Definitive Report - Report No 1, 1952

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  87. 87 The complainants allege that trade union rights have been infringed in two respects:
      • (a) A Bill was introduced to forbid strikes in " essential services ", the definition of which would be entrusted to the Governor of the Territory;
      • (b) In April 1950 a strike of indigenous workers at Jinja was suppressed by the police, who arrested four strikers.
  88. Analysis of the Reply
  88. 88 In its reply the Government maintains that the facts alleged do not constitute an infringement of trade union rights.
      • (a) With regard to the first allegation it declares that strikes in water services, electricity services and public health services are not prohibited but are made subject to a special conciliation and arbitration procedure by virtue of the Trade Disputes Ordinance, 1949. An amendment made in July 1950 extended this procedure to other services which the Governor might prescribe as essential, this prescription being subject to the approval of the Legislative Council.
      • (b) As regards the second allegation the Government maintains that on the occasion of the strike at Jinja in April 1950 the police intervened not to break the strike but to maintain public order endangered by threats of intimidation posted up by the strikers, four of whom were arrested on this ground.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 89. The Government of the United Kingdom has ratified in respect of Uganda the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947, which provides that the right of employers and employed alike to associate for all lawful purposes shall be guaranteed by appropriate measures and that employers and workers shall be encouraged to avoid disputes and, if they arise, to reach fair settlements by means of conciliation, and that machinery shall be created as rapidly as possible for the settlement of disputes between employers and workers.
2. 90. It is clear from the details given by the Government that strikes in essential services are not prohibited but are merely made subject in the first instance to a special conciliation and arbitration procedure. It does not appear that in the case in question the complainant has proved that the intervention of the Government with regard to the exercise of the right to strike implies ipso facto an infringement of freedom of association.
3. 91. With regard to the second allegation it is clear from the documentation presented by the Government that workers have not been prosecuted because of their exercise of the right to strike but because they had disturbed public order. It is clear from the details given by the Government that the workers were arrested because of threats of intimidation-that is, for offences under the provisions of common law. With regard to the second allegation also it would appear that the complainants have not proved that the Government has infringed freedom of association.