Definitive Report - Report No 148, 1975

1. 7. The complaint of the Commercial, Technical and Allied Workers' Union is contained in a communication dated 10 July 1972. Additional information in support of the complaint was transmitted by the complainant organisation in a further communication dated 15 August 1972. The complaint and additional information were transmitted to the Government which submitted its observations in two communications dated 24 May 1973 and 30 May 1974.
2. 8. The Government of the United Kingdom has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and has declared that their provisions are applicable without modification to St. Vincent. It has also ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and has declared it applicable with modifications to St. Vincent. These modifications relate to the composition of the Committee of management of a trade union, the taking of decisions by secret ballot in certain cases, and the use to which trade union funds may be put.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 9. The complainants alleged that in spite of the existence of a collective agreement, which covered hundreds of daily-paid government workers, workers had been dismissed on political grounds since the elections in 1972. The complainants added that discussions took place between the union and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications and Works but that acts of dismissal still took place daily. According to the complainants, the minister for Communications and Works, without the other ministry officials' knowledge, gave lists to time-keepers and foremen of party supporters who should be employed. It was the intention of the Government, continued the complainants, to destroy their organisation and replace it with its own. The complainants added that one of their members (Mr. Reginald Davis), a time-keeper, had been transferred to a stone-crushing plant which was no longer in operation. The Minister informed the union of this transfer and the union lodged a complaint with the Chief Technical officer and with the Minister himself, although to no avail.
2. 10. In their communication of 15 August 1972 the complainants added that the above-mentioned Mr. Davis reported for work when the crusher resumed operation, but was told that the Minister had instructed another time-keeper to be employed. The complainants also gave the names of six other members of their union who, they stated, had been dismissed on political grounds or because they lived in an area which did not support the government party.
3. 11. The Government, in a communication dated 24 May 1973, stated that Reginald Davis was one of the workers affected by a system of rotation, the introduction of which had been necessitated by the unemployment situation in the State. Two of the other workers named in the complaint had been made redundant following a reorganisation of the workplace. In a further communication dated 30 May 1974 the Government pointed out that Reginald Davis and four of the other persons named in the complaint were dismissed for economic reasons. The Government explained that, in order to spread the opportunities for employment as fairly as possible and to prevent hardship for the dependants of workers, a system of rotation had been adopted as an alternative to full employment for a limited number of workers. The other two workers named in the complaint, the Government repeated, had been made redundant following a reorganisation of the workplace.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 12. When it examined this case at its session in November 1973 the Committee decided to adjourn its examination of the case and to invite the complainants to submit their comments on the observations made by the Government concerning the introduction of the system of rotation and the consequent dismissal of Reginald Davis and two other workers, and also concerning the redundancies which followed the reorganisation of the workplace. At its subsequent sessions, in February 1974 and May 1974, the Committee again adjourned its examination of the case since the comments which the complainants had been invited to submit had not been received.