Interim Report - Report No 403, June 2023

1. 98. The Committee last examined this case (submitted in 2016) at its October–November 2021 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 396th report, approved by the Governing Body at its 343rd Session (November 2021), paras 78–99]. 
2. 99. The Autonomous National Union of Electricity and Gas Workers (SNATEG) submitted additional information in a communication dated 3 February 2022.
3. 100. The Government provided its observations in communications dated 31 January 2022, 3 February 2023 and 26 April 2023.
4. 101. Algeria 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. 102. In its previous examination of the case in October–November 2021, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 396th report, para. 99]:
   • (a) Given the divergent information provided in this regard, at this stage, the Committee must limit itself to requesting the Government to provide additional information on the situation of Kouafi Abdelkader, Benarfa Wahid, Araf Imad, Djeha Makhfi, Benhadad Zakaria, Slimani Mohamed Amine Zakaria, Chertioua Tarek and Sarah Benmaiche, in view of the information on the court decisions ordering their reinstatement, which is not consistent with the information provided by the Government. The Committee requests the complainant organizations to inform it, as appropriate, of any recourse against the court decisions mentioned by the Government and their outcome.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the situation of Mr Benzine Slimane, President of the National Federation of Security and Prevention Workers, who, according to the complainant organization, has still not been reinstated despite a court decision in his favour.
   • (c) The Committee is bound to urge the Government once again to conduct an independent inquiry to determine the circumstances that led to the administrative decision to dissolve SNATEG. Furthermore, the Committee expects the Government to review the decision to dissolve SNATEG without delay and urges it to keep the Committee informed of any action taken in that regard.
   • (d) The Committee again firmly urges the Government to implement its recommendations without delay in order to ensure an environment at the enterprise in which trade union rights are respected and guaranteed for all trade union organizations, and workers are able to join the union of their choice, elect their representatives and exercise their trade union rights without fear of reprisals and intimidation.
   • (e) The Committee encourages the Government to continue to train law enforcement officers on respect for the right of citizens to demonstrate peacefully, in addition to their basic training, and to include in the training the respect for freedom of association.
   • (f) The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

B. Additional information from the complainant

1. 103. In its communication dated 3 February 2022, SNATEG provided details regarding the Committee’s previous recommendations. With regard to the situation of trade unionists and trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise SONELGAZ (hereafter, the enterprise) (recommendation (a)), the complainant indicates that the list previously provided remains current. They refer in particular to the cases of Mr Kouafi Abdelkader (the complainant provides a copy of the legally binding decision of the Larbaa (Blida) labour court dated 19 December 2019 ordering his reinstatement and indicates that the enterprise has only partially implemented the financial section and refused to reinstate him); Mr Araf Imad (the complainant provides a copy of the legally binding decision of the Biskra labour court dated 20 May 2019 ordering his reinstatement and indicates that the enterprise has only partially implemented the financial section and refused to reinstate him); Mr Guebli Samir (the complainant provides a copy of the legally binding decision of the Amechdalah labour court dated 16 July 2020 ordering his reinstatement and indicates that Mr Guebli has refused receipt of the compensation decided by the court and is appealing to the Supreme Court. He continues to await reinstatement and the decision of the Supreme Court); and Mr Meziani Moussa (according to the complainant, he has not been able to bring legal action against his dismissal for financial reasons. The enterprise brought proceedings against him for breach of trust and a fine was imposed on 1 April 2018).
2. 104. Moreover, the complainant reports that, as a result of the pressure that had been put on them for years, Mr Wahid Benarfa, Mr Djeha Makhfi, Mr Benhadad Zakaria, Mr Slimani Mohammed Amine Zakaria and Mr Chertioua Tarek, who were previously included on the list of dismissed trade unionists, have decided to resign their membership of SNATEG. In February 2020, these members decided to establish a parallel branch of the Confederation of Productive Workers (COSYFOP) and indicated, through that branch, their wish that their case not be examined further by international bodies, including the Committee. They intend to resolve their case with the authorities directly. The complainant therefore does not intend to provide further information on their case and notes with regret that the length of time that has passed without resolution of the situations of the dismissed trade union members provides leeway for the Government to convince them that involving international organizations only makes their situations worse. The complainant requests the Committee to firmly urge the Government to reinstate the dismissed SNATEG union leaders without delay. In addition, recalling that the workers who have been reinstated by the enterprise have been forced to resign their memberships and join a different union within the enterprise, in violation of their freedom of association, the complainant requests the Committee to firmly urge the Government to guarantee to the reinstated members that the declarations that they signed will not be used against them if they rejoin SNATEG.
3. 105. With regard to the situation of Mr Slimane Benzine, President of the National Federation of Security and Prevention Workers (recommendation (b)), the complainant specifies that he has not been able to take legal action against his dismissal, due to a lack of resources to pay the legal fees. He has been subjected to unbearable repression since 2017, having been sentenced to imprisonment without parole by four courts across the country simply for exercising his trade union mandate. The complainant indicates that Mr Benzine is in a very concerning social situation, as he remains without work and does not receive any social security. Lastly, with regard to the situation of Ms Sarah Benmaich, the complainant indicates that she has not been reinstated to her post and she remains terrified by threats of detention from the police if she were to make contact with SNATEG.
4. 106. The complainant also denounces the situation of Mr Hichem Khayat, leader member of the SNATEG-COSYFOP trade union section of the Electricity and Gas Training Institute, and trade union representative for the wilaya (province) of Blida. According to the complainant, he was arrested by the police on 4 January 2022 and remained in detention until 10 January 2022, when he appeared before the examining magistrate, who ordered that he be placed under judicial supervision, accused of recruiting for a terrorist group on social media, forming a terrorist group on social media and criminal association through social media that could harm national unity. The complainant states that the subject of the judicial enquiry into Mr Hichem Khayat is solely based on his trade union activities.
5. 107. With regard to the need to ensure an environment at the enterprise in which trade union rights are respected and guaranteed (recommendation (d)), the complainant denounces that the Government continues its campaign of repression towards independent trade unionists. In June 2021, the authorities adopted amendments to the Criminal Code broadening the definition of terrorism to include working towards or inciting change “to access power or to change the system of government by unconstitutional means”. According to the complainant, calls to strike, protests and peaceful calls for a change in government could be considered criminal as a result of this reform. As a result, this amendment of the Criminal Code is being used to gag the independent trade union movement. In this regard, the complainant makes reference to the concerns expressed by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, in her most recent correspondence with the Government, deploring the very broad definition of terrorism and the imprisonment of human rights activists in the framework of the so-called fight against terrorism.
6. 108. The complainant recalls that, in this context of persistent legal harassment of SNATEG trade union leaders by the enterprise and by the Government, Mr Raouf Mellal, President of the trade union organization, and members of his family, have been subjected to intense repression. The complainant recalls that timeline of the anti-union discrimination measures (dismissal) and legal harassment (successive convictions for slander, unlawful possession of documents and identity theft) suffered by Mr Mellal since 2017 and states that he has been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment without parole by the Algiers tribunal following a complaint lodged by the Ministry of Labour accusing him of slander to the International Labour Office and for having made a complaint against his country to the supervisory bodies, which he likens to an act of treason. The complainant regrets that the Committees recommendations have not included more specifics on the protection to be provided to Mr Mellal since the complaint was presented in 2017. The relentlessness has forced Mr Mellal to no longer attend SNATEG headquarters and to remain in hiding, then in 2020 drove him into exile outside the country. Since then, Mr Mellal has been living in Switzerland. The complainant calls for all charges against Mr Mellal to be dropped and firmly urges the Government to begin a dialogue with SNATEG in order to enable its President to return to the country and exercise his mandate as a trade union leader, in accordance with the international agreements ratified by Algeria.
7. 109. Moreover, the complainant specifies that the information provided to the Committee by the Government stating that the El-Harrouch Court has not handed down any ruling with the reference put forward by the complainant organization (Order dated 23 January 2017 – inquiry: 0110/16) can be explained by the fact that it is in fact a ruling from the El-Harrach Court (a division of the wilaya of Algiers, where the union headquarters are located). In this regard, the complainant indicates that the examining magistrate accepted in his ruling that Mr Mellal was indeed the legitimate President of SNATEG and therefore dismissed the complaint brought by complainant Mr Abdellah Boukhalfa for usurpation of office. The complainant organization adds that the enterprise’s complaints against the President of SNATEG for usurpation of office of union leaders were also dismissed by the Guelma Court and the Tizi Ouzou Tribunal.
8. 110. Lastly, with regard to the matter of its administrative dissolution (recommendation (c)), SNATEG maintains that there was never any voluntary dissolution, as the Government claims. The complainant recalls that it lodged an appeal to the administrative tribunal on 31 December 2017, calling for the cancellation of Ministry of Labour Administrative Decision No. 297 of 16 May 2017 regarding the dissolution of SNATEG. In this appeal, SNATEG reminded the tribunal of the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2017 denying the existence of the Administrative Decision on dissolution. In a decision dated 19 July 2018 (No. 152992), the tribunal refused to cancel the Administrative Decision, arguing that the decision to dismiss Mr Mellal gave the Ministry of Labour the right to dissolve the trade union organization. SNATEG lodged another appeal on 11 December 2018 in the same jurisdiction, requesting a review of the decision. In that second appeal, SNATEG presented the rulings cancelling the decision to dismiss Mr Mellal on the one hand (this ruling had not yet been overturned by the Supreme Court), and on the other hand presented the argument that the dispute in question concerned the trade union organization as a legal entity, and not the person of Mr Mellal, and that its administrative dissolution contravenes ILO Convention No. 87, ratified by Algeria. Nevertheless, the tribunal issued a definitive ruling on 18 July 2019 in which it denied the request to cancel the Ministry of Labour Administrative Decision No. 297 for “non legal-institution“. For the complainant, such a decision means that the administrative tribunal believes that the Ministry of Labour has the right to dissolve a trade union organization by administrative means. The complainant indicates that such a decision, which is an extremely serious violation of Convention No. 87, is nonetheless not subject to appeal at the regional or international level. This raises the question of the Government using the justice system to contravene the recommendations of international institutions, recalling that the decision of the tribunal was handed down in July 2019, although in June 2019 the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards had encouraged the Government to “review the decision to dissolve the SNATEG“. In conclusion, the complainant organization, deploring that the court decisions have been heavily influenced by the Government, is bound to question the relevance of the Committee’s recommendations, on the basis of the decisions of the judicial authorities in this case.
9. 111. The complainant organization denounces the closure of the headquarters that also serves as the headquarters of COSYFOP on 21 February 2021, by administrative decision (the complainant provides a copy of the decision). After years of hindrances and incessant attacks, repression and abuse of power, the administrative and security authorities have managed to close and block access to the Algiers headquarters. The complainant organization emphasizes that the authorities have not even had recourse to the courts to justify their decision.
10. 112. In conclusion, SNATEG once again firmly urges the Committee to compel the Government to conform with international standards on freedom of association, to implement without further delay the court decisions to reinstate its leaders, to drop all charges and review all penalties handed down against union leaders, to review the decision to dissolve the union as requested by the ILO supervisory bodies, and thus to recognize the right of workers to join the trade union organization of their choice and to allow the union to carry out its activities without hindrance or fear of reprisal. SNATEG states that it is ready to engage in constructive dialogue with the Government, without preconditions, in order to draft a road map to ensure the implementation of the recommendations and resolutions issued by the various ILO supervisory bodies.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 113. In its communications dated 31 January 2022, 3 February 2023 and 26 April 2023, the Government provides responses to the Committee’s recommendations. With regard to the question of the reinstatement of SNATEG members (recommendation (a)), the Government indicates that it has, in coordination with the enterprise, identified the situation of the following people: (i) with regard to Mr Wahid Benarfa, the financial part of the Tébessa Court ruling has been implemented, and he was compensated by his employer, the Algerian Electricity and Gas Distribution Company (SADEG), in the amount of 1,075,301.75 Algerian dinars (equivalent to US$7,930) on 4 February 2019. Moreover, the enterprise reports that Mr Benarfa has lodged an appeal and that the Supreme Court has accepted the appeal and referred the case in a ruling dated 9 March 2023; (ii) with regard to Mr Chertioua Tarek, he was compensated by SADEG in the amount of 190,340 dinars (equivalent to US$1,405) on 16 February 2021. In addition, the employer reports that Mr Chertioua has lodged an appeal and that the case is still pending; (iii) Mr Slimani Mohamed Amine Zakaria was compensated in the amount of 189,996 dinars (equivalent to US$1,402) on 15 February 2021. The enterprise also reports that he returned to work on 14 March 2023; (iv) Mr Benhadad Zakaria was compensated by the enterprise in the amount of 189,996 dinars (equivalent to US$1,402) on 15 February 2021. In addition, the enterprise reports that he returned to work on 14 March 2023; (v) Mr Araf Imad was compensated by the enterprise in the amount of 121,420 dinars (equivalent to US$895) on 1 July 2019. Mr Araf lodged an appeal and the Supreme Court handed down a decision on 4 February 2021 by which it overturned the ruling and returned the case to the court otherwise composed. The Government provides a copy of the court decision; (vi) Mr Kouafi Abdelkader was absent from work without authorization, which constituted a unilateral break in the employment relationship. In accordance with the enterprise’s internal regulations, he was given two warnings, to no effect. He was therefore deemed to have decided to abandon his post. Mr Kouafi is also being prosecuted by his employer “Shariket Amn el mounchaate el Takawiya” (SAT) and was convicted of slander by the Larbaa (Blida) Tribunal and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment without parole and a fine of 50,000 dinars (equivalent to US$369) (27 February 2018). The Blida Court upheld the ruling of the Larbaa Tribunal (4 March 2019); (vii) with regard to Ms Sarah Benmaiche, following the rulings of the Annaba Tribunal, she received two payments, in spite of all the attempts at reinstatement at establishments affiliated to the enterprise. On 4 July 2016, Ms Benmaiche received compensation in the amount of 100,000 dinars (equivalent to US$738) from her employer, SAT. On 2 October 2017, Ms Benmaiche received an on-call duty settlement payment for non-reinstatement in the amount of 90,000 dinars (equivalent to US$664); and (viii) Mr Djeha Mekhfi was dismissed by his employer “Maintenance delivery of vehicles – Constantine (MPV)” for refusal of work and not complying with instructions from the unit Director, making a false statement and false testimony during a disciplinary hearing, and refusing to recognize the authority of a supervisor. After exhausting all the procedures outlined in the internal regulations, the disciplinary committee decided to dismiss Mr Djeha, without payment or notice. No information has been received about any appeal against the dismissal decision.
2. 114. With regard to the situation of Mr Slimane Benzine (recommendation (b)), the Government submits the information provided by the enterprise “Shariket Amn el mounchaate el Takawiya-Ouargla” (SAT), according to which Mr Slimane was dismissed for professional misconduct, in accordance with the provisions of article 222 of the Criminal Code. In that case, the Ouargla Tribunal convicted him of forgery and the use of forgeries and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment without parole and a 20,000 dinar (equivalent of US$147) fine (13 November 2018). In addition, another ruling of the Ouargla Tribunal sentenced Mr Slimane to six months’ imprisonment without parole and a 100,000 dinar (equivalent of US$738) fine for slander, in accordance with the provisions of articles 296 and 298 of the Criminal Code (12 March 2020). The Government has not been informed by the enterprise about any appeal against the Ouargla Tribunal ruling.
3. 115. With regard to the Committee’s recommendations concerning the administrative decision to dissolve SNATEG (recommendation (c)), the Government reiterates that the voluntary dissolution of that union complies with the legal provisions in force and its statutes. According to the official record of the court bailiff dated 7 October 2017, the voluntary dissolution was raised unanimously by the members of the congress held in general assembly. The Government reiterates that its position is based on the principles of non-interference and recalls that no person may impede the freedom and will of the members of SNATEG to dissolve the union, in accordance with its statutes. Also, in accordance with these principles of non interference with the internal functioning of trade union organizations, as laid down in ILO Conventions and in national law, the Government does not have the prerogative to review the free and voluntary decision of the members of this trade union organization.
4. 116. In response to the recommendations on the need to establish a harmonious and stable climate of industrial relations in the enterprise in which trade union leaders can carry out their activities to defend the interests of their members without fear of criminal prosecution and imprisonment (recommendation (d)), the Government states that membership of a trade union is a free and voluntary choice for workers, guaranteed by Act No. 90-14. Membership of trade unions in places of work is governed by the rules outlined in the statutes of those organizations, without interference from existing trade unions in the enterprise or from the employer. In addition, union organization statutes establish the rules by which the trade union leaders and representatives are elected, as well as the democratic rules for their designation, in accordance with the principle outlined in Act No. 90-14 on the respect for the democratic method in elections. Lastly, labour inspection services ensure that labour law and collective agreements are implemented with regard to the exercise of freedom of association.
5. 117. With regard to the need to ensure respect for freedom of association when the police intervenes during peaceful demonstrations (recommendation (e)), the Government acknowledges the Committee’s encouragements to continue to train law enforcement officers. The Government recalls that the right to peaceful assembly and protest are guaranteed by the Constitution (article 52), these rights are exerted upon simple declaration, and the law establishes the conditions and methods for exercising them. Training law enforcement officers is an ongoing process to ensure that they benefit from new methods for the protection of citizens and of property in the context of the implementation of the provisions of Act No. 91-19 of 2 December 1991, amending and supplementing Act No. 89-28 of 31 December 1989, on public meetings and demonstrations. Training cycles are therefore organized for law enforcement officers in the context of their profession. Training programmes are particularly focused on the administrative police’s mission of prevention, support for the freedom to protest, and maintaining ongoing dialogue with protesters. The interventions of law enforcement officers during protests are in response to the need to ensure adequate conditions and to ensure that different categories of citizens, including trade union organizations, can exercise their individual and collective freedoms, while also preventing any hindrance or violence in the exercise of their right and freedom, with regard to persons, institutions or property. The Government ensures respect for legislation and regulations governing the exercise of the right to protest, so long as the protest does not infringe on the right to life of citizens, on public order and on security.
6. 118. In conclusion, the Government requests the Committee to close the present case, taking account of the principles of non-interference in the internal function of trade unions and respect for the sovereign decision of SNATEG members. Moreover, the Government considers that it has provided all the information on the implementation of court decisions concerning dismissed workers, including their compensation, in accordance with current legislation.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 119. The Committee recalls that the present case concerns allegations that the enterprise has refused to allow an officially registered trade union to carry out its activities, has undertaken a campaign of harassment against the union’s officers and members, has dismissed the majority of the union’s members, and that the public authorities have refused to put an end to the violations of trade union rights and enforce court rulings in the union’s favour, and have registered the trade union’s dissolution despite evidence to the contrary.
2. 120. In its previous consideration of the case, the Committee referred to a list of union members (members of its National Board, national committees, national federations and trade union branches in the wilayas) who, according to the complainant, were wrongfully dismissed by the enterprise in 2017, but have not been reinstated, despite court or labour inspectorate decisions in their favour. The Committee notes the updates provided by the complainant organization and the Government on the situations of the following trade unionists:
   • the case of Mr Kouafi Abdelkader, Secretary-General of SNATEG. According to the complainant, Mr Kouafi has received a legally binding decision from the Larbaa (Blida) labour court dated 19 December 2019 which cancelled his dismissal as arbitrary, because it took place during certified sick leave and without informing the trade union. In addition, the court ordered the payment of 400,000 dinars in compensation (equivalent to US$2,951) as well as a payment of 100,000 dinars (equivalent to US$738) for material damages, while Mr Kouafi was claiming compensation equivalent to the 28 months that he has been unemployed since his dismissal in March 2017 (1,680,000 dinars, equivalent to US$12,397). But the enterprise has only partially implemented the financial section and refused to reinstate him. According to the Government, Mr Kouafi was absent from work without authorization, which constituted a unilateral break in the employment relationship. In accordance with the enterprise’s internal regulations, he was given two warnings, to no effect. He was therefore deemed to have decided to abandon his post. Mr Kouafi is also being prosecuted by his employer “Shariket Amn el mounchaate el Takawiya” (SAT) and was convicted of slander by the Larbaa (Blida) Tribunal and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment without parole and a fine of 50,000 dinars (equivalent to US$369) (27 February 2018). The Blida Court upheld the ruling of the Larbaa Tribunal (4 March 2019);
   • the case of Mr Araf Imad, Chairperson of the southern national committee. SNATEG indicates that he has received a legally binding decision of the Biskra labour court dated 20 May 2019 ordering his reinstatement, but the enterprise has only partially implemented the financial section and refused to reinstate him. According to the Government, Mr Araf was compensated by the enterprise in the amount of 121,420 dinars (equivalent to US$895) on 1 July 2019. Mr Araf lodged an appeal and the Supreme Court handed down a decision on 4 February 2021 by which it overturned the ruling and returned the case to the Biskra court otherwise composed ;
   • the case of Mr Guebli Samir, Chairperson of the central national committee. According to SNATEG, he has received a legally binding decision from the Amechdalah labour court dated 16 July 2020 ordering his reinstatement. Mr Guebli has refused receipt of the compensation decided by the court and is appealing to the Supreme Court. He continues to await reinstatement and the decision of the Supreme Court. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information and recalls that it had previously indicated that Mr Guebli was dismissed for abandoning his post and had not brought legal action against the dismissal decision;
   • the case of Mr Meziani Moussa, President of the National Federation of Gas and Electricity Distribution Workers. According to SNATEG, he has not been able to bring legal action against his dismissal for financial reasons. The enterprise brought proceedings against him for breach of trust and a fine was imposed in April 2018. The Government has not provided more up-to-date information. It had previously indicated that Mr Meziani’s dismissal for breach of trust had been upheld by the Bouira Tribunal in April 2018, and again on appeal;
   • the case of Ms Sarah Benmaiche, member of the Women’s Committee. According to SNATEG, she has not been reinstated to her post and remains traumatised by the harassment and the threats of detention from the police if she were to make contact with the trade union. According to the Government, she was dismissed for professional misconduct and has not brought legal action against the dismissal decision. However, the Government provides a report from Ms Benmaiche’s employer, which indicates that she brought legal proceedings on 9 June 2016 requesting reinstatement. The Committee concludes from this that Ms Benmaiche won the case insofar as the employer states that it is not possible to reinstate her as a hostess at different sites or as part of the administrative staff because of her aggressive character, and states that Ms Benmaiche lodged an appeal to the tribunal on 26 September 2016 for non-implementation of the ruling. Following the rulings handed down by the Annaba Tribunal, Ms Benmaiche received two payments in the amount of 100,000 dinars (equivalent to US$738) in compensation from her employer and 90,000 dinars (equivalent to US$664) as an on-call duty settlement payment for non-reinstatement;
   • the case of Mr Slimane Benzine, President of the National Federation of Security and Prevention Workers. SNATEG indicates that he has not been able to take legal action against his dismissal for financial reasons. In addition he has been subjected to serious judicial harassment since 2017, and has been sentenced to imprisonment without parole by four courts across the country, according to the complainant, simply for exercising his trade union mandate. The complainant adds that Mr Benzine is in a very concerning social situation, as he remains without work and does not receive any social security. The Government has submitted the information provided by his employer (SAT), according to which Mr Slimane was dismissed for professional misconduct. In this case, the Ouargla Tribunal convicted him of forgery and the use of forgeries and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment without parole and a 20,000 dinar (equivalent of US$147) fine (13 November 2018). In addition, another ruling of the Ouargla Tribunal sentenced Mr Slimane to six months’ imprisonment without parole and a 100,000 dinar (equivalent of US$738) fine for slander (12 March 2020).
3. 121. In addition, the Committee notes that the complainant organization denounces the situation of Mr Hichem Khayat, leader member of the SNATEG-COSYFOP trade union section of the Electricity and Gas Training Institute, and trade union representative for the wilaya of Blida, who was arrested by the police on 4 January 2022 and remained in detention until 10 January 2022, then appeared before the examining magistrate, who ordered that he be placed under judicial supervision, accused of recruiting for a terrorist group on social media, forming a terrorist group on social media and criminal association through social media that could harm national unity. Noting with concern that, according to the complainant, the subject of the judicial enquiry into Mr Hichem Khayat is solely based on his trade union activities, the Committee urges the Government to provide its observations on the situation of this trade union leader.
4. 122. In addition, the Committee notes the indication by the complainant that Mr Wahid Benarfa, Mr Djeha Makhfi, Mr Benhadad Zakaria, Mr Slimani Mohammed Amine Zakaria and Mr Chertioua Tarek, who were included on the list of dismissed trade unionists, and about whom the Government has provided documented information, decided to resign their membership of SNATEG in 2020 and indicated their wish that their case not be examined further by the Committee. As a result, the Committee will not further examine their situation. It does however note that, according to the complainant, the length of time that has passed without resolution of the situations of the trade union members dismissed since 2017 provides leeway for the Government to convince them that involving international organizations only makes their situations worse.
5. 123. The Committee recalls that the complaint originally referred to the numerous presumed anti-union dismissals of leaders and representatives of SNATEG since 2016–17. The Committee has recalled that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that workers should not be dismissed or refused re-employment on account of their trade union activity, and has requested the Government to provide regular reports on measures concerning the dismissed workers in this case. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested additional information to establish with certainty the link between the reinstatement decisions to which the complainant organization referred and the decisions confirming dismissals to which the Government referred. The Committee welcomes the updated information provided by the Government and the complainant, following its previous recommendations. Although the Committee welcomes the fact that the majority of cases of dismissals of SNATEG members and leaders seem to have been resolved by reinstatement to their posts, as indicated in the Government’s regular reports, including the most recent reports, it also regrets that, more than five years after the alleged anti-union dismissals, many SNATEG leaders and representatives are still awaiting reinstatement despite court decisions in their favour, and certain judicial proceedings have still not concluded. The Committee is particularly concerned by the fact that in several cases reported by both the Government and the complainant, despite court decisions ordering reinstatement, the enterprises concerned have refused to implement them with complete impunity, confining themselves to paying the financial portion of the sanctions. In addition, the Committee is surprised that it is possible for the enterprises concerned to not implement orders from the judicial authorities without incurring any sanction. The Committee recalls that no one should be subjected to anti-union discrimination because of legitimate trade union activities and the remedy of reinstatement should be available to those who are victims of anti-union discrimination.[see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1163]. Moreover, the Committee notes with serious concern that this violation of freedom of association has, according to the complainant, had an extremely harmful effect on the SNATEG leaders, by leaving them without income. As a result, the Committee firmly urges the Government to immediately take all necessary steps to implement the court decisions on reinstatement that have not been contested in the present case. According to the information available, this means the decisions concerning Mr Kouafi Abdelkader and Ms Sarah Benmaiche. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in that regard without delay.
6. 124. Furthermore, the Committee expects the judicial appeals that are still pending to be concluded without delay in the courts concerned (cases of Mr Araf Imad and Mr Guebli Samir). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the court decisions handed down in the aforementioned cases.
7. 125. The Committee considers it useful to recall its position that if it appears that the dismissals occurred as a result of involvement by the workers concerned in the activities of a union, the Government must ensure that those workers are reinstated in their jobs without loss of pay. However, if the judicial authority determines that reinstatement of workers dismissed in violation of freedom of association is not possible, measures should be taken so that they are fully compensated. The compensation should be adequate, taking into account both the damage incurred and the need to prevent the repetition of such situations in the future [see Compilation, paras 1169, 1172 and 1173].
8. 126. Bearing in mind the allegations by the complainant that the workers who have been reinstated by the enterprise have been forced to resign their memberships and join a different union within the enterprise, in violation of their freedom of association, the Committee recalls that declarations of loyalty or other similar commitment should not be imposed as a condition for reinstatement [see Compilation, para. 1182]. The Committee expects the Government to ensure that all workers should in practice be able to establish and join organizations of their own choosing in full freedom.
9. 127. Lastly, the Committee is bound to express its concern with regard to the allegation that Mr Slimane Benzine and Mr Moussa Meziani have not been able to appeal their dismissals for lack of financial resources. In this regard, 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 Compilation, para. 1142.]
10. 128. The Committee has already deeply deplored that the situation of conflict between the enterprise and SNATEG, the disciplinary measures and mass dismissal of union members in 2017, the uncertainty associated with different means of recourse against the dismissal decisions, the difficulty for the trade unionists to implement the court decisions, but also the continued harassment, including judicial harassment, of SNATEG leaders have been detrimental to the conduct of union activities and also constitute intimidation that hinders the free exercise of freedom of association at the enterprise. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern the allegation that Mr Raouf Mellal, President of SNATEG, and members of his family, have been subjected to intense repression. According to the complainant organization, Mr Mellal has been subjected to continued anti-union discrimination measures (dismissal) and systematic legal harassment (successive convictions for slander, unlawful possession of documents and identity theft), in part for having made a complaint against his country to international bodies. The Committee notes with concern the complainant’s indication that the relentlessness forced Mr Mellal into exile outside the country in 2020 and to move to Switzerland. Noting that SNATEG is calling for all charges against Mr Mellal be dropped and states that it is ready to engage in dialogue with the Government in order to enable Mr Mellal to return to the country and exercise his mandate as a trade union leader, the Committee expects the Government to commit to ensuring that Mr Mellal can return to the country to carry out his trade union activities in an environment free of violence, pressure or threats. The Committee recalls in this regard that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed [see Compilation, para. 82].
11. 129. In its previous conclusions, the Committee has carried out an in-depth examination of the information provided by the complainant and the Government, who hold diverging opinions regarding the voluntary dissolution of SNATEG [see 392nd Report, paras 209–212]. The Committee had requested the Government to carry out an independent investigation to determine the circumstances that led to the administrative decision approving the dissolution of SNATEG despite evidence to the contrary presented to the authorities. In the interim, the Committee, referring to the recommendations made by the Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2019, had indicated that it expected the Government to review the decision to dissolve SNATEG without delay [see 392nd Report, para. 212].
12. 130. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government’s response is again limited to reiterating that the voluntary dissolution of SNATEG conforms to the legal provisions in force and to the union’s statutes. Furthermore, the Government reaffirms its position, which is based on the principle of non interference and the impossibility of reviewing the administrative decision to dissolve SNATEG. In these circumstances, the Committee is bound to urgently reiterate its request and expects the Government to review the decision to dissolve SNATEG without delay. The Committee urges the Government to keep it informed of all action taken in this regard.
13. 131. Furthermore, the Committee notes with concern the allegations that the SNATEG headquarters in Algiers were closed down on 21 February 2021 by means of a simple administrative decision. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the inviolability of trade union premises and property, including its mail, is a civil liberty which is essential to the exercise of trade union rights. The occupation or sealing of trade union premises should be subject to independent judicial review before being undertaken by the authorities in view of the significant risk that such measures may paralyse trade union activities [see Compilation, paras 276 and 287]. The Committee urges the Government to send its observations in this regard.
14. 132. In general, the Committee wishes to express its deep concern about the present case, which is characterized by the cumulative difficulties encountered by SNATEG leaders in the exercise of their legitimate union rights. During its successive examinations of this case, the Committee observes that these difficulties include a campaign of repression against SNATEG leaders and members, mass dismissals and the enterprise’s refusal to enforce reinstatement decisions, the slow administration of justice, difficulties in applying the law which led to the status of a trade union leader being called into question, interference in trade union activities, judicial harassment, and acts of police violence and intimidation during peaceful demonstrations. The Committee is particularly concerned by the length of time that has passed without the courts being able to conclude the appeals concerning the alleged anti-union dismissals of certain SNATEG leaders. These difficulties have harmed the conduct of activities of a union and also constitute intimidation hindering the free exercise of freedom of association at the enterprise. Consequently, the Committee once again urges the Government to implement its recommendations without delay in order to ensure an environment within the enterprise in which trade union rights are respected and guaranteed for all trade union organizations, and in which workers are able to join the union of their choice, elect their representatives and exercise their trade union rights without fear of reprisals and intimidation.
15. 133. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.