Definitive Report - Report No 83, 1965

1. 47. The Committee previously examined this case at its 38th and 39th Sessions, held respectively in November 1964 and February 1965. On these occasions it made its final recommendations to the Governing Body on certain aspects of the case, namely the allegations respecting the formation of trade unions, the registration of trade unions, access to trade union books and registers, and the dismissal of trade union leaders.
2. 48. The following paragraphs deal only with outstanding allegations relating to trade union elections, the affiliation of trade unions with trade federations and the effects of the Military Ordinance of 30 April 1964 on the exercise of the right to strike.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Right of Workers to Elect Their Representatives in Full Freedom
  49. 49 The complainants state that, under the transitional provisions of the Legislative Decree of 2 March 1964 to reorganise the trade union movement, the Minister of Social Affairs and Labour is empowered to appoint a committee for the General Federation of Trade Unions and a committee for each trade union, composed of members chosen by him, and to authorise these committees to replace the Council of the Federation and the committees of the unions.
  50. 50 In its reply the Government stresses that the provisions in question are essentially temporary and that the first task of these committees is to organise the carrying out of free elections.
  51. 51 At its meeting in November 1964 the Committee pointed out that the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), by which the Syrian Arab Republic is bound, provides clearly in its Article 3 that the workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom.
  52. 52 Before it could decide whether the principle stated in the preceding paragraph had been infringed or not and express a final view on this aspect of the case, the Committee considered that it must know firstly whether trade union elections had actually taken place in Syria and secondly, if so, in precisely what circumstances the elections had been carried out. It therefore recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish additional information on these points.
  53. 53 The request for information was conveyed to the Government by a letter dated 10 March 1965, to which the Government replied by a letter dated 30 March 1965.
  54. 54 In this letter the Government states that the trade union elections took place in January 1965. The workers, it says, chose their representatives in full freedom, under the supervision of independent commissions presided over by magistrates and without any interference by the government authorities. The Government adds that the procedure under which the elections were carried out had been adopted in agreement with the General Federation of Trade Unions. It was based on the principle that each worker had the right to elect his representatives in full freedom, and provided among other things that any member of a trade union who regarded certain formalities as likely to restrict this right was entitled to appeal against them before commissions meeting under a magistrate in each administrative district (mouhafazat).
  55. 55 In these circumstances the Committee considers that the provisions complained of, referred to in paragraph 49 above, were not only of an essentially temporary character, but were intended solely to prepare for the holding of free trade union elections; as is clear from the Government's reply analysed in the preceding paragraph, these were later held in conditions that do not seem to have run counter to the principle of Convention No. 87 mentioned in paragraph 51 above. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Compulsory Affiliation of Primary Unions to Particular Trade Federations
  56. 56 The complainants allege that in accordance with section 47 of the Legislative Decree of 2 March 1964 the primary unions were compelled, under pain of having their committees dissolved, to affiliate with the corresponding trade federations.
  57. 57 In its reply the Government confirms that in the event of failure to affiliate with the trade federations the committees of the trade unions were in fact dissolved. " In such cases ", continues the Government, " the General Assembly of the trade union shall proceed to the election of a new committee for the exercise of its functions. In this way all the members of the trade union will have the opportunity of discussing the subject of joining the trade federation ".
  58. 58 At its meeting in November 1964 the Committee noted that, to judge by the last sentence of the Government's observations quoted in the preceding paragraph, it would appear that, once the new committee of a union had been elected, the members would have the opportunity of deciding whether or not they wished their union to be affiliated with the trade federation. However, continued the Committee, if the latitude was really allowed to them, it was not easy to understand why, under section 47 of the decree complained of, a trade union committee that had refused to affiliate its union with the trade federation had to be dissolved. Furthermore, observed the Committee, taken in isolation, section 47 of the decree did seem to require a primary union to affiliate with its corresponding trade federation.
  59. 59 The Committee therefore recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to indicate whether it was open to the workers themselves to decide for or against affiliation of their union with a trade federation or whether such affiliation was prescribed by law.
  60. 60 In its letter dated 30 March 1965 the Government gives the following explanations in this connection. Under section 47 of the Legislative Decree of 2 March 1964, the legislative authority intended that " the trade unions in their various mouhafazats should establish a trade federation representing all the workers of the trade and defending their interests " and so form " a strong trade union organisation that should be in a position to carry out these intentions and prevent the breaking-up of the trade union movement and its division into a number of bodies established on the basis of personal disagreements and disputes, whether relating to parties or not ". The Government also says: "... the trade federation under this provision of the Legislative Decree is in a way a general trade union for a single trade, provided by law with all the necessary guarantees for constructive work in the field of this single trade throughout the country. It is the workers' organisations themselves that have asked for the unification of the trade union organisations of one trade within a single trade federation, since the principal aim of the federation is to establish a strong trade union movement capable of joining other popular organisations in contributing to the economic and social development of the country at every level."
  61. 61 It seems clear from the observations made by the Government, both in its latest letter and in that examined by the Committee at its November 1964 meeting, that the primary unions are, under the law, bound to affiliate with their respective trade federations. Moreover, the existence of two or more trade federations for a given trade seems to be excluded, and the primary unions do not seem to be able to choose in full freedom the inter-union organisation with which they wish to affiliate.
  62. 62 Under Article 5 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been ratified by the Syrian Arab Republic, workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to establish and join federations and Confederations. Under Article 6 of the same Convention the provisions of Article 2 defining the rights of individuals, both workers and employers, shall also be applicable to primary organisations desiring to form a federation or Confederation. Among these rights is that of freedom of choice of the organisation with which affiliation is desired.
  63. 63 This provision of the Convention, as the Committee has had occasion to state on a previous occasion, is in no way intended as an expression of support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union diversity. It is intended to convey, on the one hand, that in many countries there are several organisations among which the workers or the employers may wish to choose freely and, on the other hand, that workers and employers may wish to establish new organisations in a country where no such diversity has hitherto been found.
  64. 64 It is true that the Government states in its observations that " it is the workers' organisations themselves that have asked for the unification of the trade union organisations of one trade within a single trade federation ". However true this statement may be, it remains a fact that the desire attributed to the workers has been confirmed by legislative authority in a way that now makes it equivalent to a legal obligation.
  65. 65 In this connection the Committee considers it appropriate to recall what has been said by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations when it has been called on to express views on similar situations. The Committee of Experts has had occasion to point out that when a unified trade union movement results solely from the will of the workers this situation does not require to be sanctioned by legal texts, the existence of which might give the impression that the unified trade union movement is merely the result of existing legislation or is kept in force only through such legislation. The Committee of Experts has said in particular:
• ... there is a fundamental difference, with respect to the guarantees of freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, between a situation in which a trade union monopoly is instituted or maintained by legislation and the factual situations which are found to exist in certain countries in which all the trade union organisations join together voluntarily in a single federation, or Confederation, without this being the direct or indirect result of legislative provisions applicable to trade unions and to the establishment of trade union organisations. The fact that workers and employers generally find it in their interests to avoid a multiplication of the number of competing organisations does not, in fact, appear sufficient to justify direct or indirect intervention by the State and, especially, intervention by the State by means of legislation.
  66. 66 Since the Syrian Arab Republic has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and is therefore bound by the provisions of this Convention, the Committee considers it necessary to draw the attention of the Government to the importance of the principle laid down in Article 2 of this instrument to the effect that workers shall have the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing. Again, recalling that, under paragraph 2 of Article 8 of Convention No. 87, the law of the land in States which are parties to this Convention shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in it, the Committee considers that the attention of the Government should be drawn to the fact that, in its present form and according to the interpretation that the Government seems to give to it, the law in force may well jeopardise the guarantee provided for in Article 2 of Convention No. 87 and that the Government should be requested to consider eliminating from this legislation any provision that might run counter to the guarantee in question.
• Allegations relating to the Exercise of the Right to Strike
  67. 67 The complainants allege that the President of the Revolutionary Council promulgated on 30 April 1964 a decree providing that any person inciting anyone to strike shall be brought before a court martial.
  68. 68 In its observations made on 30 December 1964 the Government states that a military ordinance (and not a decree) was in fact issued on 30 April 1964 providing that any person inciting another to close his establishment or to disrupt public order and security shall be brought before a court martial. The Government states, however, that this ordinance was promulgated in conditions in which the security of the country was threatened " for the purpose of restoring law and order ". Lastly, it asserts that even at the time of the disturbance that had brought about the promulgation of the ordinance, the latter had never been applied in practice.
  69. 69 At its meeting in February 1965, the Committee, noting that the Government did not state whether the ordinance in question had been repealed or not, considered that it must know, before formulating its final recommendations to the Governing Body, whether this ordinance had been repealed or whether the Government intended to repeal it.
  70. 70 In its letter of 30 March 1965 the Government states that the Ordinance of 30 April 1964 is still in force. It declares its intention, however, of repealing the ordinance as soon as circumstances permit, and affirms that in the meantime it intends to apply the ordinance only in circumstances that threaten the security of the country.
  71. 71 It seems clear that the text in question, which, moreover, according to the Government, does not appear to have been applied in practice, was promulgated during a period of crisis to meet exceptional circumstances.
  72. 72 However, since this text might well jeopardise the exercise of freedom in general and of trade union rights in particular, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able, in accordance with its own expectations, to repeal it in the near future.