Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 7, 1954

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  14. 14 The complaint contains the following allegations:
• Discrimination Exercised by Employers' and Other Workers' Organisations in the Free Territory
  15. 15 It is alleged that employers' organisations, with the collusion of other workers' organisations, refuse to recognise the complaining Confederation, will not bargain collectively with it and will not conclude collective agreements to which the Confederation is a party, although the Confederation has been recognised and registered in due form according to the law. As a result, it is claimed that it is made impossible for the Confederation to carry on its trade union activities on behalf of its members and that workers in Trieste are deprived of their freedom to join the trade union Organisation which they consider most appropriate to defend their interests. Correspondence is annexed to the complaint to show that the complaining organisation has tried in vain to secure recognition by the employers or to enlist the aid of the Allied Military Government in making the employers accord recognition.
• Discrimination Exercised by the Allied Military Government
  16. 16 It is alleged that the complaining Organisation has been systematically excluded from participation in the discussion and regulation of problems relating to social security institutions, unemployment, cost-of-living committees, sickness and accident institutions, has been excluded from meetings of a trade union nature sponsored by the Zone Presidency and the Allied Military Government and, more particularly, has been refused the right to be represented on the Port Labour Committee set up by the Allied Military Government although one of its constituent trade unions has members among the dockworkers. Correspondence is annexed to the complaint to show that representations made by the complainant to the Allied Military Government have failed to persuade the latter to change its attitude.
• Analysis of the Reply
  17. 17 In its reply dated 27 March 1953 the Allied Military Government makes the following observations:
• Allegations concerning Discrimination Exercised by Employers' and Other Workers' Organisations in the Free Territory
  18. 18 The Government denies that workers in Trieste are refused the right to join organisations of their own choice, pointing out that in fact there are three trade union federations (including the complainant) in Trieste, each with a different economic or political outlook, and that, from the legal point of view, General Order No. 4 of 6 July 1945, issued by the Allied Military Government provides for the right of employees to organise and to bargain collectively through their own chosen representatives. But it is not the policy of the Government to intervene in matters involving negotiations between unions and employers or to compel collaboration between unions. Experience has shown that trade unions in Trieste have been able in practice to conclude collective agreements in sectors of industry in which they have any substantial membership and, in support of their demands, unions have freely exercised the right to strike. The complainant organisation also has the same right to strike and has also been able to conclude collective agreements in " those few segments of trade where it has a sufficient following ".
• Allegations concerning Discrimination Exercised by the Allied Military Government
  19. 19 The complainant, when the Port Labour Council was established, had no organisation of port workers and was therefore refused the right to be represented. When the Order establishing the Council was issued, all the other labour organisations represented already had registered affiliated port unions. Subsequently the complainant failed to send representatives to a conference connected with the election of port labour representatives although invited to do so. In March 1953 (that is, subsequent to the complaint) the complaining organisation was represented at a conference for the discussion of election procedure with respect to the annual election of port labour representatives. With reference to the claim that the complainant has been excluded from various committees established by the Allied Military Government, most of these committees were established prior to the formation of the complaining organisation and several had, by then, ceased to operate. It is not at present considered expedient to reorganise the existing committees so as to include representatives of the complainant because the latter represents a very small number of workers in the Zone and there is no evidence that it has a substantial following in any single industry or a majority in any single industrial plant.
  20. 20 In conclusion, the Allied Military Government considers that the complaint is inspired by the numerical weakness of the organisation in question and that any government attempt to redress the balance would not be in the best interests of the workers or of their organisations as it would interfere with the orderly practices and procedures of collective bargaining.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Allegations concerning Discrimination Exercised by Employers' and Other Workers' Organisations
  21. 21 The essence of the allegation is that employers' organisations refuse to bargain collectively with the complainant organisation although they bargain and conclude collective agreements with the other workers' organisations in the Zone. So far as other workers' organisations are concerned it is alleged simply that they give their tacit agreement to the continuance of this situation and do not collaborate with the complainant. It is not suggested that the Government has done anything except refuse to intervene in the matter, as the Government itself confirms. The Committee, therefore, has concerned itself only with the first point mentioned above.
  22. 22 In a previous case (that concerning the complaint presented by the Guiana Industrial Workers' Union against the United Kingdom Government in respect of British Guiana) the Committee, noting that the Government had registered the complaining union under the law of the land so that it was legally free to seek to conclude collective agreements, but that in the case in question the Government was not bound under any law to enforce collective bargaining by compulsory means and had left the issue to be settled freely by the parties concerned, took the view that the complainant had not offered sufficient proof that trade union rights had been infringed and, therefore, recommended the Governing Body to decide that the case did not call for further examination. The Committee considers that the present allegation is based on substantially similar circumstances and that, with regard to this allegation, it should formulate a similar conclusion.
  23. 23 In the circumstances the Committee considers that the complainant has not offered sufficient proof that trade union rights have been infringed, so far as these allegations are concerned, and recommends the Governing Body to decide that this part of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations concerning Discrimination Exercised by the Allied Military Government
  • (a) Allegation concerning the Port Labour Council
    24. 24 The complainant alleges that the Government admits that the Port Labour Council was instituted in 1951 without the complainant being allowed to send representatives. The Order instituting the Port Labour Council in 1951 provided for the inclusion of three trade union representatives and the Government invited the three organisations which had registered affiliated port unions prior to the promulgation of the Order to send one each, but excluded the complaining organisation on the ground that it had no such registered affiliate. The complainant, in its letter to the Labour Office dated 19 April 1951, admitted that it did not yet have any dockers' union among its affiliates but that one of these affiliates contained " a number of dockworkers ". In the subsequent documentation the complainant offers no evidence that its position with regard to dockworker affiliates has altered. Despite what would appear to be the comparative smallness of its membership among port workers, the Government states that the complainant was invited to send representatives to one conference in connection with the election of port labour representatives, but did not do so, while in March 1953, subsequent to the complaint, it was represented at a conference for discussing the procedure for the annual election of such representatives.
    25. 25 In the light of the foregoing evidence the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to offer sufficient proof that it has any organisations membership among port workers, compared with the fact that the other organisations concerned all have affiliated dockers' unions, as to make it appear that failure to include a representative of the organisation in the membership of the Port Labour Council could be regarded as involving a violation of trade union rights.
    26. 26 The Committee notes, further, that since the date of the complaint the complaining organisation has in fact been represented at a conference dealing with the procedure for election of port labour representatives.
    27. 27 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this allegation does not call for further examination.
  • (b) Allegation concerning Representation on Various Committees
    28. 28 The essence of this allegation is that the complainant has not been invited by the Government to participate in various committees established by the Government although the other trade unions have been invited to do so. The Government's main points in reply to this are that most of the committees were formed before the complaining organisation was registered, that many have ceased to operate and that the membership of the complaining organisation is very small so that it is not expedient to disorganise present arrangements by reorganising the existing committees. The complainant makes the point that in 1949, out of 90,000 workers in the Zone, it had 10,000 members but that many new affiliated unions were subsequently formed. While its membership is now, therefore, implied to be more than 10,000, the complaining organisation does not offer relative recent figures concerning the other organisations represented on the existing committees. The Government's view is that, whatever its precise membership may be, it is not sufficient to justify reorganisation of the existing committees.
    29. 29 While it would seem desirable that governments, when sponsoring joint committees of the kind in question dealing with matters affecting the interests of workers, should make appropriate provision for the representation of different sections of the trade union movement having a substantial interest in the questions at issue, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the complainant has not offered sufficient evidence to show that its present strength is such that it is being discriminated against in favour of rival trade union organisations which are not more representative of the workers.
    30. 30 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.