Interim Report - Report No 383, October 2017

1. 119. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Cameroon (CSIC) dated 5 April 2016.
2. 120. Since there has been no reply from the Government, the Committee has been obliged to postpone its examination of the case on two occasions. At its meeting in June 2017 [see 382nd Report, para. 8], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the requested information or observations had not been received in time. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
3. 121. 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. 122. In its communication of 5 April 2016, the CSIC alleges that the National Electricity Company of Cameroon (ENEO) (hereinafter, the company) prevented the National Independent Electricity Trade Union (SNI-Energie) and the National Union of Electric Energy (SNEE), which are both affiliated with the CSIC, from participating in workers’ representative elections held in 2014 and 2016, thereby depriving staff of their right to vote, to stand for election and to be nominated as officials of their union.
2. 123. The complainant organization underscores that the Minister of Labour and Social Security (MINTSS) also granted a derogation to allow the company to hold the elections on 14 April 2014 instead of 15 January 2014, the date originally fixed by the Minister for union elections in Cameroon, thereby reducing arbitrarily the term of office of staff representatives in the company. According to the complainant, the date of the 2014 elections in the company was further postponed by a week, this time without ministerial authorization. The complainant claims that, on this occasion, its representatives were prevented from entering the regional headquarters of the company by armed guards. The complainant also alleges that, at the same time, the company facilitated the participation of unions that it favoured, and that this reflects a desire to curtail the autonomy and independence of trade unions and their capacity to advocate on behalf of their members. In addition, the CSIC condemns the failure to publish a list of candidates, in violation of the provisions of MINTSS Order No. 116 of 1 October 2013, which establishes electoral procedures and the terms and conditions under which staff representatives discharge their duties. The CSIC also notes that the company benefited from a similar derogation during the 2016 trade union elections, and claims that the company’s general manager arbitrarily disqualified SNI-Energie and the SNEE from taking part in those elections on the grounds that they had not signed a social dialogue charter.
3. 124. The complainant also alleges that trade union dues are being unlawfully withheld by the company, in violation of the Labour Code, section 21(1) of which provides: “An employer shall be permitted to deduct from the wages earned by a worker under his control the ordinary trade union contribution due from the worker, provided that the employer immediately pays the contribution so deducted to the trade union specified by the worker.” The complainant alleges that, following its attempt to establish a two-headed leadership structure in the SNEE, the company, as part of its resolute strategy to silence the union, decided to withhold union dues, thereby successfully bringing the SNEE activities to a halt. According to the CSIC, approximately 90 million Central African Francs (CFA) in union funds have been unlawfully withheld since 2012 and should be returned to the legitimate union leadership team, headed by Mr Fouman Julien Marcel Baby.
4. 125. Finally, the CSIC claims that MINTSS Order No. 002 of 13 January 2016 neither provides for the deployment of trade union confederations within enterprises to conduct election campaigns, nor for measures to resolve pre- or post-electoral disputes. The provisions of the Labour Code are vague and fail to provide a deadline for the resolution of electoral disputes prior to the announcement of election results.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 126. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, the Government has failed to reply to the complainant’s allegations, despite the fact that it has been invited on two occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on this case. The Committee firmly urges the Government to be more cooperative in future.
2. 127. Hence, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (1971)], the Committee is obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the information it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 128. 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 practice. 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 First Report, para. 31].
4. 129. The Committee observes that, in this case, the complainant’s allegations relate to anti-union interference by a public service concession holder (the company); the non-remittance of trade union dues deducted at source by that company; and the lack of mechanisms to ensure the impartiality of workers’ representative elections.
5. 130. As regards the allegations of interference by the company in the 2014 and 2016 staff representative elections, the Committee notes with concern that two unions affiliated with the CSIC, namely SNI-Energie and the SNEE, were unable to put forward candidates for those elections, while other unions would have enjoyed the employer’s support; this undermines the integrity of the ballot, and distorts trade union representation within the enterprise, including by impeding the determination of union representativeness on the basis of those elections. The Committee notes that the non-participation of the two unions was due, in part, to the failure to provide notification of the various postponements of the 2014 and 2016 elections – postponements that, it is alleged, were authorized, with one exception, by the public authorities in an arbitrary manner, to the detriment of the trade unions concerned. The Committee also takes note of allegations that the director-general of the company deliberately excluded the two unions on the grounds that they had not signed a social dialogue charter and notes in particular that, on the day of the election in 2016, the leaders of SNI-Energie were prevented from entering the regional headquarters of the company. In the absence of any information provided by the Government, the Committee wishes to stress that workers and their organizations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, and the latter should have the right to put forward claims on their behalf [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 389]. The Committee also wishes to recall that both the government authorities and employers should refrain from any discrimination between trade union organizations, especially as regards recognition of their leaders who seek to perform legitimate trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 343]. Furthermore, for the right to organize to be meaningful, the relevant workers’ organizations should be able to further and defend the interests of their members, by enjoying such facilities as may be necessary for the proper exercise of their functions as workers’ representatives, including access to the workplace of trade union members [see Digest, op. cit., para. 1106]. In light of these principles, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that neither the company’s management nor the public authorities intervene in union elections and prevent certain professional trade unions from being excluded while other workers’ organizations receive favourable treatment.
6. 131. In considering the allegations regarding the non-remittance of trade union dues, the Committee notes with concern that, according to the allegations made, the union dues of workers affiliated to the SNEE were not transferred to the union. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the current status of the SNEE, and, in particular, to indicate whether the matter of the deduction of the union members’ contributions has been resolved with the company and whether the SNEE is able to conduct its activities without interference. If not, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures vis-à-vis the company to remedy the situation without delay.
7. 132. As for the issue of challenges to the staff representative election results, the Committee notes that, according to the CSIC, there is a lack of effective mechanisms to ensure the impartiality of staff representative elections and inadequate legislation with respect to challenging election results. As it has received no information on this point, and in view of the absence of any reply from the Government, the Committee can only recall that in cases where the results of trade union elections are challenged, such questions should be referred to the judicial authorities in order to guarantee an impartial, objective and expeditious procedure [see Digest, op. cit., para. 442]. The Committee observes that, in this case, and according to the information at its disposal, the CSIC did not challenge the results of the trade union elections before the courts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the procedures available for resolution of electoral disputes.
8. 133. The Committee regrets not having been able to examine information from the enterprise on account of the absence of a reply from the Government. It requests the Government to solicit information from the employers’ organizations concerned, so as to have at its disposal their version of events as well as the views of the enterprise on the pending issues.