Informe provisional - Informe núm. 389, Junio 2019

1. 412. The Committee last examined the complaint from the Confederation of Public and Private Sector Workers (CTSP) at its June 2018 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 386th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 333rd Session (June 2018), paras 341–352].
2. 413. In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee has been obliged to postpone its examination of this case twice. At its March 2019 meeting, the Committee expressed regret at the Government’s persistent non-cooperation and launched an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that a report would be presented on the substance of the matter at its next meeting, even if the information or observations requested had not been received on time. In a communication dated 7 May 2019, the Government explains that this delay is due to the various crises that the country has experienced since the complaint was lodged in 2016 and merely recalls the applicable legislation on the protection of the right to organise.
3. 414. Haiti 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. 415. During its previous examination of the case, in June 2018, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 386th Report, para. 352]:
   • (a) The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not replied to the allegations, even though it has been asked to do so on several occasions, including through an urgent appeal, and requests it to reply as soon as possible.
   • (b) In the light of the scant and contradictory information brought to its attention, the Committee calls on the Government and on the complainant organization to provide precise information concerning the establishment of the SPH (date of establishment, registration procedure, statutes …) and the conditions of its alleged dissolution.
   • (c) The Committee calls on the Government to expedite an independent inquiry into the allegations concerning the automatic laying off of the union representatives concerned, namely Messrs Daniel Dantes, Fely Desire, Jean Estima Fils, Petit-Maitre Jean-Jacques, Ronald Joseph, Harold Colson Lazarre, Amos Musac and Guito Phadael, and to provide information on their present situation. If it is found that acts of anti-union discrimination have been committed by the Directorate General of the Post Office, the Committee calls on the Government to take the necessary measures of redress, including ensuring that the workers concerned are reinstated without loss of pay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken in this regard and the results of those measures, and to indicate whether any court rulings have been issued in these cases.
   • (d) In light of the issues raised in this complaint, the Committee invites the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 416. The Committee deplores that, despite the time which has elapsed since the submission of the complaint, the Government has not provided the requested observations and information in response to the allegations made by the complainant organization and the Committee’s recommendations, even though it has been asked to do so on several occasions, including through urgent appeals. While noting the crisis situation referred to by the government in its communication of 7 May 2019, the Committee firmly urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 417. Under these circumstances and in accordance with the applicable procedural rule [see 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (1972)], the Committee is obliged to presenta report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 418. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of alleged violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect for trade union rights in law and in fact. The Committee is confident that, while this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, they must recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations brought against them [see First Report, 1952, para. 31]. The Committee calls on the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
4. 419. The Committee recalls that the allegations in this case concern the automatic laying off of union officials working in the postal sector in 2012, their non-reinstatement in their posts and the dissolution of their well-established union. The union representatives concerned are Mr Daniel Dantes, Mr Fely Desire, Mr Jean Estima Fils, Mr Petit-Maitre Jean-Jacques, Mr Ronald Joseph, Mr Harold Colson Lazarre, Mr Amos Musac and Mr Guito Phadael.
5. 420. The Committee deeply regrets that neither the Government nor the complainant organization has provided the requested information concerning the establishment of the Haiti Postal Workers’ Union (SPH) (date of establishment, registration procedure, statutes and so on) and the circumstances surrounding its alleged dissolution. It also deeply regrets not receiving any information from the Government on the automatic laying off of the above mentioned union representatives, the latter having confined itself to recalling the legislation on the protection of the right to organise. Such actions against union officials, reinforced by the Government’s silence over the steps taken to ensure their protection, such as by conducting an independent inquiry as quickly as possible, would appear to corroborate the more general allegations of non-observance of union rights in the country.
6. 421. Under these circumstances, the Committee finds itself obliged to refer the Government to its conclusions from its last examination of this case [see 386th Report, paras 341–352] and to recall all of its previous recommendations.