Interim Report - Report No 99, 1967

1. 47. The complaint of the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers, a Trade Secretariat associated with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (I.C.F.T.U.), was presented to the I.L.O by the I.C.F.T.U by a letter dated 26 January 1967. The I.C.F.T.U itself submitted a further complaint on 31 January 1967. These two complaints were transmitted to the Government for its observations by a letter dated 9 February 1967. On 14 February 1967 the I.C.F.T.U submitted a complaint prepared by another of its associated Trade Secretariats, the Miners' International Federation, which was transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 20 February 1967. The Government furnished its observations on the complaints in a communication dated 3 May 1967.
2. 48. Liberia 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Act of 9 February 1966 to Restore, Supplement and Enlarge Emergency Powers Granted to the President of Liberia
  49. 49 The I.C.F.T.U and the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (I.F.P.A.A.W.) criticise the provisions of section 1 (r) of the Emergency Powers Act, empowering the President to ban any labour unions where there is evidence that they are under the influence or direction of any outside source, and those of section 1 (s), enabling the President to ban any labour unions where there is evidence that they receive financial assistance or other benefits from any outside source unless such financial assistance or other benefits are approved by and channelled through the Government. They contend that the provisions of section 1 (r) infringe Article 5 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), according to which national trade union organisations shall have the right to affiliate with international trade union organisations, a right which, in the view of the complainants, implies that national trade unions are entitled to seek the advice and assistance of international trade union organisations in all fields which are relevant to the exercise of trade union functions and to the promotion of genuine trade unionism. Section 1 (s), it is alleged, is also incompatible with Article 5 of the said Convention, because the right of international affiliation implies that national trade union organisations are entitled to receive the services and benefits of their international affiliation for the furtherance of their trade union activities and programmes which, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, they have the right to establish without government interference.
  50. 50 I.F.P.A.A.W alleges that section 1 (r) and (s) of the Act have been used to prohibit meetings between international trade union organisation representatives and Liberian trade unions without the approval of the Liberian Government and refer to the necessity for Liberian trade unionists to obtain the specific permission of the Liberian Government before participating outside Liberia in meetings or conferences of international trade union organisations with which they are affiliated or associated and in some cases of which they are the elected officials. I.F.P.A.A.W and the I.C.F.T.U cite the case of Mr. Colbert and Mr. Vewessee, representatives of I.F.P.A.A.W; the I.C.F.T.U and the Miners' International Federation raise the case of the M.I.F representative, Mr. Roberts.
  51. 51 It is alleged that for six years I.F.P.A.A.W, at the request of the Liberian plantation workers and the Liberian Congress of Industrial Organisations (C.I.O), has tried to help in setting up a free trade union movement in the rubber plantations, but that this has been frustrated by the hostility of the Government and of the plantation industry. According to the complainants, Mr. Colbert, representative of I.F.P.A.A.W, was granted an interview by the President of Liberia in Zürich on 20 September 1966, the purpose of Mr. Colbert being to obtain approval, pursuant to section 1 (s) of the Emergency Powers Act, to assist the Liberian trade unions. The complainants declare that in the course of the interview the President cited a mining workers' strike in July 1966 as indicating the needs of Liberian trade unions for outside help by organisations such as I.F.P.A.A.W and assured Mr. Colbert that he approved of I.F.P.A.A.W helping the Liberian plantation unions. I.F.P.A.A.W reported the interview in letters sent to Mr. Dash Wilson, Under-Secretary for Labour, on 21 September 1966, and to Mr. Romeo Horton, Secretary of Commerce and Industry, on i November 1966. On the basis of the above assurance by the President, it is alleged, Mr. Colbert, with Mr. Vewessee (an official of I.F.P.A.A.W's affiliate in Cameroon) and Mr. W. B. Tueh (a former Rubber Tappers' Association official), began contacting officials of the said Association after normal working hours on 11 November 1966, enlisting them into an Organising Committee of the Liberian Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers, the appropriate officials of the Government and officials of the Company being kept informed of all this in advance. On the night of 17 November 1966 an official of the Liberian Bureau of Labour, accompanied by two policemen, handed to Mr. Colbert and Mr. Vewessee a letter from the Secretary of Commerce and Industry and asked them to proceed at once to the home of the Attorney-General, but they were told they were not under arrest. It is alleged that in fact the police took them to police headquarters, where they were told that they were under arrest, without charges being made, and that their repeated requests to contact their embassies were refused. On 18 November they were released at 3.30 a.m. and told to report at 11 a.m. at the Attorney-General's office to appear before a special commission as provided for in the Emergency Powers Act, including the Attorney-General, the head of the Intelligence Security Service, the Under-Secretary for Labour and the Secretary of State. The complainants allege that they were not allowed counsel, were not informed of the contents of a complaint filed against them by the Firestone Company, and were told by the Attorney-General at the end of the hearing that they must cease assisting the plantation workers to organise until they had written permission from the Government.
  52. 52 It is also alleged that Mr. J. Roberts, a representative of the Miners' International Federation who went to Liberia in October 1966 to assist the Liberian Mineworkers' Union, was given assurances by the Department of Commerce and Industry that he could proceed with his mission, but that, when he was assisting the union in its negotiations with management, he was notified by the Secretary of Commerce and Industry that he was violating the laws of Liberia and was forced to leave the country.
  53. 53 The I.C.F.T.U then goes on to refer to subsections (t), (u) and (v) of section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act enabling the President of Liberia: to consider as illegal and threatening the security of the State all strikes instituted or staged contrary to Liberian legislation and to deem guilty of the commission of a criminal offence all persons aiding, abetting, encouraging or participating in such strikes and to deal with them summarily; to deal summarily and adjudge guilty of an attempt to overthrow the Government and endanger the safety of the State the leaders of any strike staged without first complying with the laws of the Republic; to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for a period of up to one year and to arrest, imprison and detain all violators of the laws of the Republic and have them tried summarily before a commission to be set up by the President of Liberia for the purpose.
  54. 54 In its reply dated 3 May 1967 the Government states that the Emergency Powers Act must be considered as a whole, and in the light of the conditions existing at the date of its enactment in February 1966. The Act deals first with such matters as increasing the National Guard, mobilisation for defence and other measures in case of a threat of invasion, moving the seat of Government, monetary arrangements, setting up an emergency hospital, etc., so that labour is dealt with only as one of several factors composing the national fabric. When it was enacted an uneasy state of affairs existed around Liberia and in Africa as a whole and the Government at the time had ample reasons to believe its existence to be threatened. It took appropriate and necessary measures to protect its existence. The Government declares that this is an inherent attribute of sovereignty and that under no circumstances will it ever relinquish it. Should the occasion arise in the future, measures deemed necessary and appropriate by the Government would again be taken. The Act was a temporary measure to deal with a particular situation and, says the Government, it expired on 8 February 1967.
  55. 55 With regard to the right of affiliation, the Government contends that the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), is not a licence for a union to become a tool or an agent of a foreign power or external force to work against the security and existence of the State in which the union is located.
  56. 56 The Government then comments on the cases of the I.F.P.A.A.W representative, Mr. Colbert, and the M.I.F representative, Mr. Roberts.
  57. 57 Prior to Mr. Colbert, states the Government, another I.F.P.A.A.W representative, Mr. Emmanuel, visited Liberia in September 1965 to investigate the possibility of forming a plantation workers' union. During his one week's stay he met the executive committee of the Liberian Rubber Planters' Association and the heads of some large agricultural concessionaires, and was assured that management would be prepared to welcome and deal with a properly organised union. When he left, Mr. Emmanuel stated that he or some other I.F.P.A.A.W representative would return. Mr. Colbert duly arrived in February 1966 and was assured by the Director of the Rubber Planters' Association that the assurance given to Mr. Emmanuel still held good, but that he must first get clearance from the Government. Mr. Colbert then asked the Bureau of Labour of the Department of Commerce and Industry for clearance to extend necessary assistance to plantation workers in an attempt to organise a union. On the advice of the Bureau Mr. Colbert submitted a formal request to the Government through the Department, and was told that the Department would reply after the request had been studied. The Government declares that, while this was being done, Mr. Colbert became impatient and demanded an immediate audience with the President; this was not possible at the time and Mr. Colbert left Liberia, stating that the climate was not suitable for him to work in.
  58. 58 The Government states that nothing further was heard of Mr. Colbert until he returned in October 1966 and informed the Labour Bureau that the President had given him permission to proceed with his work. The Department of Commerce and Industry informed him that it could not issue the necessary clearance as it had no official information of any such permission. Mr. Colbert then left, stating that he intended to see the management of the Firestone Plantations Company, but, says the Government, he attempted actively to organise the workers of the plantation and, because of these wilful violations of the laws and of threatening remarks made by him, the Government ordered him to return to Monrovia. There he was taken to the police station and asked to report to the Office of the Attorney-General next day. According to the Government, Mr. Colbert was accompanied at the Attorney-General's Office by a United States Vice-Consul, who was told by the Attorney-General that Mr. Colbert was not under arrest but was requested to appear for an investigation. But he was told that until he got the necessary papers from the Department of Commerce and Industry he could not continue his activity at the Firestone plantation.
  59. 59 The Government declares that it will not submit to blackmail. In the Government's view the case of Mr. Colbert represents nothing less than an attempt to blackmail the Government. The President had granted Mr. Colbert an interview in Zürich, and they had discussed many aspects of trade unionism in Liberia. Because Mr. Colbert, on his return to Liberia in October 1966, could not obtain an immediate audience with the President, the Government contends, he presented the President with an ultimatum stating that, if he did not have an audience by 18 December, he would leave the country and report the matter to the I.C.F.T.U. This, the Government repeats, was blackmail, as is further evidenced by the subsequent submission of the I.C.F.T.U complaint. The Government adds that, although Mr. Colbert's activities at the Firestone plantation violated the law of Liberia in addition to his violation of the Aliens and Nationality Law by working in Liberia without the proper visa and status, no action was taken against him although it legally could have been.
  60. 60 Although the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), provides for the affiliation of national with international union organisations, it does not, claims the Government, guarantee the international union the right to enter the territory of a signatory of the Convention to establish a national union, and any action by Mr. Colbert to establish such a union was outside the Convention and subject to the special permission of the Government, which is in its entire discretion.
  61. 61 Mr. J. G. Roberts, Liaison Officer of the Miners' International Federation (M.I.F.), e to Liberia on behalf of the M.I.F to make contact with the Liberian Miners' Union cam He told officials of the Department of Commerce and Industry that the M.I.F, having been approached on the question of affiliation by the Liberian Miners' Union, had sent him to examine the local situation-the normal procedure when any local union requested affiliation with the M.I.F. Permission to make contact with the local union was given but then, says the Government, Mr. Roberts took it upon himself to substitute himself for the local union in its negotiations on miners' terms and conditions with the Liberia Mining Company, a which no foreigner can arrogate to himself pursuant to any I.L.O. Convention. The right Government therefore asked Mr. Roberts to withdraw from the negotiations but it denies that it forced him to leave the country.
  62. 62 The Government states that the M.I.F cites the case of Mr. Roberts as an instance f interference with the right of unions to affiliate and have normal relations with " bona fide international workers' organisations ", contrary to Article 5 of Convention No. 87. As the said Article 5 does not include the words " bona fide ", the Government takes the wording of this allegation to mean that M.I.F recognises the need to determine the character and activities of international workers' organisations. The Government also argues that the implication that Mr. Roberts had been elected by the local union to represent it in its negotiations in accordance with Article 3 of Convention No. 87 is not a correct interpretation of the said Article 3, because " the right of the union to elect its representatives for the purpose negotiating a rise, etc. with the employers must legally be limited to members of the local union pay itself "; the international representative may advise but not substitute himself for the local union representative.
  63. 63 The Government comments also on the allegations respecting the provisions regarding strikes contained in subsections (t), (u) and (v) of section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act (see paragraph 53 above). The Government states that there is no law in Liberia which declares strikes to be criminal and adjudges strike leaders guilty of an attempt to overthrow the Government, and that the Act deals only with strikes of an illegal character. Strikes as such are not illegal if they are exercised in an orderly manner and if prescribed dispute procedures have been complied with, but the Government cannot accept that any trade union should ignore the laws regulating the exercise of their rights or resort to violence with impunity.
  64. 64 The allegations analysed above relate to certain provisions of the Emergency Powers Act of 9 February 1966 and to two cases of trade union representatives to whom in of those provisions are said to have been applied. They raise a number of aspects certain of the application of the principle of the right of international affiliation of trade union organisations which call for examination from the point of view of their compatibility with Article 5 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been ratified by Liberia, and, to some of the points raised, other Articles of that Convention also are relevant. However, the Government states that the Emergency Powers Act was a temporary measure and expired on 8 February 1967.
  65. 65 In these circumstances the Committee assumes that any further emergency powers legislation which may since have been enacted does not contain provisions similar, in their relation to trade union rights, to the aforementioned provisions of the Act which has lapsed, and would appreciate it if the Government would be good enough to confirm this and to furnish the text of any such legislation.
  66. 66 The Committee, therefore, recommends the Governing Body:
      • (a) to take note of the Government's statement that the Emergency Powers Act of 9 February 1966 expired on 8 February 1967;
      • (b) to request the Government to be good enough to confirm that it is correct to assume that any further emergency powers legislation which may since have been enacted does not contain provisions similar, in their relation to trade union rights, to the aforementioned provisions of the Act which has lapsed, and to furnish the text of any such legislation.
  67. Allegations relating to the Act of 11 February 1966 to Amend the Labour Practices Law
  67. 67 It is alleged by the I.C.F.T.U and the I.F.P.A.A.W that, according to section 4601-A of the Act as amended, " no industrial labour union or organisation shall exercise any privilege or function for agricultural workers and no agricultural labour union or organisation shall exercise any privilege or function for industrial workers ". This provision, it is alleged, is contrary to Article 5 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and has prevented the existence of a single national trade union centre including all trade union organisations in the country. At the time of its promulgation in February 1966, it is alleged, this amendment destroyed what organisation and membership the Liberian national centre had been able to achieve in the rubber plantation industry and precludes the plantation workers being able now and in the future to draw on the experience and facilities of the national trade union centre, the Liberian Congress of Industrial Organisations (C.I.O.).
  68. 68 The Government states that it does not consider itself precluded by Article 5 of the said Convention No. 87 from separating industrial unions from agricultural unions. It recognises the right of industrial unions and agricultural unions to affiliate but it cannot accept a situation in which agricultural and industrial workers would function as a single union, which would not only be dangerous but could undermine the existence of the State.
  69. 69 The Committee has always attached the greatest importance to the principle that workers should have the right to form and join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation, a right which is guaranteed by Article 2 of Convention No. 87. Article 8, paragraph 2, of that Convention provides that the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in the Convention. In conformity with the foregoing principles, legislation normally leaves the workers free to choose to organise either in the form of the undertaking union (catering for all the categories of workers in the employ of the same employer) or in the form of the occupational union (catering for all the workers in the same occupation or in similar or related occupations associated in the same branch of production).
  70. 70 If the Committee understands the position correctly, the single Liberian trade union centre, the Congress of Industrial Organisations, is a national Confederation of which the occupational unions in the various branches are constituents. It is alleged that the plantation or agricultural workers had in fact been organised to some extent by the C.I.O but that such degree of organisation as had been achieved among them was ended by the amendment made to the Labour Practices Law on 11 February 1966, and that the law as now applied prevents the C.I.O directly seeking to further the interests of plantation workers and to assist them to organise in a union or unions under its own aegis and as a constituent union or unions of this national trade union centre or Confederation, and also prevents the existence of a single national trade union centre including all the trade union organisations in the country. The Government has not dealt with these specific aspects of the matter in its observations.
  71. 71 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
      • (a) to emphasise the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the right of workers without distinction whatsoever to establish and join organisations of their own choosing guaranteed by Article 2 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), ratified by Liberia;
      • b) to request the Government, having regard to the above provision of the Convention ( and to the considerations set forth in paragraph 69 above, to be good enough to specify what forms of trade union organisation may be adopted by plantation workers and to furnish its observations on the specific allegations referred to in paragraph 70 above.
  72. Allegations relating to Strikes
  72. 72 The I.C.F.T.U states at in Liberia there exists a statutory Labour Practices Review Board under the chairmanship of the Secretary of Commerce and Industry, the function of which is to settle grievances brought before it. Employers or workers may submit any unresolved grievance to the Department of Industry and Commerce, which is responsible for convening a meeting of the Labour Practices Review Board. It is only after the Board's decision has been made public that a withdrawal of labour can legally be made. But, it is alleged, the complainants have been informed that frequently the Government fails to convene the Board and that grievances accumulate over long periods of time without any action on the part of the Government and, in such circumstances, it is not surprising that strikes occur over grievances which the Board has failed to handle, such strikes becoming subject to the severe penal provisions of the Emergency Powers Act (see paragraph 53 above).
  73. 73 As one illustration of a strike in which the alleged dilatoriness and inadequacy of statutory settlement procedures are claimed to have been an important factor, the I.C.F.T.U and the M.I.F cite the strike of workers employed by the Lamco Mining Co. in July 1966.
  74. 74 It is alleged that a dispute concerning the interpretation of an agreement signed in June 1965 between the Lamco National Mineworkers' Association and the Lamco Mining Co. arose in August 1965. The matter was taken to the labour inspector according to law but it is alleged, the Labour Practices Review Board, which has to be convened to deal with such disputes, did not meet and no decision by the Board concerning this dispute has been published. In consequence of this inactivity on the part of the Board the dispute remained unsettled and it was for this reason, it is alleged, that the workers at the Nimba Iron Ore Mines were forced to go on strike in jury 1966. The complainants also state that at an earlier date, when the mine was being constructed, the contractors, Vianini (Liberia) Ltd., had failed to pay the majority of the workers the statutory minimum wage; a complaint was made and the Review Board found that the workers were owed $175,000, the responsibility for paying which was then assumed by Lamco. But, it is alleged, the decision of the Board has not been implemented and the money due to the workers has never been paid. The strike began on 21 July 1966 and lasted until 28 July. On 23 July, it is alleged, because they could not persuade the strikers to return to work, Mr. Monger and Mr. Murray, respectively President and Treasurer of the miners' union, were arrested and kept in prison until November, without any charges ever having been preferred against them, while the Secretary, Mr. Kawah, and six other members of the union were arrested and later released. The complainants declare that the management asked all supervisors to submit the names of those who were believed to have instigated the strike or supported it indirectly and, on 28 and 29 July, 32 workers were summarily dismissed and violently evicted from their homes. Armed police and the army are said to have been rushed to the area and the violent suppression of the strike is alleged proved by a film made on the spot by a Swedish television team which was there at the time.
  75. 75 According to the I.C.F.T.U, another strike broke out at the Goodrich rubber plantation in December 1966 and troops were brought in to break the strike, using their arms and committing acts of violence against the workers.
  76. 76 The Labour Act, declares the Government, does not make strikes " usually illegal ", as alleged; on the contrary, it specifically recognises the right to strike but emphasises that strikes be executed in a legal manner. The Government says that it did not, by accepting the provisions of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), abandon its right to enforce its laws and to prevent their wilful and deliberate abuse. The question of whether a particular machinery is properly functioning in dealing with labour problems is a question of judgment and not one of law. The Government not only questions the foundation of the charges made; it also cannot accept the implied view of the complainants that trade unions, if they question the administration of the law, must take the law into their own hands and act in violation of the law which they disapprove. There is a regular legal procedure by which a law can be challenged in the courts.
  77. 77 The Government declares that it is universally recognised that a State, in the exercise of its duty to protect its inhabitants and their property, may use the amount of force necessary to subdue hostile persons, and that the use of troops and police in restoring order in cases involving labour disorders cannot be regarded as inappropriate. Lawlessness and violence, whether by trade unionists or by others, says the Government, must be brought under control by means adequate to ensure that the violence and lawlessness are stopped and that life and property are adequately protected. "Even if there exists a snag in the process of administering labour laws in Liberia so as to cause a delay in its appropriate execution ", the Government argues, this cannot in any way justify illegal activity, although the complainants have attempted to justify illegal strikes on the ground that claims were not resolved " because of the slowness of the administrative process in resolving labour grievances in Liberia, particularly the Labour Practices Review Board ". If anyone feels that his rights are denied, says the Government, adequate remedy is available by law. In this connection the Government refers to the right " to petition the Government or any public functionaries for the redress of grievances " laid down in article 1, section 5, of the Constitution of Liberia.
  78. 78 The strikes referred to were illegal and, says the Government, " were not in furtherance of any legitimate demands or grievances " and " were not directed by the union itself or its legitimate leaders ".
  79. 79 In February 1966 a strike without warning took place on the Firestone plantations. When the Government attempted to mediate, all efforts to discover who were the responsible leaders so that negotiation might take place proved futile. The strikers began to resort to violence and it was clear that there was no leadership in control of the strike. According to the Government these strikers possessed arms and ammunition which had been smuggled into the country.
  80. 80 The Goodrich strike in November 1966 was also without warning and the " grievances " of the workers were not against the employers but against their own headmen.
  81. 81 The Lamco strike in July 1966 was also without warning. When an attempt was made to negotiate, it was found that the strikers had no leaders and, says the Government, that they had no real grievances ". Regarding the award of $175,000, the Government cannot believe that " the M.I.F is really suggesting that Government should actively take sides in a labour-management dispute ". The award, says the Government, " was made by the Labour Practices Review Board, a Liberian government agency, acting in its impartial capacity. If management has failed to pay it, the union has facilities available to it by law to enforce the award. This is as much as the Government of Liberia can do."
  82. 82 The Government gives the following account of the violence which took place in the Lamco strike. The use of police and troops was necessary to protect life and property. When the strike took place mediation resulted in most of the workers returning to work, but about 25 of them did not, and the latter, says the Government, were determined not to work and to see to it that nobody else worked; they set up road blocks, destroyed vehicles and assaulted people returning to work. It was then, the Government states, that the soldiers d police were employed. When this group had finally refused to work again for Lamco, and police they were told to vacate their concession property to make way for other workers; they refused and were evicted.
  83. 83 The Government goes on to make a number of general observations. Trade unionism in Liberia really began only in the last decade and the Government considers that its own positive attitude and assistance have contributed to the development of the C.I.O as a national trade union centre and to the organisation of workers in almost every branch of industry But some of the workers' leaders, in the Government's view, have not exhibited the restraint, intelligence, honesty and sincerity needed in leaders of a nascent, developing organisation.
  84. 84 In some cases, however, the Government contends, leaders have been deliberately corrupt. In this connection the Government cites a " Report on the National Mine Workers' Association in Liberia " dated 13 November 1966 by a Mr. Wogu Ananaba, a person apparently sponsored at one time by the C.I.O to do educational work. In this document reference is made to careless handling of the union's funds and to withdrawals from the bank without the requisite consent of two-thirds of its management committee. It is suggested w therein that, before the Lamco strike, the Vice-President of the union, Mr. Duncan, asked for a cash report to be drawn up, but that the President and Treasurer of the union, Messrs. Monger and Murray, had not been agreeable. It is not clear to whom this report was addressed or by whose authority it was prepared.
  85. 85 The Government emphasises that its interest in developing the organisation of labour is clear from its policy towards unions. The Law on Labour Unions sets forth the principles of the settlement of issues between employers and employees through peaceful processes and conferences between employers and representatives of employees and emphasises the desirability of " making available full and adequate governmental facilities for conciliation and mediation to aid and encourage employers and the representatives of their employees to make all reasonable efforts to settle their differences reached through conferences and peaceful negotiations". The Government also quotes from the address of President Tubman to the First National Industrial Relations Conference, on 27 January 1965, in which the President expressed the Government's belief in collective bargaining and its opposition to violence, including violence between labour and management, and stated that " management and labour ... are symbols of the free enterprise system in which we believe in both theory and practice. No economy can become really sound without an active and free labour organisation; by the same token, without the private element of management, employers and investors, no economy can be free or even exist."
  86. 86 The Committee has always applied the principle that allegations respecting the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights.
  87. 87 In the present case the complaints and the Government's observations thereon leave the Committee in uncertainty as regards certain points on which it feels that it will need some clarifications before it can make definitive recommendations to the Governing Body in sufficiently full knowledge of the circumstances. In this connection the Committee has before it the texts of legislation contained in the Handbook of Labour Law of Liberia published by the Bureau of Labour, Monrovia, in January 1965, pages 83 to 113 of which contain the text of the Act to Amend the Labour Practices Law in relation to the Rights and Duties of Labour Organisations and the Members Thereof.
  88. 88 It is alleged that a strike is held to be illegal if it is called before the Labour Practices Review Board has published its decision, but that when a dispute is reported the Board takes an unreasonably long time to give a decision, or never gives a decision or is never even convened. The Government has not replied directly on this point, but has stated that, even if there are delays in the administrative process in resolving disputes, this is not a justification for calling an illegal strike.
  89. 89 In many cases in the past the Committee has observed that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests is generally recognised. In this connection the Committee has also emphasised that, in exercising the right to strike, workers and their organisations must have due regard to temporary restrictions placed thereon, e.g. cessation of strikes during conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties can take part at every stage. In doing so, however, the Committee has stressed that when restrictions of this kind are placed on the exercise of the right to strike, the ensuing conciliation and arbitration proceedings should be " adequate, impartial and speedy ".
  90. 90 In a dispute in an " essential industry " (see paragraph 91 below) in Liberia, the workers or their union shall submit written demands to the labour inspector or to the Labour Practices Review Board, and within 48 hours the authority in question shall notify the employer, who shall have three days in which to reply (section 4400 of the Labour Practices Law). If a settlement is not thus reached the authority shall attempt conciliation under section 4402 and, if this does not succeed within two weeks, the matter shall be referred to the Labour Practices Review Board. No time limit, however, appears to be fixed for action by the Board. Nor does the Law appear to contain any provisions concerning the juridical effects of awards or, if they are binding, provisions governing their enforcement. The Committee feels that it would be desirable to have before it some information as to the period within which the Board is expected or required to give a decision.
  91. 91 The Committee observes that, if it has correctly understood the provisions of the Labour Practices Law, the only compulsory conciliation and arbitration procedures appear to be those contained in sections 4400 and 4402 of the Law, applicable in the essential sectors of industry listed in section 4403 as telecommunications, water supply, electrical industries, hospitals and any industry engaged in the production or handling of goods essential to the national defence and the safety of the Republic. In these sectors statutory notice of a strike or lockout is required.
  92. 92 The Committee, while it does not feel called upon to examine the factual incidents stated to have taken place in the course of the particular strikes referred to in the present case, considers that it would be desirable for it to know which are the legal provisions, if any, which specify the iron ore mines and rubber plantations as falling within the category in which statutory notice is required.
  93. 93 Finally, it is alleged that-impliedly on account of the Lamco strike-Messrs. Monger, Murray and Kawah, respectively President, Treasurer and Secretary of the Lamco Mine Workers' Union, were arrested on 23 July 1966, the first two not being released until November, without any charges ever having been brought against them. As the Government has not made any comment on these allegations, beyond furnishing a copy of a letter from one Ananaba, making references to mishandling of union funds, the Committee, having regard to the importance which it has always attached, in all cases in which trade unionists detained, to the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest have been d possible moment by an impartial and independent judicial authority, considers it necessary that the Government be requested to be good enough to furnish its observations on these allegations.
  94. 94 In these circumstances the Committee, considering that allegations respecting the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights, recommends the Governing Body:
      • (a) to emphasise the importance the Governing Body has always attached to the principle that, where restrictions are placed on the exercise of the right to strike, such restrictions should be accompanied by the provision of conciliation and arbitration proceedings which are adequate, impartial and speedy;
      • (b) to request the Government:
      • (i) to be good enough to state whether the Labour Practices Review Board is normally expected or required to publish its decision in any dispute which may be referred to it within a prescribed period and to indicate any legal provisions concerning the nature and enforcement of awards of the Board;
      • (ii) to be good enough to indicate the legal provisions pursuant to which strikes in iron ore mines and rubber plantations have been considered to be illegal;
      • (c) to emphasise the importance which the Governing Body has always attached, in all cases in which trade unionists have been detained, to the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment;
      • (d) to request the Government to be good enough, having regard to the foregoing principle, to furnish its observations on the allegations relating to the arrest and detention of Messrs. Monger, Murray and Kawah, respectively President, Treasurer and Secretary of the Lamco Mine Workers' Union.
  95. Allegations relating to the Arrest and Detention of Mr. James Bass, General Secretary of the Liberian Congress of Industrial Organisations
  95. 95 The I.C.F.T.U alleges that, on 25 November 1966, Mr. James Bass, the General Secretary of the Congress of Industrial Organisations, was arrested and kept in detention on unknown charges. The complainants subsequently understood that he had been charged with sedition, presumably pursuant to the Emergency Powers Act.
  96. 96 The Government calls this accusation ridiculous and states that Mr. Bass was charged with sedition in accordance with section 52 (a) and (b) of the Penal Law. He was then detained to await trial, he himself having refused bail. Subsequently he wrote a letter of apology to the President, a copy of which the Government furnishes, and the President ordered his release. Mr. Bass filed a six months' good behaviour bond, a copy of which is also furnished, and was released on 10 February 1967.
  97. 97 The Government itself gives no details of the seditious statements with which Mr. Bass was charged, but he admits his guilt in his letter to the President.
  98. 98 The Committee, therefore, while it would feel obliged to examine the matter in further detail if the charges were subsequently to be revived against Mr. Bass or if further charges were to be brought against him, recommends the Governing Body to note that Mr. Bass has been released and to decide that, subject to the foregoing reservation, no useful purpose would be served by pursuing further its examination of this aspect of the case.
• Allegations relating to the Rubber Tappers' Association
  99. 99 It was alleged by the I.F.P.A.A.W that a Rubber Tappers' Association was formed at the Firestone Company's Harbel Plantation by officials of the Government, following the tappers' strike there in January 1966, and that the Government selected its leaders. Since then, it is alleged, the Association has come under the control of the Company to the extent that nomination of its officers has been made by officials of the Company's labour relations department, who have conducted the elections of its officers and called its meetings, all this in violation of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
  100. 100 As the Government does not refer to these allegations in its reply, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations thereon.