Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 1987, Publication : 73ème session CIT (1987)

A Government representative recalled that, when the position of the staff at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had been discussed by the Committee in 1985, the United Kingdom Government representative had made a detailed statement of the reasons why the Government considered its action with regard to GCHQ to be in conformity with its obligations under Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 151, which were clearly inter-related. Since that discussion, the matters referred to in the case had been regularly considered by the Committee on Freedom of Association. He wished to draw the present Committee's attention to some very important developments not mentioned by the Committee of Experts, which had arisen from action taken by an umbrella organisation representing affiliates of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), which had initiated the comments submitted to the Committee of Experts and the complaints brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association.

In 1985 that organisation-the Council of Civil Service Unions-and certain individual applicants currently or formerly employed at GCHQ, had introduced an application before the European Commission on Human Rights, claiming that the Government's action with regard to GCHQ was incompatible with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes guarantees of freedom of association. The proceedings had concluded in January 1986 with a decision by the Commission that the application was inadmissible. That decision had not, however, exhausted the proceedings in the matter, since the Commission also had before it an application made on behalf of two individual members of the GCHQ staff which covered the same general ground. His Government would be in a position to consider its response to the observations made by the Committee of Experts once the application to the European Commission on Human Rights had finally been disposed of, and it hoped to be in a position to submit that response in time for the session of the Committee on Freedom of Association to be held in November.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom said that, in view of the fact that the issue under consideration was also the subject of legal proceedings elsewhere, some advice from the ILO as to how the matter could continue to be dealt with might be helpful at some stage. However, in the opinion of the United Kingdom trade union movement, it was quite clear that, regardless of what happened elsewhere, the case still had to be considered by the Committee of Experts and by the present Committee. The salient facts were that during the national strikes in 1981, the staff at GCHQ had joined the strikes for one or two days, as a token of solidarity. The security of the country had not been affected and no real harm had been done. In retaliation, some two or three years afterwards their right to choose their own union had been denied to them. Staff had been offered //cf1,000 to give up their rights, with the alternative of dismissal or compulsory transfer to another part of the country. Indeed, some had already been made redundant or had been paid off with early pensions, and some had had to undergo considerable harassment. The majority of the staff had actually accepted the bribe. There had been no violence, but that was no reason why the Committee should not take up the violation of this Convention.

Some employees had had the courage to stay with the union, and some had even rejoined it, precisely because they had been given heart both by the reports of the Committee of Experts and by the discussions which had taken place at the Conference. That was why the Committee's observations on the report of the Committee of Experts must record the continued failure of the Government to observe the Convention. The dialogue between the Civil Service Union and the Government recommended by the Committee of Experts continued to be ignored. It was thus very important to place on record the fact that there had been a breach of the Convention and that the breach was still continuing. Whatever happened at the European Commission on Human Rights would presumably be reported to the Committee of Experts, and it might be wise to leave the matter to that Committee, which could then report back to the present Committee in 1988. It was, however, important to establish that the case could not simply fade away.

The Employers' members said that there were serious legal difficulties in drawing a line between Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 151 in the case under consideration. According to Convention No. 151, the Government could lay down the conditions for freedom of association for employees who carried out certain functions of a confidential nature. That could be so in the present case, although the point was in dispute. The report of the Committee of Experts had indicated that in practice some negotiation had taken place and that some degree of agreement had been reached; nevertheless, certain problems were still outstanding and the trade unions wanted to have a final decision. The result of the complaint pending before the European Commission on Human Rights would have some significance for the case. It was an extremely complicated situation, and the Committee of Experts would have to consider it again in the light of further information.

The Workers' members said that they could not agree that further consideration of the case should be postponed until next year. The Committee of Experts had trusted that action would be taken on its suggestion that negotiations should be instituted between the Civil Service Union and the Government with a view to arriving at an agreement so as to ensure full respect for the obligations under the Convention. The present Committee would have to note with regret that no such action had yet been taken by the Government. If the case was held over until next year, the Committee of Experts would have the same remarks to make. It was to be hoped that the Government and the trade unions would consider together how they could satisfy the request made by the Committee of Experts. In any case, a distinction should be made between freedom of association and the right to strike.

The Government representative said that the legal proceedings before the European Commission on Human Rights were expected to be concluded fairly soon. He was confident that his Government would submit a substantive report to the Committee on Freedom of Association at its November session.