Informe provisional - Informe núm. 346, Junio 2007

1130. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) dated 25 July 2006. The complainants submitted additional information in a communication of 5 December 2006.

1. 1131. The Government transmitted its observations in a communication dated 9 March 2007.
2. 1132. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 1133. In its communication of 25 July 2006, the complainants state that the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company (Sandikaye Kargarane Sherkate Vahed Otobosrani Tehran va Hoomeh), hereafter referred to as “the union”, is an official affiliate of the ITF. The union was originally formed in 1968 but was later disbanded by the Government and replaced by the Workers’ House and Islamic Labour Council; it was re-established in 2005 after a few years’ preparation work by the employees of the company.
2. 1134. The complainants allege that since the 1979 Islamic revolution in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Government has not permitted the existence of independent trade unions. The only workers’ organization authorized by the Government is the Workers’ House, and the 1990 Labour Code stipulates that “the workers … may establish Islamic societies and associations at a workplace”. These organizations are called Shoraya Esiami and at worksites in industrial, agricultural and service organizations of more than 35 employees an Islamic labour council can also be established; these councils are overseen by the Workers’ House, which, according to the complainant, is essentially a channel for the Government to control the workers; though it appears to sometimes address workers’ issues, such as raising the matter of wage arrears or organizing a May Day demonstration in 2006, these activities possess little substance and are merely carried out in order to control and contain workers’ discontent.
3. 1135. The complainants indicate that whenever workers have been persecuted for trying to organize or bargain collectively, or whenever strikes have been repressed – even violently – there has been no evidence of intervention by the Workers’ House on the side of the workers. In spite of several requests from the complainants, the Workers’ House has been unable to provide evidence of having protested to the Government with regard to imprisoned workers. There is also no evidence that either the Workers’ House or the Islamic work councils have attempted to engage in collective bargaining with employers.
4. 1136. According to the complainants, the employees at the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company (Sherkate Vahed), hereafter referred to as “the company”, had been dissatisfied for a long time, as the workers’ organizations established in the company had not addressed workplace issues. Problems at the workplace include low wages and long working hours, the use of outdated buses, drivers’ fatigue caused by heavy road congestion, staff redundancy and management corruption. The company’s employees took it upon themselves to study ILO literature on trade union and human rights through regular study circles; after a few years, this process eventually led to the decision to form their own organization to represent the interests of the company’s workers.
5. 1137. The complainants allege that throughout 2005, the workers’ efforts to establish the union were met with determined – and often brutal – repression from employers, security forces and official labour organizations. Prior to, during and after the union’s re-inauguration meeting on 3 June 2005, vicious attacks against and unlawful arrests of the workers and their supporters had taken place. According to the complainant, two factors contributed to making the union a cause célèbre amongst both Iranian and international trade union activists: the numbers involved (at one point over half of the company’s 16,000 employees took part in union organizing activities) and the ruthless reaction of the political and judicial establishment. Management also proved consistently hostile to the workers’ efforts to organize, with the company manager and his deputy said to be particularly engaged in quelling the workers’ organizing activities.
6. 1138. The repression of the employees’ attempts to organize began in early 2005, when a large number of activists started to be harassed. Ali Rafil was frequently transferred and Parviz Faminbar was not only compulsorily transferred, but also frequently summoned for questioning. He also received threatening phone calls at home. Moosa Paykyar was compulsorily transferred, saw his overtime cancelled and was frequently summoned to the company’s security office for irrelevant questioning.
7. Initial harassment of union activists
8. 1139. Between March and June 2005, seven union members were harassed and subsequently fired. Before eventually losing their jobs, they were compulsorily transferred or demoted, had their overtime cancelled and had either their promotions or salaries suspended. Several of them were summoned to the company’s security office and interrogated, at times outside the company’s premises and always without any official warrant. The workers involved were: Abdollah Haji Romanan, Abdolreza Tarazi, Ahmad Farshi, Ali Zadeh Hosseini, Ayat Jadidi, Ebrahim Madadi and Mansour Osanloo. Mr Osanloo, a worker at the company for 20 years, was especially targeted for harassment as he was a member of the workers’ group that established the union and later became the chairperson of the union’s executive committee. According to the complainants, ten other union members were also fired: Abbas Najand Kodaki, Allakbar Pir Hadi, Amir Takhiri, Atta Babakhani, Hassan Karimi, Hassan Mohammadi, Mahmoud Hojabti, Naser Gholami, Reza Nematipour and Seyed Behrooz Hosseini.
9. Attack on the union’s founding meeting
10. 1140. On 9 May, a meeting called to formally establish an independent union at the company was held at the offices of the Bakery Workers’ Association (BWA), an independent workers’ organization which had lent its premises to the union. The complainants allege that the meeting was violently broken up by a large number of men from the official workers’ organization, the Workers’ House and from the company’s Islamic Shora. The attack occurred at about 2 p.m., when an estimated 300 men arrived at the BWA offices and began smashing the doors and windows, tearing up documents and destroying library books. They also attacked ten members of the union’s founding committee. The complainants indicate that Mansour Osanloo suffered knife wounds during this raid. Some sources claim that the perpetrator was Jalal Saidmanesh, of the company’s Islamic Shora, who said he was going to cut out Mr Osanloo’s tongue and behead him. Mr Osanloo’s hands were reportedly tied behind his back by Hassan Sadeghi, the Chief Executive of the Supreme Council for the Coordination of the Islamic Shoras. As a result of the attack, Mansour Osanloo had to have stitches in his neck and tongue. Ebrahim Madadi, a technical worker who was already facing disciplinary action and several other union activists were beaten up during the raid. The security forces, though present, did not intervene and actually filmed the events; they also confiscated press cameras and tape recorders from the national news agency and newspaper reporters.
11. 1141. The complainants allege that the union’s general assembly was violently disbanded on two further occasions. On 13 May 2005, when union members tried to hold their general assembly, security forces, accompanied by members of the Workers’ House, again stormed the meeting. On 1 June, during the workers’ third attempt to hold a general assembly at the BWA premises, they were attacked with “Molotov cocktails” or similar firebombs which damaged the building. The meeting was finally held on 3 June. According to reports, nearly 8,000 of the company’s 16,000 workers attended the meeting and decided to join the union.
12. Arrest and detention of union members
13. 1142. The complainants state that on 7 September 2005 security forces arrested several members of the union during a protest against unpaid wages. Those arrested included Mansour Osanloo, Ebrahim Madadi, the deputy chairperson of the union’s executive committee, Abbas Najand Kodaki, Naser Gholami, Davood Norouzi, Hassan Haj Alivand and Nemat Amirkhani. They were taken to court the following day and charged with “disturbing public order”, then provisionally released in the days that followed. On 22 December 2005, 13 trade union leaders from the union were arrested by Information Ministry agents and taken to Evin Prison in Tehran, a prison that according to the complainants has for decades been notorious as a detention and torture centre for political prisoners. The charges were for “illegal trade union activities” and those detained were: Mansour Osanloo, Ebrahim Madadi, Mansour Hayat Gheibl, Abbas Najand Kodaki, Abdolreza Tarazi, Ali Zadeh Hosseini, Qlamreza Mirsa’l, Akbar Ya’qoubi, Reza Bour Bour, Hamld Reza Reza’l Far, Javad Kefayati, Seyyed Javad Seyyedvand and Morteza Kamsari. A further 16 trade unionists from the union were detained around that time. They were board members Naser Gholami, Dawood Razavi, Saeed Torablan and Yagoub Salimi; and union members Reza Shahabi, Amir Takhiri, Sadeg Ghandan, Ali Ebrahimi, Sadeg Mohammadi, Hamid Zandi, Ali Gorbanian, Arsalan Zarbarnia, Hossein Mehdikhani, Hossein Gavadi, Majid Talai and Akbari. Following a transport strike by Tehran’s bus drivers on 25 December, all of those detained were released, with the exception of Mansour Osanloo. At the end of 2005, six of those originally detained – Mansour Hayat Gheibi, Ebrahim Madadi, Abdolreza Tarazi, Qlamreza Mirza’l, Abbas Najanci Kodaki and Ali Zadeh Hosseini – were summoned to appear in court in January 2006 on charges of “disturbing public order”.
14. Mansour Osanloo charged with
15. instigating an armed revolt
16. 1143. According to the complainant, by the end of 2005, Mansour Osanloo had yet to be granted access to a lawyer and it was reported that he was facing charges including contact with Iranian opposition groups abroad and instigating an armed revolt against the authorities. Since then, for over six months at the time of the submission of the complaint, Mr Osanloo has remained in detention at Evin Prison. For most of this time, access to his lawyer, members of his family and fellow colleagues has been denied. Prior to his arrest, he was due to visit his doctor for eye treatment, possibly due to the injuries he sustained in the abovementioned incident of 9 May 2005; his health condition is increasingly becoming a matter of serious concern.
17. 1144. The complainants indicate that the union has been campaigning for Mr Osanloo’s immediate and unconditional release. Furthermore, it has been demanding that the Government and the company recognize the union and that a collective bargaining agreement with the company be negotiated. None of these demands has been met. Instead, the Government and its agents, together with the company, have continued to interfere with legitimate trade union activities such as a work stoppage or celebrating May Day in 2006. More arrests and assaults have taken place since then.
18. 1145. The complainant states that the mass arrests that took place towards the end of January 2006 were of a size that trade unions around the world had not witnessed over the past two decades. At their peak, more than 1,000 people were detained for planning a one-day strike action. Furthermore, the company continues to threaten those workers who are sympathetic to the union with dismissal and some have been out of work for a few months.
19. Chronology of events since January 2006
20. 1146. On 1 and 2 January 2006, bus workers rallied in Tehran calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Mansour Osanloo. The union announced a one-day strike on 28 January. As the date for the planned strike reached nearer, eight members of the union’s executive committee were summoned by the court and subsequently prevented from leaving the court building. The Mayor of Tehran, who had earlier made some promises to the union, now called the union illegal and vowed to stop the strike. The Government and its security forces, as well as the company, brought in new buses and drivers to break the strike. They accused the union of being made up of “subversives” and “saboteurs”. About 100 union members were arrested on 27 January. The following day, the security forces and members of the company beat up and forced the drivers to drive the buses. Hundreds of drivers and their wives and even children were transferred to the Evin Prison. The
21. 12-year old daughter of one of the union members who was beaten and arrested was thrown into a police car at night. To crush the strike, the security forces used tear gas, batons and threatened to shoot the strikers. The police raided the homes of the union members and its leadership. After that day, more than 700 members of the union and a number of supporters still remained in custody. Several reports claimed that more than 1,000 people were detained during the day. Some 30 arrested workers were seriously injured and required immediate medical attention.
22. 1147. The complainants indicate that unions and NGOs around the world have expressed solidarity with the bus drivers. The ICFTU and ITF and a number of their affiliated unions in Argentina, Australia, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Norway and United Kingdom demanded the release of the detained workers. Protest rallies, in which Amnesty International joined, took place in Ottawa and London. A group of family members and spouses of the jailed union workers rallied in Tehran and the “Global Unions” grouping, led by the ICFTU and the ITF, announced that an international day of union protest would be held on 15 February.
23. 1148. The complainant alleges that, on 6 February the Islamic Republic of Iran’s reformist party, the Participation Front lodged a protest; the authorities began to release the workers from prison, leaving 15 detainees in custody. However, new arrests also took place during this period and some 100 workers staged a protest in front of the Labour Ministry in Tehran for two consecutive days.
24. 1149. The Government’s Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA) reported on 11 February that a “Committee to Defend Workers’ Trade Organizations in Iran”, comprised of 14 “traditional” unions, had released a statement demanding the unconditional release of all bus workers in Tehran. The statement was sent to the Minister of Justice, the Iranian President, the Head of the Iranian Parliament, members of the Labour and Social Affairs Caucus of Parliament, the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Mayor of Tehran, and all news agencies and Iranian newspapers. The following organizations were reported by the ILNA to have signed the statement in question: the Driver Training Organization of Iran, the Organization of Inter City Bus Drivers of Iran, the Trade Organization of Inter City Bus Drivers of Kerman, the Driving School Teachers’ Trade Organizations of Tehran, Mashad, Arak, Shahrekord and Esphahan, the Free Newspaper Reporters’ Trade Organization of Tehran, the Painters’ Trade Organization of Tehran, the Trade Organization of the Employees of Khatamolanbiya Hospital, the Driving School Teachers’ Trade Organization of Khoramabad, the Islamic Labour Council of Tehranshimi Company, the Trade Organization of Mehrad Hospital Employees.
25. 1150. On 15 February, the International Union Action Day on Iran worldwide protest actions took place. The initiative enjoyed participation from many unions worldwide, including many unions in the Middle East. Unions met with Iranian diplomatic representatives in Geneva, Tokyo, Bangkok, Mumbai and Wellington, and protest actions took place in front of Iranian embassies in Australia, Canada, Norway, the Philippines and United Kingdom. Unions in Austria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia and United States also held protests, and unions in Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Russian Federation and Turkey and many others sent protest letters to the Iranian Government. The union released its statement “on the support and solidarity of workers internationally” on 16 February. It disclosed the authorities’ announcement that the detainees would only be released if they signed a pledge to stop participating in union activities. Apparently, the authorities also said that it was not “wise at this time to allow the formation of trade unions in the country, and anyone deciding to participate in the union’s activities would be considered the opponent of the Islamic Republic System and thus will be prosecuted”.
26. 1151. The complainant states that between 17 and 22 February, all detainees were released except the seven executive committee members (Mansour Osanloo, Ebrahim Madadi, Mansour Hayat Gheibi, Yussaff Moradi, Yagoub Salimi, Ali Zadeh Hosseini, Mohammad Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari). The authorities and the official press initially were silent about the case, however Justice Minister Jamal Karimi-Rad admitted that these men were being held for “illegal acts” but failed to specify the charges. Bus workers held a protest rally outside the Ministry of Labour on 22 February demanding their reinstatement.
27. 1152. The union’s spokesperson, Gholamreza Mirzaie, was arrested in Tehran on 4 March. From 13 to 15 March around 120 workers once again gathered outside various government offices and the bus company headquarters in protest at the continued barring from work of around 1,000 bus workers who had been without pay for the past six weeks. Meanwhile, a list of 46 workers whose contracts had been terminated was published by the company. The list included five members of the union’s executive committee who were still in prison; the company stated that the orders had come from the regime’s intelligence authorities. The dismissed workers were: Mohammad Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari, Hassan Karimi, Gholamreza Khoshmaram, Hadi Kabiri, Mohammad Eslamian, Gholamreza Fazeli, Abbas Najand Kodaki, Masoud Ali Babaiee Nahavandi, Hasan Mirzaee, Seyed Behrooz Hosseini, Abdolreza Tarazi, Gholamreza Mirzale, Nematollah Amirkhani, Hossein Karimi Sabzevar, Yagoub Salimi, Habib Shami Nejad, Hassan Mohammadi, Hassan Karimi, Mohammad Na’mani Poor, Soltan Ali Shekari, Atta Babakhani, Fazlollah Mazaheri, Ahmad Moradmand, Allakbar Pir Hadi, Vahaab Mohammadi Zarankesh, Davood Norouzi, Saeed Torabian, Amir Ghanele, Mahmoud Hojabti, Ayat Jadidi, Ali Zadeh Hosseini, Gholamreza Gholamhosseini, Seyed Reza Nematipoor, Gholamreza Khani, Amir Takhiri, Ebrahim Gholami, Seyed Davoud Razavi, Seyed Mohammad Hossein Dadkhah, Masoud Foroghi Nejad, Mohammad Sadegh Khandan, Jamil Bahadori, Mansour Hayat Gheibi, Ebrahim Madadi, Seyed Hossein Rekhshat, Naser Gholami, Reza Shahabi Dekarba.
28. 1153. The complainants allege that from 18 March to 10 April all detainees except Mansour Osanloo were released. However, Mansour Hayat Gheibi was re-arrested within 24 hours of his release, then subsequently released again.
29. 1154. On 1 May, 1,000 police and security forces surrounded 250 bus workers who had gathered at the Tehran Bus Company for a May Day rally and arrested 13 members, including Abbas Najand Kodaki, Yagoub Salimi, Mahmoud Hojabti, Gholamreza Gholamhossaini, Gholamreza Mirzaie, Hassan Dehghan Gholamreza Khani, Fazeli and Ebrahim Madadi. The above were released on 6 May. According to the complainant, on 15 July, eight members of the union were arrested after a peaceful rally in front of the Labour Ministry. They were released on 19 July.
30. 1155. The complainants state that they as well as a large number of their affiliates, have consistently campaigned since December 2005 for the release of Mansour Osanloo, and the union’s right to be recognized and to negotiate a collective agreement with the company. Since March 2006, the Government, through its Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MOLSA), has on repeated occasions provided very firm guarantees, both orally and in writing, that it was doing all it could to secure the release of Mr Osanloo. Direct contacts were held between senior representatives of the Labour Ministry and the ICFTU General Secretary in Geneva, at the time of the March 2006 session of the ILO Governing Body. Subsequent contacts were held between the Ministry and ICFTU representatives during the same Governing Body session as well as before and after the Labour Day (1 May 2006) events described above, and subsequently during the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2006. In mid-May, in particular, MOLSA wrote on at least three occasions to the ICFTU indicating that it was actively seeking Mr Osanloo’s release and expressed the hope that these efforts were “soon to bear fruit” and that “good news [was] coming to [the ICFTU] shortly”. Similar assurances were repeated during the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference by a MOLSA representative to an ICFTU official. Several of the letters sent by MOLSA to the ICFTU in mid-May 2006 were also copied to the ILO Director-General as well as to a number of senior ILO officials. At the same time, however, MOLSA had repeatedly hinted that the difficulty in obtaining Mr Osanloo’s release rested not with the Labour Ministry, but with the judicial authorities of the Islamic Republic and, more specifically, with the Information Ministry, with which the Labour Ministry had held several high-level meetings. While MOLSA acknowledged that these efforts had hitherto been unsuccessful, it also referred to some undisclosed elements in Osanloo’s file which, in its view, tended to establish that he was detained not for trade union-related but other, unspecified charges. The complainants indicate that the Ministry representative also repeated an earlier invitation for an ICFTU delegation to visit the country and provided assurances that such a mission would be allowed to meet with Mr Osanloo, outside or inside his prison, and that the prisoner would at the time offer assurances to the ICFTU that he had abandoned any trade union activity and no longer considered himself as a trade unionist. These latest elements, in particular, are a source of extreme concern to the complainants, inasmuch as they cast an ominous shadow on Mr Osanloo’s current physical and psychological integrity. On each occasion, therefore, the complainants had made it very clear that they could not determine their position in this case on unspecified elements and that, if the Government had other charges against Mr Osanloo besides those stemming from his commitment to trade unionism and his participation in and leadership of legitimate trade union activities, it should produce the prisoner in open court, formally indict him and, in the meantime, allow him unrestricted access to defence counsel. To the best of the complainants’ knowledge, however, the Government has yet to do so.
31. 1156. The complainants allege that the first meeting between Mr Osanloo and his lawyers, to the best of their information, took place very recently – on or around Saturday, 24 June 2006. On or around that date, according to the Government’s official Iranian Students’ News Agency (ISNA), Mr Osanloo’s lawyers, Messrs Youssef Molayee and Khorshid, met him in Evin Prison. They were reportedly quoted as expressing concern for his health, in particular his eye condition, and reportedly also stated that they had – hitherto unsuccessfully – applied for his file to be transferred from the prison to the Revolutionary Court. In the complainants’ understanding, this request is motivated by the defence counsel’s desire to see his legal case transferred from supervision by the Information Ministry to the country’s judicial authorities.
32. 1157. In their communication of 5 December 2006 the complainants indicate that Mr Osanloo was released on bail on 9 August 2006, shortly after they had submitted their complaint to the Committee. Bail was set at the exorbitant amount of 150 million toman (US$165,000) by a Tehran court. The complainants allege that Mr Osanloo’s union colleagues, friends and relatives had to commit their private property as collateral in order to secure his release.
33. 1158. According to the complainants, Mr Osanloo was re-arrested on 19 November 2006. He is again being held in Evin Prison’s high-security area ‘‘section 209”, where prisoners charged with political offences are held. Our sources have informed us that Mansour Osanloo was arrested while he, Ebrahim Madadi and Haiat Gaibi were on their way to the office of the Ministry of Labour in East Tehran to discuss the dismissal by the company of over 50 employees, all members of the union.
34. 1159. Mr Osanloo had undergone eye surgery a week prior to his arrest. The complainants allege that at least five agents told Mr Osanloo that he was under arrest but refused to show an arrest warrant or explain to him and his companions the reason for his arrest. Instead they fired gunshots into the air and threw Mr Osanloo violently into a waiting car, ignoring his delicate condition. They also kicked Mr Madadi, who was protesting the arrest.
35. 1160. The complainants state that a judge subsequently informed Mr Osanloo’s wife that he was being held in section 209 of Evin Prison for negotiations and discussions with the authorities. According to some sources, his family was informed that an arrest warrant did exist and was issued by Tehran’s Deputy Prosecutor. They were also informed that his mother could visit him, but despite waiting for several hours outside Evin Prison his mother was not allowed to see Mr Osanloo. It was not until 26 November that his wife was allowed to see him, and then only briefly, while he was transferred to court.
36. 1161. The complainants allege that Mr Osanloo did not have access to his lawyers before 5 December 2006 and that furthermore they had just been informed that on 5 December the judge had asked for an additional 30 million toman bail for the release of Mr Osanloo, on condition that only his wife could act as guarantor. Mrs Osanloo refused. According to the ILNA, Mansour Osanloo was taken from Evin Prison to branch 14 of the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office in Tehran on 26 November for failing to appear in court to face the charges pending against him since his arrest on 22 December 2005. These charges are clearly unfounded, given that his case was scheduled for 20 November 2006 and he was arrested the day before. The complainants state that, as members of Mr Osanloo’s family had put up their houses as collateral in order to secure his release on 9 August 2006, it would be highly unlikely that he would refuse to cooperate with the prosecutor.
37. 1162. According to the complainants, during his time in prison from 22 December 2005 to 9 August 2006, Mr Osanloo was held in solitary confinement for three months and 23 days. He was under severe psychological pressure throughout his prison stay, was blindfolded and handcuffed at times, and during interrogations was harassed and threatened that he would stay in prison for as long as the police wanted to keep him. At times his visiting rights, use of telephone and access to the courtyard were suspended. Interrogation teams changed frequently and the questions were not all connected to the charges against him. He was forced to share details about his private life, his work, and his relationship with friends and colleagues under threat of being kept in prison for 15 years; the interrogations created an atmosphere which made him fear for his own life and that of members of his family. He was told that if he were to leave the county his family would be annihilated. Even after he was released from prison, the harassment continued: he was repeatedly asked to report to the police, who also called his son and his wife at their workplaces. Mr Osanloo complained to the United Nations office in Tehran about his situation and shortly after that he was summoned to the Revolutionary Court and threatened with imprisonment.
38. 1163. The complainants state that Mr Osanloo and his wife were asked to sign a statement saying they would cut ties with friends and colleagues. Due to this continued persecution Mr Osanloo wrote a letter to Tehran’s Human Rights Commission describing the treatment he had been subject to both while in prison and after his release; the letter is attached as Appendix I to this communication. Despite this ongoing harassment, Mr Osanloo has continued his trade union activities and participated in and chaired meetings of the union while maintaining his contacts with the international trade union movement. The complainants state that they believe that Mr Osanloo’s continued trade union activities and his contact with international organizations such as the ILO, the United Nations, the ITF and themselves are the key reasons behind his arrests; this in turn calls into question whether the Government is genuinely committed to workers’ rights, dialogue with the international trade union movement and cooperation with the ILO.
39. 1164. The complainants state that the union had been invited to attend a workshop on “globalization and privatization” organized by the ILO’s Subregional Office for South Asia on 8 November 2006. On their way to the workshop, Mr Osanloo and nine other executive board members of the union were arrested in the city of Tabriz; they were held for five hours by the local police. Other participants in the workshop included representatives of the Islamic Labour Councils, but they apparently were not arrested.
40. Arrest of union members on 3 December 2006
41. 1165. The complainants indicate that two members of the union’s board of directors, Seyed Davoud Razavi and Abdolreza Tarazi, as well as trade union activist Golamreza Golam Hosseini were arrested on 3 December 2006 and brought to police station division No. 6. They were arrested at Tehran’s Khavaran bus terminal while distributing trade union leaflets to fellow bus drivers. One leaflet was the translation of the most recent protest letter sent by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) to President Ahmadinejad regarding the continued arrest of Mansour Osanloo. The other leaflet was a statement by the union regarding its activities. Seyed Davoud Razavi and Abdolreza Tarazi were released the same evening; Golamreza Golam Hosseini was still in detention as his family has not been able to provide bail, according to the complainant’s information. The three are among the 50 bus drivers who have been suspended since their protest actions last year. They were scheduled to appear in court the following day.
42. 1166. The complainants have submitted two documents in support of their allegations: (1) a statement from Mr Osanloo’s lawyers, dated 12 December 2006, indicating inter alia that the authorities have failed to sufficiently explain the charges brought against Mr Osanloo, that they have been denied access to his court file, thus impairing the discharge of their professional duties, and that his continued arrest remains unjustified; and (2) a statement made by Mr Osanloo attesting to repeated instances of harassment during his detention in Evin Prison, including a period of solitary confinement and several interrogations.
43. B. The Government’s reply
44. 1167. In its 9 March 2007 communication, the Government states that the present case is rooted in a controversy concerning the legitimacy and right of representation of workers’ organizations. Increases in the concerned workers’ professional and welfare-related demands, on the one hand, and the apparent failure of the Workers’ House-affiliated Islamic Labour Council of Sherkate Vahed Autobusrani Tehran va Hume, hereinafter referred to as SHVATH, to meet them, gave rise to the re-emergence of the union in a climate of heated controversies and the absence of tolerance among different workers belonging to SHVATH.
45. 1168. The Government indicates that, according to the existing records, both prior to and during clashes between the conflicting workers’ parties, the Government maintained an impartial role and has sought amicable means to bring about a rapprochement between the opposed workers’ factions. In the ensuing clashes between the members of the SHVATH Islamic Labour Councils and the members of the union on 19.12.84 (by the Iranian calendar) in the latter group’s office, the police were forced to intervene to maintain discipline, to stop the loss of public buses and other public property, to prevent the spread of social unrest to the neighbourhood and to improve the atmosphere of animosity. Suspects from both sides were taken into custody; most were released and some were later brought before the court.
46. 1169. The Government maintains that the disciplinary measures it adopted to maintain peace between the opposed workers’ groups were all authorized by the judiciary. A review of the reports of similar workers’ events and their assemblies demonstrates that, as far as the workers maintain their poise and exercise a bit of self-restraint even in the unlawful assemblies, the police refrain from intervening in their affairs. The Government alleges that accusations of breaking the law, unauthorized gatherings and unlawful entrance, disturbing social and security conditions, endangering the life and security of innocent citizens including children, women, and the elderly, destroying public properties and public buses and disturbing traffic at its peak time, all of which required police intervention, were equally brought against both antagonistic sides. According to the chief of the police there seemed to be no better option but to arrest the leaders and instigators of both groups so as prevent the alteration of a deeply rooted labour dispute to avoid potential social unrest. The Government states that it believes the above-described actions to be fully in line with the rights attributed to Government under Article 8 of Convention No. 87.
47. 1170. According to the Government the police records on the arrested union members reveal that the length of their terms in custody in the majority of cases did not go beyond two hours. The most severe cases, attributed to the seven members of the union, was a week’s detention without any social and security track records for them. The records, the Government adds, indicate the leniency of the court toward the workers in the related hearings, despite substantial losses to public property. The Government states that it is fully against the prevalence of any level of animosity in social disputes and strongly promotes the spirit of collaboration, constructive dialogue and cogent argumentation among the social partners. The aim of the temporary arrest of the angry workers was not their detention, nor a blatant act of terror against labour forces, as the complainant alleges; it was rather aimed at tranquilizing the then-heated tension, which could have had horrendous consequences for both of the opposed faction.
48. 1171. The Government adds that, contrary to some of the allegations brought against it, according to the information it has received from its departments no one was ever made to sign letters of repentance for conducting trade union activities. The Government stated however that it would seriously look into any such letter upon receipt and would comment on them accordingly.
49. 1172. The Government alleges that it has no record of the union’s registration, and that those union members who believed that the Islamic Labour Councils had defaulted in furthering workers’ interests and wished to break away from the Islamic Labour Council of their workplace should have employed the legal mechanism stipulated in the Labour Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran for dissolving their Islamic Labour Council (article 26 of the Administrative Code of Practice of the Islamic Labour Councils) and starting their own independent workers’ organization. As unionists, who are familiar with the rules of the trade union activities, they should have sought the national legal procedures to give force to their rightful demands, such as those laid down in article 23 of the Islamic Labour Councils Law. They instead have chosen to take this dispute to the international tribunals before exhausting all available domestic solutions. The Government indicates that the union’s failure to register should not be interpreted as reluctance on the part of the Government to observe the legitimate need of workers to form their independent trade unions. The Government is legally and officially obliged to follow the law and until the existing Labour Law is duly amended by the Parliament nothing may be done for the recognition of the said syndicate.
50. 1173. According to the employer the main reasons for the dismissal of the workers were due to the extensive damage they inflicted on its premises and properties, as well as negligence in the execution of their duties. The Government investigation further revealed that no worker was dismissed due to labour protests. Their suspension was attributed to other reasons such as unlawful labour-related deeds and lack of discipline and misdemeanours in the workplace. Supporting syndicalism or favouring any other labour union causes did not in any way bear upon their dismissal. The Government adds that the disciplinary action taken against the at-fault workers was very mild: all were set free, including Mr Osanloo, and reinstated after four months; additionally wage arrears for the suspension period were remitted in full.
51. 1174. Despite much of the unfounded rumours spread and echoed globally, the Government maintains that it intervened to safeguard the wages and interests of the founders of the union. Through instructions to the pertinent Labour Dispute Board in Tehran, the Ministry ensured that articles 157 and 158 of the Labour Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran were extended to and positively and leniently interpreted in their favour. The negotiation of their reinstatement was also diligently pursued by the pertinent Reconciliatory Board and in certain cases the Board of Inquiry directly ruled for their return to work. The aforementioned boards also addressed and ruled for the payment of wage arrears of the dismissed workers. Preparing the ground for the release of all union founders arrested temporarily, including Mr Osanloo, and increasing the minimum wages and other compensation of the SHVATH were among other government initiatives to promote the rights of workers where the Government realized them as legitimate. The Government obliged the pertinent employer to immediately meet them through the rulings of the Dispute Settlement Board of the MOLSA and the resolutions of the Tehran Security Council. Through the constructive approach adopted by the Government and the official transfer of the SHVATH to Tehran municipality many of the existing problems of the SHVATH workers as to their rightful and legitimate demands such as increases in the minimum wage, raising loans, annual clothing rations, etc., are already duly met or are to be fulfilled shortly.
52. 1175. The Government states that, in line with the joint statement of the Ministry and the ILO mission (Freedom of Association Branch), and in order to protect and to promote the rights and interests of workers and employers at all levels, the Ministry embarked on registering independent trade unions for the first time after a quarter of a century. Additionally, through dialogue with the employers’ and workers’ representative organizations specific framework regulations are drafted to ensure the abovementioned organizations are registered once their constitutions are in conformity with the required laws and regulations.
53. 1176. According to the Government, it is determined to amend the Labour Law to meet both the requirements of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Decent Work Country Programme and to cope with the new social, economic, and financial developments in the labour market and the field of labour relations. The Government states that the organizations of the social partners, parliamentarians, university scholars and related NGOs together with social engineers were invited for the study and the examination of the labour law. The Government had also received technical assistance from the ILO with respect to freedom of association issues, including an ILO mission to the Islamic Republic of Iran which resulted in the preparation of proposed amendments to Chapter 4 of the Labour Law on workers’ and employers’ organizations; additionally, in February 2007, the Government had sought anew a technical assistance mission from the Labour Law and Labour Administration Department of the ILO so as to maintain ongoing dialogue and cooperation and critically review some of the proposed amendments made by the Government and its social partners.
54. 1177. The Government alleges that a false and longstanding assumption has long been held by the ITUC and ITF as to the function and role of the workers’ organizations in the Islamic Republic of Iran and those of the Government in handling labour market disputes and developments. The Government states that the complainants perhaps recall the long unyielding monopoly held by the Workers’ House as the then most representative workers’ organization and do not wish to change their attitude by acknowledging the changing patterns and new developments in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s labour relations. Respecting the freedom of workers to choose the Islamic Labour Councils, despite its apparent contradiction with the definition of workers’ organization and the questionable presence of management representatives within them, does not by any means equate to their being used as arms of the Government in the workplace. According to the Government, although it has not ratified Conventions Nos 87 and 98, it is determined to further promote the establishment of free employers’ and workers’ organizations. The new amendments currently under way allow for a multiplicity of employers’ and workers’ organizations and the break-away faction of the Islamic Labour Councils of the SHVATH to form their own independent trade unions.
55. 1178. The Government states that the Citizen’s Rights Supervisory and Inspection Board has heard the union’s case and ruled in their favour. Concurrently, the National Committee on Human Rights (established within the judiciary) is also diligently looking into the union’s case; its report will be provided shortly.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1179. The Committee notes that the present case concerns acts of harassment against members of the union, including: demotions, transfers, and suspensions without pay of union members; acts of violence against trade unionists; and numerous instances of the arrest and detention of trade union leaders and members.
2. 1180. The Committee notes the numerous alleged violations stemming from the period of the union’s founding, from March to June 2005, according to which several trade unionists were summoned for questioning and interrogated in the company’s offices, transferred, demoted, and fired. According to the complainant, the trade unionists Ali Rafil, Parviz Faminbar and Moosa Paykyar were all subject to compulsory transfers, whereas the latter two were also frequently summoned to the company’s security office for questioning. The following were subject to various forms of harassment, including demotions, transfers, and the cancellation of overtime, before being dismissed: Abdollah Haji Romanan, Abdolreza Tarazi, Ahmad Farshi, Ali Zadeh Hosseini, Ayat Jadidi, Ebrahim Madadi and Mansour Osanloo. In addition to these trade unionists, the complainants allege that ten others were also dismissed: Abbas Najand Kodaki, Allakbar Pir Hadi, Amir Takhiri, Atta Babakhani, Hassan Karimi, Hassan Mohammadi, Mahmoud Hojabti, Naser Gholami, Reza Nematipour and Seyed Behrooz Hosseini.
3. 1181. The Committee recalls in this respect that acts of intimidation and harassment against workers, by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, violate the right to organize. Moreover, the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 786 and 817]. The Committee notes that, regrettably, the Government’s reply provides no specific information respecting the many allegations of anti-union discrimination noted, particularly as regards the harassment and interrogations at the workplace and the numerous demotions and transfers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that a full and independent investigation is carried out into the allegations of various types of workplace harassment and to transmit a detailed report in this regard. It further requests the Government, in light of the information revealed by the investigation, to take the necessary measures to ensure that all employees at the company are effectively protected against any form of discrimination related to their trade union membership or their trade union activities.
4. 1182. The Committee notes that, in addition to the 17 trade unionists dismissed from March to June 2005, the complainant also alleges the mass dismissal of 46 workers in March 2006, at around the same time that mass actions were being organized by the union, outside various government offices and the company’s headquarters, to protest the continued barring from work of 1,000 workers who had been without pay for six weeks. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the employer had dismissed the concerned parties due to the damages they inflicted on work premises and property, as well as for negligence in the execution of their duties, and that furthermore no workers were dismissed due to labour protests. Additionally, the Government states that the disciplinary action taken against the workers was very mild: all were set free and reinstated after four months with full wage arrears for the period of suspension.
5. 1183. The Committee notes that the Government’s brief and general statement concerning the activities of the employer in relation to the union members are in direct contradiction with the complainant’s allegations. It observes with regret, nevertheless, that the Government’s reply respecting this matter is of a vague and general nature. The information provided does not specify which workers were dismissed, and on which occasions; nor does it indicate whether or not the workers alleged to have damaged company property were convicted of such wrongdoing by a court, following a trial in which all guarantees of due process of law were observed. It further notes the Government’s general comment that most of these issues have been resolved, without any particular details in this respect. In these circumstances, and moreover in light of the seriousness of the complainant’s allegations, the Committee requests the Government to undertake a full and independent inquiry into all the dismissals alleged by the complainant, both during the March–June 2005 period and in March 2006, and to take the necessary measures to ensure that those trade unionists who have not yet been reinstated and were found to have been the subject of anti-union discrimination are fully reinstated in their previous positions without loss of pay. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of the employment status of all those workers named in the complaint and indicate, for those who have not been reinstated, the reasons why reinstatement has not occurred.
6. 1184. The Committee notes with grave concern the allegations respecting the attack on the union’s founding meeting on 9 May 2005 in which members of the Workers’ House and the company’s Islamic Shora wounded ten members of the founding committee – trade union leader Mansour Osanloo suffered knife wounds – and caused significant damage to the meeting premises. The complainant alleges moreover that union meetings were violently disbanded on two other occasions, 13 May and 1 June 2005; at the latter meeting, members were attacked by “Molotov cocktails” or similar firebombs, which caused damage to the building in which the meeting was held. The Committee stresses, with respect to these allegations, that a climate of violence, such as one in which the premises and property of workers are attacked, constitutes a serious obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights and requires severe measures to be taken by the authorities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 46]. Accordingly, the Committee urges the Government to immediately institute a full and independent judicial inquiry into the attacks, in order to clarify the facts, determine responsibilities, punish those responsible and prevent the repetition of such acts and to keep it informed of the outcome.
7. 1185. The Committee notes with grave concern the many alleged instances concerning the arrest and detention of trade unionists, often attended by acts of violence by the authorities, which it summarizes as follows:
8. - The 7 September 2005 arrest of several union members, including Mansour Osanloo, during a protest against unpaid wages. The arrested members were charged with “disturbing public order”, then provisionally released in the days that followed.
9. - The 22 December 2005 arrest, for “illegal trade union activities”, of 13 trade union leaders, including Mansour Osanloo. By 25 December all of the detained were released, with the exception of Mr Osanloo; however six trade union members – Mansour Hayat Gheibi, Ebrahim Madadi, Abdolreza Tarazi, Qlamreza Mirza’l, Abbas Najanci Kodaki and Ali Zadeh Hosseini – were summoned to appear in court on 6 January 2006 on charges of “disturbing public order”.
10. - The arrest of 100 union members on 27 January 2006, one day before the staging of an announced strike to call for the release of union leader Mansour Osanloo. On 28 January 2006, the strike was repressed by security forces using tear gas and batons, resulting in serious injury to approximately 30 workers. Hundreds of bus drivers, their wives and even children were transferred to the Evin Prison and, according to several sources, more than 1,000 people were detained on that day. By 22 February 2006 all detainees had been released, except the seven executive committee members of the union: Mansour Osanloo, Ebrahim Madadi, Mansour Hayat Gheibi, Yussaff Moradi, Yagoub Salimi, Ali Zadeh Hosseini, and Mohammad Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari.
11. - The arrest of 13 trade unionists in connection with the 1 May 2006 rally outside the company. The 13 union members were released on 6 May 2006.
12. - The 15 July 2006 arrest of eight trade unionists in connection with a peaceful rally in front of the Labour Ministry. They were released on 19 July 2006.
13. - The arrest of two members of the union’s board of directors, Seyed Davoud Razavi and Abdolreza Tarazi, as well as trade union activist Golamreza Golam Hosseini, on 3 December 2006 while distributing trade union leaflets to fellow bus drivers. Messrs Razavi and Tarazi were released the same evening, whereas Mr Hosseini remained in detention as his family could not provide bail. All three were scheduled to appear in court the following day.
14. 1186. With regard to these allegations, the Committee again observes that, regrettably, the Government provides little information and instead largely confines itself to declarations of a vague and general nature. The Government refers to clashes between the union and members of the SHVATH Islamic Labour Council, stating that the police were forced to intervene to maintain discipline, stop the loss of public property and prevent the spread of social unrest, and that individuals from both sides were taken into custody and subsequently released. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s indications that, as long as workers maintained their poise in assemblies, the police refrained from intervening in their affairs, and that furthermore the majority of arrests lasted no more than two hours. Recalling that the arrest and detention, even if only briefly, of trade union leaders and trade unionists for exercising legitimate trade union activities constitute serious violations of the principle of freedom of association [see Digest, op. cit., paras 62 and 66], the Committee urges the Government to take the steps necessary to ensure that trade unionists may exercise their freedom of association rights, including the right to peaceful assembly, without fear of intervention by the authorities.
15. 1187. The Committee notes with grave concern the allegations surrounding the arrest and detention of Mansour Osanloo, who according to the complainant was arrested on 22 December 2005 and allegedly charged with having contact with Iranian opposition groups and instigating an armed revolt against the authorities, without being granted access to a lawyer and remaining in prison without trial for over six months. The Committee notes the alleged irregularities respecting Mr Osanloo’s detention, in particular that: (1) Mr Osanloo was detained for roughly nine months, in Evin Prison’s high security “section 209”; (2) his first meeting with his lawyers came six months after his arrest, on 24 June 2006; (3) he was subject to frequent interrogations and periods of solitary confinement; (4) he was released on 9 August 2006, with bail set at the exorbitant amount of 150 million toman (US$165,000); (5) Mr Osanloo was re-arrested on 19 November 2006.
16. 1188. The Committee deplores the fact that the Government provides no information respecting the extremely serious allegations respecting Mansour Osanloo, other than to say that it is “preparing the ground for his release”. The Committee emphasizes that union leaders should not be subject to retaliatory measures, and in particular arrest and detention without trial, for having exercised their freedom of association rights. Furthermore, the apprehension and systematic or arbitrary interrogation by the police of trade union leaders involves a danger of abuse and could constitute a serious attack on trade union rights. Moreover, measures of preventive detention may involve a serious interference with trade union activities which can only be justified by the existence of a serious situation or an emergency and which would be open to criticism unless accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period [see Digest, op. cit., paras 74 and 76]. Given the length of Mr Osanloo’s detention and the allegations of his lengthy imprisonment without access to legal counsel – not denied by the Government – the Committee considers that the preventive detention of Mr Osanloo was a clear interference in the union’s exercise of its activities in defence of its members’ interests. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure Mr Osanloo’s immediate release from detention and to drop all charges against him relating to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities. In addition, the Committee urges the Government to duly inform Mr Osanloo of any other charges brought against him and ensure that his case is brought to trial without delay and that he enjoys all the guarantees of due process of law, including the right to a full and fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and the right to appeal, with full rights of representation by legal counsel and adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. The Committee urges the Government to provide full, detailed and precise information respecting Mansour Osanloo’s case and his current circumstances.
17. 1189. The Committee requests the Government to provide full and detailed information respecting the situation of Mansour Hayat Gheibi, Ebrahim Madadi, Abdolreza Tarazi, Qlamreza Mirza’l, Abbas Najanci Kodaki and Ali Zadeh Hosseini – all of whom were charged with “disturbing public order”, and to transmit any court judgements rendered in this respect.
18. 1190. As regards the question of the registration of the union, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the current legal framework does not permit the existence of both an Islamic Labour Council and a union at the same enterprise and that it has no record of any registration on the part of the union. While noting the Government’s indication that it determined to amend the Labour Law to address this issue, the Committee observes that it has been taking note of the Government’s efforts in this regard for a number of years. The Committee therefore urges the Government to deploy all efforts as a matter of urgency to amend the labour legislation so as to bring it into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association and to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard. The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard. In the meantime, the Committee urges the Government to take all measures to ensure that trade unions can be formed and function without hindrance, including through the de facto recognition of the union.