Informe provisional - Informe núm. 214, Marzo 1982

1. 679. The Union of Pakistan International Airlines Employees (UPIAE) presented its complaint in a communication dated 1 September 1981. The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) presented its complaint in a letter dated 9 September 1981, and supplementary information in a letter of 19 October 1981. The Government replied in a communication dated 12 January 1982.
2. 680. Pakistan has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 681. In its communication of 1 September 1981, the UPIAE states that it is a union registered since 1976 under the industrial Relations ordinance and that, after winning the April 1980 referendum, was elected for two years as bargaining agent with the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation for certain workmen. It claims that since then it has been the victim of a campaign of non-cooperation and vilification by both the management and the Government: its charter of demands has been refused and its efforts to meet with the Government have failed. It states that it has been rendered ineffective because it defeated the pro-government workers' organisation at the April 1980 referendum. Its office bearers were summoned by the martial law authorities and warned not to indulge in any union activities or they would be dealt with severely.
2. 682. In addition, the UPIAE refers to the Martial Law Regulation No. 52 of 15 August 1981 which totally bans trade union activity in the nationalised airline (PTA). On 17 August 1981 the Government allegedly raided and took over the UPIAE's offices throughout the country and arrested between 160 and 200 workmen and office bearers; 60 workers have gone underground and 640 have been dismissed without inquiry. The UPIAE states that a hand-out - alleging near bankruptcy of the PTA owing to overstaffing and worker sabotage - issued by the Government contains a one-sided version of the facts. It points out that the Government was supporting the defeated rival union, the proof being that the defeated union continued to occupy the office premises which should have been handed over to the UPIAE upon winning the referendum.
3. 683. In its letter of 9 September 1981, the ITF claims that the legislative ban on trade union activities by PTA employees, which is in force until April 1982, involves penalties of up to five pears' imprisonment and/or five lashes from a whip. A considerable number of employees - 150 according to one union - including trade union officials were arrested and ITF correspondence has been returned undelivered, indicating that the closed union offices have not been reopened.
4. 684. In its further letter, the ITF explains that a well-authenticated report is difficult to assemble because of fear in Pakistan of imprisonment under the present ban and because of the extensive censoring of trade union mail. The ITF has received reports that working agreements and new agreement negotiations are suspended and that there have been large-scale dismissals, e.g. the Flight Engineers' International Association reports that on 11 September 1981 there were 17 arrests, 340 dismissed due mainly to trade union participation and that where replacements are necessary they come from the military. Apparently in some cases no reasons for dismissal have been given, there has not been a right of appeal against dismissal and military courts have been set up at airports to deal with PTA employees.

B. The Government's reply

1. 685. In its communication of 12 January 1982, the Government states that the measures it has taken are purely of an interim nature for the maintenance of law and order and discipline in the airline sector. It points out that it is incorrect that soon after the 1980 ballot a campaign was started against the UPIAE in fact, a number of demands submitted by the said union were approved and implemented by the management during 1980. Furthermore, the Government denies that the UPIAE's office bearers were summoned by the martial law authorities and directed to refrain from trade union activities. There were a number of incidents of breach of law and order and use of physical force and assault by members and office bearers of various rival unions. According to the Government, industrial peace was ruined and, in a number of cases, management officials were physically assaulted by the union representatives. In order to ensure maintenance of law and order and the protection of all concerned, the law enforcement agencies held a meeting with the leaders of various unions during which it was impressed upon them to maintain discipline.
2. 686. The Government explains that in the last few years indiscipline has become rampant in the PIA resulting in a wastage of resources and decline in services to customers. It claims that the unions and associations had virtually assumed control of the airline and mismanagement, corruption and poor service were the result, e.g. workers burned a D.C.10 aircraft at Karachi and hijacked a Boeing 720. The Government was faced with either closing the airline or taking steps to eradicate the indiscipline as the airline was on the threshold of financial disaster. Furthermore, the Government could not ignore the problems of safety and security of passengers and aircraft. Consequently, Martial Law Regulation No. 52 of 15 August 1981 was promulgated after the Government was convinced that public funds, which were being used to finance the PTA, were being dissipated by surplus staff and lack of efficient administration. The Government stresses that trade union activities in the airlines have only been suspended temporarily and that new union elections and lawful trade union activities will be restored as soon as possible.
3. 687. According to the Government, the allegations of raiding and taking over the offices of trade unions are grossly exaggerated; as the unions no longer enjoy legal personality their offices have been sealed end will be reopened as soon as trade union activities, are resumed. Moreover, it states that it is incorrect that about 200 workers have been arrested; at the time in question about 20 persons were taken into custody, not for trade union activities, but for breach of law and order. The allegation that 60 workers have gone underground is strongly denied, as is the allegation that military courts have been set up at airports. The Government states, as regards the alleged removal of 640 workers, that removal of inefficient or surplus staff is neither unusual nor uncommon. It denies that active trade union participation was the reason for dismissals. It points out that, apart from some employees dismissed due to misconduct after having been given an opportunity to explain their conduct, about 1,000 employees have been retrenched, many with three months' pay in lieu of notice in addition to normal terminal benefits. It states that many airlines have been forced to resort to such drastic economy efforts in 1980 and 1981. On the other hand, it explains that for the remaining employees the Government has implemented certain welfare measures which result in increased emoluments of 15 per cent. The PIA has also recently approved the payment of a bonus and a sum towards the workers' participation fund. Moreover, the Government explains that Regulation No. 52 duly provides for the right of appeal of dismissed employees within 30 days of communication of the order of retrenchment, retirement, dismissal or removal from service. The appeal lies with the Federal Government or the competent authority for reconsideration of the case.
4. 688. The Government states that the allegation of discrimination in favour of a rival union is belied by the fact that this union was banned along with the complainant union and has been proceeded against on the basis of equality with other trade unions. It claims that it has never interfered in the activities of the various trade unions which existed in the PIA establishments and never extended patronage to the rival union. It denies that the rival union was allowed to retain, certain office premises after being defeated in the 1980 ballot; on the contrary, the UPIAE, after being certified as the bargaining agent, was immediately provided with the premises vacated by the outgoing union. The Government also denies that there is censoring of trade union mail and repeats that the temporary measures were only taken because of the gravity of the situation.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 689. This case concerns allegations of closure of union premises and censoring of union mail, large-scale arrests and dismissals of unionists and union leaders, as well as government patronage of a rival union in the nationalised airlines sector within the framework of martial Law Regulation No. 52 of 15 August 1981. This Regulation places a total ban on trade union activity in this sector under pain of heavy penalties.
2. 690. The Committee notes that the complainants' allegations and the Government's replies on many points are contradictory. For example, the Government directly denies that the UPIAE has suffered since it won election as the PIA bargaining agent and states that, in fact, a number of its demands have been implemented. It also directly denies that UPIAE leaders were threatened not to indulge in union activities and states that, after several acts of unionist violence, the law enforcement agencies asked union leaders to maintain discipline. In addition, the Committee notes that the Government stresses that the legislative ban on trade union activities in this sector is only temporary and will be lifted as soon as possible, April 1982 being a date mentioned by one of the complainants.
3. 691. The Committee further notes the Government's statement that the national airline was facing bankruptcy and that other measures - such as the infusion of public funds - had failed to save the serious situation. In addition, it notes the Government's concern over the safety and security of passengers and aircraft after some violent incidents on the part of the workers. Nevertheless, it must point out that the banning of all trade union activity - including the sealing of union premises - in one sector, even if only of a temporary nature as appears to be the case in question, constitutes an infringement of freedom of association. The Committee has pointed out that suspension by the administrative authorities of the legal personality of a union - the legal personality being one of the conditions enabling the union to function - is contrary to the generally accepted principle that unions should not be liable to administrative suspension. The Committee therefore expresses the strong hope that Martial Law Regulation No. 52 will be rescinded as soon as possible. It notes the assurances given by the Government to this effect and requests the Government to inform it of the lifting of the ban.
4. 692. As regards the arrests of trade unionists, the Committee notes that the Government admits that 20 persons were taken into custody for breach of law and order. However, the Government's reply does not indicate whether these persons have been tried and under what specific charges or what is their present situation. The Committee would accordingly, as it has often done in the past, emphasise the importance which it attaches to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases where trade unionists are charged with offences, criminal or political, considered by the government concerned to have no relation to their trade union functions. It requests the Government to indicate what is the present situation of the arrested workers, whether any trials have taken place and the outcome of these trials.
5. 693. As regards the dismissals, the Committee notes the Government's statement that about 1,000 workers have been retrenched for economic reasons and a handful of employees dismissed on account of misconduct. In particular, it notes that a right to appeal dismissals, retrenchments or retirements exists, within 30 days of communication of the order, with the Federal Government or the competent authority. In view of the fact that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers' should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment such as dismissal and other prejudicial measures, and while recognising that a person holding trade union office is not necessarily immune to dismissal irrespective of the circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the present situation of the retrenched workers, giving details in particular as to whether any appeals have been lodged or reinstatements occurred.
6. 694. Lastly, the Committee notes that one of the complainants alleges - and the Government denies - that the events described in the complaint were aggravated by government favouritism of a rival union. It notes that the rival union was apparently treated equally with other unions in the airlines sector in that the Government states that it is also banned from carrying out any trade union activity. As for the alleged continued use of bargaining agent premises by the rival union, the Committee notes that the Government gives a directly contradictory version of the facts, asserting that the premises were immediately handed over. In view of this situation, the Committee considers that it need not examine this allegation.