Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 351, November 2008

1. 1339. This complaint is contained in a communication from the Workers’ Trade Union Confederation of Togo (CSTT) dated 27 September 2007. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) associated itself with the complaint lodged by the complainant organization in a communication dated 28 September 2007.
2. 1340. The Government having failed to respond, the Committee was forced to postpone its examination of the case on two occasions. At its June 2008 meeting [see 350th Report, para. 10], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government stating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the Government’s observations or information have not been received in due time. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
3. 1341. Togo has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant organization’s allegations

1. 1342. In its communication dated 27 September 2007, the CSTT states that the national economic and social situation has deteriorated over the past decade, and has been marked in particular by a fall in workers’ purchasing power. The Government is said to have remained indifferent to this situation, despite the numerous appeals made by the trade union movement. According to the complainant organization, the Government finally agreed to discuss the situation with the social partners, through a process of “social dialogue and tripartite cooperation” between 30 January and 7 April 2006. Following these discussions, the stakeholders, that is to say, the Government, the National Employers’ Council (CNP) and the trade union organizations, signed a tripartite social agreement protocol on 11 May 2006. The complainant organization states that the workers trusted that all the stakeholders would act in good faith in meeting their commitments. However, it notes that the Government failed to honour any of its commitments. It was only following a threat of strike action (made in November 2006) that the Government put in place a social dialogue structure, the National Social Dialogue Council (CNDS), which was provided for in the agreement protocol, and organized the General Conference on the Civil Service.
2. 1343. The complainant organization regrets that the Government has failed to follow up these measures, and honours its commitments only when it is in its own interests to do so. In the light of this, the complainant organization decided to organize a protest march, to be held on 8 September 2007, with the aim of mobilizing the workers and warning the Government. The march was to be followed by a meeting with the aim of informing workers from all sectors about the situation and to call on the Government to respect the commitments it made when signing the agreement protocol of 11 May 2006, as well as to implement the conclusions adopted at the end of the General Conference on the Civil Service in November 2006.
3. 1344. The organization states that it kept the competent authorities informed on a regular basis with regard to the organization of the march and the holding of the meeting, in accordance with the legislation in force. It also states that it was not notified of any ban.
4. 1345. The complainant organization states that, on the morning of the day of the planned march and meeting, security forces occupied the organization’s head office, from which the march was due to set off, as well as Place Anani Santos (the location chosen for the meeting). The organization also states that the marchers were denied access to these locations.
5. 1346. The complainant organization alleges a serious violation of the principles of freedom of association contained in ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, as well as the violation of the national Constitution and Labour Code.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1347. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was lodged, the Government has, to date, failed to respond to the allegations of the complainant organizations, although it has been invited on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal, to submit its comments and observations on the case. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 1348. Under these circumstances, in accordance with the applicable rule of procedure [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee finds itself obliged to submit a report on the substance of the case without the information it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 1349. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the whole procedure instituted by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for those rights in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognize the importance of presenting, so as to allow objective examination, detailed replies to the allegations made against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
4. 1350. The Committee notes that the present case involves the intervention of security forces to prevent a protest march and a trade union meeting from going ahead, the occupation of the premises of a trade union confederation and the State’s failure to honour its commitments under an agreement signed with the social partners.
5. 1351. The Committee notes that a tripartite social agreement protocol was signed on 11 May 2006 between the Government and the social partners following discussions entered into as a result of pressure brought to bear by the trade union organizations. The Committee notes that, according to the complainant organization, the Government has, to date, met its commitments only when it has been in its own interests to do so.
6. 1352. The Committee notes that, faced with apathy on the part of the Government, the complainant organization decided in a general assembly to organize a protest march with the aim of mobilizing the workers and warning the Government; this was planned for 8 September 2007. The complainant organization also planned to follow up the march with a trade union meeting in Place Anani Santos in Lomé. The complainant organization states, furthermore, that it kept the competent authorities informed and that at no time was it informed that the march or the trade union meeting had been banned. The Committee notes that, early on during the day of the planned march and trade union meeting, the security forces occupied and took control of the organization’s premises as well as the location chosen for the trade union meeting. The complainant organization adds that participants were denied access to those locations.
7. 1353. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has failed to respond to the complainant organization’s allegations regarding the occupation of the CSTT’s premises, as well as the intervention of the security forces with a view to preventing a protest march and a trade union meeting from going ahead. The Committee is particularly concerned at the gravity of the allegations in the present case. It recalls that the right to organize public meetings constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights and that, in this regard, the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control, and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 140].
8. 1354. The Committee also emphatically recalls that the inviolability of trade union premises is a civil liberty which is essential to the exercise of trade union rights and that the occupation of trade union premises by the security forces, without a court warrant authorizing such occupation, is a serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 178 and 179].
9. 1355. Finally, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that mutual respect for the commitment undertaken in collective agreements is an important element of the right to bargain collectively and should be upheld in order to establish labour relations on stable and firm ground [see Digest, op. cit., para 940].
10. 1356. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee reiterates its concerns regarding the serious allegations involved in this case. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that an independent inquiry is undertaken concerning the allegations relating to the intervention of the security forces on 8 September 2007 with the aim of preventing a protest march and a trade union meeting from going ahead, as well as the occupation of the CSTT’s premises, and, should these allegations prove to be true, to take any measures necessary to punish those responsible and to issue appropriate instructions in order to ensure that such practices are not repeated in the future. The Committee requests the Government to keep it duly informed in this regard.
11. 1357. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding progress made in implementing the tripartite social agreement protocol of 11 May 2006 and the conclusions of the General Conference on the Civil Service. The Committee expects that the Government will engage in a full and meaningful social dialogue with all the social partners concerned, in a timely fashion, in order to ensure the implementation of an agreement freely entered into by the parties.