Informe provisional - Informe núm. 329, Noviembre 2002

1. 160. The Committee examined this case at its March 2002 meeting, and on that occasion it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 327th Report, paras. 140-161, approved by the Governing Body at its 283rd Session (March 2002)].
2. 161. The SNAPAP sent new allegations in communications dated 7 and 9 March, 2 and 10 April, 8 May and 26 October 2002.
3. 162. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 10 April 2002.
4. 163. Algeria 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 164. In its previous examination of the case in March 2002, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 327th Report, para. 161]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the workers who are members of the SNAPAP may establish and join federations and confederations of their own choosing. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to send without delay its observations concerning the specific allegations made by the SNAPAP regarding the prohibition on establishing a trade union section in hospitals, sanctions, suspensions, physical assault, transfers and intimidation of trade union members and officers, and closure of trade union premises. Moreover, as concerns the allegations of dismissals, internment and arbitrary measures against its members forcing them to take exile, the Committee requests the SNAPAP to provide any additional information it considers useful in this regard.
   • (c) Expressing its profound concern at the SNAPAP’s allegation that, since it presented its complaint to the ILO, the Algerian authorities have refused all contact with it and reneged on promises previously made to it, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this respect without delay.

B. New allegations

1. 165. In its communications of March, April and May 2002, the complainant organization alleges, firstly, that in March 2002 the public authorities closed the SNAPAP office in Oran, in order to use it to store the files of candidates in the legislative elections. Moreover, the complainant organization attaches a copy of an administrative decision of the Prefecture of Oran suspending from work eight trade union members on the ground that they encouraged public employees to observe a strike at the headquarters of the Prefecture. In addition, the complainant organization alleges that the public authorities, and more particularly the Prefect of Oran, undertook a campaign to intimidate and harass the Secretary-General of the SNAPAP, this campaign being notably manifested by the forcible closure of the premises of an association presided by the Secretary-General of SNAPAP, premises in which the trade union also carried out its activities. The complainant organization asserts that these actions, on top of the refusal of the Government to meet with the officials of the SNAPAP, serve only to prove that the Government still acknowledges only the UGTA as a social partner. Finally, in a communication of 26 October 2002, the complainant organization alleges that the eight Oran trade unionists mentioned above have received a suspended sentence because they were on a hunger strike.

C. The Government’s new observations

1. 166. In a communication dated 10 April 2002, the Government emphasizes, firstly, that the authorities have not, at any time, set limits on freedom of association and have in no way taken steps to oppose the workers of the SNAPAP establishing federations and confederations of their own choosing. The Government states that the allegations of the SNAPAP relate to official recognition of the Algerian Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions (CASA), which requires the latter to be in conformity with Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990, relating to procedures for the exercise of the right to organize. In fact, the SNAPAP apparently exercised its right to organize in the framework of the planned confederation, without awaiting the legal decision of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The Government emphasizes, furthermore, that the law of 1990 mentioned above has not been the object of any comment in the context of the regular supervisory procedures of the ILO. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security has therefore acted by following the law in question, in the framework of which it began bargaining procedures during a series of meetings in order to help the SNAPAP establish the CASA. Moreover, in order to remove the difficulties that might arise from the interpretation of provisions relating to the right of the social partners to establish federations and confederations of their own choosing, the Government is considering, in consultation with the social partners, beginning a review of the texts relating to freedom of association. The Government requests technical assistance from the ILO with regard to this in order to implement effectively the recommendations of the Committee on this point.
2. 167. Furthermore, the Government states that four autonomous trade union organizations, the SNAPAP among them, held a meeting with representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security which culminated in the signing of a statement by the parties (a copy of this statement is attached to the Government’s communication). Therefore, contrary to the allegations of the SNAPAP, according to which the authorities refused all contact with it following the lodging of the complaint with the ILO, this statement shows that a meeting took place on 23 December 2001, i.e. five months after the SNAPAP had lodged its original complaint with the ILO.
3. 168. With regard to the allegations of favouritism towards the UGTA, the Government states that the SNAPAP, according to its degree of representativeness with regard to the other trade union organizations, receives financial subsidies to help it carry out its trade union activities. While the amount of the subsidy (850,000 Algerian dinars) is less than that received by the UGTA, the Government states that this is calculated with regard to the trade unions involved according to the legislative texts in force which are based solely on the criteria of representativeness for the allocation of rights. Moreover, to this day, the SNAPAP has not lodged documents approving the representativeness that it claims with regard to the governmental authorities and the social partners.
4. 169. Regarding the specific allegations relating to the health sector, the Government provides the following clarifications:
   • – Mr. Iftene Kamel, former president of the Social Works Committee, Bologhine, was reinstated in accordance with the decision of the Appeals Committee of the Prefecture of Algiers;
   • – Mr. Bechar Lounes, an employee at the University Hospital Centre, was reassigned according to a decision taken by his general sector which undertook to pay him all the back wages owing;
   • – the appeal launched by Mr. Choukri Noureddine, member of the SNAPAP, against the sanctions applied against his dental-surgeon wife in the health sector of El Harrach was declared unfounded by the health and population directorate of the Prefecture of Algiers, because this measure was justified by the refusal of the party concerned to be on call in her seventh month of pregnancy when the regulations in force exempted women from being on call only from the eighth month of pregnancy.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 170. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of obstacles to the establishment of a trade union confederation, favouritism with regard to a trade union organization and repeated anti-union harassment.
2. 171. With regard to the application of the SNAPAP to establish a confederation (entitled CASA), the Committee notes that the Government repeats its previous reply, to the effect that the application for official recognition of CASA did not conform with the provisions of Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990, relating to procedures for the exercise of the right to organize and that this Act has not been the object of any comment in the context of the regular supervisory procedures of the ILO. The Committee recalls that in this respect, during its previous examination of the case, it considered that the provisions of the law mentioned above did not pose a problem from the standpoint of the principles of freedom of association but that the Government’s interpretation of these provisions seemed to pose a problem. The Committee notes, moreover, that the Government states that it began a series of meetings in order to help the SNAPAP establish the CASA and that in order to remove the difficulties that might arise from the interpretation of certain provisions of Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990, it is considering, in consultation with the social partners, beginning a review of the texts relating to freedom of association. In this respect, the Committee welcomes the request for technical assistance from the Government with regard to this issue and reminds it that the Office is available to review the ways in which this might take place. Moreover, it requests the Government to keep it informed with regard to the recognition of the CASA as a trade union confederation.
3. 172. With regard to the allegations that the Algerian authorities have refused all contact with the SNAPAP following the lodging of the complaint with the ILO, the Committee notes the statement of a meeting held between the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and certain trade union organizations, including the SNAPAP, five months after the complaint was lodged. The Committee hopes that the discussions between the Government and the SNAPAP will continue in the future in the spirit of full cooperation. Moreover, with regard to the allegations of favouritism towards the UGTA and the issue of the representativeness of the latter and that of the SNAPAP, in the absence of new elements in the case, the Committee refers to its comments made during the previous examination of the case [see 327th Report, paras. 156-157].
4. 173. With regard to the specific allegations of the SNAPAP concerning the prohibition on establishing a trade union section in hospitals and repeated acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the cases of the three workers in this sector. Moreover, the Committee notes that the complainant organization has provided no further information concerning the allegations of dismissals, internments and other arbitrary measures taken towards the members of the SNAPAP forcing them to take exile. The Committee notes, however, that in its most recent communications, the complainant organization reports a number of obstacles to the exercise of trade union rights in the Prefecture of Oran, particularly with regard to the closure of the SNAPAP office in Oran, the suspension of eight trade union members on the ground that they encouraged public employees to observe a strike, the fact that they received a suspended sentence because they were on a hunger strike, and a campaign to intimidate and harass the Secretary-General of SNAPAP. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations with regard to these new allegations without delay.