Interim Report - Report No 362, November 2011

1. 339. The complaint is set out in three communications dated 29 July 2010 from the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC).
2. 340. As the Government has not replied, the Committee was obliged to postpone its examination of this case on two occasions. At its June 2011 meeting [see the 360th Report, para. 5], the Committee issued an urgent appeal to the Government, indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report (1972), approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the requested observations or information had not been received in time. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
3. 341. Cameroon has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 342. In its communications of 29 July 2010, the UGTC states that it acts on behalf of its affiliated organization, the National Union of Employees, Supervisors and Managers of Banks and Financial Establishments of Cameroon (SNEGCBEFCAM), following a number of unsuccessful approaches to the Government.
2. 343. The complainant organization alleges, first, that on 23 July 2009 the Minister of Labour and Social Security (MINTSS) decided to create an ad hoc committee to offer appropriate solutions with regard to wage and other claims made by staff of the National Social Insurance Fund (CNPS). The committee in question, which is made up of 11 members including five MINTSS representatives, three CNPS representatives and three trade union representatives of the unions FENASBOCAM, SNEGCBEFCAM, SEMS–CA, worked for nine months with a view to adopting resolutions on wage increases, housing and transport benefits and reimbursement of special deductions made in connection with the fiscal optimization initiative.
3. 344. Following the adoption of the resolutions of the ad hoc committee set up by MINTSS, the Director-General of the CNPS on 15 June 2010 issued a statement to staff on the resolutions in question, expressing strong disapproval of the demands made by SNEGCBEFCAM, represented by Mr Isaac Bissala, in the following terms:
   • ... following the highly exaggerated demands of SNEGCBEFCAM represented by Mr Isaac Bissala, and despite the contrary views expressed by other unions and the individual agreement of staff members regarding the special wage deductions for the purpose of remunerating the fiscal council appointed to carry out the fiscal optimization exercise, and in order to put an end to all discussion of the case, it was decided to annul all the relevant provisions. Thus, with regret at this decision, which was taken in defiance of the clear interests of the workers concerned, the following measures have been adopted ...
4. 345. According to the union, the purpose of the statement was to create inter-union conflict, conflict between staff and SNEGCBEFCAM, and conflict between members of different unions. The union also maintains that the statement resulted in a petition being started up and distributed some days later by CNPS officials, along the lines indicated above. In the letter addressed to the Director-General, the petition signatories disparaged SNEGCBEFCAM and Mr Bissala and reiterated their support for the Director-General. According to the complainant organization, the petition was distributed at all CNPS centres in order to gather staff signatures through threats and other forms of pressure.
5. 346. Secondly, the complainant alleges that the Director-General, in retaliation against Mr Pierre Amogo Foe, a staff delegate, for his trade union activity in support of claims made on behalf of CNPS staff, had ordered deductions from his wages, in violation of section 75 of the Labour Code and Decree No. 094/197/PM of 9 May 1994 concerning wage deductions. Following these deductions Mr Pierre Amogo Foe reported the matter to the labour inspectorate, which ordered the restoration of his rights. That decision, however, was not implemented by the management, and the wage deductions have continued, causing great hardship to Mr Amogo Foe and his family of 13 children.
6. 347. Thirdly, the complainant alleges that on 6 July 2009, the CNPS Director-General suspended staff delegate Mr Oumarou Woudang without wages for a period of six days for “copying and distributing a trade union notice of strike action during work hours”. The complainant states that not only has the management been unable to prove this allegation but also that, even if it were able to prove it, the strike notice would have been in accordance with ILO Convention No. 135. The complainant also emphasizes that the staff delegate in question has a monthly allowance of 15 hours for the purpose of trade union activities. Following these deductions Mr Oumarou Woudang reported the matter to the labour inspectorate, which did not respond. According to the complainant the suspension of wages has caused serious hardship for Mr Oumarou Woudang’s family.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 348. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, the Government has not replied to the complainant’s allegations even though it has been invited on a number of occasions, including through an urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on this case. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 349. Hence, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (1972)], the Committee is obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 350. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments, on their side, will recognize the importance of presenting, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations made against them [see the Committee’s First Report, para. 31].
4. 351. The Committee recalls that the present case concerns allegations of anti-union interference and decisions taken as reprisals for legitimate trade union activity (deductions from wages, suspension without pay of union members).
5. 352. As regards acts of interference by the CNPS Director-General, the Committee notes that, following the adoption of resolutions by the ad hoc committee which was set up by the MINTSS on 23 July 2009 in order to offer appropriate solutions regarding wage and other claims by CNPS staff, and in which unions including SNEGCBEFCAM participated, the Director-General is alleged to have issued a statement which disparaged the SNEGCBEFCAM represented by Mr Bissala by calling its claims “highly exaggerated” and contrary to the position of other unions, the purpose being to create conflict between CNPS staff and SNEGCBEFCAM. The statement in question led, so it alleged, to the drafting and distribution some days later of a petition addressed to the CNPS Director-General against the SNEGCBEFCAM and Mr Bissala in order to gather staff signatures by coercion (pressure and threats).
6. 353. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of Convention No. 98 establishes the total independence of workers’ organizations from employers in exercising their activities. Attempts by employers to persuade employees to withdraw authorizations given to a trade union could unduly influence the choice of workers and undermine the position of the trade union, thus making it more difficult to bargain collectively, which is contrary to the principle that collective bargaining should be promoted [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, paras 855 and 863]. The Committee urges the Government to order an inquiry without delay into the allegations of interference by the Director-General of CNPS in the affairs of the SNEGCBEFCAM and to report on the outcome.
7. 354. As regards the allegations of anti-union discrimination against staff delegate Mr Pierre Amogo Foe, the Committee notes that following his participation in trade union action in support of claims made on behalf of CNPS staff, the Director-General ordered deductions from his wages, in contravention of section 75 of the Labour Code and Decree No. 094/197/PM of 9 May 1994 regarding wage deductions. The Committee notes that, according to section 75 of the Labour Code, apart from compulsory deductions and reimbursement for facilities provided, deductions from wages may be made only in the following cases: where there is a seizure by garnishment; deduction of union dues or insurance payments; or voluntary assignments. The Decree of 9 May 1994 defines the wages subject to deductions and the procedure applicable in cases of voluntary assignments. The Committee notes that Mr Pierre Amogo Foe informed the labour inspectorate, which instructed the CNPS to restore him in its rights. That decision, a copy of which was provided with the complaint, was not implemented by the management and wage deductions have continued, causing serious hardship for Mr Amogo Foe and his family.
8. 355. One of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. The Committee draws attention to the Workers’ Representatives Convention (No. 135) and Recommendation (No. 143), 1971, in which it is expressly established that workers’ representatives in the undertaking shall enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as workers’ representatives or on union membership, or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements [see Digest, op. cit., paras 799 and 800]. The Committee urges the Government to inform it whether Mr Amogo Foe’s rights have been restored in accordance with the labour inspectorate’s decision of 1 February 2010. The Committee expects that Mr Amogo Foe will be fully compensated and that the Government will ensure that such acts of anti-union discrimination do not recur in future, including through the provision of dissuasive sanctions.
9. 356. As regards the allegations of anti-union discrimination against staff delegate Mr Oumarou Woudang, the Committee notes that the Director-General of CNPS suspended him for six days without pay, as a final warning before dismissal, in a decision dated 6 July 2009 (a copy of which was supplied with the complaint), for “copying and distributing notice of trade union strike action during working hours”. The Committee notes that according to the complainant organization, the management was unable to prove this and that even if it had done so, the action would have been in accordance with Convention No. 135, which has been ratified by Cameroon. The Committee also notes that the staff delegate apparently had an allowance of 15 hours per month for trade union activities. The Committee notes that following the wage deductions, Mr Oumarou Woudang informed the labour inspectorate, which did not respond. The Committee recalls that respect for the principles of freedom of association clearly requires that workers who consider that they have been prejudiced because of their trade union activities should have access to means of redress which are expeditious, inexpensive and fully impartial [see Digest, op. cit., para. 820]. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the Labour Inspectorate examines the case of Mr Oumarou Woudang and to keep it informed in that regard.