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention and whether this issue was really a priority for the Government. In the light of what they had previously heard, they expressed their deep concern for the future.

The Employer members recalled that this case had been examined five times since 1981 as well as last year. Although the Conference Committee had urged the Government to take appropriate measures in order to bring its national legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention, the Government had failed even to submit a report. The presence in the Committee of the Government representative, the Minister of Labour, could not be seen as compensation for this failure.

The Employers Members stated that, according to national legislation, the legal existence of a trade union or occupational associations of public servants was subject to prior ministerial authorization. Moreover, trade unions, as well as occupational associations of public servants, were not allowed to affiliate to foreign occupational organizations without prior ministerial authorization. In addition, there had already been cases where the registration of trade unions of public servants, particularly in the teaching sector, had been refused. These instances constituted clear violations of the Convention. With reference to the statement by the Government representative in 1998 in the Conference Committee, in which it had undertaken to elaborate new legislation, the Employer members noted the present assertions by the Government representative that the relevant practice was in conformity with the principles set out in the Convention, which was evidenced by the fact that there were several trade unions acting in the teaching sector. The Employer members took the view that against this background it would appear easy to adapt national legislation to the reported practice. They emphasized, that allowing a discrepancy between law and practice gave rise to insecurity, as the law entitled the Government to interfere at any stage. In conclusion, the Employer members considered that the Government should be urged to take appropriate measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. In addition, the Government should be reminded in the conclusions that it could call on ILO technical assistance in order to overcome any problems it might have with regard to the implementation of the Convention. Since there seemed to be no discernible prospect of an amendment of the legislation in the near future, the conclusions should reflect the Conference Committee's concern in this respect.

The Worker member of France noted that the fact that the Minister had mentioned the existence of trade unions in public service did not mean that these were not subject to prior authorization by the competent powers. The freedom to constitute trade unions, guaranteed by the Convention, should not continue to be interpreted restrictively by the Government. The speaker expressed his support for the questions that had been posed previously to the Government representative and asked him to specify the time-scale for the revision of laws and regulations regarding freedom of association, and also the date at which it might be hoped the texts would be in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. Finally, he wished to know whether the Government would rapidly accept the proposal of ILO technical assistance in preparing draft legislation in harmony with the Convention.

The Worker member of South Africa specified that the principal issue before the Committee was the violation of Article 2 of Convention No. 87. He noted that the 1968 legislation required any trade union or professional association of civil servants register with the Minister of Territorial Administration in order to obtain legal status. Trade unionists who failed to register their organization risked prosecution. This provision denied workers in the public sector proper representation in the light of International Monetary Fund and World Bank structural adjustment programmes being implemented in Cameroon.

The Committee had discussed the case of Cameroon in 1994 and again in 1996. As the Committee of Experts noted in its report, the Government has merely reiterated statements made in previous years without supplying information on any concrete progress made regarding application of the Convention.

As an example of the Government's violation of Article 2 of the Convention, he referred to the refusal to register the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES) since 1991. For several years, the Government had indicated that a draft bill on trade unions and associations of civil servants had been prepared and would be submitted to the National Assembly. Eight years later, the bill had never reached the National Assembly.

In addition, he pointed out that trade unions were not allowed in export processing zones. He also indicated that the Government had been interfering in the internal affairs of the Cameroon Confederation of Trade Unions since 1993, when the Confederation opposed the implementation of austerity measures proposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Government had additionally sought to create divisiveness in the National Confederation and in the operation of rival national centres.

He cited section 19 of Decree No. 69 of 1969, requiring prior approval of the Government for trade unions and associations of civil servants to enter into international affiliations, a provision which violated Article 5 of the Convention. In conclusion, he called upon the Government to seek technical assistance in drafting amendments to its legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention, particularly Articles 2 and 5.

The Worker member from Zimbabwe noted that Cameroon was one of those member States that kept on defying compliance with the standards of the ILO, which they freely had joined, and this was unacceptable. He considered this case to be very serious as had been emphasized by the Committee of Experts as well as the Workers' spokesperson. It involved restrictions in the formation of trade unions in the public sector and outright refusals to register trade unions in the teaching sector. Under Decree No. 69/DE/7, section 19, trade unions or occupational associations of public servants were not allowed to join as affiliate to international organizations without ministerial approval in direct violation of Article 5 of Convention No. 87. He called upon the Committee to strongly urge the Government to take all necessary measures immediately to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the provisions of Convention No. 87 which it freely had ratified in 1960. The speaker further urged the Government to take action without any further delay, noting that technical assistance could be a useful means to bring about changes more rapidly, provided there was commitment and political will to do so.

The Worker member of Benin supported the declaration of the Worker members. He noted that the Government representative had distinguished between civil servants' organizations and trade unions, and had understood that the Government considered trade unions within the public service to be mere associations. He requested the Government to give the number of regularly constituted trade unions still awaiting official recognition. In his view, the present situation was far from promoting the existence and development of the trade union movement.

The Government representative expressed his surprise at the systematic redundancy and the repetition of complaints that he considered to be either incorrect or exaggerated. He underscored that the comprehensive revision of the relevant legislative and regulatory texts involved the review of 250 texts by his Ministry alone, and that the work of the competent committee was under way. He pointed out that the pace of the work could not be dictated and that, in his view, priority should be placed upon the practical observance of the provisions of the Convention. It was incorrect to believe or affirm that public sector trade unions were simply associations when in actual fact they were true unions that could be freely constituted. The prior authorization of the competent authority was, therefore, given de facto. He then commented on the different cases of denial of union registration referred to by various speakers. With regards to SYNES, he considered that the fact that the union was functioning showed that no problem existed in this regard. In respect of the Confederation of Unions of Workers of Cameroon (CSTC), he stressed that that organization was facing serious internal problems that had even led to the establishment of two confederation offices following its annual conference in December 1997, a situation which, in his view, was totally unacceptable. It was in this context and in order not to interfere in the internal affairs of the CSTC that another union organization had been selected for participation in the ILO Conference.

Finally, with regard to the matter of technical assistance from the ILO, he noted the excellent collaboration that existed between his country and the ILO, giving examples of the joint programmes that had been developed. Nonetheless, as the issue was not one of drafting, but rather of the adoption of legislative and regulatory texts, he did not deem ILO technical assistance to be appropriate in this regard.

The Worker members regretted the fact that there were no prospects of progress in the near future. They felt that the Government representative had not shown any spirit of cooperation and did not come with any concrete answers. They recalled that this Committee was working on the basis of the comments provided by the Committee of Experts who were an independent and a highly respected body. They pointed out that it was not a constructive approach for the Government to imply that this Committee was dealing with the situation in an erroneous way. Therefore, they requested a special paragraph for this case.

The Employer members stated that this case had been examined several times, and as the intervention by the Government representative did not demonstrate any political will to change the national legislation, the conclusions should be phrased in the same terms as in 1998. The Committee's concerns should be reflected in a special paragraph.

The Committee noted the written information and the oral detailed statement made by the Minister for Employment and Labour and the discussion which took place. It recalled that the case had been discussed by the Committee in several sessions in the past. It also recalled that the Committee of Experts had formulated comments for several years regarding the non-application of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention in law and practice. It stressed the need to amend Act No. 68/LF/19 of 1968 and the corresponding Decree of 1969 subjecting the legal existence of organizations of public servants and the possibility of joining a foreign occupational organization to previous authorization of the administrative authorities. It also stressed the need to repeal section 6(2) of the Labour Code which permitted the prosecution of persons forming a trade union which had not yet been registered and who acted as if the trade union had been registered. The Committee deeply regretted that, despite previous discussions on this case, no progress had been made. The Committee strongly urged the Government to take effective measures in order to remove the obstacles to freedom of association which resulted from the requirement of previous authorization to set up a trade union organization and to guarantee that all workers, including civil servants and contract workers, had the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee expressed serious concern that the Government had not supplied a detailed report to the Committee of Experts for several years. The Committee once again strongly urged the Government to supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts at its next meeting on the measures effectively taken to bring the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention. The Committee decided that its conclusions would figure in a special paragraph of its report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1998, Publication: 86th ILC session (1998)

A Government representative, Minister of Labour, recalled that his country had been questioned and criticized for an insufficient application of Convention No. 87 concerning the free exercise by the workers and employers of their rights and the protection of their professional interests. He underscored that the provisions of the Convention were clear in this respect: workers and employers have the right to set up and join organizations of their choice with a view to defending and promoting their interests. These organizations have the right to develop their statutes and rules, freely to choose their representatives, to organize their management and their activities, and to formulate their programmes of action. Public authorities should refrain from any action aimed at limiting this right or to impeding the legal exercise of these rights. They should not be dissolved or suspended by administrative measures. He intended to elaborate to the Committee how Cameroon applied these important provisions of Convention No. 87 and, more specifically, the efforts that had been made to have the new Act on civil servants' unions promulgated.

The speaker recalled that Cameroon had ratified 44 ILO Conventions, including the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) as well as six other fundamental human rights Conventions. His country was therefore committed to respecting the provisions of these ILO instruments. He underscored that full conformity between national and international standards could only be achieved progressively. He declared that there was no deliberate intention by the Government to thwart human rights and he recalled that the representative of the Government of the Republic of Cameroon had already clarified this at previous sessions. He reaffirmed this forcefully today. It is thus in this context that the reform announced of the legislation on civil servants' unions should be seen. A Bill had been prepared by the Minister of Labour on this subject and according to the regular procedure it would be transmitted to the office of the National Assembly for adoption after it had been re-examined by the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic. The major steps of this procedure were already under way and there was no doubt that this text would be adopted in the immediate future. He noted that this was not the only text which had had to go through the above-mentioned procedures and which were close to adoption. Cameroon has undertaken a large-scale reform of fundamental acts, including the Constitution which was adopted in 1996. This new fundamental Act was distinctly progressive, liberal and put human beings at its centre, and it had a decisive influence on all other Acts which were being applied or were close to adoption whether they concerned conditions of work, the freedom of the press, public speech or fundamental freedoms. The speaker noted that there was therefore no obstacle of any nature which could hinder the adoption of this Act and confirmed that the higher levels of Government would accelerate its referral for examination and adoption by the National Assembly at one of its three annual sessions.

He reiterated the positive attitude of the Government of Cameroon towards a definitive liberalization of the trade union sector. The fact that the Act on civil servants' unions had not yet been adopted did not result from any deliberate obstruction, nor from bad faith, but from a concern to respect scrupulously existing procedures. These procedures would allow for a determined evolution towards democracy, the respect for human rights and development. Furthermore, trade unions functioned normally in Cameroon, without any trouble caused by public authorities. The trade unions thus conducted their general assemblies, their seminars and, in short, their regular statutory activities, as the Government had always proven to be adaptable in this respect. Cameroon thus applied, de facto, the provisions of Convention No. 87 which it had ratified.

Finally, he mentioned that there were more than 200 base trade unions joining workers in different branches of activities, more than 50 regional trade unions joining the base unions in different branches of activities, 17 national trade union federations joining the unions of different branches of activities, national trade unions and two national trade union confederations. In the public service there were some ten trade unions of public servants functioning freely which were not hindered by the provisions of the Act of 1968 that was being amended.

The Workers' members recalled that for several years the Committee of Experts had commented on this case. The present Committee had discussed the case in 1986, 1994 and 1996. Cases were pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning interferences by the Government in trade union activities. In the private sector of Cameroon there were presently two confederations which were composed of federations. In spite of the fact that two trade unions were functioning actively in the private sector, the legal provisions still authorized the Government to interfere in the activities of trade unions. In the public sector the interferences by the Government in the internal affairs of trade unions were very real. This was actually recognized indirectly by the Government during the 1994 session of this Committee. It declared that the Government had set up trade unions for civil servants. In addition, since 1991 the Government had systematically refused to recognize the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES).

The Workers' members also recalled that, in 1994, the Government had provided indications that an Act on civil servants' unions was under preparation. This year, the Minister of Labour of Cameroon had repeated only that the procedure was under way. However, since 1994 the Committee of Experts had not been able to note any progress. On the contrary, complaints had been submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning interference by the Government in trade union activities.

The Workers' members proceeded to highlight the principles which were at issue in this case. These included the vital elements which permitted the functioning of a fully autonomous and independent trade union movement. At issue were the principles which had been introduced in an increasing number of countries since the upheavals in 1989. The Committee of Experts referred to the progress made in its observations on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87 in paragraphs 43-47 in the General Report. This was unfortunately not yet the case in Cameroon. The legal existence of a trade union, more specifically in the public sector, depended on prior authorization by the competent minister. Section 6 of the Labour Code, as amended in 1992, authorized legal action against the founders and promoters of unregistered trade unions, both in the public and private sectors. Finally, international affiliation was still subjected to prior authorization.

In conclusion, the Workers' members insisted that law and practice should be thoroughly modified in order to ensure an independent trade union movement both in the private and public sectors. The slowness of the Government in rectifying the situation was a cause for real concern. The Government should take action in this respect without any further delays and technical assistance could be a useful means to bring about changes more rapidly.

The Employers' members noted the information given by the Government representative which was nevertheless disappointing. They stated that the Committee of Experts had made comments on this case since 1991. Since the facts remained the same since the last examination of this case, they referred to the statement of the Workers' members in respect of the details concerning this case. Problems could be found in the following two areas. The legal existence of trade unions or occupational associations of public servants was subject to prior approval of the Minister for Territorial Administration leading to problems particularly in the teaching sector. Moreover, prior authorization was needed for affiliation to an international organization. Already in 1994, the Government representative had stated that the situation had changed substantially and that there had been only a lack of administrative measures in this respect. Government representatives had said that efforts would be undertaken progressively in order to comply with the requirements of Convention No. 87, as well as with those of other Conventions. However, the Employers' members considered that the steps were not sufficient or satisfactory. Noting the general information given by the Government representative they felt that all the previous problems still remained in legislation and in practice. The Government was responsible for establishing an appropriate framework which was apparently not the case here. In conclusion, the Government should be urged to undertake the necessary measures. Since legislative steps had already been announced in 1994, the Government should be asked urgently to provide a detailed written report. Moreover, technical assistance would be useful in order to make positive and real progress with regard to freedom of association and protection of the right to organize in the near future in the country.

The Worker member of France stated that during the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87, the fact that certain countries still did not apply the terms of that Convention was a political and not a technical problem. He recalled that there had been trade union cooperation between France and Cameroon for the past 35 years, and that this was intended to promote democracy. He felt that there was a serious paradox in that Cameroon had ratified Convention No. 87 in 1960, and already in 1969 it had adopted a law restricting seriously freedom of association. The speaker lamented that 35 years after the ratification of Convention No. 87 by Cameroon, two major problems subsisted. The first was that it still remained impossible to form a trade union without prior authorization. The second was that when a trade union was recognized, the interference of the Government was notorious, going as far as to create internal divisions in the trade unions. Finally, the speaker insisted that the Government's statements be translated into concrete action.

The Government representative emphasized the inconsistency of the allegations concerning governmental interference in trade union matters. He felt that since no concrete example of interference was given, this was a baseless accusation. As for fractures and divisions within the trade union movement, he stated that they were not the result of government manoeuvering, but rather the normal course of trade unionism moving toward union pluralism. In this respect, he stated that the Government had never intervened to create new central trade unions. He stated, moreover, that the present central trade unions functioned freely concerning elections and management, and that none of the alleged interference had been demonstrated. Concerning the ratification of Convention No. 87, the speaker felt the changes in each country had to be viewed according to the priorities to be dealt with and that, consequently, no time period should be imposed. In fact, conditions differed from country to country and a certain flexibility was necessary. He also recalled that no time-limit was set forth in the texts of the ILO and that the time-limits observed in his country were in conformity with the general practice. As regards complaints or violations of freedom of association, the speaker stated that the nature and the content of these complaints had never been communicated to the Government. Moreover, he recalled once again the forthcoming adoption of new legislation concerning the union activities of civil servants, which was in conformity with the new Constitution of 1996. He emphasized, however, that numerous other texts were in the process of being adopted and that this text was not the only priority with which Cameroon had to cope. Finally, he stated that despite the absence of legislation, at the present time approximately ten trade unions in the public service already carried out their activities and that the adoption of the forthcoming law would only serve to legalize that which was already the current practice.

The Committee noted the statement made by the Minister of Labour of Cameroon and the discussions which took place in the Committee. It recalled that the Committee of Experts had formulated comments for several years regarding the lack of application of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention in law and practice. It insisted on the need to amend Act 68/LF/19 of 1968 subjecting the legal existence of organizations of public servants and the possibility of joining a foreign occupational organization to the previous authorization of the administrative authorities. It also insisted on the need to repeal section 6(2) of the Labour Code which permitted the prosecution of persons forming a trade union, which had not yet been registered, but who had acted as if the trade union was registered. The Committee profoundly regretted that, despite previous discussions on this case before the present Committee, the Government had given only assurances that the legislation and practice would be brought into conformity with the Convention once the new Act on civil servants' unions was adopted. Noting with concern that no tangible progress had been made, the Committee urged the Government to take without delay effective measures in order to remove the obstacles to freedom of association which resulted from the requirement of previous authorization to set up a trade union organization and to guarantee for all workers, including civil servants, the right to form organizations of their own choosing. The Committee reminded the Government that technical assistance from the ILO would be useful. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to bring the legislation and the practice into conformity with the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1996, Publication: 83rd ILC session (1996)

A Government representative stated that the observations of the Committee of Experts were the continuation of the following important questions posed by the Committee on Freedom of Association: (1) the Government's refusal to recognize the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES) since 1991; and (2) the need to repeal Law No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 and article 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992 in order to guarantee to all workers, including civil servants, the right to form trade unions without prior authorization.

The speaker stated that, in relation to the repeal of the aforementioned legislation, the required process of derogation had been elaborated in a draft law which needed to be adopted by the National Assembly, and that the result would be reported to the Committee of Experts as soon as the process had been finalized. On the other hand, the speaker stated that, concerning the refusal of the Government to recognize the SYNES, this organization actually had conducted its activities in full freedom. He added that the SYNES had been invited to participate in tripartite negotiations held after a strike called by teachers, which demonstrated, if there was a need to do so, the Government's political will to have a recognized interlocutor in order to resolve conflicts which could emerge in this education sector. The speaker stated that regrettably the Government had observed a categorical and deliberate refusal by the SYNES to respect the legal requirements concerning registration. This procedure could not be considered as a prior authorization in violation of the principles of freedom of association since it was a simple administrative formality which the SYNES should have respected. Lastly, he asked that note be taken of the observations communicated and thanked the Committee for the technical assistance offered for preparing a draft law on unions for civil servants.

The Employers' members recalled that the case had already been discussed in this Committee in 1994 and that observations of the Committee of Experts had been made for several years. In spite of the fact that the Government had promised changes in 1994, the Government representative to this present session again referred to the bill to modify Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, which was still to be approved by Parliament. They pointed out that although the Government representative stated that the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES) existed and functioned, he did not state whether there had been official recognition of this union. They criticized the Government's stance that the matter involved only a simple question of formality, and urged repeal of the requirement to obtain prior authorization, while admitting the possibility of retaining a registration procedure.

Furthermore, as regards Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, the Employers' members recalled that the Government had also mentioned changes to be made two years ago, and that a case of progress regarding Convention No. 87 in Cameroon had been noted in 1993. They urged the Government to bring about changes on these points and mentioned the possibility of ILO assistance if required.

The Workers' members remarked that the points in question were fundamental principles of trade union freedom. The first point, concerning the requirement for prior authorization, had been identified by the Committee of Experts as an important violation in its General Survey of 1994. In spite of the Government's reassurance at the 1994 Conference, the Committee on Freedom of Association had learned that prior authorization was refused to SYNES. The Workers' members stressed that the Government was urged by the Committee of Experts, once again, to recognize the right of all workers, including public servants such as teachers to establish trade unions without prior authorization. They requested a full report from the Government so that the present Committee could review the case next year if no real progress were made.

The Workers' member of Cameroon stated that the Trade Union Confederation of Cameroon (CSTC) deplored the existence of Act No. 68/LF/19, which was an obstacle to freedom of association. This Act which suppressed freedom and prevented public servants from adhering to a trade union of their choice, like all other workers, should be repealed. The CSTC wished to verify whether SYNES had indeed submitted a request for registration and to report on the subject to the Committee. Section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 confirmed the Government's intention to hinder the right to freedom of association. The reinforcement of international cooperation was in fact one of the priority objectives of workers' organizations and should not be limited.

The 1968 Act should be repealed as well as all of the appended decrees. The present Minister of Labour was from the workers' sphere and was known for his humane and patriotic qualities. The CSTC counted on him for the repeal of this Act. Section 6 of the Labour Code, which did not permit real freedom of association, should be modified during the coming revision of the Labour Code so as to respect strictly the provisions of Convention No. 87.

The Workers' member of France observed with regret that this was not the first time the Cameroon case had been discussed. It was none the less a country in Africa which had shown itself to be scrupulous in its respect for international labour standards. It thus appeared even more strange that a legislative provision of 1968 was in conflict with a Convention ratified in 1960. Perhaps the legislation was an attempt to establish a new system for those trade unions capable of becoming more active than others. If that were the case, the legislation should simply be repealed, without even the need for technical cooperation of the ILO.

The impossibility for trade unions to affiliate with the international organization of their choice probably corresponded also to a consideration of opportunity. One could imagine that the affiliation to a regional organization would present less difficulty than affiliation to an inter-occupational and universal trade union organization. Even so, to deprive the trade unions of Cameroon of the relations and contacts with international trade union organizations could not be justified.

The speaker emphasized that there was no particular juridical problem. However, the draft bill of the Ministry of Labour excluded in its section 3 "the trade unions established for a cause or in view of an objective contrary to the Constitution, to the law or to good morals". He concluded by putting particular emphasis on the fact that the case concerned a country on which a lot of hope was placed.

The Workers' member of Senegal wondered about the logic of the behaviour of being one of the first to ratify a Convention and then being called upon later to put the national legislation into conformity with the Convention. Criticism did not seem to have impressed the Government, which had already given reassurances in 1994. A little more firmness should be imposed so that the countries fully applied the Conventions that they had freely chosen to ratify. It would not be desirable if all member States took the same attitude of ratifying all the fundamental Conventions only to be called upon by this Committee concerning the discrepancies noted.

The Workers' member of Côte d'Ivoire wanted to react to this violation of a fundamental Convention of the ILO. The United Free Trade Unions of Cameroon, its component unions, activists and leaders should be able to enjoy freedom of association without hindrance and the Committee on Freedom of Association should appeal to the Government in this regard. Any union should be able to exercise its activities freely, upon a simple deposition of its statutes. Besides, it was indispensable that a clear distinction should be made between simple associations and trade unions, because the frequent confusion between the provisions applicable to these two categories of organizations often hindered the principles of freedom of association. The remarkable work accomplished in this regard by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the case of Côte d'Ivoire in 1994 could also be applied to the case of Cameroon. It could be also beneficial to request governments to amend their national legislation so as to provide explicitly that the laws on the associations should not apply to trade unions and that any ambiguity could be removed.

The Government representative of Cameroon noted a certain confusion and mixed messages in the statements of preceding speakers. The problem related to trade unions of public servants and should not be generalized. The draft bill on the subject was following a normal procedure. As to SYNES, it was composed of public servants as well as workers to whom the Labour Code applied, that is, two categories covered by different laws. In addition, the SYNES had never requested its registration or even perhaps its authorization. A mission of the ILO could verify this on the spot. It was not possible to speak of violations of freedom of association in a country where there existed at least 400 trade unions of public servants. As to the text referred to by the Workers' member of France, it was not the draft of the Minister of Labour. As in the earlier years, the Committee should allow the Government time to put its legislation into conformity with the terms of the Convention like the practice, which was already in conformity.

The Workers' members considered that the statements made by the Government representative should not cause changes in the tone of the Committee's conclusions. The facts noted by the Committee of Experts had not been denied. It was also important to recall that the SYNES had in fact submitted a request of registration in 1991 and that this registration had been constantly refused since then. The situation was therefore clearly different from what the Government had stated.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government representative as well as of the ensuing debate. The Committee recalled that the Committee of Experts had for a great many years been insisting on the need to amend Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 and its implementing Decree in order to lift restrictions imposed on the registration of trade unions of public servants and their international affiliation, which were contrary to the requirements of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Moreover, the Committee of Experts asked for a repeal or an amendment of article 6(2) of the 1992 Labour Code whereby leaders of an unregistered trade union which behaved as if it had been registered could be prosecuted. The Committee noted that a complaint on refusal had been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee noted, however, that according to the statement of the Government representative, several public servants' trade unions had since received authorization. The Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts stressed to the Government the need to ensure that its next report referred to the specific measures which had been taken, if necessary with the assistance of the ILO, to bring its law and practice into full compliance with the requirements of the Convention. It expressed the firm hope that in the near future it would be in a position to note genuine progress which would make it possible to lift restrictions on or obstacles to freedom of association and ensure to all workers, including civil servants, the right to set up trade unions of their choice without prior authorization and without interference by public authorities, as well as the right of civil servants' unions to affiliate freely to international organizations of workers.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1994, Publication: 81st ILC session (1994)

A Government representative of Cameroon considered the report of the Committee of Experts to be constructive. With regard to Convention No. 87, she stated that Act No. 68/LF/19 dated 18 November 1968 making the legal existence of a trade union of public servants subject to the prior authorization of the Minister of Territorial Administration was to be repealed, to conform to Article 2 of the Convention. Draft legislation had been sent to the Prime Minister for submission to the National Assembly. While awaiting the promulgation of this Act, and in order to show the good faith of the authorities, she cited the decision of 11 May 1994 which recognized the national trade union of officials of the civil and financial services. She referred to a letter of the Executive Secretary-General of this trade union which expressed its appreciation of this recognition. In addition, teachers, who formed a trade union that was not presently recognized, could join this trade union because they were officials of the civil service. With regard to teachers engaged on a contractual basis, they could join the national trade union for contractual workers and state agents pursuant to the Labour Code. She indicated that Cameroon was not opposed to the creation of trade unions, as the matter of the unrecognized trade union concerned simply a question of legality, and that meanwhile the Government noted the observations of the Committee of Experts regarding the Act of 1968. With reference to section 6(2) of the Labour Code making the legal existence of a trade union subject to registration, she stated that, as her Government had already reiterated, it was a matter of a simple formality that existed for all civil acts such as the creation of commercial companies requiring a registration number at the commerce registry and thus granting them a legal status. With regard to trade unions, this formality allowed them to deal with third parties, and this did not constitute a contravention of the Convention. She stated that her Government was open to the observations and advice of this Committee in order to improve, even if no impediments existed, the creation of trade unions. Concerning section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969 providing that associations or professional unions could not belong to a foreign professional organization without prior authorization from the Minister responsible for "control of public freedom", she noted that this Decree was a text implementing the Act of 1968. Once the new act was proclaimed the implementing Decree of the old law would be brought into compliance with the requirements of Convention No. 87. In the meantime, she counted upon the understanding of the Committee of Experts.

With reference to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, she referred to section 6 of the Labour Code providing for the legal existence of professional trade unions, section 3, proclaiming freedom of association, and section 4, granting to employers and workers the right to join organizations and trade unions of their choosing. Section 6(2) forbade all discriminatory acts against workers in employment. This section also provided under paragraph (b) that any practice that would terminate the employment of, or cause any prejudice to, persons because of their affiliation or non-affiliation to a trade union or their participation in trade union activities was prohibited. She indicated that this paragraph was not contrary to the provision of Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention because it guaranteed the legality of the formation of trade unions so that they could act as such legally. Section 6(3) provided that any act that was contrary to the provisions of this section was void. Finally, she stated that Cameroon was a law-abiding State and that it was prepared to submit to the Commission any additional information.

The Workers' members referred to the questions dealt with by the Committee of Experts and noted that the Government was prepared to repeal legislation that did not conform to the Conventions and that the actual practice would be changed to achieve the same conformity. They did hesitate in wholly accepting the explanation of the Government to the effect that the requirement that trade unions must be registered was merely an administrative formality, but concluded by thanking the Government representative for her goodwill and assurances. They nevertheless recalled the gravity of certain points raised by the Committee of Experts, and said that a report on what actually was occurring would need to be submitted for examination.

The Employers' members noted that the points raised in the report of the Committee of Experts had been made for a number of years, although one matter had been resolved last year and was cited as a case of progress. The Government had defended itself last year in the same manner as it did this year, by indicating that although there were no contradictions between the legal situation and the Convention, legislative amendments would be introduced if this were insisted upon by the Committee. With regard to the requirement that trade unions be registered, this was clearly not a formality in view of the rejection of the application by a teachers' trade union for such registration. They asked the Government to put into practice what had been promised in the Committee and to modify the legislation to bring it into compliance with the Convention.

The Workers' member of Senegal stated that the Government had promised every year that it would respect Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, but they were continuing to violate trade union rights in Cameroon, in particular by not recognizing trade union organizations and their right to register. Likewise the Government had recently violated freedom of association since the Ministry of Labour supported the dismissal of the Secretary-General of the Cameroon Confederation of Workers' Trade Unions (CWTU), through a puppet disputes committee controlled by the authorities. This dismissal was due to the trade union activities of the Secretary-General of the CWTU. He requested that the ILO take the necessary measures so that the Secretary-General could resume his duties. Moreover, wages had fallen because of the devaluation of the CFA franc.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands stated that the assurances made by the Government representative were not convincing, as the action of the Government seemed to contradict the statements made before the Committee. As an example, he quoted a provision from a piece of draft legislation of Cameroon which provided that trade unions established for a cause or purpose contrary to the Constitution, the law, or accepted standards of behaviour, or those trade unions designed to impair the security, territorial integrity, national unity, national integration, or the Republican form of the State would be declared null and void. He asked that both the Workers' and Employers' members examine the case more cautiously.

The Workers' member of New Zealand supported the statement of the Workers' member of Senegal, as the situation in Cameroon clearly amounted to a serious contravention of the Conventions. The Committee of Experts' report had highlighted the practices that are incompatible with the requirements of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Any denial of freedom of association was unacceptable, and especially damaging with regard to teachers because their working conditions constituted the same environment where children and young people learn. Moreover, teachers' unions acted as professional organizations to assist their members to develop high professional standards. Denial of access to such an organization, particularly when higher education was involved, usually reflected a desire to control what was taught and how it was taught, which amounted to a denial of academic freedom. Such restrictions were compounded by a restriction of the right of trade unions or professional organizations to join foreign professional organizations, thus denying Cameroon the benefit of exchanges of ideas and knowledge from outside the country. She also referred to infringements of the freedom of association of teachers in Cameroon involving the dismissal, suspension, and forced transfer of teachers and public servants for participating in a strike. While accepting that the Committee acknowledged positive developments, she asked that the Government be requested to grant teachers in higher education the right to form unions of their own choosing and the right to bargain collectively. She also asked that an undertaking be obtained from the Government that it not frustrate the activities of the Cameroon Confederation of Workers' Trade Unions.

The Workers' member of Togo emphasized that the Committee of Experts and the previous speakers had pointed out serious and repeated violations of trade union rights in the legislation and in practice. These violations were also occurring in other African countries whenever trade union organizations adopted an independent approach. With regard to the assurance of the Government representative that the trade union register was a formality, the speaker indicated that this "formality" could indefinitely delay the formation of trade unions, preventing them from developing their activities. On the other hand, section 3 of the draft Act referred to by the Government representative contained worrisome concepts that could prevent the formation of trade unions or impede their activities, as now occurred in respect of professional trade unions. He also joined in the previous statement on the dismissal of the Secretary-General of the Cameroon Confederation of Workers' Trade Unions. Finally, he stressed that there was a practice of interference in collective bargaining and he considered that the Committee should demand that the Government comply with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

The Government representative stated that she maintained her previous statement and that she hoped that an amalgamation of matters would be avoided with regard to such an important discussion; in this sense, she indicated that the Workers' member of Senegal recognized that his comments were not to the point. With regard to the Cameroon Confederation of Workers' Trade Unions, she indicated that her country had ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and that it was its duty to respect these Conventions. She believed that the creation of a trade union of officials of the civil and financial services could reassure the Committee, as in her opinion this constituted progress. Teachers on contract and teachers who were public servants worked under different rules. The latter could belong to the trade union referred to above, while the teachers on contract could belong to the national trade union for contractual workers and agents of the State. She emphasized that there would be a law permitting those who wished to create a specific trade union to do so and that she would inform her Government of the observations that had been made in this Committee.

The Workers' members recognized that they might have been overly willing to accept the assurances given by the Government representative that the legislation in contravention of the Conventions would be repealed and the contravening practices discontinued. They then reiterated their concern regarding the registration requirement, and the need for further examination by the Committee of Experts, and hoped that the promises made by the Government representative would be kept.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion which followed. The Committee reminded the Government of the need to amend its legislation and practice as soon as possible in order to ensure the application of these Conventions, in particular to guarantee that public servants have the right to set up trade union organizations and to join them to defend their economic, social and professional interests. It took note of the preoccupation of the Committee of Experts in light of the refusal of the Government to give legal status to a trade union of teachers in higher education, and expressed the firm hope that the forthcoming reports from the Government would show what effective measures had actually been taken in order to remove obstacles to freedom of association and to guarantee for all workers, including public servants and teachers in higher education, the right to join the trade union of their choice without interference by the public authorities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the elements provided by the Government in reply to the comments received in 2007 from the General Confederation of Labour–Liberty of Cameroon (CGTL), the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), concerning restrictions that are already under examination. The ITUC’s comments also reported mass dismissals of workers by the enterprise DTP Terrassement for calling a strike, the arrest and imprisonment of a member of the Confederation of Cameroon Trade Unions (CSTC) and the dismissal of the Secretary-General of the Federation of Health, Pharmaceutical and Allied Unions (FESPAC), due to his trade union activities.

In its report, the Government indicates that the dismissal of the Secretary-General of the FESPAC is unconnected with the exercise of his trade union activities and that the dismissals of workers of the enterprise DTP Terrassement is a result of the unlawful nature of their strike, as the local administrative authorities had prohibited any public demonstrations for the duration of the work concerned. In this regard, the Committee recalls that responsibility for declaring a strike illegal should lie with an independent body which has the confidence of the parties involved and that strikes may only be prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term, disputes in the public service in relation to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in the case of an acute national crisis. The Committee also recalls that the arrest and detention of trade unionists, without any charges being brought and without a warrant, constitute a grave violation of trade union rights.

The Committee also notes the comments of the UGTC and the ITUC, dated 16 October 2008 and 26 August 2009, respectively, relating to, in addition to the points already raised before the Committee, Government interference in various forms (favouritism towards specific organizations, refusal to recognize the Trade Union Federation of the Public Sector (CSP)) and the arrest of a leader of the CSP during the riots in February 2008. The Committee requests the Government to provide observations in this respect in its next report.

Article 2 of the Convention. For many years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to amend Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 (under the terms of which the existence in law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants is subject to prior approval by the Minister for Territorial Administration). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, a draft amendment of this Act in relation to this point is under examination.

Similarly, the Committee has been requesting the Government for many years to take the necessary measures to amend section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992 (which provides that persons establishing a trade union which has not yet been registered and who act as if the said union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution) and section 166 of the Labour Code (establishing heavy fines for members of a union who commit this offence). In this respect, the Government indicates that the Bill to amend and supplement certain provisions of the Labour Code was adopted by the National Labour Advisory Commission and has been submitted for approval by the competent authorities of Cameroon. The adoption of the proposed amendments would replace the current system for the registration of trade unions, which is equivalent to a system of previous authorization, by a procedure of declaration and would involve the disappearance of sentences and/or fines in the event of violations of the law. The Committee further notes that cancellation of the registration of an organization would lie solely with the judicial authorities, thereby bringing to an end the possibilities for the dissolution of organizations by administrative authority. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will be in a position to indicate the progress achieved on all these points without delay.

Article 5 of the Convention. For many years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969 (under the terms of which trade unions or associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for “supervising public freedoms”). The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided any information on this subject. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures in the very near future to amend the legislation to remove the requirement for previous authorization for the affiliation of trade unions of public servants to an international organizations.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the process of reforming the legislation will result in the near future in the legislation being brought into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Government is requested to provide copies of all the legislative texts adopted in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It notes the Government’s indications replying to the observations received in 2006 from the General Confederation of Labour – Liberty of Cameroon (CGT–Liberté) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), now the International Trade Unions Confederation (ITUC), which concerned restrictions on the process of establishing trade union organizations, including the requirement for government authorization, and the prohibition for unions to organize their activities within the National Centre for Studies and Experiments in Agricultural Mechanization (CENEEMA). In this respect, the Government indicates that the CENEEMA was merely reminded to comply with the obligation to register set out in the Labour Code until such time as the legislative provisions in question, which are currently being revised, are brought fully into conformity with the Convention. The Government adds that the initiation of an ILO project (PAMODEC) in 2007 will help it to address the difficulties identified and to better apply the Convention.

The Committee also notes the comments made by the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), dated 7 August 2007, CGT–Liberté dated 27 August 2007 and the ITUC dated 28 August 2007 concerning the dismissal of 163 workers from the enterprise DTP Terrassement for calling a strike; the arrest and imprisonment of Barnabé Paho of the Confederation of Cameroon Trade Unions; the dismissal of Jean Marie N’Di, Secretary-General of the Federation of Health, Pharmaceutical and Allied Unions (FESPAC), due to his trade union activities; the difficulties involved in the organization of elections for staff delegates in several enterprises; and the need to amend the procedure for the registration of unions. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on all these observations in its next report.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee has been recalling for many years that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, under which the existence in law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants is subject to prior approval by the Minister for Territorial Administration, section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union which has not yet been registered and who act as if the said union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, and section 166 of the Labour Code, establishing heavy fines, are all in contradiction with Article 2 of the Convention. With regard to the provisions of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its reply to the ICFTU’s observations, that it has submitted a Bill to the National Assembly to amend the Labour Code which would replace the current system for the registration of unions by a system consisting of mere notification. It adds that the adoption of this new system would imply the elimination of penalties and/or fines in the event of the violation of the law. The Committee trusts that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report the progress achieved in this respect. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to amend Act No. 68/LF/19 so as to guarantee public servants the right to establish organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization and to provide a copy of the legislative texts in question.

Article 5. Prior authorization for affiliation to an international organization. The Committee has been pointing out for several years that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, which provides that trade unions or associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior authorization from the minister responsible for “supervising public freedoms”, is inconsistent with Article 5 of the Convention. Recalling that Article 5 guarantees all occupational organizations the right to affiliate freely with international organizations of workers and employers, the Committee regrets to note that the provision in question has still not been repealed despite the assurances in this respect given by the Government in previous reports. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend the legislation as soon as possible so as to remove the requirement of prior authorization for the affiliation of trade unions of public servants to an international organization.

Emphasizing that many of the issues referred to above have been raised for very many years, both by the Committee of Experts and by the Conference Committee on the Application on Standards, the Committee urges the Government to lift all obstacles to the full exercise of freedom of association without further delay by adopting the necessary amendments to the legislation and ensuring that they are given full effect in practice. The Government is requested to provide copies of all legislative texts adopted in this respect.

Other issues

With regard to the situation of the trade unionist Mr B. Essiga, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on developments in the judicial procedures against the latter and to provide a copy of any ruling handed down.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee takes notes of the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 6 July 2006, which concern some legislative issues already raised in the Committee’s previous observation, as well as allegations of harassment of the Single National Union of Teachers and Professors in the Teachers’ Training Faculty (SNUIPEN).

The Committee takes notes of the Government’s response to the comments of the CGT-liberté and the ICFTU and observes that the allegations concerning SNUIPEN are being followed up by the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 2382). The Committee requests the Government to communicate for its next session of November-December 2007, in the context of the regular cycle of submission of reports, its observations on all questions concerning the application in practice of the Convention mentioned in its last observation (2005 observation, 76th Session), as well as on the comments made by the Public Sector Trade Union of Cameroon (CSP) and the General Workers’ Trade Union of Cameroon (UGTC).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It also notes the comments made by the Confederation of Public Service Unions of Cameroon (CSP), dated 7 April 2005, the General Confederation of Labour - Liberty of Cameroon (CGT-Liberty), dated 29 August and 10 October 2005, the General Union of Cameroon Workers (UGTC), dated 30 August 2005, and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 31 August 2005.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that Act No. 68/LF/19, of 18 November 1968, under which the existence in the law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants is subject to prior approval by the Minister for Territorial Administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons establishing a trade union which has not yet been registered and who act as if the said union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, as well as article 166 of the Labour Code which provides for heavy fines, are not consistent with Article 2 of the Convention. With regard to the prosecution of persons promoting trade unions, which have not yet been registered, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its last report that a Bill has been submitted for examination by the National Labour Advisory Commission. On the contrary, the amendment of Act No. 68/2F/19 is still not on the agenda. The Government considers that preliminary work has to be carried out for awareness raising and training and refers in this respect to the request for technical assistance which it has recently addressed to the ILO in the framework of a support project for the implementation of the Declaration (PAMODEC). The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. It emphasizes, in particular, the need to amend Act No. 68/LF/19 so as to secure for public servants the right to establish organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization, and to provide a copy of the relevant legislative texts.

2. Article 5. Prior authorization for affiliation to an international organization. The Committee has been pointing out for several years that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7, which provides that trade unions or associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for "supervising public freedoms", is inconsistent with Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee once again refers to its previous comments in this respect, as the provision in question has not been repealed, despite the assurances given by the Government which confines itself in its latest report to making reference to the PAMODEC project in order to raise awareness in the concerned ministries on the need to amend article 19. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend the legislation as soon as possible in order to eliminate the requirement for public servants’ unions to obtain prior authorization before joining an international organization.

3. The Committee notes the comments of the ICFTU and the UGTC concerning the situation in the CAMRAIL enterprise, and particularly that of Mr. B. Essiga, and the Government’s reply in this respect, including the fact that this trade union member is benefiting from conditional release and that the judicial proceedings are following their course. According to the Government, the legal proceedings against him relate to a common law offence and bear no relation to his trade union activities. Recalling once again that the guarantees set out in the Convention can only be effective if civil and political rights are fully protected (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 43), the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on developments relating to the prosecution of Mr. Essiga and to provide a copy of any decision made in this case.

4. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the other comments made by the ICFTU, as well as those of the CGT-Liberty, the CSP and the UGTC, particularly in relation to restrictions on the right to strike, the conditions for the dissolution of trade unions and the renewed increase in cases of the dismissal and imprisonment of trade union leaders.

Emphasizing that all the matters referred to above have been raised for many years by both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, the Committee once again firmly invites the Government to remove the obstacles in both law and practice to the full exercise of freedom of association as soon as possible and to provide copies of the relevant legislative texts in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in its communications dated 24 September 2003 and 19 July 2004, as well as the comments made by the Central Public Sector Trade Union Organization of Cameroon (CSP), dated 2 September 2004.

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for several years on the following points.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee has been pointing out for many years that Act No. 68/LF/19, of 18 November 1968, under which the existence in law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants is subject to prior approval by the Minister for Territorial Administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union which has not yet been registered and who act as if the said union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with Article 2 of the Convention. Noting the assurances given by the Government that provisions should be adopted before the 92nd Session of the Conference (June 2004) to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention (particularly relating to the repeal of Act No. 68/LF/19 and of Decree No. 69/ST/7 of 6 January 1969, and the amendment of sections 6(2) and 11 of the Labour Code of 1992, the Committee nevertheless must note that no practical legislative progress has been achieved in this respect. As regards more specifically the Act of 1968 respecting trade unions and occupational associations of public servants, the Government indicates in its latest report that the amendment process is still under way. In view of the length of time that has elapsed since its first observations on this subject, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures promptly to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention, in particular to amend Act No. 68/LF/19 in order to ensure that public servants have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization, and to provide copies of the relevant legislative texts.

2. Article 5. Prior authorization for affiliation to an international organization. The Committee has been pointing out for several years that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 which provides that trade unions or associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for "supervising public freedoms", is inconsistent with Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee once again refers to its previous comments in this respect, as the provision in question has not been repealed despite the assurances given by the Government. It once again urges the Government to amend the legislation as soon as possible in order to eliminate the requirement for public servants’ unions to obtain prior authorization before joining an international organization.

3. The Committee notes the comments of the ICFTU concerning the situation in the CAMRAIL enterprise, and particularly the arrest of Mr. B. Essiga, and the Government’s reply in this respect, including the fact that this trade unionist has benefited from provisional release and that the judicial procedures are following their course. Recalling that the guarantees set out in the Convention can only be effective if civil and political rights are fully protected (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 43), the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on developments relating to the prosecution of Mr. Essiga and to provide a copy of any decision made in this case.

4. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the other comments made by the ICFTU, as well as those of the CSP.

Emphasizing once again that all of the issues referred to above have been raised for many years both by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, including in June 2003, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures very promptly to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and to provide copies of the relevant legislative texts in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. The Committee notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2003 and the decision to include the case of Cameroon in a special paragraph of the Conference Committee report. The Committee further notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) raising questions about the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations thereon in its next report.

The Committee repeats its previous observation which read as follows:

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Bill to amend certain provisions of Act No. 92/007 of 14 August 1992, issuing the Labour Code. Noting that the Government makes no reference to this Bill in its report, the Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report what progress this Bill has made in the legislative process.

The Committee recalls that for several years its comments have related to the following matters.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. Prior authorization. The Committee has been pointing out for many years that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, under which the existence in law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants is subject to prior approval by the Minister for Territorial Administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union which has not yet been registered and who act as if the said union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with Article 2 of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee noted that in the Bill transmitted by the Government, section 6(2) of the Labour Code was deleted in its entirety. It once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the new Act once it has become law.

With regard to the Act of 1968 governing trade unions and occupational associations of public servants, the Government stated in its previous report that the fact that Decree No. 2000/287 of 12 October 2000 amending and supplementing certain provisions ((new) section 72) of the General Statute of the Civil Service which allow a civil servant to be released for the performance of trade union duties was a step towards trade unionism in the public service being allowed by law. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Bill to amend the Act of 1968 respecting trade unions of public servants is still under examination. The Committee regrets that there have been no developments in this respect and once again urges the Government to amend Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 in order to ensure that public servants have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization.

2. Article 5. Prior authorization for affiliation to an international organization. The Committee has been pointing out for several years that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, which provides that trade unions or associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for "supervising public freedoms", is inconsistent with Article 5 of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee noted the Government’s earlier statements to the effect that the above Decree would be brought into line with the Convention as soon as the new Act on public servants’ unions became law. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend its legislation as soon as possible in order to eliminate the requirement that public servants’ unions obtain prior authorization before joining an international organization.

Finally, the Committee noted the comments made by the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Cameroon (USLC) to the effect that in practice the formalities for registration set out in section 11 of the Labour Code are not respected by the services of the Registry of Trade Unions, which require applicants for registration to submit documents not specified in the Code. In its last report, the Government indicates that the documents to be provided for registration derive from sections 6 to 11 of the Labour Code and practical requirements. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, while member States remain free to provide such formalities in their legislation as appear appropriate to ensure the normal functioning of occupational organizations, problems of compatibility with the Convention may arise where the registration regulations are applied in a manner inconsistent with their purpose and the competent administrative authorities make excessive use of their discretionary powers, which may in practice be a serious obstacle to the establishment of organizations of workers and employers without previous authorization (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 74 and 75). The Committee trusts that the Government will take full account of the abovementioned considerations with regard to the manner in which the procedures for the registration of trade unions are applied in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Bill to amend certain provisions of Act No. 92/007 of 14 August 1992, issuing the Labour Code. Noting that the Government makes no reference to this Bill in its report, the Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report what progress this Bill has made in the legislative process.

The Committee recalls that for several years its comments have related to the following matters.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. Prior authorization. The Committee has been pointing out for many years that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, under which the existence in law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants is subject to prior approval by the Minister for Territorial Administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union which has not yet been registered and who act as if the said union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with Article 2 of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee noted that in the Bill transmitted by the Government, section 6(2) of the Labour Code was deleted in its entirety. It once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the new Act once it has become law.

With regard to the Act of 1968 governing trade unions and occupational associations of public servants, the Government stated in its previous report that the fact that Decree No. 2000/287 of 12 October 2000 amending and supplementing certain provisions ((new) section 72) of the General Statute of the Civil Service which allow a civil servant to be released for the performance of trade union duties was a step towards trade unionism in the public service being allowed by law. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Bill to amend the Act of 1968 respecting trade unions of public servants is still under examination. The Committee regrets that there have been no developments in this respect and once again urges the Government to amend Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 in order to ensure that public servants have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization.

2. Article 5. Prior authorization for affiliation to an international organization. The Committee has been pointing out for several years that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, which provides that trade unions or associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for "supervising public freedoms", is inconsistent with Article 5 of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee noted the Government’s earlier statements to the effect that the above Decree would be brought into line with the Convention as soon as the new Act on public servants’ unions became law. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend its legislation as soon as possible in order to eliminate the requirement that public servants’ unions obtain prior authorization before joining an international organization.

Finally, the Committee noted the comments made by the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Cameroon (USLC) to the effect that in practice the formalities for registration set out in section 11 of the Labour Code are not respected by the services of the Registry of Trade Unions, which require applicants for registration to submit documents not specified in the Code. In its last report, the Government indicates that the documents to be provided for registration derive from sections 6 to 11 of the Labour Code and practical requirements. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, while member States remain free to provide such formalities in their legislation as appear appropriate to ensure the normal functioning of occupational organizations, problems of compatibility with the Convention may arise where the registration regulations are applied in a manner inconsistent with their purpose and the competent administrative authorities make excessive use of their discretionary powers, which may in practice be a serious obstacle to the establishment of organizations of workers and employers without previous authorization (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 74 and 75). The Committee trusts that the Government will take full account of the abovementioned considerations with regard to the manner in which the procedures for the registration of trade unions are applied in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It also notes the comments of the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Cameroon (USLC). The Committee also takes due note of the report of the direct contacts mission that visited Cameroon in April 2001. The Committee observes that following that mission, the Government transmitted a bill amending certain provisions of Act No. 92/007 of 14 August 1992 promulgating the Labour Code.

The Committee recalls that for several years it has been addressing the following points in its comments.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. Prior authorization. The Committee has been noting for many years that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, under which the existence in law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants is subject to prior approval by the Minister for Territorial Administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union which has not been registered and who act as if the said union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest in this connection that in the bill transmitted by the Government, section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992 has been deleted in its entirety. The Committee notes that the bill is shortly to be submitted to the National Assembly, and asks the Government to provide a copy of the new Act once it has been adopted.

With regard to the Act of 1968 governing trade unions or occupational associations of public servants, the Government states in its report that the fact that Decree 2000/287 of 12 October 2000 amending and supplementing certain provisions of the General Statute of the Civil Service allows ((new) section 72) a civil servant to be released for the performance of trade union duties, is a step towards trade unionism in the public service being allowed by law. While noting this development, the Committee again urges the Government to amend Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 in order to ensure that public servants have the right to form organizations of their choice without prior authorization.

2. Article 5. Prior authorization for affiliation to an international organization. The Committee has been pointing out for several years that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, which provides that trade unions or associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for "supervising fundamental freedoms", is inconsistent with Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee noted in this connection the earlier statements made by the Government to the effect that the abovementioned Decree would be brought into line with the Convention as soon as the new Act on public servants’ unions was promulgated. The Committee again urges the Government to amend its legislation as soon as possible in order to eliminate the requirement that public service unions obtain prior authorization before joining an international organization.

Lastly, the Committee notes the comments made by the USLC to the effect that, in practice, the formalities for registration set in section 7 of the Labour Code are not observed by the Registry of Trade Unions, which requires applicants for registration to submit documents not specified in the Code. The Committee asks the Government to send its observations on the USLC’s comments in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It nevertheless notes the statements by the Minister of Labour to the Conference Committee in June 2000 and the detailed discussion which followed. The Committee notes that the government representative reiterated his previous statements to the effect that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 respecting trade unions or occupational associations not governed by the Labour Code, and section 6 of the Labour Code of 1992 are in the process of being amended. Furthermore, the government representative indicated that, in practice, although the texts have not yet been amended, freedom of association exists in practice and trade unions now operate normally in the public service. These trade unions operate without any interference by the Government in their establishment or in the calling and holding of strikes. Finally, the government representative provided the document by which the Central Public Sector Trade Union Organization (CSP) was established.

While noting this information concerning the application of the Convention in practice, the Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points.

1.  Article 2 of the Convention. Previous authorization.  The Committee has been pointing out for several years that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, under which the existence in law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants is subject to the previous approval of the Minister for Territorial Administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union that has not been registered and who act as if the said union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend its legislation in the near future to ensure that workers, including public servants, have the right to form organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

2.  Article 5. Previous authorization for affiliation to an international organization.  The Committee notes once again that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969 provides that trade unions or occupational associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior authorization from the minister responsible for "supervising fundamental freedoms". In this respect, the Committee noted the Government’s previous statements to the effect that this Decree is issued under Act No. 68/LF/7 of 19 November 1968 and will be brought into conformity with the Convention once the new Act on civil servants’ unions is promulgated. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend its legislation in the very near future to abolish the need for previous authorization for affiliation to an international organization, which is contrary to Article 5 of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It also notes the statements made by the Minister of Labour to the Conference Committee in June 1999 and the detailed discussion that ensued. The Committee notes that in its report the Government merely reiterates its previous statements to the effect that the procedure to amend the legislative texts is still under way and that it will not fail to keep the Committee informed of relevant amendments in the near future. The Government further indicates that, although the texts have not yet been amended, freedom of association exists in practice: there are several unions in the public sector and they are affiliated to international organizations.

Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

1. Article 2 of the Convention (previous authorization). For several years, the Committee has pointed out that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, under which the existence in law of a trade union or occupational association of public servants is subject to the previous approval of the Minister for Territorial Administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union that has not yet been registered and who act as if the said union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure that workers, including public servants, have the right to form organizations of their choice, without previous authorization.

2. Article 5 (prior approval for affiliation to an international organization). The Committee again recalls that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969 provides that trade unions or occupational associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior approval from the minister responsible for "supervising fundamental freedoms". The Committee noted previously the Government's earlier statements to the effect that this Decree is issued under Act No. 68/LF/7 of 19 November 1968 and will be brought into conformity with the Convention once the new Act on civil servants' unions is promulgated. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in the very near future, to abolish prior approval for affiliation to an international organization, which is contrary to Article 5 of the Convention.

The Committee again expresses the firm hope that the Government will take all necessary measures, in the very near future, to bring its legislation in full conformity with the Convention, and asks it to provide a detailed report on such measures.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 2 of the Convention. Previous authorization. For several years, the Committee has pointed out that (1) Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 subjecting the legal existence of a trade union or occupational association of public servants to the previous approval of the Minister for Territorial Administration, and (2) section 6(2) of the 1992 Labour Code, under which persons forming a trade union that has not yet been registered and who act as if the said trade union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with Article 2 of the Convention. In addition, the Committee on Freedom of Association has been apprised of cases where registration of trade unions of public servants has been refused, particularly in the teaching sector, and the Conference Committee in June 1994 and June 1996 reminded the Government of the need to amend its legislation and practice in the very near future to ensure effective application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government merely reiterates its previous statements that it will not fail to inform the Committee of developments in the declaration system. The Committee once again strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure that workers, including public servants, have the right to form organizations of their choice, without previous authorization. Article 5. Prior approval for affiliation to an international organization. Recalling that Article 5 of the Convention lays down that all occupational organizations shall have the right to affiliate freely with international organizations of workers and employers, the Committee points out once again to the Government that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969 provides that trade unions or occupational associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior approval from the Minister responsible for "supervising fundamental freedoms". The Committee had noted the Government's previous statements to the effect that this Decree is issued under Act No. 68/LF/7 of 19 November 1968 and will be brought into conformity with the Convention once the new Act on civil servants' unions is promulgated. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in the very near future, to abolish prior approval in order to bring the legislation into conformity with this Article of the Convention. The Committee would remind the Government that it can call on ILO technical assistance for the preparation of draft legislation in conformity with the Convention. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future and will supply a detailed report in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 87th Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 2 of the Convention. Previous authorization. For several years, the Committee has pointed out that (1) Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 subjecting the legal existence of a trade union or occupational association of public servants to the previous approval of the Minister for Territorial Administration, and (2) section 6(2) of the 1992 Labour Code, under which persons forming a trade union that has not yet been registered and who act as if the said trade union has been registered shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with Article 2 of the Convention.

In addition, the Committee on Freedom of Association has been apprised of cases where registration of trade unions of public servants has been refused, particularly in the teaching sector, and the Conference Committee in June 1994 and June 1996 reminded the Government of the need to amend its legislation and practice in the very near future to ensure effective application of the Convention.

The Committee notes that the Government merely reiterates its previous statements that it will not fail to inform the Committee of developments in the declaration system. The Committee once again strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure that workers, including public servants, have the right to form organizations of their choice, without previous authorization.

Article 5. Prior approval for affiliation to an international organization. Recalling that Article 5 of the Convention lays down that all occupational organizations shall have the right to affiliate freely with international organizations of workers and employers, the Committee points out once again to the Government that section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969 provides that trade unions or occupational associations of public servants may not join a foreign occupational organization without obtaining prior approval from the minister responsible for "supervising fundamental freedoms".

The Committee had noted the Government's previous statements to the effect that this Decree is issued under Act No. 68/LF/7 of 19 November 1968 and will be brought into conformity with the Convention once the new Act on civil servants' unions is promulgated. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in the very near future, to abolish prior approval in order to bring the legislation into conformity with this Article of the Convention.

The Committee would remind the Government that it can call on ILO technical assistance for the preparation of draft legislations in conformity with the Convention. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future and will supply a detailed report in this regard.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 86th Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received.

It nevertheless takes note of the statements made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 1996 and the discussion which ensued.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it has pointed out that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, which subjects the legal existence of a trade union or occupational association of public servants to the prior approval of the Minister of Territorial Administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union that has not yet been registered, and who act as if the said union has been registered, shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with the requirements of the Convention.

In regard to Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, the Government indicates that the law in question is being repealed and that a Bill has been conveyed to the Prime Minister for presentation to the National Assembly. It adds that the Minister of Territorial Administration has granted approval to several trade unions in the public sector, including the National Union of Technical Services Officials (SYNAFCIF), the National Union of Technical Services Staff (SYNAPTECH) and the National Union of Teachers of Cameroon (SYNEC). The Government states that these approvals are evidence of its will to move towards abolishing prior authorization. The Government indicates, furthermore, that the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES) conducts its affairs in full freedom but refuses to comply with legal registration requirements.

In regard to section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, the Government repeats its previous declarations that the matter was a mere administrative formality which existed for all civil acts and allowed the legal existence of the trade union to be noted. The Committee repeats that it is difficult to imagine this registration as a mere formality since the SYNES has had its application refused.

The Committee notes in fact, on the one hand, that the Committee on Freedom of Association has expressed its concern at the Government's refusal since 1991 to recognize the SYNES and considers that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 and section 6(2) of the Labour Code are contrary to the provisions of the Convention and, on the other hand, that in June 1994 and June 1996 the Conference Committee reminded the Government of the need to amend in the near future its law and practice to ensure application of the Convention. The Committee is therefore obliged to urge the Government once again to recognize the right of teachers in higher education, be they public servants or contract employees, to form unions of their own choosing, and to take the necessary steps to repeal Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code, so as to guarantee the right of all workers, including public servants, to establish professional associations without previous authorization, in accordance with this Article of the Convention.

2. Article 5. In regard to section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, under which trade unions or professional associations of public servants may not join a foreign professional organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for "supervising fundamental freedoms", the Government indicates that since this Decree is issued under the Act of 1968, it will be brought into conformity with the Convention once the new Act on civil servants' unions is promulgated. Recalling that Article 5 of the Convention gives all occupational organizations the right to affiliate freely with international workers' and employers' organizations, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, as soon as possible, to abolish prior authorization in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee would remind the Government that ILO technical assistance is available for the elaboration of a draft law concerning trade unions or occupational associations of public servants to be fully in conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will endeavour to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report which arrived too late for consideration at its February 1995 session, and of the statements made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 1994 and the discussion which ensued.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it has pointed out that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, which subjects the legal existence of a trade union or occupational association of public servants to the prior approval of the Minister of Territorial Administration, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union that has not yet been registered, and who act as if the said union has been registered, shall be liable to prosecution, are not consistent with the requirements of the Convention.

In regard to Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, the Government indicates, as did the Government representative to the Conference Committee in June 1994, that the law is being repealed and that a Bill has been conveyed to the Prime Minister for presentation to the National Assembly. It adds that the Minister of Territorial Administration has granted approval to several trade unions in the public sector, including the National Union of Technical Services Officials (SYNAFCIF), the National Union of Technical Services Staff (SYNAPTECH) and the National Union of Teachers of Cameroon (SYNEC). The Government states that these approvals are evidence of its will to move towards abolishing prior authorization.

In regard to section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, the Government repeats its previous declarations that the matter was a mere administrative formality which existed for all civil acts and allowed the legal existence of the trade union to be noted. The Committee also notes that during the debate in the Conference Committee in June 1994 the fact was emphasized that it was difficult to imagine this registration as a mere formality since the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education had had its application refused.

The Committee notes in fact, on the one hand, that the Committee on Freedom of Association has expressed its concern at the Government's refusal since 1991 to recognize the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES) and considers that Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 and section 6(2) of the Labour Code are contrary to the provisions of the Convention and, on the other hand, that the Conference Committee of June 1994 reminded the Government of the need to amend in the near future its law and practice to ensure application of the Convention. The Committee is therefore obliged to urge the Government once again to recognize the right of teachers in higher education, be they public servants or contract employees, to form unions of their own choosing, and to take the necessary steps to repeal Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code, so as to guarantee the right of all workers, including public servants, to establish professional associations without previous authorization, in accordance with this Article of the Convention.

2. Article 5. In regard to section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, under which trade unions or professional associations of public servants may not join a foreign professional organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for "supervising fundamental freedoms", the Government repeats the indications provided by the Government representative to the Conference Committee of June 1994 that since this Decree is issued under the Act of 1968, it will be brought into conformity with the Convention once the new Act on civil servant unions is promulgated. Recalling that Article 5 of the Convention gives all occupational organizations the right to affiliate freely with international workers' and employers' organizations, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, as soon as possible, to abolish prior authorization in order to make its law comply with the provisions of the Convention. In any event, the Committee would remind the Government that ILO technical assistance is available for the elaboration of a draft law concerning trade unions or occupational associations of public servants to be fully in conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government's report.

The Committee asks the Government to provide a copy, as soon as it has been adopted, of the Decree provided for in section 9 of the new Labour Code concerning the registration of trade unions, and information on the effect given in practice to the provisions of sections 157 to 164 of the Code, concerning the right to strike and compulsory arbitration (number of collective labour disputes that have been settled by compulsory arbitration under the Code, objections to arbitration awards, etc., and also on the legal scope of the opposition to an arbitration award (section 163 of the Labour Code).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1699 (see 291st Report of the above Committee, paras. 516-551, approved by the Governing Body at its 258th Session, November 1993).

1. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it pointed out that the following provisions were not consistent with the requirements of the Convention: Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, which subjects the legal existence of a trade union or professional association of public servants to the prior approval of the Minister of Territorial Administration; and section 6(2) of the Labour Code of 1992, under which persons forming a trade union that has not yet been registered, and who act as if the said union has been registered, shall be liable to prosecution.

The Government indicates in its report that matters concerning unions and associations of public servants do not come within the purview of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, and that persons forming a union are subject to the Labour Code and its implementing texts governing matters related to unions. It adds that the provisions of section 6(2) of the Code are not inconsistent with the right of workers to set up unions in full freedom and without prior authorization, and that the procedure for registering a union is merely an administrative formality requiring a declaration, and does not impede the actual establishment of a union.

The Committee observes that, in Case No. 1699, the Committee on Freedom of Association noted that the Government has refused since 1991 to recognize the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES), and considered that Act No. 68/LF/19 and section 6(2) of the Labour Code are contrary to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee urges the Government, as did the Committee on Freedom of Association, to recognize the right of teachers in higher education, be they public servants or contract employees, to form unions of their own choosing, and to take the necessary steps to repeal Act No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, and section 6(2) of the Labour Code, so as to guarantee the right of all workers, without distinction whatsoever, including public servants, to establish professional associations without previous authorization, in accordance with this Article of the Convention.

2. Article 5. With reference to its previous comments concerning section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, under which trade unions or professional associations of public servants may not join a foreign professional organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for "supervising fundamental freedoms", the Committee notes with regret that, in its report, the Government provides no information on the measures taken to bring its legislation into line with the requirements of the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee again asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that all workers' organizations have the right to affiliate freely with international organizations, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention.

3. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report all measures that have been taken to put its comments into effect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It nevertheless notes the entry into force of Law No. 92/007 of 14 August 1992 issuing the new Labour Code.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether Decree No. 74/969 of 3 December 1974 empowering the authorities to call up workers who are on strike, which was adopted pursuant to section 165(3) of the former Labour Code, which has been omitted from the new Code, has been repealed.

It also asks the Government to indicate whether appeals lodged under section 14 of the new Code with the competent authority against the registrar's decision to cancel registration of a trade union have suspensory effect.

The Committee asks the Government to provide a copy, as soon as it has been adopted, of the decree provided for in section 9 of the new Code which provides that the form under which trade unions or employers' associations shall be set up in order for them to be registered shall be fixed by decree after the recommendation of the National Labour Advisory Board.

Lastly, it asks the Government to provide information on the practical effect given to the provisions of sections 156 to 164 of the Code, concerning the right to strike and compulsory arbitration (number of collective labour disputes settled by compulsory arbitration under the Code, opposition to arbitration awards, ...), and also the legal scope of the opposition to an arbitration award (section 163 of the Labour Code).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It none the less notes the entry into force of Law No. 92/007 of 14 August 1992 issuing the new Labour Code, and the observations of the Cameroon Workers' Trade Union Confederation (CSTC) and the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES).

1. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the new Labour Code no longer bans foreign workers from holding trade union office as did the former Code (section 10(3)). Section 10(2) of the new Code provides that aliens are required to have resided for not less than five years in the territory of the Republic of Cameroon to be eligible for trade union office Article 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, former section 165(3) which empowered the authorities to call up workers involved in a strike in a vital sector of economic, social or cultural activity, does not appear in the new Code (Article 3).

2. On the other hand, the Committee notes with regret, in connection with the comments it has been making for many years, that the new Labour Code does not repeal Law No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 which subjects the legal existence of a trade union or professional association of public servants to the prior approval of the Minister of Territorial Administration.

It also notes that the Cameroon Workers' Trade Union Confederation (CSTC) pointed out that the right to organize of public servants is still subject to restrictions and that under section 6(2) of the new Labour Code any person forming a trade union or employers' association that has not yet been registered and who acts as if the said union or association has been registered shall be liable to prosecution.

Furthermore, the Committee notes two communications from the National Union of Teachers in Higher Education (SYNES) addressed to the ILO on 28 February and 25 June 1992 (a copy of the second communication was addressed to the Government on 7 July 1992), in which the SYNES reports that the authorities refuse to recognize its existence. It also transmits a copy of a letter of 21 October 1991 from the Minister of Higher Education, Computer Services and Scientific Research which merely states that the Law of 19 December 1990 respecting the right of association provides for the adoption of special provisions for professional associations.

The Committee considers that section 6(2) of the new Labour Code is at variance with the established right of workers to form unions without prior authorization. It therefore asks the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal the provisions which are contrary to the Convention, and to guarantee the right of all workers, including teachers in higher education and public servants, to form professional associations without prior authorization, in accordance with Article 2.

3. The Committee also notes that under section 19 of Decree No. 69/DF/7 of 6 January 1969, trade unions or professional associations of public servants may not join a foreign professional organization without obtaining prior authorization from the Minister responsible for supervising fundamental freedoms. It recalls that under Article 5 of the Convention all workers' and employers' organizations have the right to affiliate freely with international organizations and asks the Government to indicate whether any requests to affiliate have been refused and to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

4. The Committee raises certain other points in a direct request addressed to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. For several years the Committee has been drawing the Government's attention to section 2 of Law No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968, which subjects the legal existence of a trade union or professional association of public servants to the prior approval of the Minister of Territorial Administration.

In its report, the Government points out that in the absence of a trade union organisation for public servants this provision is not applied and that, when public servants wish to organise a trade union, the texts in question will be revised and adapted to the Convention.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that this provision of the legislation is not compatible with Article 2 of the Convention, by virtue of which workers, without distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government, even in the absence of an organisation of public servants, to bring its legislation into conformity with this provision of the Convention.

2. With regard to the banning of foreign workers from holding trade union office (section 10(3) of the Labour Code), the Government once again indicates that this provision could be made more flexible within the framework of the current review of the Labour Code.

While noting this information, the Committee trusts that the revision of the Labour Code which the Government has been announcing for several years will be completed in the near future and that measures will be taken in order to permit foreign workers to hold trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the country.

3. For several years, the Committee has been pointing out that section 165(3) of the Labour Code and sections 2 and 3 of Decree No. 74/969 of 3 December 1974, which empower the authorities to requisition workers involved in a strike called in a vital sector of economic, social or cultural activity, are such as to restrict the right of workers' organisations to call a strike to defend their occupational interests.

In its report, the Government points out that the right to strike is not prohibited in Cameroon and that a solution is found to many disputes during the procedures of conciliation and arbitration.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and defence of their economic and social interests. However, the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services would become meaningless if the legislation defined these services too broadly. Prohibitions should therefore be confined to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

In these circumstances, the Committee once against requests the Government to take measures to confine the prohibition of the right to strike to the cases set out above. It also requests the Government to indicate in its next report the circumstances in which the authorities may have used the procedure of requisitioning.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and recalls that its previous comments addressed the following points:

- the need to apply to prison staff, governed by Decree No. 74-250 of 3 April 1974, the provisions of Law No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 (article 1) and Legislative Decree No. 74-138 of 18 February 1974 (article 36) which provide for the right to organise of public servants;

- the need to repeal the requirement of approval by the Minister of Territorial Administration to establish the legal existence of a trade union or a public servants' occupational association (section 2 of Law No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 relating to trade union or occupational associations or unions not governed by the Labour Code, which permits members of the public service to come together in trade unions);

- the need to modify the requirement that trade union administrators or leaders be of Cameroon nationality (section 10, paragraph 3 of the Labour Code);

- the need to amend the legislation concerning the prohibition against the calling of a strike before the conciliation and arbitration procedures laid down by the Labour Code have been exhausted, or in breach of an arbitration award having executory force, and the power of the authorities to requisition workers involved in a strike called in a vital sector of economic, social or cultural activity (section 165, subsections 2 and 3, of the Code and sections 2 and 3 of Decree No. 74/969 of 3 December 1974 laying down the procedure for giving effect to section 165 of the Labour Code).

1. The Committee takes due note of the information supplied by the Government, that Law No. 68/LF/19 of 18 November 1968 and Legislative Decree No. 74-138 of 18 February 1974 regulating the right to organise of public servants apply to prison staff. However, it draws the Government's attention to the fact that the public servants covered by these provisions must enjoy the right to establish organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation, while the legislation provides that no trade union or professional association may have legal personality without the approval of the responsible Minister.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures contemplated to ensure the application of the Convention in that respect.

2. With regard to the banning of foreign workers from trade union office (section 10(3) of the Labour Code), the Government indicates that it has taken due note of the Committee's comments.

The Committee hopes that as part of the revision of the Labour Code, it will be possible to make this provision more flexible to enable foreign workers to have access to trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in Cameroon (in this connection see paragraph 160 of the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining).

3. With regard to the restrictions on the right to strike contained in the legislation, the Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that the comments concerning the inconsistency of these provisions with the Convention will be taken into account in the revision of the Labour Code.

The Committee recalls that the exercise of the right to strike should be one of the means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and protection of their interests, and that restrictions or a ban on strikes should only be imposed on public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or employed in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or in the event of an acute national emergency for a limited period (in this connection see paragraphs 200, 214 and 226 of the General Survey).

The Committee again expresses the hope that the legislation will be amended in the near future in the light of its comments. It requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any progress in these matters.