Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 304, June 1996

1. 116. In a communication of 30 January 1995, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented a complaint of infringements of trade union rights against the Government of China. It submitted additional information in a communication dated 22 December 1995. The International Transport Workers' Federation associated itself with this complaint.
2. 117. The Government supplied its initial observations in a communication of 13 October 1995. It submitted further observations in a communication dated 6 March 1996.
3. 118. China has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 119. In its communication of 30 January 1995, the ICFTU indicates that this complaint concerns the oppression of Chinese seafarers serving on foreign flag ships by the Government of China. According to the ICFTU, the intimidation and abuse of these seafarers is the direct result of their having accepted assistance from the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) to improve their wages and working conditions. This is a clear breach of the spirit of the ILO's Constitution and Conventions No. 87 on freedom of association and No. 98 on the right to organize and bargain collectively. In addition, the information that follows illustrates the nature of government abuses of basic trade union rights. It is clear that trade union activity by Chinese seafarers leads to retaliation by the Government.
2. 120. The ICFTU states that the information at its disposal has been collated from sources within China and ITF inspectors worldwide who over the past few years have intervened on behalf of Chinese seafarers on a number of occasions. It is clear that in the absence of any free and independent national trade union, Chinese seafarers have no other organization to turn to in seeking redress for their legitimate grievances. It is only when they are driven to the brink of desperation by the failure of the authorities to respond to their legitimate grievances that they take matters into their own hands. The ICFTU explains that the ITF is unique in this respect since it is the only international trade union organization that permits individual members to join. Under the ITF's Constitution, individual seafarers working on flags of convenience may, in the absence of a bona fide national trade union affiliated to the ITF, join the ITF Special Seafarers' Department (SSD). The SSD acts as the seafarers' "national" trade union until such time as they can be transferred to an appropriate ITF seafarer affiliate. The SSD is also responsible for the practical administration of the ITF's campaign against flag of convenience shipping, including liaising with ITF inspectors worldwide, pursuing death and injury compensation and back-pay claims for seafarers and arranging, where necessary, solidarity and legal action on their behalf.
3. 121. The ICFTU adds that Chinese crews are informed by the authorities that contacting the ITF, or its affiliated unions, constitutes a serious criminal offence. Before they leave China to embark on foreign flag ships (jobs that are arranged for them by government-controlled manning agencies), Chinese seafarers are given pre-departure lectures where they are told that if they have any problems they should direct their complaints to the manning agent, the Chinese Government or the shipping company - but not to the ITF or its affiliates. The ICFTU then submits the following case histories as evidence to support its allegations.
4. 122. In the MV Arcadia incident, the Arcadia, a Bahamian-registered cargo vessel owned by Inersea Carriers SA of Panama, arrived in Ravenna, Italy, on 2 April 1992. Upon arrival the ship was visited by the ITF inspector Mr. Bruno De Bonis from the Italian union FIT-CISL. De Bonis obtained copies of the ship's payroll (the complainant attaches one such copy to its complaint) and discovered that the crew were being paid far below even the ILO-recommended wage rates with the able seamen receiving a basic wage of US$95.00 per month (compared to the ILO minimum basic wage for an able seaman of US$286 per month at that time). In addition, the crew claimed that about 25 per cent of their wages were being remitted to the Chinese manning agent in Tianjin - reportedly the Neptune Labour Cooperative Company. The crew also told De Bonis that the captain forced them to work under slave-like conditions and anyone objecting was immediately dismissed or disciplined. De Bonis was also told that the seafarers were regularly bullied and beaten by the captain and the other ship's officers. This maltreatment seems to have been a part of their daily lives.
5. 123. At 16.00 on 2 April 1992, 11 of the crew went on strike and solidarity action by the local ITF-affiliated trade unions was arranged by De Bonis (a copy of the authorization signed by the crew giving De Bonis power of attorney is attached to the complaint). On 3 April 1992, following negotiations with the owners of the Arcadia an agreement was signed which required the owners to pay the crew their entitlements in accordance with the levels agreed by the ILO Joint Maritime Committee under the terms of ILO Recommendation No. 109 on Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1958, which amounted to back wages totalling US$95,000. The agreement also covered the option of repatriation for the 11 seafarers at the next port of call or transfer to another of the company's ships. In this case, all 11 seafarers chose to be repatriated from Gibraltar.
6. 124. The ICFTU points out that a facsimile message (a copy of which is attached to the complaint) sent by Helikon Shipping Enterprises Limited of London, the agent acting for the owners of the Arcadia, acknowledges that the wages being paid to the crew were "substandard". In addition, this communication refers to an "indemnity letter" to be signed by the owners and the captain of the vessel and endorsed by the Chinese Embassy in London guaranteeing the safety of the crew (a copy of this letter is attached together with its notarization). Unfortunately, owing to the fact that it would have taken several weeks before the document could be endorsed by the Chinese Embassy, it was accepted by De Bonis with only the signature of the Arcadia's agent.
7. 125. When the 11 crew members finally arrived back in China, they were detained by the procurator from the People's Procurate of Heping District of Tianjin for about 24 hours on 19 April 1992, having arrived at Beijing airport that same day. No charge was brought against them at that time but all foreign currencies and the original documents relating to the action in Italy were confiscated and have never been returned. On 10 August 1992, all the seafarers except Zhang Ai Zhao were formally arrested by the District Procurate for "letting out important state secrets and causing serious economic losses to their despatcher". Zhang was arrested in November 1992 in Guangzhou. Eight of the seafarers were subsequently released on bail. To date, they have not been prosecuted formally and no official information is available concerning their fate. The remaining three seafarers, namely the Second Officer, Hua Chun Gui, the Third Officer, Zhang Ai Zhao and the Second Engineer, Gao Ziao Hui, were held in Tianjin until finally being released on bail in August 1993 after 12 months of detention. The District Procurate formally brought a criminal suit against these three former officers of the Arcadia on 5 April 1993.
8. 126. On 8 August 1993, the three seafarers had their case heard before the People's District Court and judgement was reserved. To date, the ICFTU has been unable to determine when, or if, a judgement will be delivered. All it knows is that the three seafarers concerned are still on bail and as such they are facing considerable hardship. They are unable to find work not only because the authorities have confiscated their qualifications and seamen's documentation but they are prevented from leaving their home towns. According to the lawyers engaged by the families of the three seafarers, a telex was sent to the Chinese manning agent from the London-based representative of the shipowner, i.e. Helikon Shipping Enterprises. This telex stated "we are waiting for your response. If we fail to see that these 11 seamen are put in jail, we will never allow any opportunity to seamen on board our ships." The ICFTU points out that if this is true, then the company, which has told the ITF that it had nothing to do with the action taken against the ex-crew members of the Arcadia, is liable for breach of its letter of indemnity signed in the presence of a Notary Public on 3 April 1992.
9. 127. The ICFTU then describes an incident which occurred in the Netherlands. On 30 October 1990, one of the ITF's inspectors in Rotterdam, Mr. Gert-Jan Harmsen from the ITF-affiliated Federatie van Werknemersorganisaties in de Zeevaart (FWZ), received a telephone call from an immigration officer in the Dutch town of Spijkenisse. Apparently at around 05.00 hours that day, a Chinese seafarer from a Liberian-registered bulk carrier had presented himself at the local police station and requested political asylum. He also requested that the ITF be informed of his predicament. That same day Mr. Harmsen visited the vessel in question and spoke with the master who cooperated fully and allowed him to see the vessel's wage accounts which indicated that the crew were being paid in accordance with an ITF-approved collective agreement. In addition, Mr. Harmsen was shown copies of the ship's articles which had been amended to reflect the fact that the crew were working under terms and conditions stipulated in the ITF collective agreement.
10. 128. On 31 October 1990, Mr. Harmsen interviewed the seafarer who claimed that he had signed a number of documents without knowing what they stipulated. Fortunately he had kept a record of all monies advanced to him - in total this amounted to US$4,387. Yet Mr. Harmsen calculated that his actual entitlement under the terms of the collective agreement was US$22,247. The ICFTU explains that the situation on board the ship described by the seafarer is unfortunately a very common occurrence on many flag of convenience ships. Crews are required to sign two wage accounts: one stipulating their entitlement under the collective agreement and the other what they actually receive. This fraudulent system is referred to as "double bookkeeping".
11. 129. Following his interview with the seafarer, the ITF inspector arranged for the ship to be arrested on his behalf claiming back wages and costs totalling US$23,247. On 1 November 1990, Mr. Harmsen visited the vessel once more and was allowed to remove the seafarer's personal belongings from the vessel. Later that afternoon the vessel's agent agreed to pay the claim in full in cash and the vessel left Rotterdam bound for Antwerp that same evening. On 2 November 1990, the seafarer was taken to a refugee centre. According to the ICFTU, what transpired next was sufficient to convince the Dutch courts to grant the Chinese seafarer leave to stay in Holland permanently. On 6 November 1990, the Shanghai International Marine Technique Service Limited telexed the ship's agents in Rotterdam in a clear attempt to intimidate him into returning to China (a copy of that telex is attached to the complaint).
12. 130. The ICFTU then describes an incident where five Chinese seafarers jumped ship in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and were granted political asylum in the United States in December 1992. US Immigration took this decision after the seafarers explained how, after months of physical abuse, they had hatched a plot to contact the ITF. When the captain of the vessel discovered what they were planning he told them they would be thrown in jail upon their return to China.
13. 131. The five Chinese seafarers were working on a Cyprus flag, Greek-owned bulk carrier. The crew were contracted to the shipowner by a Chinese manning agency, which according to the crew retained a sizeable portion of their low wages. The seafarers also claimed that the ship was unseaworthy and that the Chinese members of the crew were regularly subjected to physical abuse. Before joining the ship each crew member was specifically told not to contact the ITF because "the ITF is watching such labour contracts between the Chinese Government and shipping lines". The crew obeyed this instruction, and reported their abuse to the Chinese Government, but their complaints were referred directly to the abusing captain. Only then did the crew decide to contact the ITF.
14. 132. The US immigration judge ruled that the crew's labour activities were a political statement as "the very core of any Communist government's power rests with its rank-and-file workers". The presiding judge therefore ruled that the attempt to report their treatment by the ship's captain to the ITF was a direct threat to the current regime because the only union recognized by China is the government-controlled All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU).
15. 133. The ICFTU points out that the precise role of the ACFTU as the voice of workers in China is well known. In a submission to the 105th Executive Board meeting of the ICFTU (held on 7-9 December 1994), Han Dongfang, commenting on recent contacts with the official trade union movement in China by some national trade union centres, reported that at the 12th National Congress of ACFTU, held on 30 October 1993, Wei Jiangxing, the Chairman of the ACFTU, stated that: "Unions are organizations under the leadership of the Party (The Communist Party of China). Unions at all levels should study and be aware of the demands and wishes of the Central Committee of the Party and should accept the leadership of the Party on our own initiatives."
16. 134. The ICFTU asserts that it is clear from the above that the ACFTU is not a free and democratic organization of workers but a trade union established and controlled by the State. It is therefore legitimate that Chinese seafarers should seek the assistance of the ITF and its affiliated trade unions.
17. 135. The ICFTU summarizes its allegations by recalling, first of all, that all Chinese seafarers are given a pre-departure lecture warning them of the repercussions of contacting the ITF or any of its affiliates. Chinese seafarers often have to sign an agreement between the shipping company, or its agents, and the local manning agent before joining a ship which states that they will not ask for any help from the ITF. Deductions are often made from the salaries of Chinese seafarers without their express permission. This is usually in the form of a commission for the manning agent. The practice of requiring Chinese seafarers to sign double wage accounts is also thought to be widespread. Those seafarers who have contacted the ITF in the past regarding abuse by the ship's officers, or the non-compliance of collective agreements by foreign shipping companies and their working conditions generally, have been subject to retaliation by the Government. This retaliation has included the confiscation of passports, seamen's record books and qualifications, and some have even been detained without charge for many months as highlighted so graphically in the case of the crew of the Arcadia. Moreover, the seafarers granted political asylum have requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by the Chinese Government against their families and relatives.

B. The Government's reply

1. 136. In a communication dated 13 October 1995, the Government indicates that it has learned through investigations that in 1991 a Chinese enterprise, the Development Area Branch of Tianjin International Economy and Technology Cooperation Company, sent 11 Chinese seafarers, including Hua Chun Gui, Zhang Ai Zhao and Giao Ziao Hui, to work in a cargo vessel named Arcadia. In the period the 11 seafarers served in the vessel, a series of disputes occurred between the crew members and the Greek captain in respect of labour remuneration and working conditions on board. With a complaint referred by the 11 seafarers to the ITF in an Italian port, the dispute was finally resolved by the representative of the shipowner and the captain agreeing to pay seafarers the arrears of two months' wages and their entitlements according to the ILO's maritime labour standards.
2. 137. The Government then states that, after the 11 seafarers were repatriated, the Procurate of Heping District of Tianjin "summoned them for detention" on 19 April 1992, and then released them the following day (20 April 1992). In August 1992, the Procurate initiated a prosecution against three of the 11 seafarers, Hua Chun Gui, Zhang Ai Zhao and Gao Ziao Hui with the charge of disclosing state secrets and arrested them. The judgement of the case was handed down by the Court of Heping District of Tianjin on 27 December 1994. It stated that "defendants Hua Chun Gui, Zhang Ai Zhao, Gao Ziao Hui are innocent". Since then, the three persons have been free. After the announcement of the judgement, however, appeals were presented against it. As defendants, the three seafarers lodged the appeals since they held that the judgement did not resolve the problem of compensation to their economic losses. At present, the case is under the process of second instance by the Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin according to legal procedures and a judgement is to be made.
3. 138. The Government contends that even though the legal procedures of the case have not yet been completed, the above facts indicate that the nature of the whole event is, in fact, a labour dispute between a Chinese company and its employees. The Chinese Government believes that the court concerned will make an impartial and reasonable judgement strictly in accordance with legal procedures. Therefore, the Government considers that the so-called complaint against it for "non-observance of the basic principles of freedom of association and right to organize" by the ICFTU on the basis of this event is an intentional distortion of the facts.
4. 139. In addition, the ICFTU's statement that "Chinese seafarers have nowhere to turn in seeking redress for their legitimate grievances", is wholly unacceptable for the Government. Like all other Chinese labourers, Chinese seafarers including those serving on foreign flag ships, are comprehensively protected by the Constitution, the Labour Law and the Law of Trade Unions of China in respect of their rights to civil and labour affairs. In recent years, the relevant departments of the Chinese Government have adopted measures in accordance with these laws to enhance the policy guidance and inspection work for seafarers working abroad, and paid more attention to finding and solving those problems which ensue when seafarers' interests are harmed.
5. 140. The malicious propaganda carried out by the ICFTU in making use of labour disputes in an individual Chinese enterprise to slander the Government in no way illustrates the concerns of this organization towards the interests of Chinese seafarers, but can only place obstacles on the reasonable settlement of the event. In addition, the Government points out that the ICFTU, just as in the past, took this opportunity to launch a new attack on the most representative national trade union in China - the All-China Federation of Trade Unions - on the basis of distorted facts. The Government has refuted the ICFTU's allegations in this connection several times in the past.
6. 141. As regards the matter concerning the runaway of one Chinese seafarer in the Netherlands and five Chinese seafarers in the United States, the Government explains that owing to the fact that the six persons concerned are not named in the ICFTU's complaint, it has encountered obstacles in carrying out investigations. Therefore, observations cannot be made in this regard at present.

C. The complainant's additional information

1. 142. In a communication dated 22 December 1995, the ICFTU indicates that it cannot share the conclusions of the Government contained in its reply. Comments by the Government on the case of MV Arcadia merely reject the ICFTU allegations, describing its precise examples of violations of basic human and trade union rights as "an intentional distortion of facts". The Government claims Chinese seafarers are fully protected under the Constitution, the Labour Law and the Law on Trade Unions. Not only does the ICFTU maintain its original allegations, but the summary response of the Government compels it to report further details of violations of both trade union and basic human rights of workers that have emerged about MV Arcadia.
2. 143. The ICFTU recalls that Chinese workers aboard this FOC vessel who had protested against their working conditions had been detained upon their return to China and charged with leaking "state secrets". The charge related to the fact that they had informed the ITF about their real wages. The allegations concerning this ship are amply confirmed in an article which appeared in the Chinese publication "Law and democracy" (a copy of which is attached to the complaint). The article contains several vivid descriptions of mistreatment of Chinese seamen at the hands of the ship's officers. For example, mandatory overtime without pay, up to four hours per day, is foreseen in the contract signed between the ship's owner and Tianjin International Economic and Technology Cooperation Company (TIETCC), in addition to the seven-day working week of eight hours per day. While docked in Morocco to load wheat, the crew had to work from 6 a.m. to midnight, but the captain would not let them rest, ordering them to work until 8 a.m. the next day, making them work for a stretch of 26 hours.
3. 144. In this context, the article refers to the strict interdiction for Chinese seamen working aboard FOC ships to contact the ITF. The ICFTU notes in this respect that the Government's reply of 13 October 1995 acknowledges clearly that the MV Arcadia dispute was settled thanks to two essential factors: the intervention of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) and the use of the ILO's maritime standards. The article in question further confirms the detention of the three detained seamen for over two years in the Heping District jail of Tianjin. They were later released on bail, but their court case had not been settled by the time the article was written and their earnings, confiscated on 19 April 1992 at the time of their detention at Beijing airport, had not been returned to them. The ICFTU equally notes from the Government's response that the legal aspects of the case are still not settled: according to the Ministry of Labour, the case is still under process before the intermediate People's Court in Tianjin. The workers seem neither to have been compensated for economic losses incurred during their two-and-a-half years' detention, nor to have recovered the amounts of money taken from them at the time of their initial arrest.
4. 145. Finally, the Government claims not to be in a position to investigate ICFTU allegations concerning runaway Chinese seafarers in the Netherlands and the United States. The ICFTU indicates that it is therefore re-examining its position in this respect, with a view to determining whether it would be possible to communicate these names to the ILO. This would entail obtaining reasonable indications that the persons concerned would not have to fear retaliation against their families in China. The ICFTU states that it is seeking to obtain their agreement in that respect.

D. The Government's further reply

1. 146. The Government states that it has considered carefully the supplementary information from the ICFTU. It emphasizes that what needs to be mentioned here again is that the "evidence" supporting the so-called complaint by the ICFTU is mainly based on a labour dispute that took place between a Chinese enterprise, its employees and the foreign employer on working conditions and salaries. However, the ICFTU made use of the event as a basis to attack the Government of "non-observance of the basic principles of freedom of association and right to organize, and oppressing Chinese seafarers serving on foreign flag ships". Such an allegation does not tally with the facts and therefore cannot be accepted by the Government. Therefore, the principal position of the Government is that the event is purely a labour dispute which has nothing to do with the action of the Government. Moreover, the seafarers involved in the event have already been released and the matters that are left over are being examined by the local courts according to legal procedures.
2. 147. The Government then explains more generally that in China, sending seafarers to work abroad is a new form of business which started along with the implementation of the policy of reform and the opening of the economy to the outside world, which has developed significantly in recent years. Within the context of the management of exporting labour, including sending seafarers abroad, the Government has attached great importance to the protection of workers' legal rights and interests. It has drawn up and promulgated a series of specific policies and regulations with an aim of defending overseas workers' rights and interests. For example, in the Circular on the Protection of Legal Rights and Interests of Overseas Labourers issued in 1994, the Government has requested that enterprises engaging in labour-exporting activities should stipulate clearly the nature of the workplace, types of work, working conditions and security, work and rest periods, vacations, remuneration standards and living conditions when signing contracts with foreign employers; the problems of the violation of legal rights and interests of workers must be solved without delay; and labour-exporting enterprises should be under the supervision of labour administrations and responsible agencies.
3. 148. In addition, to strengthen the protection of seafarers, a National Coordination Committee of Seafarer Exporting has been established by the Government. The Committee has played an important role in safeguarding the rights and interests of seafarers by such actions as drawing up, according to international practice, the model contract for seafarer exporting. At present, the competent government authority has issued the Rules on the Main Contents of Contracts for Labour Exporting and has been drafting other relevant regulations including the Regulation on Overseas Project Engineering and Labour Exporting, etc., with the aim of standardizing conditions pertaining to the export of labour and further enhancing the protection of workers. At the same time, the Government has requested that enterprises engaged in the export of labour guarantee the application of the provisions concerned. Moreover, it takes resolute measures, including severe punishment, to prevent enterprises and individuals from violating these provisions.
4. 149. In addition to legislative measures, the Government has taken other steps to strengthen the protection to overseas workers. For example, the competent authorities have held four seminars on the implementation of labour law and safeguarding the legal rights and interests of overseas workers in 1995, with 400 participants from labour-exporting enterprises. The seminars, in which explanations were mainly made on the Chinese Labour Law, the international labour Conventions and Recommendations concerning migrant employment, the labour legislation of labour-importing countries, as well as the matters to which special attention should be given in the process of labour exporting, have played an effective role in guiding the activities of labour-exporting enterprises. For workers to work abroad, the competent authorities have introduced training to increase these workers' abilities to protect themselves. In training courses, workers are introduced to the labour legislation and customs of labour-importing countries and the methods for their self-protection. Up to now, about 120 training centres have been set up throughout the country with more than 50,000 overseas workers who received training in 1995. Among them, 35,000 workers have got certificates. These kinds of training activities have improved the ability and adaptability of workers and obtained a good result in protecting workers' legal rights and interests against infringements.
5. 150. The above-mentioned facts show that the Government has devoted much attention to the protection of workers, including seafarers, who are working abroad, and done a lot on legislation and in practice, which have ensured the legal rights and interests of workers effectively. However, as mentioned above, since this is a new business activity which is developing rapidly, unexpected incidents may occur. The Government has paid great attention in this regard and has taken effective measures to solve the problems as soon as they occur. Also the Government welcomes the well-meaning criticisms from governments, enterprises or organizations of other countries since they would be helpful for the improvement of China's labour-exporting activities.

E. The Committee's conclusions

1. 151. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern violations of human and trade union rights - through the oppression by the Government as well as by various manning agents and shipping companies - of Chinese seafarers serving on foreign flag ships. The complainant contends more specifically that the intimidation and abuse of these seafarers was aggravated by the fact that they accepted assistance from the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) to improve their wages and working conditions. In this respect, the complainant provides detailed information to back up its allegations.
2. 152. At the outset, the Committee observes that the Government does not dispute the allegation that Chinese seafarers on the MV Arcadia were subjected to various acts of mistreatment by the ship's officers including physical abuse, mandatory overtime without pay and the fraudulent practice of "double bookkeeping". The Government's position is that the whole event was based on a labour dispute between a Chinese enterprise, its employees and the foreign employer on working conditions and salaries. The Committee notes however from the attachments provided by the complainant that even the English agent acting for the owners of the Arcadia acknowledged that the wages being paid to the crew were "substandard", which in the Committee's view, could have contributed to the dispute in question.
3. 153. Moreover, the Committee takes note with serious concern of the victimization that took place in China of the 11 Chinese seafarers who contacted affiliates of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) in Italy regarding the abuse they suffered on the Arcadia as well as the non-compliance of their collective agreement by the ship's officers. The acts of victimization carried out against these seafarers included confiscation of all foreign currencies and original documents relating to the action in Italy, confiscation of their seamen's documentation and qualifications, their prolonged detention and the bringing of criminal charges. The Committee notes that the Government does not deny any of the above allegations. Indeed, the Government itself admits that upon their return to China, all the 11 seafarers were summoned for detention by the Procurate of Heping District of Tianjin on 19 April 1992 and then released the following day. However, three of the 11 seafarers, Hua Chun Gui, Zhang Ai Zhao and Gao Ziao Hui were arrested in August 1992 and by the Government's own admission, only released after a judgement was handed down by the Court of Heping District of Tianjin on 27 December 1994, i.e. nearly two-and-a-half years after they were arrested.
4. 154. If the MV Arcadia incident was indeed purely based on a labour dispute as asserted by the Government, the Committee fails to understand why the 11 seafarers were detained in the first place upon their return to China and why all their seamen's documentation as well as foreign currencies representing back-pay were confiscated by the authorities. Moreover, the Committee deeply regrets to note that three seafarers - Hua Chun Gui, Zhang Ai Zhao and Gao Ziao Hui - were arrested and detained on the charge of disclosing state secrets even if they were found to be not guilty after a detention period of nearly two-and-a-half years. The Committee cannot but conclude that the above actions were carried out in retaliation by the authorities against the seafarers for having exercised activities of a trade union nature. The Committee considers that the arrest and detention of workers for exercising legitimate trade union activities constitutes a violation of freedom of association principles. The Committee also notes that currently, the three seafarers are facing considerable hardship as they are unable to find work because the authorities have confiscated their qualifications and seamen's documentation and have prevented them from leaving their home towns.
5. 155. In this connection, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that no person should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, whether past or present (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 690). It therefore urges the Government to refrain in future from having recourse to any act of anti-union discrimination, especially the arrest and detention of Chinese seafarers who pursue their legitimate grievances through the organizations of their choice (in this case the ITF). It further requests the Government to ensure that the pursuance of grievances will not result in the authorities taking retaliatory measures. The Committee also requests the Government to ensure that the three seafarers - Hua Chun Gui, Zhang Ai Zhao and Gao Ziao Hui - are compensated for economic losses incurred during their nearly two-and-a-half years' detention and that the money, seamen's documentation and qualifications confiscated from them at the time of their initial arrest are restituted to them. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken to this effect.
6. 156. In a more general manner, the Committee reminds the Government of the importance that it attaches to the fact that workers, without distinction whatsoever, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing in full freedom and this right implies, in particular, the effective possibility of forming, in a climate of full security, organizations independent both of those which exist already and of any political party (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 274 and 273). The Committee considers, therefore, that Chinese seafarers should have the right to turn to the organizations which, in their view, represent their interests most adequately. As a result, the Committee urges the Government to guarantee and respect the rights of seafarers to form trade unions of their choice and to affiliate with organizations freely chosen by them, including directly with an international organization if they so wish.
7. 157. Finally, the Committee observes that in response to the complainant's allegations that a certain percentage of seafarers' wages are remitted to Chinese manning agents and that the fraudulent practice of "double bookkeeping" is widespread, the Government gives a detailed explanation of what it has done in law and in practice to ensure that the rights and interests of seafarers are protected: the promulgation of a series of regulations; the setting up of the National Coordination Committee of Seafarer Exporting; and the holding of seminars and training courses in 1995 in about 120 training centres which have been set up to apprise overseas workers of labour legislation, customs of labour-importing countries and methods for self-protection. The Government nevertheless recognizes that exporting labour abroad is a new business activity which has developed significantly in recent years with the opening of the Chinese economy to the outside. As a result, unexpected incidents may occur. The Committee notes the various measures introduced by the Government to improve the protection of seafarers. It nevertheless observes that these measures have not been sufficient to ensure that Chinese seafarers enjoy freedom of association fully. It therefore expresses the firm hope that these measures, as well as the implementation of the Committee's recommendations, will remedy the violations of freedom of association arising from labour-exporting activities. In this context, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the services of the International Labour Office are at its disposal to help implement the Committee's recommendations.