Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 371, March 2014

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body

1. 23. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in November 2011, in relation to anti-union harassment against the Secretary-General of the Single National Union of Teachers and Professors in the Teachers Training Faculty (SNUIPEN), Mr Joseph Ze, and interference by the authorities in an internal union dispute [see 362nd Report, paras 23–32].
2. 24. The Committee notes the communications dated 19 November 2010, 23 May 2012 and 28 May 2013, which once again denounce the Government’s refusal to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations, and reiterates its previous observations, in particular regarding the harassment to which Mr Ze still appears to be subject.
3. 25. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s communications of 23 July 2012 and 3 January 2014. The Committee notes with concern that the Government merely reiterates its previous observations that the case concerning the judicial harassment and violation of Mr Ze’s union rights by elements of the Yaoundé national police force in April 2004 comes under common law and that the relevant court decisions remain pending. Furthermore, the Government once again challenges the allegations of the authorities’ interference in the affairs of the SNUIPEN.
4. 26. As regards the inquiry conducted by the Secretary of State for Defence into the facts surrounding the arrest and custody of Mr Ze as of 16 April 2004, the Committee can only once again deplore the stance taken by the Government which simply states that the case comes under common law and that it has been referred to the judicial authorities. The Committee notes that, in its communication of May 2013, the complainant organization challenges the Government’s statement and indicates that no ruling at the national level is pending, since there has never been any follow up to its complaint of 5 June 2004, submitted to the Secretary of State for Defence, for extortion of union funds. The Committee can only reiterate its request to the Government to provide the results of any inquiry conducted by the Secretary of State for Defence, following the complaint by Mr Ze. The Committee recalls that, given the serious allegations of acts of torture and extortion of funds, this inquiry must determine the true facts and responsibilities, sanction the guilty parties, and above all prevent the repetition of such acts. If it is established that no inquiry had been conducted, the Committee expects the Government to take the necessary measures so that the inquiry is undertaken by the competent authorities, taking into account the information provided by the complainant organization and that the inquiry also relates to the allegations made by the SNUIPEN concerning the arrest of Mr Ze in March 2007 and March 2008, and his detention from 17 to 24 March 2008.
5. 27. As to the allegations concerning the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary in November 2008 on the grounds of unlawful absence from his place of work, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant organization, the decision to reinstate Mr Ze’s salary was signed with effect from November 2012, therefore assigning to him an absence of 48 months. The complainant organization denounces the possible consequences of such a decision concerning Mr Ze’s financial situation and refers to the appeal for review lodged by Mr Ze to amend the date on which his salary was reinstated. The Committee requests the Government or the complainant organization to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeal in question.
6. 28. Furthermore, the Committee again notes the Government’s statement to the effect that it abstains from any interference in union activities. The Committee recalls the background to this case in which it had noted certain acts by the authorities favouring contact with a faction of the SNUIPEN. The Committee had requested the Government to maintain a stance of complete neutrality in the differences within the union movement, in particular within the SNUIPEN. The Committee notes that the complainant organization again denounces the interference by the Government which, in February 2012, summoned the faction of Mr Ateba, as a SNUIPEN representative, to a consultation meeting on the social climate among teachers, following which a Memorandum of Understanding was signed (Memorandum of Understanding and press release provided by the complainant organization). Noting with concern that in this case the Government breached its duty of neutrality, the Committee is obliged once again to request the Government to indicate to what extent the issue of the lawful representation of the SNUIPEN has been clarified and, as appropriate, to provide any final court decision in this regard or any information on the means used by the parties concerned to settle the dispute.