Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 318, November 1999

1. 208. In its communication dated 27 July 1998, the Gabonese Confederation of Free Trade Unions presented a complaint of infringements of trade union rights against the Government of Gabon.
2. 209. In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee had to postpone twice the examination of this case, which concerns particularly serious allegations. At its May-June meeting (see 316th Report, para. 11), the Committee addressed an urgent appeal to the Government, drawing its attention to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rule laid down in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report approved by the Governing Body, it could at its following session submit a report on the substance of the matter, even if the information awaited by the Government had still not been received. The Government has not furnished any observations to date.
3. 210. Gabon has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 211. In its communication dated 27 July 1999, the CGSL first reports a violation of Convention No. 87 by the SOCOFI enterprise in Libreville on 7 June 1997. The CGSL alleges a categorical refusal on the part of the employer and the provincial Estuary labour inspection to recognize the existence of the CGSL's branch in that enterprise, even though they had been duly informed of the content of the minutes of the General Assembly and the membership of the executive committee.
2. 212. The CGSL explains that the enterprise's workers then started a general strike in September 1997 on the initiative of the executive committee. Following this strike, the Gabonese Air and Borders Police ordered the repatriation of Mr. Sow Aliou, a member of the executive committee of Guinean nationality, despite the legality of his presence in Gabon. It also reports that all of the members of the trade union committee were dismissed from the enterprise.
3. 213. Secondly, the CGSL reports a violation of Convention No. 87 by the labour inspection of the province of Koula-Moutou on 2 March 1998. It explains that the Koula-Moutou provincial labour inspector suspended the activities of the CGSL branch at the Leroy-Gabon company's "Gongue" forestry works, thus depriving the workers of the right to bargain collectively.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 214. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has lapsed since the complaint was presented and given the seriousness of the matters alleged, the Government has not replied to any of the complainant's allegations even though it has several times been invited to present comments and observations, including by means of an urgent appeal.
2. 215. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the procedural rule applicable in such cases (see 127th Report of the Committee, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session), the Committee feels obliged to present a report on the substance of the matter, even though the information it had hoped to receive from the Government is lacking.
3. 216. The Committee first of all reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to ensure that this freedom is respected in law and in fact. While these procedures protect governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of presenting detailed replies to the accusations that may be put forward against them for objective examination (see First Report of the Committee, para. 31).
4. 217. The Committee notes that the case under examination concerns allegations of refusal to recognize trade union structures and of sanctions against workers following their exercise of the right to strike. As concerns the allegations respecting the refusal by the SOCOFI enterprise and the Estuary provincial labour inspector to recognize the CGSL branch in that enterprise, the Committee insists that the possibility, in fact and in law, to establish organizations is the first trade union right and the essential prerequisite without which all of the other guarantees of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 would remain a dead letter. In this respect, the Committee has emphasized on several occasions in the past the importance it attaches to workers and employers having the effective possibility to form and join the organizations of their own choosing in all freedom. This right cannot be said to exist unless such freedom is fully established and respected in law and in fact (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 271 and 274). In this case, this principle is valid also for the allegation of suspension by the provincial labour manager of Koula-Moutou of the CGSL branch in the Leroy-Gabon company, depriving the workers of the right to bargain collectively. The Committee recalls that employers, including governmental authorities in the capacity of employers, should recognize for collective bargaining purposes the organizations representative of the workers employed by them (see Digest, op. cit., para. 821). In the case in point, and in the absence of precise evidence from the complainant and the total absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee can only deplore the refusal to recognize the CGSL trade union branches at the SOCOFI and Leroy-Gabon enterprises and request the Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee the existence and free functioning of that trade union in the above enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in that respect.
5. 218. As concerns the allegations relating to the repatriation of Mr. Sow Aliou and the dismissal of all of the members of the trade union committee at the SOCOFI enterprise following the strike in September 1997, the Committee reaffirms that the right to strike by workers and their organizations has always been recognized as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests and that nobody should be penalized for carrying out a legitimate strike. Moreover, when trade unionists or union leaders are dismissed for having exercised the right to strike, the Committee can only conclude that they have been punished for their trade union activities and have been discriminated against (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 474, 590 and 592). In the case in point, the Committee considers the dismissal of workers and the expulsion of a trade unionist to his country of origin to be serious acts of discrimination in respect of employment because of participation in lawful union activities, contrary to Convention No. 98. In fact, it appears to the Committee that in this case the trade unionists were dismissed, or expelled in the case of Mr. Sow Aliou, as much for activities connected with the setting up of a trade union as for exercising the right to strike. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all the measures necessary for the workers in question to be reinstated in their posts without loss of pay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in that respect.