Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 6, 1953

A. Analysis of the Original Complaints

• The Complaint made by the League of Trade Unions of Workers and Employees in the Lebanese Republic
  384. 384 The League of Trade Unions of Workers and Employees in the Lebanese Republic protested in a telegram of 2 February 1952 against the arrest of Tunisian trade union leaders belonging to the Tunisian General Federation of Trade Unions (U.G.T.T).
• Complaints by the Tunisian General Federation of Trade Unions (First, Second and Third Communications of 9 and 21 February and 5 March 1952)
  385. 385 The Tunisian General Federation of Trade Unions, in three communications of 9 and 21 February and 5 March 1952, makes the following allegations:
• Prohibition of Trade Union Meetings
  386. 386 Trade union meetings, as well as all other meetings, are forbidden because of the state of siege which has existed in Tunisia since 1938 and which paralyses trade union activity throughout the country ; among other complaints, it is claimed that trade union meetings were forbidden on 20 January 1952 and that, in addition, the trade unions are prevented from meeting in the Tunisian General Federation of Trade Unions' headquarters in Tunis by police operations which frequently take place in the neighbourhood of the building. On the evening of 15 February, the headquarters of the central trade union organisation were surrounded by the police, which made it impossible for workers to enter the building.
• Arrest of Active Trade Union Members
  387. 387 Active trade union members have been arrested in a certain number of localities as a purely administrative measure. The complaint of 21 February cites in particular, the arrest of the administrative secretary of the Transport Workers' Union on 15 February 1952, without reason, and also that of a member of the Cafés, Hotels and Restaurants Union. It also refers to the arrest of Bellagha and Tlili, members of the Tunisian General Federation of Trade Unions' Executive.
• Sanctions against Strikers
  388. 388 Very severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal in certain cases, were taken against workers on strike.
• Persecution and Acts of Violence against Workers
  389. 389 The military authorities have adopted various measures to persecute the workers and, in particular, the Assistant Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union was wounded by a shot fired by a patrol on 6 February 1952.
• Repressive Measures
  390. 390 The repressive measures taken in January 1952 resulted in more than 80 people killed, 400 wounded and taken to hospital, and the arrest and internment of more than 8,000 people, as well as the infliction of very severe penalties by military tribunals. The complaint gives in particular details concerning the results of punitive expeditions undertaken at Cape Bon and on the excesses alleged to have been committed during these operations in various localities. The complainant, in a communication of 5 March 1952, provides a table showing the number of internees in the various camps and the ill-treatment to which it is alleged they have been subjected.
  391. 391 In conclusion, the complainant requests that the I.L.O refer the matter to the Economic and Social Council and that an investigation committee be sent to Tunisia.
• Complaints by the Tunisian National Teachers' Federation and the Tunisian Federation of Postal Workers (1 May 1952)
  392. 392 Representatives of these organisations protested, in a telegram of 1 May 1952, against the Tunisian military authorities forbidding the May Day celebrations.
• Decision of the Committee on Freedom of Association (May 1952)
  393. 393 At its meeting in May 1952, the Committee on Freedom of Association adjourned the study of this case while awaiting the French Government's comments on these complaints.
• Analysis of the First Reply of the French Government (26 May 1952)
  394. 394 In its first reply dated 26 May 1952 the French Government puts forward, in particular, the following arguments.
• Prohibition of Trade Union Meetings
  395. 395 The violent events which took place in Tunis during the week of 14-20 January and the difficulties experienced in preserving law and order compelled the Tunis District Commissioner to forbid the trade union meeting which the U.G.T.T was planning to hold outside its offices, on 20 January 1952, to mark the seventh anniversary of the organisation. The leaders of the U.G.T.T were therefore requested to put the meeting off to a later date, but they were informed that they were in no way prohibited from celebrating the anniversary. There was never any question of systematic prohibition of trade union meetings ; the steps taken were dictated by circumstances and did not affect the right of trade union organisations to hold any meeting, inside their own premises, with the object of defending their occupational interests. The Government encloses a copy of the letter from the Tunis District Commissioner to the U.G.T.T, which states that, in view of the prevailing circumstances, it appeared to be inexpedient that any public or trade union meetings should be held and asked the U.G.T.T to put the trade union meeting off until a later date.
• Arrest of Militant Trade Unionists
  396. 396 No trade union member has been arrested for the specific exercise of the right to organise, which, under a Decree issued by the Bey on 16 May 1932, deriving from the provisions of the French Labour Code, means measures taken solely for the protection of economic, industrial, commercial and agricultural interests. If certain trade union members have received the attention of the police, the grounds are not connected with the exercise of trade union rights under the conditions laid down in the above Decree, but with activity going beyond trade union limits and prejudicial to law and order.
• Sanctions against Strikers
  397. 397 In the private sector of industry, the dismissal of strikers comes within the jurisdiction of the courts competent to determine the effects of strikes on the contract of employment. In the public sector, the rules applied are those laid down by the Tunisian Government Council of Ministers, on the basis of principles drawn from opinions given by the French Council of State. This latter, starting from the principle of the legitimacy of strikes, allows that when no statutory regulations exist, the Government, being responsible for maintaining public services, may under the supervision of the administrative judge set certain limits to the right to strike, with the object of preventing its being abused or used in opposition to the needs of public policy ; these limits in practice concern only supervisory and safety staff.
• Repressive Measures
  398. 398 The measures referred to in the complaints were taken within the framework of the regulations in force to maintain law and order in Tunisia, on account of political agitation designed to cause a failure of the French representative's conciliation mission. The nature of this agitation was in many cases so serious that it compelled the adoption of safety measures. The allegations concerning the number of persons interned or brought before the courts are exaggerated : the number of persons banished from urban centres (and not interned) is 619 and not 8,000, and that of persons brought before the courts is 1,167 and not 3,000.
• Analysis of the New Complaints
• Complaint presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (23 May 1952)
  399. 399 In his first communication of 23 May 1952, the Secretary-General of the I.C.F.T.U, presented a complaint against the French authorities alleging that they were employing methods of direct government in Tunisia and stating that in general the U.G.T.T, which is affiliated to the I.C.F.T.U, acts for the protection of workers on the social level, but considers that its efforts would be fruitless if it did not also work to guarantee their individual freedom within the framework of a democratic state, and that this organisation thus finds itself at the side of those who wish to see a reform of the Tunisian Constitution. He goes on to allege that the leaders of the U.G.T.T have been accused of subversive political activities by the authorities, who have not been willing to admit the strictly trade union nature of the U.G.T.T's social activities, although they remain its primary and basic concern. The complainant alleges the following main grounds for complaint, concerning the legislative, administrative and other measures taken by the French authorities.
  400. 400 The Decree of 4 December 1947 prohibits trade union members sentenced for trade union activity from occupying responsible positions in the movement, from which they are to be excluded.
  401. 401 Certain trade union rights and guarantees have been limited, suspended or suppressed in different areas and at different times, as a result of the state of siege decreed in April 1938 and since applied with greater or less severity, but without interruption, in spite of the fact that the right to form trade union federations was recognised in the Decree of 19 November 1932.
  402. 402 The following rights and guarantees are concerned.
• The Right to Hold Meetings, and the Right to Organise Processions and Demonstrations
  403. 403 Several trade union meetings, referred to in the complaint, and particularly the meetings organised on 20 January 1952 to mark the anniversary of the foundation of the U.G.T.T and May Day demonstrations are alleged to have been forbidden as the result of an order by General Garbey dated 26 April 1952. Meetings, even when held within trade union premises, have only been authorised in Tunis and Sfax, and not in other localities such as Gabès, Gafsa, Sousse, Bizerta, le Kef and Kairouan. On 15 February 1952 the headquarters of the U.G.T.T in Tunis was surrounded by the police, which prevented workers entering the building. On 9 May 1952 armed police are alleged to have attacked workers at an information meeting in the U.G.T.T buildings in Sfax, under the chairmanship of Mr. Ferhat Hached, General Secretary of the U.G.T.T. ; in this attack a number of trade union members were wounded. The right of association and the right to hold meetings is denied workers in Béja and Mateur, as also in Southern Tunisia. This latter region is classed as military territory, and the administration is entirely in the hands of French officers possessing very wide powers ; no trade union activity is allowed.
• The Right to Organise Occupational Strikes
  404. 404 Occupational strikes are alleged to have been repressed with extreme severity and a number of strikers killed, wounded or sentenced to more than ten years' imprisonment, dismissed and imprisoned for three months during the strikes which took place in Potinville in January 1950 and in Enfidaville in November 1950. The complainant gives in an annex a table showing the sanctions imposed as a result of the strikes on 1 April 1952. This table gives the number of workers dismissed in different localities and the text of a letter from Mr. Pons, the General Secretary of the Tunisian Government. The letter holds the strike of 1 April 1952 to have been a political strike and gives instructions for disciplinary action, including dismissal in several cases, to be taken against the strikers.
• Absence of Guarantees of Non-molestation for Active Trade Unionists in the Exercise of Their Duties
  405. 405 The complainant draws attention to numerous cases of arrest, imprisonment and ill-treatment, alleged to have been inflicted on trade union members in the exercise of their duties, in a number of localities (Kef, Mateur, Bizerta, Kelibia, Ferryville, Feriana). Ten trade union militants were brought before military tribunals for having held trade union meetings on 1 May 1951, and other trade union leaders were arrested and deported without any justification being given for these measures.
  406. 406 The complainant also alleges that trade union members, have been forbidden to enter certain areas such as Béja, Mateur, the neighbourhood of the Oued Ellil Dam and the Medina (Arab town) of Sousse, in which the U.G.T.T buildings are situated. (This last measure was only withdrawn in January 1952 after the intervention of an I.C.F.T.U delegate.) He also refers to restrictions laid on the activities of trade union leaders and in particular those of Mr. Ferhat Hached, General Secretary of the U.G.T.T, who was refused an exit visa to attend a meeting of an I.C.F.T.U subcommittee on 17 March 1952. The visa was finally granted after the I.C.F.T.U had protested, but too late for it to be possible for him to be present at the meeting. When he returned to Tunis on 1 May 1952 his passport was taken from him ; all the documents he was carrying were seized and he was subsequently prevented from carrying on correspondence abroad though ordinary postal channels ; in particular he is unable to keep the I.C.F.T.U informed of events concerning the U.G.T.T. The U.G.T.T. General Secretary and a member of its executive were sentenced by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to imprisonment for violation of the press laws, and were requested by the public prosecutor to refrain from all further trade union activity.
  407. 407 The complainant refers also to searches carried out in the trade union headquarters in Feriana, resulting in the seizure of trade union documents and contributions ; the union offices were then sealed.
• Acts of Violence by the Authorities against Workers
  408. 408 The complainant draws attention to measures taken to persecute workers by police and military patrols, and refers to the case of a trade union leader who was wounded by a shot fired by a patrol. He reviews the cases in which trade union members have been prevented from attending union meetings, and arrested and mistreated if they do.
• Repressive Measures
  409. 409 The complainant repeats the allegations contained in the U.G.T.T complaint, relative to the number of internees in various camps and the ill-treatment to which they are subjected.
• Complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions (22 January 1952)
  410. 410 In a complaint dated 22 January 1952, submitted to the Economic and Social Council and referred by the Fourteenth Session of that body to the I.L.O, the World Federation of Trade Unions makes the following allegations:
       • (a) the secretaries of the Tunisian Workers' Unions and leaders of other Tunisian organisations had been arrested ;
       • (b) Tunisian workers had been murdered at Tunis, Ferryville, Bizerta and Mateur, and
       • (c) the French Government had organised a systematic campaign of repression.
  411. 411 The plaintiff requests that the French Government should be called upon to free the imprisoned and deported militants and to respect trade union rights.
• Complaints presented by the General Union of the U.G.T.T at Sfax and the Sfax Section of the Union of Tunisian Civil Servants (Telegrams of 21 June 1952)
  412. 412 In two telegrams dated 21 June 1952 the representatives of these organisations protested against the searching of the central office of the Union in Tunis and the arrest of the workers in that office by French troops.
• Second Communication from the I.C.F.T.U (23 June 1952)
  413. 413 In a letter dated 23 June 1952, the Secretary-General of the I.C.F.T.U, makes the following allegations:
       • (a) The French authorities in Tunisia refused exit visas to Mr. Hached and Mr. Boudali, who were to have attended the General Council of the I.C.F.T.U, held in Berlin from 1 to 5 July 1952, as representatives of the U.G.T.T.
       • (b) On 20 June 1952 the police searched the central office of the U.G.T.T and seized some office machines and all documents and correspondence with the I.C.F.T.U.
  414. Third and Fourth Communications from the I.C.F.T.U (2 and 19 August 1952)
  414. 414 In letters dated 2 and 19 August 1952, the Secretary-General of the I.C.F.T.U alleged that, as a result of a decision of the French authorities in Tunisia, circulation of the I.C.F.T.U pamphlet concerning the work of the I.C.F.T.U. World Congress held at Milan during 1951, was prohibited and all copies confiscated. Eight of the ten pamphlets confiscated from the headquarters of the central office of the U.G.T.T were later returned to that organisation, but the plaintiff, in spite of this partial redress, refuses to withdraw his complaint.
• Analysis of the Second Reply of the French Government (23 October 1952)
  415. 415 In a second reply dated 23 October 1952, the French Government makes the following remarks concerning some of the complaints made against it.
  416. 416 The prohibition of the organisation of processions on 1 May, which was decided upon in application of the regulations concerning the state of siege, mainly applied to demonstrations on the public highway. It was done for reasons of public order and dial not apply to trade union meetings held on trade union premises for the defence of occupational interests. The U.G.T.T was able to celebrate the festival of 1 May in its Tunis offices ; it was presided over on that occasion by Mr. Ferhat Hached, its General Secretary, who made a purely political speech which showed that under cover of trade union activity he was conspiring against France.
  417. 417 The police pickets in front of the U.G.T.T offices were placed there because processions usually gather in and start from the squares in the Medina (the Arab quarter), and particularly the square in front of the premises concerned ; this supervision was not specifically directed at the U.G.T.T. These guards were reinforced on 15 February 1952 because information had been received that a procession was to take place. However, the presence of police contingents near the premises of the U.G.T.T did not hinder access to those premises and the executive of the Union held a meeting on that day. Moreover, measures were taken from 19 February 1952 onwards to relax the surveillance of the square on which the U.G.T.T premises stand so that it should not appear that the measure was aimed specifically at that organisation.
  418. 418 As regards the arrests mentioned in the various complaints, the Government recalls that on 15 February 1952 a demonstration took place during which hand grenades were thrown at the police. After this demonstration 37 persons were arrested in different parts of the town ; among these were the Assistant General Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union and one of the officers of the Union of Café, Hotel and Restaurant Workers. The persons concerned were merely taken to police headquarters and were released after their identity and movements had been checked.
  419. 419 As regards the arrest of members of the executive of the U.G.T.T, the Government states that Mr. Bellagha was arrested on 19 January 1952 on charges of organising unauthorised demonstrations on the public highway, assaulting the police and being an accomplice to theft, and was committed by the examining magistrate ; this was a purely criminal case and had no connection with trade unions. Mr. Tlili was removed from Gafsa on 14 February 1952 after two gendarmes had been murdered in that town. He is the General Secretary of the Neo-Destour Federation in that region and is believed to have organised several Neo-Destour demonstrations on the public highway at Gafsa, with the assistance of Bedouins whom he is alleged to have organised into armed bands to commit crimes and sabotage. In addition he is strongly suspected of being an instigator of the murders of policemen in Gafsa and the Khalifat of El Guettar ; a judicial enquiry going on at the present time is examining this question.
  420. 420 The Government states that the measures taken with regard to certain trade union militants were not taken in respect of their exercise of trade union rights but of action outside the trade union sphere and prejudicial to public order.
  421. 421 As regards the alleged use of force against the workers, the Government states that on 6 February 1952 one shot was fired at the Assistant General Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union because, when challenged by a patrol at night, he attempted to escape instead of replying to the normal challenges. The action of the military patrol had no connection with the fact that the person concerned was a trade union militant ; they had no idea who he was.
• Analysis of the Third and Fourth Replies of the French Government (23 October and 3 November 1952)
  422. 422 In letters dated 23 October and 3 November 1952 the French Government puts forward the following arguments in reply to the complaints submitted by the I.C.F.T.U.
  423. 423 As regards the removal of trade union officers from responsible posts, the Government states that the Decree issued on 4 December 1947 by the Bey of Tunis (the text of which is quoted) prescribed the taking of this action not on account of convictions for trade union activity but solely on account of criminal convictions. In fact, paragraph 3 of the Decree in question explicitly excludes convictions for political crimes.
  424. 424 As regards the measures taken at the time of the strike of 1 April 1952, the Government states that this strike was not a legal strike of an occupational character but an illegal strike of a political character intended as a protest against the formation of the new Tunisian Government. The measures taken on this occasion correspond to similar measures taken in the metropolitan territory in similar cases. Moreover, the circular issued by the Secretary-General of the Tunisian Government relating to penalties applicable in respect of this political strike was followed by a second circular dated 15 April 1952 suspending the application of those penalties.
  425. 425 As regards the effect which the measures taken to apply regulations concerning the state of siege are alleged to have had the Government states that these measures were taken with only the requirements of public order in mind, and at no time affected the activity of trade unions dealing solely with the defence of the occupational interests of their members.
  426. 426 The militant trade unionists molested were only molested because of activity outside the trade union field and prejudicial to public order.
  427. 427 The numbers of persons arrested given by the plaintiffs are incorrect. The letter of 23 October states that 2,073 persons were brought before the courts and 614 removed to other areas by administrative decisions, while the letter of 3 November 1952 adds that after a number of persons had been set free by a decision of 15 September 1952, there were only 67 persons deprived of liberty, as the result of administrative action, in the whole of Tunisia, and these were merely required to live in specified places.
  428. 428 Restrictions were imposed on the participation of the U.G.T.T in international trade union meetings on the grounds that Mr. Ferhat Hached, the head of the U.G.T.T, often left aside the trade union aspects of his mission and indulged in purely political propaganda during his journeys abroad. His statements at the Milan Congress showed that, as from 1951 onwards, he had been making use of trade unionism as a cover for purely political attacks against France.
  429. 429 The headquarters of the U.G.T.T were searched on 20 June 1952 on the grounds that on several occasions a number of trams and trolley-buses in Tunis had been attacked with stones and the police had received information that a number of the persons who were usually involved in these attacks sought refuge in the headquarters of the U.G.T.T afterwards. The military authorities issued a search warrant and on the evening of 19 June 1952 one person who was caught in the act admitted that he and other persons responsible for the stoning of public transport vehicles had been ordered to report to the Central Office of the U.G.T.T at 10 o'clock that evening to receive new instructions for the rest of the night. The police arrested a number of young, men coming out of the local union office, but one of them succeeded in escaping and ran to the headquarters of the U.G.T.T, followed by the police. In accordance with the search warrant he was arrested at the same time as a number of his friends who had hidden in the headquarters after stoning two trams returning to their depot. The police officers searched the premises ; during this search a number of documents were seized and immediately returned, as an examination showed that they contained nothing of interest. The public prosecutor later ordered a judicial enquiry on a charge of wilfully endangering the safety of the movement of trams, the use of force and assault and battery. This enquiry concerned only the persons arrested at the headquarters of the U.G.T.T, 25 of whom were committed, but at no time affected the officers of the U.G.T.T, although it could have been proved that the U.G.T.T was an accessory on the grounds that its headquarters had been used as a meeting place and a hiding place for criminals. The Government adds that those incidents show that officers of the U.G.T.T often use their positions as a cover for political activity.
  430. 430 A certain number of I.C.F.T.U pamphlets were confiscated at the headquarters of the U.G.T.T on the ground that certain statements made to the Milan Congress at its meeting of 6 July 1952 by Mr. Ferhat Hached, the General Secretary of the U.G.T.T, were reproduced in that pamphlet. These statements, under the guise of dealing with trade union matters, contained purely political attacks against France. Moreover, the French Government states that Mr. Ferhat Hached's statements in Milan resulted in his being called to order by the President of the Congress.
• Analysis of the Fourth Communication from the U.G.T.T. (3 October 1952)
  431. 431 In a fourth communication dated 3 October 1952, the U.G.T.T makes the following fresh allegations.
• Prohibition of Trade Union Meetings
  432. 432 In September 1952 the authorities refused to allow the general unions of the U.G.T.T to hold trade union meetings in Hammamet and a number of other places mentioned in the complaint. The correspondence between the unions and the authorities on the subject of the various meetings which were prohibited is attached in an appendix.
• Violation of the Right to Strike and the Use of Force against Strikers
  433. 433 On 19 August 1952, as the dockers in Tunis harbour had been refusing to work overtime for a fortnight, the management of the port decided to distribute new employment cards to approximately 60 unemployed persons without consulting the trade union concerned, and at a time when the number of professional dockers allowed by the regulations was already excessively high in relation to the normal activity of the port of Tunis. As a result of this measure, on 20 August 1952 the 60 new dockers were allowed into the harbour, while police contingents attacked the dockers in the hiring hall, threw tear-gas bombs and charged them using rifle butts ; over 70 dockers were injured and approximately ten of them were taken to hospital.
• Dismissal and Arrest of Trade Union Officers
  434. 434 On 20 August 1952 the Admiral in charge of shipping in Tunisia dismissed a certain number of employees, including the delegates detached by the harbour authorities, in accordance with the regulations in force, to carry out full-time union work. These employees, who were members of the U.G.T.T, were interned in camps or removed to other areas without any charge having been preferred against them. They were all established staff members who should normally have enjoyed stability of employment.
• Restrictions on the Activity of Union Leaders
  435. 435 Since 1 May 1952 the union officers have been unable to perform their duties in the I.C.F.T.U. When Mr. Ferhat Hached, the General Secretary of the U.G.T.T, returned from an I.C.F.T.U meeting to which he had been sent by his union, his passport was withdrawn and he has not been able to get it back. Thus, although he is a member of the Executive Committee of the I.C.F.T.U, he was not able to attend the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 29 June 1952 in Berlin and was unable to obtain an exit visa for the meeting of the Regional Fund Committee of the I.C.F.T.U which took place on 25 and 26 September 1952 in Belgium. Mr. Nouri Boudali, the Assistant General Secretary of the U.G.T.T was also unable to go to Berlin to attend the meetings of the General Council of the I.C.F.T.U. (1-5 July 1952), of which he is a member, and was refused an exit visa to go to Libya, where he had been instructed to go on a union mission on behalf of the I.C.F.T.U.
• Analysis of the Fifth Reply from the French Government (5 February 1953)
  436. 436 At its meeting on 1 and 2 December 1952, the Committee requested the Director-General to ask the French Government for further information with respect, first, to the allegations contained in the complaint of the U.G.T.T and, secondly, to certain allegations contained in earlier complaints.
  437. 437 In a letter dated 5 February 1953, the Government made the following observations.
• Right of Association and Right of Meeting in the Regions of Béja and Mateur and Southern Tunisia
  438. 438 The Government maintains that the right to organise, recognised in Tunisia by the Beylical Decree of 16 November 1932, is exercised in the same way throughout the territory, without distinction between the zone under civil, control and the military zone of the south. In the southern military territories, however, trade union activity is less developed than in the civil zone because the population, consisting of shepherds and small farmers, is less advanced ; this is a purely factual situation in no way attributable to discriminatory legal measures, because no such measures exist.
  439. 439 At Mateur, as at Béja, workers have always enjoyed the rights of association and of meeting without any restriction or hindrance. At Béja, in particular, the Regional Union of the U.G.T.T held several meetings at its headquarters during the past year. During this period the civil administrator has felt obliged only on a single occasion to prohibit a meeting of this group. Authorisation had been requested for a meeting to elect a workers' delegate to a certain committee at the Sidi Ahmed mine, but the committee itself had met the day before that proposed for the union meeting, so that the purpose for which authorisation was requested ceased to exist.
• Prohibition of Meetings on May Day 1952 in the Towns of Gabès, Gafsa, Sousse, Bizerta, Le Kef and Kairouan and Attack on Workers' Meeting in the Premises of the U.G.T.T at Sfax on 9 May 1952.
  440. 440 On May Day 1952 only demonstrations on the public highway were prohibited by decision of the G.O.C. Tunisian troops issued pursuant to the régime of the state of siege. Meetings in trade union premises were allowed.
  441. 441 At Sfax, the trade union meeting on 9 May 1952 was held in the premises of the U.G.T.T and took place without incident and without any intervention on the part of the police who did not, on the day in question, enter the premises of the U.G.T.T in Sfax.
• Arrest of Militant Trade Unionists when Performing their Functions, in a Number of Localities (Le Kef, Mateur, Bizerta, Kelibia, Ferryville, Feriana) ; Proceedings against Ten Militant Trade Unionists Arising Out of Demonstrations Organised on May Day 1951.
  442. 442 Only in two cases were there any incidents. At Mateur, the U.G.T.T representative, who was also a local leader of the Neo-Destour, deliberately departed from the programme which had been arranged and been approved by the competent authority and endowed the demonstrations with a marked political character. He was prosecuted before the civil court, not a military court, for collecting money and organising processions which had not been notified and had not been authorised, and was sentenced to pay a fine of 10,000 francs. At Feriana, a demonstration on the public highway was organised without authorisation having been requested. The procession was accompanied by seditious songs and slogans of a political character. The two organisers were not arrested but were simply questioned by the police in the course of their enquiry. They were brought before the court of Sousse and were given suspended sentences of three months' imprisonment. The matter was never referred to the military tribunals. In the other districts there were no incidents.
• Removal from Trade Union Posts of Leaders Sentenced for Violations of the Press Laws.
  443. 443 The General Secretary of the U.G.T.T was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment for violations of the press laws, but the Appeal Court in Tunis sentenced him in November 1950 to a suspended term of imprisonment, in particular, for contraventions of the regulations relating to family allowances. He nevertheless continued to direct the U.G.T.T without being prosecuted, although the Decree of 4 December 1947 prohibits, on pain of punishment, any person who has been sentenced, except for a political offence, to a term of imprisonment for one month or more from performing any functions with respect to the direction or administration of a trade union.
  444. 444 Further, the French Residency-General in Tunis has no knowledge of a member of the executive committee of the U.G.T.T being requested by the Parquet, in similar circumstances, to give up all trade union activities.
• Prohibition of the Entry of Trade Union Leaders into Certain Regions
  445. 445 Trade union leaders have never been prohibited in any way from entering the regions of Mateur, Béja and Oued Ellil. With regard more particularly to the Oued Ellil Dam, the movement of persons in the works area is simply made subject to authorisation by the Director of Public Works by virtue of an Order of 22 December 1949. This is a security measure of general application intended to prevent accidents.
• Searches of the Premises of the Feriana Trade Union
  446. 446 The premises of the U.G.T.T in Feriana were also the premises of the Neo-Destour. It was in the latter connection only that they were searched on 29 March 1952. The documents seized were handed back by the police to the parties concerned as soon as their non-political nature was verified. As for trade union contributions, these were not seized for the good reason that there were none.
• Incidents Arising during Strikes at Potinville, in January 1950, and Enfidaville, in November 1950
  447. 447 On 5 January 1950, during the strikes on the Potinville properties, the police, when they arrived on the premises, were attacked with stones and sticks by some 150 strikers. Taken in the flank and rear and on the point of being surrounded, the police fired into the air in order to free themselves. Stray bullets claimed a few victims : one killed and three wounded. Twelve police were injured.
  448. 448 Twenty-five of the arrested demonstrators were taken before the court of first instance in Tunis, which, at its sitting on 27 February 1950, imposed the following sentences : two persons sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and fines of 20,000 francs, 13 persons sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and fines of 20,000 francs, nine persons sentenced to six months' imprisonment and fines of 20,000 francs. One person was acquitted.
  449. 449 On appeal, on 27 April, the sentences were reduced to : three sentences to 10 months' imprisonment and fines of 12,000 francs, 13 sentences to from four to six months' imprisonment and fines of 6,000 francs. Eight persons were released.
  450. 450 The strikes declared at the Franco-African Company's premises at Enfidaville, in November 1950, assumed the character of a real riot. The police were attacked and taken in the flank by several hundred armed demonstrators and, in order to disengage after 20 of their number had been injured and after they had used tear-gas bombs without effect, they were obliged to use their weapons. Five of the rioters were seen to have been killed and 14 wounded.
  451. 451 A number of demonstrators were charged with assaulting the police, interfering with the freedom to work, carrying arms, incitement and conspiracy. Seventy-two were released for lack of evidence. The others were brought before the summary court of Sousse, which, at its sitting on 27 March 1951, released three of the accused and imposed the following sentences Four sentences to one month's imprisonment ; one sentence to two months' imprisonment ; five sentences to three months' imprisonment ; nine sentences to four months' imprisonment ; six sentences to six months' imprisonment ; one suspended sentence of six months' imprisonment ; three sentences to 12 months' imprisonment.
• Killing of Tunisian Workers at Tunis, Ferryville, Bizerta, Mateur
  452. 452 No Tunisian worker has been killed throughout the Regency in the course of trade union demonstrations. Admittedly, it has happened in certain cases that the restoration of public order has claimed a number of victims, but each of these cases was connected with demonstrations on the public highway of a purely political character which generally developed into riots in the course of which the police, attacked by armed demonstrators in considerably superior numbers, were obliged to make use of their weapons.
• Infringement of the Right to Strike; Violence against Strikers
  453. 453 The dockers' strike in the Port of Tunis, which took place in August 1952, was occasioned solely by the issue of dockers' employment cards to 60 Tunisian members of a new union affiliated to the C.G.T.-Force-ouvrière. It was in fact directed against the new union and, therefore, constituted an infringement of the right to work. The administration confined itself to ensuring the freedom to work by enabling both adherents of trade union organisations other than the U.G.T.T and the U.S.T.T and non-organised workers to carry on their occupations as usual.
  454. 454 Moreover, the Order of 18 August 1952, which, having regard to the Constitution of the union affiliated to the C.G.T - Force-ouvrière, provided for a member of that organisation to participate in the discussions of the manpower board for the Port of Tunis, did not affect the previous numerical representation on the board of the dockers' unions affiliated to the U.G.T.T and the U.S.T.T.
  455. 455 Finally the police used only one tear-gas bomb, and on only one occasion, in order to make the strikers evacuate the hiring hall which they had occupied. No one was injured.
• Prohibition of Union Meetings
  456. 456 Pursuant to the regulations relating to the state of siege, public meetings are subject to prior authorisation by the civil administrators and may be prohibited. However, the Residential services have indicated to the civil administrators that this prohibition in no way applied to trade union meetings held in trade union premises for the purpose of defending occupational interests.
  457. 457 In the case of trade union meetings held other than in trade union premises considerable tolerance is exercised, but it has not been possible to allow the organisation, under the cover of occupational demands, of what amount to public demonstrations of a nature likely to disturb public order.
  458. 458 The prohibitions complained of by the U.G.T.T would never have been imposed if the leaders of that organisation had not systematically transformed trade union meetings into discussions of a purely political character.
• Dismissal of Trade Union Leaders
  459. 459 No penalty involving dismissal has ever been imposed in Tunisia for participation in strikes of an occupational character. On the other hand, in the case of strikes of a political character, sanctions have been imposed, in accordance with similar decisions adopted in the metropolitan territory.
  460. 460 The dismissal order made on 25 August 1952 by the Bizerta maritime authority explains that the penalties in question were imposed precisely because of the participation of the persons concerned in collective work stoppages of a non-occupational character.

General Observations

1. 461. These various allegations all relate to the political situation prevailing in Tunisia and to the tension which has recently been apparent. In its first report (January 1952), the Committee recalled that one of the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Governing Body is that of reporting that a case does not call for further examination if the Committee finds that the allegations made are so purely political in character that it is undesirable to pursue the matter further. On the other hand the Committee indicated that allegations of political origin or presenting certain political aspects may raise questions directly concerning the exercise of trade union rights (paragraph 29). It is in the light of these principles that the present case has been examined.
2. 462. Further, it should be observed that the political aspect of the Tunisian problem was examined at its Seventh Session by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which by 44 votes to 3, with 8 abstentions, adopted a Resolution on this question, on 17 December 1952, the text of which is as follows:
3. The General Assembly,
4. Having debated the question proposed by thirteen Member States in document A/2152,
5. Mindful of the necessity of developing friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
6. Considering that the United Nations, as a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of their common ends under the Charter, should strive towards removing any causes and factors of misunderstanding among Member States, thus re-asserting the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security,
7. (1) Expresses its confidence that, in pursuance of its proclaimed policies, the Government of France will endeavour to further the effective development of the free institutions of the Tunisian people, in conformity with the Purposes and Principles of the Charter ;
8. (2) Expresses the hope that the parties will continue negotiations on an urgent basis with a view to bringing about self-government for Tunisians in the light of the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations ;
9. (3) Appeals to the parties concerned to conduct their relations and settle their disputes in accordance with the spirit of the Charter and to refrain from any acts or measures likely to aggravate the present tension.
10. 463. In these circumstances the Committee considers that it should confine itself to an examination of the purely trade union aspects of the question.
11. Effects of the State of Siege
12. 464. The complainants allege that numerous trade union rights and guarantees are limited, suspended or suppressed as a result of the state of siege decreed in April 1938 and applied since then with more or less severity but without interruption.
13. 465. The French Government declares that the measures taken pursuant to the regulations relating to the state of siege have been taken solely with regard to the requirements of public order and have at no time affected the activities of trade union organisations pursuing exclusively the defence of the occupational interests of their members.
14. 466. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the question of the stage of siege in itself presents a purely political aspect on which it is not called upon to express an opinion, but that it should, on the other hand, examine its effects solely from the aspect of freedom of association in respect of the specific allegations made by the complainants.
15. Right of Association
16. 467. In his complaint presented on 23 May 1952, the Secretary-General of the I.C.F.T.U alleges that the right of association, as well as the right of meeting, is denied to workers in Béja and Mateur and in Southern Tunisia, a region regarded as military territory in which the administration is entrusted exclusively to French officers possessing most extensive powers and in which no trade union activity is tolerated.
17. 468. The French Government states in its communication dated 5 February 1953 that the right to organise is recognised in Tunisia by the Beylical Decree of 16 November 1932. The principal provisions of this legal text are as follows:
18. Article 1. Industrial associations or societies consisting of persons who have been engaged in Tunis for not less than a year in the same occupation, similar trades or allied occupations connected with the production of a particular article may be formed freely without the authorisation of the Government.
19. Article 2. Industrial associations shall have no other purpose than that of studying and defending the economic, industrial, commercial and agricultural interests of their members.
20. They shall enjoy the rights and prerogatives conferred upon organisations of the same nature by the French Act of 12 March 1920.
21. Article 7. Federations of industrial associations which are duly constituted in conformity with the provisions of this Decree may be formed in the same way as the industrial associations themselves and for the same purposes.
22. 469. These provisions, which are based largely on French legislation on this question, ensure full freedom of association to Tunisian workers.
23. 470. The French Government has pointed out further that the right to organise is exercised in the same manner throughout Tunisian territory, without distinction between the civil zones and the military zone in the south. In the military territory, however, trade union activity is less developed than in the civil zone because the population is less advanced. This situation, therefore, is not due to legislative or administrative measures but to purely factual circumstances. With regard, in particular, to the towns of Mateur and Béja, the Government declares that the workers have always enjoyed the rights of association and of meeting without any restriction or hindrance.
24. 471. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends that this allegation does not call for further examination on the part of the Governing Body.
25. Right to Hold Meetings
26. 472. Several allegations have been submitted concerning interference with the right of the workers to hold meetings.
27. 473. The complainants have alleged in the first place that trade unions were unable to hold meetings at the headquarters of the U.G.T.T in Tunis, owing to the fact that police operations frequently take place on the approaches to this building ; it is stated that, on 15 February 1952 in particular, the headquarters office was surrounded by police, making it impossible for workers to obtain entry.
28. 474. The Government has replied on this point that the guard maintained by the police in front of the U.G.T.T office is due to the fact that the public squares of Medina, and in particular the square containing these premises, are usually the starting point for demonstrations : this guard, which is not directed particularly against the U.G.T.T was reinforced on 15 February 1952, following information that a demonstration was about to take place. However, it is stated that the presence of bodies of police near the U.G.T.T headquarters did not prevent access to these premises and the executive committee of this trade union headquarters held a meeting on that day. It is added that steps were taken with effect from 19 February 1952 to relax the guard maintained in the square containing the U.G.T.T headquarters in order that it should not appear to be directed against that organisation.
29. 475. It appears from this reply that the police measures taken in the vicinity of the U.G.T.T headquarters which may, to a certain extent, have hindered free access to the premises by workers, were due to the need to maintain law and order and were not directed against this trade union organisation. The Committee notes that the events of 15 February 1952 were exceptional and that the French Government indicates that steps have been taken to relax the guard maintained on the square containing the U.G.T.T premises.
30. 476. Under these circumstances, the Committee recommends that this allegation does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
31. 477. The complainants allege that trade union meetings, together with all other meetings, have been prohibited in Tunisia under the state of siege which has existed since 1938 and they mention several cases in which such meetings have been prohibited.
32. 478. They allege in particular that the trade union meeting which the U.G.T.T intended to hold in Tunis on 20 January 1952, on the occasion of the seventh anniversary of its foundation, was prohibited.
33. 479. It is stated that the workers' organisations were also forbidden, in 1952, to celebrate the May Day, following an order issued by General Garbey on 26 April 1952 ; and that meetings even on trade union premises were permitted only at Tunis and Sfax, but not in other localities such as Gabès, Gafsa, Sousse, Bizerta, Le Kef, Kairouan, etc.
34. 480. In a final communication dated 3 October 1952, the U.G.T.T alleged that in September 1952 the authorities refused permission for the general unions of the U.G.T.T to hold trade union meetings at Hammamet and in various other localities mentioned by the complainants.
35. 481. On 1 May 1952, it is stated, the police attacked workers at an informatory meeting presided over by Mr. Ferhat Hached, General Secretary of the U.G.T.T, on U.G.T.T premises at Sfax and a number of trade unionists were injured.
36. 482. With regard to these various allegations the French Government gives the following details.
37. 483. As regards the prohibition of a trade union meeting on 20 January 1952, this decision was taken, the Government states in its letter of 23 October 1952, because of the violent incidents which occurred in Tunis during the week from 14 to 20 January and of the difficulties that would have been encountered in maintaining law and order. It was for this reason that the leaders of the U.G.T.T were requested to postpone their meeting until a later date, but it was pointed out to them that they were in no way prevented from celebrating the anniversary of the foundation of their movement on their own premises.
38. 484. The Government has stated on several occasions and, in particular, in its letter of 5 February 1953 that there has never been any question of a systematic prohibition of trade union meetings, but only of a measure taken under the force of circumstances, which does not interfere with the right of trade union organisations to hold any meetings on their own premises for the purpose of furthering their occupational interests.
39. 485. Pursuant to the regulations relating to the state of siege public meetings are subject to prior authorisation and may be prohibited. But the ban on May Day processions was, in the interests of public order, essentially directed against demonstrations in public thoroughfares and in no way applied to trade union meetings held on trade union premises for the furtherance of their occupational interests. The U.G.T.T was thus able to celebrate May Day in its own premises in Tunis.
40. 486. At Sfax, the trade union meeting on 9 May 1952 was held in the premises of the U.G.T.T under the chairmanship of the General Secretary of the union, and was attended by about 300 members. It took place without incident and without any intervention on the part of the police.
41. 487. In a previous case (Case No. 17) the Committee has already been called upon to investigate allegations concerning the prohibition of public meetings by the French authorities in Tunisia, and in this connection it stated that the right to hold public meetings is an important aspect of trade union rights. In the case in question, the Committee observed that the prohibition on which the complaint was based was not specifically directed against a trade union meeting but against a political meeting, and noted that the Government had emphasised that public meetings called for purely trade union purposes have never been prohibited in Tunisia.
42. 488. In the present case, it does, however, emerge from the complaints and the Government's reply, that for reasons of public order the Government felt obliged to forbid a certain number of public meetings called by trade unions. On this point, the Government states that the bans on public meetings, in particular those of 20 January and of 1 May 1952, were measures taken under the force of circumstances and did not interfere with the right of trade union organisations to hold any meeting on their own premises for the purpose of furthering their occupational interests and that there never has been any question of a systematic prohibition of trade union meetings.
43. 489. In view of the fact that the general but temporary prohibition of public meetings was imposed solely in the interests of public order and did not affect trade union meetings in union premises, the Committee recommends that this allegation does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
44. Arrest of Militant Trade Unionists
45. 490. The complainants allege that the authorities arrested several trade union leaders belonging both to the Union des syndicate des travailleurs de Tunisie (Federation of Tunisian Trade Unions) and to the U.G.T.T. According to some of these complaints, these arrests were made merely by administrative order. The complainants specifically mention the following cases.
46. 491. On 15 February 1952 the Executive Secretary of the Transport Union, together with a member of the Union of Café, Hotel and Restaurant Workers were arrested without cause.
47. 492. It is stated that Messrs. Bellagha and Tlili, who have been referred to, and are members of the Executive Committee of the U.G.T.T, were also arrested.
48. 493. The complaint submitted by the I.C.F.T.U also refers to the arrest, imprisonment and harsh treatment stated to have been suffered by militant trade unionists during the performance of their duties in a certain number of localities (Le Kef, Mateur, Bizerta, Kelibia, Ferryville and Feriana).
49. 494. The allegation is also made in this complaint that ten militant trade unionists were tried by court martial for having held trade union meetings on 1 May 1951.
50. 495. Finally, the complaint submitted by the U.G.T.T on 3 October 1952 states that a certain number of employees, including the representatives detached by the maritime authorities for full-time trade union duties, were interned in camps or expelled without having been convicted.
51. 496. The French Government replied, on 23 October 1952, that, with regard to the arrest of the two trade unionists on 15 February 1952, this step was taken following a demonstration which took place on that day and during which several grenades were thrown at the police. Following this demonstration 37 persons were taken into custody in various parts of the town and these included, in addition to the Assistant General Secretary of the Transport Union, a member of the office staff of the Union of Café, Hotel and Restaurant Workers. It is stated that these two individuals were merely taken to the police station and released after their identity and movements had been checked.
52. 497. With regard to Messrs. Bellagha and TIM, both members of the Executive Committee of the U.G.T.T, the Government states that Bellagha was arrested on 19 January 1952 for organising unauthorised demonstrations in a public thoroughfare, for violently resisting the police and for complicity in theft, and has been held in custody by the examining magistrate : this case, which will be dealt with in accordance with judicial procedure, has, it is stated, no trade union aspect. Tlili is stated to have been expelled from Gafsa on 14 February 1952 because he attempted to organise several political demonstrations in a public thoroughfare, with armed groups organised for violence and sabotage ; moreover, he is under grave suspicion in connection with the instigation of three murders and a judicial enquiry is being pursued into this matter.
53. 498. In the case of Messrs. Bellagha and Tlili, the Committee notes that these persons, who are trade union leaders are being prosecuted for common law offences and that judicial proceedings against them are now pending.
54. 499. With regard to the allegations concerning militant trade unionists arrested in a number of localities and the trade union leaders stated to have been tried by court martial for having held trade union meetings on 1 May 1951, the Government has declared that, generally speaking, the steps taken against certain militant trade unionists were in no way caused by their exercise of trade union rights, but by action outside the sphere of trade unionism and prejudicial to law and order.
55. 500. In its communication of 5 February 1953, moreover, the Government gives the following details : no incident occurred at Kelibia, le Kef, Bizerta and Ferryville. At Mateur the authorised demonstration was held deliberately in a manner contrary to that prescribed and assumed a political character. It was for this reason that the organiser, who was also a local leader of the Neo-Destour, was prosecuted and sentenced. At Feriana, a demonstration on the public highway was organised without any request for authorisation being made ; this also assumed a political character. It was for this reason that the two organisers were given suspended prison terms of three months.
56. 501. With regard to the case of employees detached by decision of the maritime authorities to permanent trade union duties (a case raised in the U.G.T.T complaint of 3 October 1952), it would appear from the French Government's letter of 5 February 1953, that the facts in this case also are of a purely political character.
57. 502. The Committee notes the statement of the French Government that, in most of the localities mentioned in the complaint, no incident occurred, and, while certain trade union militants have been proceeded against, as, for instance at Mateur and Béja, the reasons for this in no way relate to the exercise of trade union rights but solely to activities outside the trade union sphere, and which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
58. 503. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends that the allegation does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
59. Dismissal of Trade Union Leaders
60. 504. The U.G.T.T alleged, in its communication of 3 October 1952, that in August 1952 the Admiral commanding the naval forces in Tunisia dismissed a certain number of employees, among whom were the delegates detached to permanent trade union duties, under the regulations in force, by a decision of the naval authorities.
61. 505. In its communication dated 5 February 1953, the Government, referring also to explanations given earlier, states that no sanction involving dismissal has ever been imposed in Tunisia on the ground of participation in strikes of an occupational character. On the other hand, in the case of strikes of a political character, sanctions have been imposed in accordance with similar decisions adopted in the metropolitan territory.
62. 506. The dismissal order issued on 25 August 1952, by the Bizerta maritime authority was occasioned by the participation of the persons concerned in collective work stoppages of a non-occupational character.
63. 507. In view of the information given by the French Government, the Committee recommends that this allegation does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
64. Exclusion of Trade Union Leaders from Trade Union Posts
65. 508. The I.C.F.T.U alleges that a Decree of 4 December 1947 forbade militants convicted for trade union activities to occupy positions of responsibility in the trade union movement, from which they must be excluded. In addition, the General Secretary and one member of the U.G.T.T. Executive Committee, sentenced by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to imprisonment for offences against the press laws, were requested by the public prosecutor to cease all trade union activity.
66. 509. The Government states, in its letter of 23 October 1952, that the Beylical Decree of 4 December 1947, the text of which it quotes, in no wise provides for the exclusion of trade union leaders by virtue of convictions for trade union activity, but that this applied solely after conviction for offences against the ordinary law. It emphasises that paragraph 3 of the Decree in question expressly excludes convictions for political offences.
67. 510. With regard to the allegation that U.G.T.T leaders convicted of offences against the press laws were requested to give up all trade union activity, the Government, in its letter of 5 February 1953, points out that the General Secretary of the U.G.T.T was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any such offence. On the other hand, he was sentenced in November 1950 to a suspended prison term, in particular, for having contravened the regulations relating to family allowances. He has still continued to direct the U.G.T.T without being prosecuted, although the Decree of 4 December 1947 prohibits, on pain of punishment, any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for one month or more, except for a political offence, from performing any duties with respect to the direction or administration of a trade union.
68. 511. The Government also observes that it has no knowledge of any member of the executive committee of the U.G.T.T having been requested by the Parquet in similar circumstances, to give up all trade union activity.
69. 512. It is evident from the Government's reply that the legislation in force provides for the exclusion of trade union leaders only when convicted of offences against the ordinary law, and not in the case of political offences. The relevant text of the Beylical Decree of 4 December 1947 reads as follows:
70. The following persons are excluded from posts in the leadership and administration of all trade unions:
71. (1) those sentenced, by whatever court, for a criminal offence ;
72. (2) those convicted of : theft ; receiving stolen goods ; fraud ; breach of trust ; abuse of power of attorney ; abuse of the needs, weaknesses or emotions of a minor, condemned under article 406 of the French Penal Code ; or abuse of the inexperience, weaknesses or needs of a person not in control of his property in order to induce him to engage, without reasonable profit to himself, in financial operations or other action involving his property, condemned under article 301 of the Tunisian Penal Code ; the purloining or embezzlement of public funds by any person to whom they are entrusted ;
73. (3) those sentenced, by whatever court, except for political offences, to imprisonment for one month or more;
74. (4) those under judicial disability ;
75. (5) notaries, registrars, and ministerial officials dismissed by virtue of a judgment or a judicial decision ;
76. (6) undischarged bankrupts, when the original bankruptcy order was made by a French court or by a foreign court and enforceable in Tunisia.
77. 513. In this connection, the Committee think it important to point out that the right of the workers to elect their representatives in full freedom is a most important aspect of trade union freedom and that this right should be subject to as few restrictions as possible. While appreciating that current legislation specifically states that convictions for political reasons do not constitute grounds incompatible with, or disqualifying from, the holding of posts involving the leadership or administration of a trade union, the Committee notes that these grounds include sentence " by any court whatsoever, except for political offences, to a term of imprisonment of one month or more ". This general provision could be interpreted in such a way as to exclude from responsible trade union posts any individuals convicted for activities connected with the exercise of trade union rights, such as violation of the laws governing the press, and thus to curtail unduly the right of trade union members to elect their representatives freely.
78. 514. Subject to these observations, the Committee recommends that this allegation does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
79. Restrictions on the Activities of Trade Union Leaders
80. 515. The complainants state that a number of restrictions have been placed upon the activities of trade union leaders.
81. 516. Mr. Ferhat Hached, General Secretary of the U.G.T.T who was due to attend, in March 1952, a meeting of a subcommittee of the I.C.F.T.U, was refused an exit visa and this was finally granted to him only after intervention by the I.C.F.T.U, and too late to enable him to be present at this meeting.
82. On returning to Tunis, on 1 May 1952, Mr. Hached's passport was withdrawn and, together with Mr. Boudali, he was unable to obtain an exit visa to attend the General Council of the I.C.F.T.U in Berlin as the U.G.T.T delegate, from 1 to 5 July 1952. Mr. Hached was also unable to conduct correspondence abroad through the normal postal channels and, in particular, was unable to keep the I.C.F.T.U informed of developments affecting the U.G.T.T. Mr. Hached was unable to recover his passport or to obtain an exit visa for the meeting of the Regional Finance Committee of the I.C.F.T.U which was held on 25 and 26 September 1952 in Belgium. The Assistant Secretary-General of the U.G.T.T, Mr. Boudali, was also refused an exit visa to go to Libya where he had been charged with a trade union mission on behalf of the I.C.F.T.U.
83. 517. It is stated that militant trade unionists were forbidden to enter certain areas such as Béja, Mateur, the area of the Oued Ellil Dam, and the Medina (Arab quarter), of Sousse in which the U.G.T.T premises are located. (This last measure was only rescinded in January 1952 following intervention by a delegate of the I.C.F.T.U)
84. 518. The French Government has replied that with regard to the restrictions placed upon participation by the U.G.T.T in international trade union meetings, they were due to the fact that the leader of that body, Mr. Ferhat Hached, had, during his journeys abroad, often gone beyond the trade union purposes of his mission and conducted purely political propaganda. The French Government adds that the statements made by Mr. Ferhat Hached at the Milan Congress show that from 1951 onwards he was using the trade union movement as a shield to enable him to make purely political attacks upon France.
85. 519. The Government's reply shows that the restrictions on the activity of the trade union leaders in Tunisia, and particularly the fact that Mr. Ferhat Hached was prevented from leaving Tunisia to take part in I.C.F.T.U meetings, were imposed because the Government considered his activity to be more political than trade unionist in character. In particular the Government accuses Mr. Hached of having made purely political attacks against France during the I.C.F.T.U. Congress held in Milan in 1951 ; on that occasion he was called to order by the President of the Congress.
86. 520. This explanation should be examined in connection with the general statement, contained in the I.C.F.T.U complaint, to the effect that the U.G.T.T, which is affiliated to the I.C.F.T.U, is defending the workers in the social sphere, but considers that its work would be useless unless it attempted to safeguard their individual freedom in a democratic state ; it thus found itself working with organisations which desire certain reforms in the legal status of Tunisia. The I.C.F.T.U added that the leaders of the U.G.T.T have been accused of subversive political activity by the Government, which refuses to recognise the purely trade unionist character of the social work of the U.G.T.T, this work being its main task.
87. 521. The problem of the political aspects of trade union movements, which thus arises in the present case, has already been examined by the International Labour Conference ; during its 35th Session (Geneva, June 1952) it adopted a resolution concerning the independence of the trade union movement, paragraphs 1 and 5 of which read as follows:
88. 1. The fundamental and permanent mission of the trade union movement is the economic and social advancement of the workers.
89. ......................................................................................................................................................
90. 5. When trade unions in accordance with national law and practice of their respective countries and at the decision of their members decide to establish relations with a political party or to undertake Constitutional political action as a means towards the advancement of their economic and social objectives, such political relations or actions should not be of such a nature as to compromise the continuance of the trade union movement or its social or economic functions irrespective of political changes in the country.
91. 522. The Committee considers that, although the refusal to grant a passport or visas is a purely domestic matter in each State, such action may in certain cases have repercussions on the exercise of trade union rights. More specifically, it considers that the right of representatives of national organisations to maintain relations with the international organisations to which their own organisations are affiliated and to take part in the work of those international organisations is a normal corollary of the right of national workers' organisations to become affiliated to international organisations (a right which is an important aspect of trade union freedom).
92. 523. Such participation must, however, be based on the principle of the independence of the trade union movement, enunciated in particular in the resolution mentioned above, and the Committee considers that it is desirable to reaffirm this principle in this connection and to indicate the importance which it attaches to full freedom being given, in the light of this principle, to representatives of trade unions to take part in the work of the international workers' unions to which the organisations they represent are affiliated. Bearing in mind the facts of this particular case, the Committee considers that, while drawing the attention of the complainants and the Government to these principles, it would not be appropriate for the Governing Body to examine this allegation further.
93. 524. The Committee notes that the order forbidding militant trade unionists to enter the Medina (the Arab quarter) of Sousse, in which are the premises of the U.G.T.T, was rescinded in January 1952 as the result of the intervention of an I.C.F.T.U delegate, and considers that this complaint has become purposeless.
94. 525. With regard to the alleged prohibition of militant trade unionists from entering certain regions (see paragraph 517), the Government, in its letter of 5 February 1953, states that trade union militants have never been prohibited in any way by the authorities from entering the regions of Mateur, Béja and Oued Ellil. With regard more particularly to the Oued Ellil Dam, movements of persons in general within the works area are subject to authorisation by virtue of an Order of 22 December 1949. This is a security measure designed to prevent accidents.
95. 526. In view of the explanations given by the Government, the Committee recommends that this allegation does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
96. Seizure of an I.C.F.T.U Pamphlet
97. 527. The I.C.F.T.U alleges that, pursuant to a decision taken by the French authorities in Tunisia, the I.C.F.T.U pamphlet concerning its World Congress held in Milan in 1951 was seized and its distribution prohibited. Subsequently, eight of the said pamphlets seized at the headquarters of the U.G.T.T were restored to the U.G.T.T, but the complainant states that, in spite of this partial redress, the complaint presented with respect to this matter is maintained.
98. 528. The French Government, replying on this point, states that the reason for the seizure of the pamphlets was the reproduction in the publication of statements made at the Milan Congress, at its sitting on 6 July 1952, by Mr. Ferhat Hached, General Secretary of the U.G.T.T which, under the cover of trade unionism, contained attacks of a purely political character on France. The statements made at Milan by Mr. Ferhat Hached, moreover, caused him to be called to order by the President of the Congress.
99. 529. This allegation is not unrelated to the preceding allegation, regarding which the Government makes reference to what it describes as the political nature of Mr. Ferhat Hached's speech at the Milan Congress, following which speech he was called to order by the President of the Congress. While bearing in mind the principle of the independence of the trade union movement referred to above (see paragraph 523), the Committee wishes to point out that the principle that national organisations of workers should have the right to affiliate with international organisations carries with it the right, for these organisations, to make contact with one another and, in particular, to exchange their trade union publications. The Committee observes, however, that, after having seized ten copies of the I.C.F.T.U pamphlet concerning the Milan Congress in 1951 at the headquarters of the U.G.T.T in Tunis, the French authorities handed back eight copies.
100. 530. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends that, subject to the foregoing observations, this allegation does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
101. Searches of Trade Union Premises
102. 531. The complainants allege that the French authorities, on 20 June 1952, searched the central headquarters of the U.G.T.T in Tunis, arrested the workers who were on the premises and seized all the documents and correspondence with the I.C.F.T.U, as well as office equipment.
103. 532. The I.C.F.T.U alleges also that searches were made at the premises of the Feriana trade union and that, following these searches, trade union documents and contributions were placed under seals.
104. 533. The Government has stated, in its letter of 23 October 1952, that the searches at the central headquarters of the U.G.T.T on 20 June 1952 were made because of the fact that, many tramcars and trolley-buses in Tunis having been stoned on several occasions, the police were informed that the culprits took refuge after the incidents in the headquarters of the U.G.T.T. A search warrant was issued and one person who was caught in the act confirmed the information ; a young man arrested at the exit of the trade union offices having subsequently succeeded in escaping and in returning there, the police pursued him in accordance with the search warrant and arrested him in the offices together with a number of his comrades who are stated to have taken refuge in the premises after having stoned two tramcars returning to the depot. The Government adds that, during this incident, the police superintendent made a search in the course of which documents were seized but immediately restored, after examination thereof had produced nothing. Information was subsequently laid by the superintendent before the Public Prosecutor alleging the wilful endangering of the safe running of the tramways and offences involving violence. This information related exclusively to the persons arrested at the headquarters of the U.G.T.T, 25 of whom were remanded in custody, but did not at any time affect the leaders of the U.G.T.T. The Government concludes by pointing out that those incidents demonstrate that the trade union label of the U.G.T.T leaders often serves as a cover for political activities.
105. 534. It appears from the Government's reply that the search made at the headquarters of the U.G.T.T in Tunis, pursuant to a warrant issued by the authorities, constituted an exceptional measure not related to the exercise of trade union rights but occasioned by the requirements of public order, the resulting arrests having been made on the grounds of common law offences. The Committee observes that, if, during the search of the organisation's premises, the authorities examined trade union documents, these documents were immediately handed back.
106. 535. It would appear further, from the French Government's communication dated 5 February 1953 with respect to the alleged searches of the premises of the Feriana trade union, that these premises were also the premises of the Neo-Destour.
107. 536. The Committee considers that, as it has been stated that the trade union premises were used as a refuge by persons committing outrages or as an assembly point by a political organisation, the trade unions concerned could not claim any immunity against the entry of the authorities into the premises. The Committee, therefore, recommends that this aspect of the complaint does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
108. Punishment in Respect of Strikes and Repression of Strikes
109. 537. The complainants allege that extremely severe disciplinary penalties, in some cases amounting to dismissal, have been applied against workers who have gone on strike, that strikes in defence of occupational interests have been repressed with the greatest rigorousness and that a number of strikers have been killed, injured or sentenced to terms of more than ten years' imprisonment, dismissed and detained for more than three months, in the course of strikes which took place at Potinville in January 1950 and at Enfidaville in November 1951.
110. 538. A list of the penalties imposed during the strike of 1 April 1952 is annexed to the complaint. This list indicates the number of workers dismissed in various localities and contains the text of a letter from Mr. Pons, Secretary-General of the Tunisian Government, who considered the strike of 1 April to be a political strike and gave instructions that disciplinary sanctions, amounting in several cases to dismissal, should be applied against the strikers.
111. 539. The U.G.T.T complaint transmitted on 3 October 1952 also gives prominence to measures alleged to have been taken by the authorities for the port of Tunis in respect of the dockers' ban on overtime, in consequence of which decision new employment cards were stated to have been distributed on 19 August 1950 to some 60 unemployed persons, without the trade union organisation being consulted and when the legal working force of the professional dockers was already at too high a level in relation to the normal activities of the port of Tunis. Following the taking of this measure, on 20 August 1952, the 60 new dockers are stated to have been taken to the quays, while, it is claimed, the police attacked the dockers who were in the hiring hall, threw a tear-gas bomb and charged the dockers, striking them with the butts of their rifles ; more than 70 dockers are stated to have been injured and some ten of them taken to hospital.
112. 540. The French Government replies that, with respect to sanctions imposed because of strikes, the dismissals, so far as private industry is concerned, fall within the competence of the courts which have to judge the effects of the strike on the labour contract. With regard to the public sector of industry, rules drawn up by the Council of Ministers of the Tunisian Government on the basis of principles evolved in France through opinions handed down by the Council of State were applied. The latter, on the general basis of the principle that strikes are lawful, accepts the position that, in the absence of regulation by law, the Government, responsible for the operation of public services, may, subject to the supervision of the administrative judge, apply certain limitations to the right to strike in order to prevent an abuse being made of this right or to prevent it being used contrary to the requirements of public order, limitations which, in practice, are applied in the case of supervisory personnel and personnel responsible for the maintenance of security.
113. 541. With regard to the measures taken on the occasion of the strike on 1 April 1952, the Government states, in its reply dated 23 October 1952, that this strike was not a lawful strike of an occupational character, but an unlawful strike of a political character, called as a protest against the formation of the new Tunisian Ministry. The measures taken on this occasion are stated to have been in conformity with similar decisions ordained in the metropolitan territory in similar cases. The circular issued by the Secretary-General of the Tunisian Government with respect to the sanctions applicable with regard to this political strike, moreover, is stated to have been followed by a later circular, dated 15 April 1952, which suspended the effect of these sanctions.
114. 542. With regard to the alleged incidents at Potinville and Enfidaville in 1950 which claimed a number of victims and led to penal sentences, the Government, in its reply dated 5 February 1953, gives the following details.
115. 543. On the occasion of the strikes at Potinville, the police were attacked by the strikers and forced to use their weapons. Stray bullets killed one person and wounded three others. Of the 25 demonstrators arrested, 24 were sentenced to prison terms and fines while one was acquitted. On appeal, 16 sentences were confirmed, but the penalties were reduced ; eight persons were released.
116. 544. Similar incidents occurred at the property of the Franco-African Company at Enfidaville in connection with the strikes in November 1950. Here also the police were attacked and had to use their weapons. Five persons were killed and 14 wounded. The police themselves had 20 injured. A number of demonstrators were charged with common law offences (assaulting the police, interference with the freedom to work, carrying arms, etc.). However, 72 were released for lack of evidence. Most of the others were sentenced by the competent summary court to terms of imprisonment.
117. 545. Finally, concerning the allegation relating to the dockers' strike in the port of Tunis referred to in the U.G.T.T complaint of 3 October 1952, the Government, in its letter of 5 February 1953, observes that the strike was occasioned solely by the issue of dockers' employment cards to workers who were members of a new union affiliated with the C.G.T.-- F.O. It was a question, therefore, not of an occupational dispute but of an inter-union dispute. The police used a tear-gas bomb on one occasion only in order to make strikers evacuate the hiring hall which they had occupied, but no one was injured.
118. 546. With regard to the strike on 1 April 1952, it appears from the French Government's reply dated 23 October 1952 that it was of a purely political character. With regard to the strikes at Potinville and Enfidaville, the explanations given by the Government on 5 February 1953 show that the cases mentioned in the complaint related to common law offences. With regard to the Tunisian dockers' strike, it appears from the Government's reply dated 5 February 1953 that not only was it not a labour dispute properly so called but that it did not claim any victims.
119. 547. The Committee recommends, therefore, that, by reason of the non-occupational nature of these various strikes, this aspect of the complaint does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
120. 548. The Government's reply of 23 October 1952 indicates that, with respect to the general question of sanctions applicable in law in connection with strikes, the situation is different according to whether the public or the private sector of industry is involved ; in the private sector, the courts are called upon to judge the effects of the strike on the labour contract and a normal judicial procedure is necessary.
121. 549. In respect of the public sector, the Government declares that subject to the supervision of the administrative judge, it may attach certain limitations to the right to strike, which is lawful in principle, in order to prevent its being used in a wrongful manner or in a manner contrary to the requirements of public order.
122. 550. The Committee considers that the French Government has justified the restrictions attached to certain forms of strikes in the public sector of industry - restrictions which, incidentally, are similar to those laid down in the metropolitan territory - and recommends that this aspect of the complaint does not call for further examination.
123. Persecution and Acts of Violence Committed against the Workers
124. 551. The complainants allege that the military authorities adopted various measures in persecution of the workers and state, in particular, that the Assistant General Secretary of the U.G.T.T. Transport Workers' Union was wounded by a shot fired by a patrol on 6 February 1952, that, in certain cases, trade unionists have been prevented from attending meetings of their unions, being arrested and ill treated on such occasions, and that Tunisian workers have been killed in Tunis, Ferryville, Bizerta and Mateur.
125. 552. With regard to the shot fired on 6 February 1952 at the Assistant General Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union, the French Government declares in its reply dated 23 October 1952, that this incident occurred because the person in question, when challenged by a patrol during the night, tried to escape instead of complying with the normal challenge. The action of the military patrol, states the Government, was in no way connected with the militant trade unionist capacity of the person concerned, a fact of which the patrol was not aware.
126. 553. It would appear from the Government's reply that, while the Assistant General Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union was wounded by a patrol, the incident does not appear to have had any connection with the trade union activities of the person concerned.
127. 554. For this reason, therefore, the Committee recommends that this ground of complaint does not call for further examination on the part of the Governing Body.
128. 555. With regard to the allegation that trade unionists were prevented from attending meetings of their unions and were arrested and maltreated when trying to do so, this question is related to that of the right of meeting which was examined earlier.
129. 556. Finally, with regard to the allegation that Tunisian workers were killed at Tunis, Ferryville, Bizerta and Mateur, the French Government states, in its letter of 5 February 1953, that no Tunisian worker has been killed throughout the Regency in the course of a trade union demonstration. In certain cases, however, the responsibility for maintaining public order has claimed some victims, but these were cases of demonstrations of a purely political nature which took place on the public highway and generally developed into riots, when the police, attacked by armed demonstrators in considerably superior numbers, found themselves obliged to use their weapons.
130. 557. In view of the fact that the complainants have not furnished sufficient proof that the alleged facts had any direct connection with the trade union activities of Tunisian workers, the Committee recommends that this allegation also does not call for further examination by the Governing Body.
131. Measures of Repression
132. 558. The complainants allege that the French authorities, in January 1952, adopted repressive measures which resulted in more than 80 persons being killed, 400 injured being taken to hospital, more than 8,000 arrests and internments and sentences to very severe penalties by the military courts ; they give many details as to the results of the punitive expeditions which took place, in particular, in the Cape Bon area and concerning the excesses alleged to have been committed during these operations in the various localities. They also give information as to the number of persons interned in various camps and the ill-treatment to which it is stated they are subjected.
133. 559. The French Government declares that the measures referred to in the complaints were taken within the framework of the regulations concerning public order in force in Tunisia and were occasioned by political agitation intended to thwart the mission of conciliation undertaken by the French representative, agitation which, in several cases, assumed a serious character and necessitated the application of security measures. The allegations concerning the number of persons interned or brought before the courts are, in the Government's view exaggerated. The Government states that the number of persons banished from the townships (not interned) was not 8,000 but 619, and, according to the last communication of 3 November 1952, 67 ; that the number of persons brought before the courts was not 3,000 but 1,167, and, according to the communication dated 23 October 1952, 2,073.
134. 560. The Committee considers that the measures taken by the French authorities following the political events which recently took place in Tunisia, are of such a political character that it is not appropriate for the Governing Body to pursue the matter further, the examination of the situation in Tunisia having been the subject of consideration by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which adopted a Resolution on this question at its Seventh Session, the text of which is set forth in paragraph 462 above.