Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 344, Marzo 2007

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 35. The Committee last examined this case concerning the dismissal of some 40 workers, union officials and staff representatives, following a strike at the Financial Bank Benin, at its June 2006 meeting [see 342nd Report, paras 25–27]. The Committee requested the Government to swiftly conduct an independent and impartial inquiry in order to determine whether anti-union discrimination was indeed behind the dismissals carried out by the bank in August 2004 and whether national legislation giving effect to the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), had been properly applied in that case and to inform it of the outcome. The Committee also requested the Government to send it the text of the ruling of the court of first instance concerning the legality of the strike organized in August 2004 by the Union of Workers of Financial Bank Benin (SYN.TRA.F.I.B).
2. 36. In a communication of 17 July 2006, the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Benin (CSA–Benin) sent the Committee an extract from ruling No. 14/06 of 15 May 2006, adding that the workers had immediately lodged an appeal against the ruling. CSA–Benin sent the Committee a number of documents which, it claims, illustrate the selective and discriminatory nature of the collective dismissal, as well as the contradictions surrounding the dismissal and the ruling of the court of first instance.
3. 37. In a communication of 5 September 2006, the Government states that, in its opinion,
   • CSA–Benin bases its claim regarding the selective and discriminatory nature of the collective dismissal of 38 workers on three issues: the maintenance in their posts of some of the workers who signed the petition; the dismissal of an employee on assignment at the time the strike took place; the hiring by Financial Bank Benin, on behalf of Financial Bank Togo, of an employee it had dismissed. The Government informs the Committee that an inquiry has been conducted among the bank’s management in order to verify the information contained in the new complaints of CSA–Benin. The inquiry looked into the following points:
4. (1) The maintenance in their posts of some of the workers who signed the strike petition. The management of Financial Bank explained that dismissal was not based on signature of the petition, since some of the workers who signed it did not play any part whatsoever in the strike. Others took part in it for one day, and others again for two days. As to the sanctions, the management of the bank stated that all those who participated in the strike movement were sanctioned but that the degree of participation in the strike and the bank’s interests were taken into consideration. In support of this last argument, the management of the bank referred to Case Law
5. No. 89-42270 (Official Gazette, Social Appeals Court, 15 May 1991), which allowed dismissals to be decided in the light of the enterprise’s interests.
6. (2) The dismissal of an employee on assignment at the time the strike took place. The management of the bank explained that the assignment lasted only one day and that his presence at work was not recorded in the days that followed. The bailiffs’ report, attached to the complaint submitted by CSA–Benin and also produced by the bank at the time of the inquiry, do not refer to the individual concerned as being present at the workplace during the strike.
7. (3) The hiring by Financial Bank Benin, on behalf of Financial Bank Togo, of an employee it had dismissed. The management of Financial Bank Benin explained that they were not involved in the hiring of this worker by Financial Bank Togo. The two banks, although they belong to the same group, are separate, autonomous legal entities, governed respectively by Beninese and Togolese law.
8. 38. The Government states that this case was ruled upon by the court of first instance, which noted that the dismissal had been carried out according to the law, that the workers had lodged an appeal against the ruling and that the case was proceeding normally.
9. 39. The Committee notes this information, in particular the information regarding the inquiry conducted by the Government. Noting that the court of first instance declared the strike to be illegal but that an appeal has been lodged against this decision, the Committee requests the Government to send it the ruling of the Appeals Court as soon as possible.