Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 25, 1957

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 17. The complaints are embodied in a communication dated January 1956, addressed by the New York Branch of the Federation of Greek Maritime Unions to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and transmitted by him to the International Labour Organisation, in further communications addressed directly to the I.L.O by the same branch of the complaining organisation on 23 May, 21 June and 5 July 1956 and in communications to the I.L.O from the Cardiff Branch of the complaining organisation dated 22 June, 17 July, 4 August and 20 August 1956. As these complaints deal with related matters, they may conveniently be analysed together.
   • Allegations relating to the Questioning, Arrest and Deportation of Greek Seamen from the United States
2. 18. These allegations are contained in the original communication dated January 1956. It is contended that, since the enactment of the McCarran Act, Greek seamen are subjected by the American authorities, acting in consultation with the Greek consular and port authorities, to interrogation, arrest and deportation, in violation of freedom of association and elementary human rights, 20 having been arrested in November 1955 in New York City alone. According to the complainant, Greek seamen in the United States, and especially in New York, are arrested by agents of the Immigration Department and of the F.B.I in their homes, in restaurants, in trade union premises, in shipping offices and even in the streets, in order to be interrogated ; questions are put to them concerning their relatives, trade union affiliation and religious and political beliefs and their answers written down on documents which are kept by the authorities. It is alleged that the men are not allowed to have a lawyer and are forced by psychological pressure and physical abuse to answer the questions put and to sign their statements, written in a language which they do not understand, and are then arrested and subsequently deported. The complainant claims to be in possession of black lists compiled by Greek shipowners and used as a guide by the authorities in the United States and other N.A.T.O countries in their persecution of Greek seamen. In the view of the complainant the black lists and the questioning of seamen are intended to remove from the ranks of Greek seamen those who fight to preserve peace and to undermine their struggle " to re-establish trade union and democratic liberties in Greece and to liberate their homeland ".
   • Allegations relating to the Deportation of Messrs. Frangos, Margaritas, Tatakis and Zanikos
3. 19. The complainant states, in the aforesaid communication dated January 1956, that the application of the above measures is not confined to unemployed seamen but that federal agents board Greek ships and question the seamen there. According to their replies they are allowed to land, or are refused permission to leave the ship, or are arrested and deported to Greece as in the cases of Pangiotis Frangos, Pangiotis Margaritis and Dimitrios Tatakis, the last-named -an executive of the Deck Officers' Union-it is alleged, having been deported in 1945 to Greece, where he was sent to the Greek concentration camp of Makronissos, in which he died " after 40 days and nights of torture ", and in the case of a man named Zanikos, stated to have been deported to Greece about two years prior to the date of the complaint and never to have been heard of since.
   • Allegations relating to Deportations from the N.A.T.O Countries
4. 20. It is alleged, still in the same communication dated January 1956, that in many of the N.A.T.O countries the police, acting under the direction of the United States authorities and in co-operation with the local Greek consular authorities, forcibly remove Greek seamen from their ships and deport them to Greece.
   • Allegations relating to the Case of Mr. Paschalidis
5. 21. All the other communications from the New York and Cardiff Branches of the Federation of Greek Maritime Unions relate to the case of Mr. Paul Paschalidis, Secretary of the said New York Branch. It was first alleged that, following the procedure applied in the case of other Greek trade union militants who, like Mr. Tatakis (referred to above), had been deported to Greece where they were held in concentration camps or executed, the Immigration Department of the United States was endeavouring to deport Mr. Paschalidis to Greece, where his life would be in danger. Subsequently, in two telegrams, the complainants declared that Mr. Paschalidis had been arrested and that his deportation to Greece was imminent. In its communication dated 5 July 1956 the New York Branch of the complaining organisation announced that the case of Mr. Paschalidis was then pending in the civil courts in the United States and outlined the history of those proceedings up to that date. The communication dated 17 July 1956 from the Cardiff Branch of the Federation of Greek Maritime Unions contained references to the same events. In the two latest communications from the complainants, dated 4 and 20 August 1956, however, it was announced, firstly, that habeas corpus proceedings had stayed the deportation of Mr. Paschalidis and subsequently, that he had voluntarily left the United States and gone to Europe.
6. 22. At its 14th Session (Geneva, 28-29 May 1956), the Committee, noting that it had received a reply from the Government of the United States relating to the first communication from the complaining organisation but had not at that time received any observations from the Greek Government, decided to adjourn its examination of the case until its 15th Session (November 1956). At that session the case was adjourned until the present session for the reasons indicated in paragraph 30 below.
   • ANALYSIS OF THE REPLIES
7. 23. The reply of the Government of the United States is contained in three communications dated 8 May and 12 September 1956 and 15 January 1957, and that of the Greek Government in three communications dated 1 June, 20 July and 30 August 1956. These replies are analysed below in relation to the respective allegations to which they refer.
   • Allegations relating to the Questioning, Arrest and Deportation of Greek Seamen from the United States
8. 24. The Government of the United States deals with these allegations in its communication dated 8 May 1956. It considers that they are similar to those which the Committee examined in Case No. 711 and that they are vague conclusions unsupported by any allegations of fact, and refers to the Committee's finding in Case No. 77. that no evidence had been offered to show that there had been any infringement of the exercise of trade union rights. The Government declares that, when the eligibility of Greek seamen for shore leave is being determined, rights and privileges accorded by international law and United States laws and administrative regulations are extended to them in the same way as to seamen of other nations. The examination necessarily embraces questions designed to show whether a person is admissible. The immigration officer initially decides whether a seaman should be allowed to land, be excluded or be deported, but each alien is advised of his right to submit any statement or information he may wish to the Attorney-General. The Government states that the examinations are conducted lawfully and ethically and that the charges as to the use of psychological pressure, physical abuse and misrepresentation are unfounded ; interpreters are used where necessary to ensure that the seaman understands the proceedings and the statement which he is asked to sign.
9. 25. If an alien seaman is determined to be ineligible for admission the master of his ship is required to detain him on board and deport him, but in this case the Immigration Service does not take him into custody. If such alien is transferred from one ship to another this is done by guards furnished by the shipping company ; he is never imprisoned or released on bail by the Immigration Service. The Government states that it has no evidence of any alien in the custody of the master of a ship being subjected to mistreatment, although he could make a complaint if he has been when the immigration officer sees him prior to the departure of the vessel.
10. 26. An alien seaman found to be unlawfully in the United States and against whom expulsion proceedings are instituted may be detained or released on bail, but the majority of such seamen, the Government declares, are released without a bond being furnished ; if they are kept in custody every consideration for their comfort is given and the proceedings are expedited. Physicians ensure any necessary medical care.
11. 27. In its reply dated 1 June 1956, the Greek Government states that the complaining organisation is an organisation with Communist officers which operates under the cloak of trade unionism and seeks to create " red nuclei " among the crews of Greek ships. The Government charges the organisation with various illegal or wrongful activities-sabotage, Communist propaganda and financial aid to communism, strikes, extortionate demands, delaying loading and unloading of ships, etc.-in consequence of which it was declared dissolved and outlawed in January 1948 by decision of the Attica District Public Security Committee.
12. 28. With regard to these allegations, which it characterises as political, the Greek Government states that its consular or other authorities in the United States have never applied for the arrest or deportation of any Greek seamen. If the United States authorities themselves proceed to expel Greek seamen violating the laws of the United States the Greek consular authorities are prepared to provide passports, but only if requested to do so by the competent United States authorities. For the rest, the question of expelling aliens is, in the view of the Greek Government, a matter falling within the sovereignty of the United States.
    • Allegations relating to the Deportation of Messrs. Frangos, Margaritis, Tatakis and Zanikos
13. 29. The Government of the United States declared, in the communication dated 8 May 1956, that Pangiotis Frangos was ordered to be held on board the S.S. Joshua at Savannah, on 31 January 1949, because he was not eligible for admission to the United States. He instituted habeas corpus proceedings, which were dismissed. In February 1949 he was escorted to New York, whence he departed for France. In May 1955 Pangiotis Margaritis, arriving at Baltimore on the S.S. Marcella, was declared to be inadmissible to the United States ; he was escorted to New York by agents of the steamship company and departed " for 11 a foreign destination".
14. 30. At its 15th Session (Geneva, November 1956), the Committee decided to instruct the Director-General to request the Government of the United States to furnish details as to the precise destination to which Mr. Margaritis departed and as to the destinations to which Mr. Tatakis and Mr. Zanikos were sent, if they were, in fact, deported as alleged, and adjourned its examination pending the receipt of this information. The Government of the United States furnished further information on these points in a communication dated 15 January 1957.
15. 31. In this last communication the Government makes the following observations. Mr. Margaritis arrived at Baltimore as a crewman on 27 May 1955 and was declared not to be admissible. The shipping agents concerned were allowed to remove him from the vessel and he left for a "foreign " destination by air on 29 May 1955 after arrangements for his departure had been made by the said agents and the attorney acting for Mr. Margaritis. Mr. Tatakis arrived at Philadelphia on 11 February 1945 as second officer of a Greek ship, was discharged and was granted shore leave, not to exceed 29 days : it was not until 10 May 1945 that he was taken into custody ; he was then paroled to the Greek consular authorities for early reshipment. He left New York in another ship on 6 June 1945 for a " foreign " destination. The records do not show that he was deported but rather that he "departed foreign voluntarily". The Government states that it cannot identify Mr. Zanikos. The Government adds that it is not its practice to influence or inquire into the destinations of excludable aliens who voluntarily arrange their departure from the United States ; United States law imposes on the carrier the duty to return the alien to the port from which he embarked to the United States. Hence, states the Government, it has no information as to the precise destinations of either Mr. Margaritis or Mr. Tatakis.
    • Allegations relating to Deportations from the N.A.T.O Countries
16. 32. Neither the Government of the United States nor the Government of Greece replies specifically to the allegations concerning the activities of their representatives in the different N.A.T.O countries.
    • Allegations relating to the Case of Mr. Paschalidis
17. 33. In its communication dated 12 September 1956 the Government of the United States declares that Mr. Paschalidis deserted his ship in August 1948 and remained unlawfully in the United States. Proceedings for his deportation were instituted in accordance with law, on the ground that he, as an alien, remained in the United States, after admission as a non-immigrant, for a longer time than was permissible under the existing laws and regulations. After the habeas corpus proceedings held in his case in July 1956 Mr. Paschalidis, by voluntary agreement, was deported to Poland on 8 August 1956.
18. 34. In its communication dated 20 July 1956 the Greek Government declares that this matter is one falling entirely and solely within the province of the United States authorities. In its communication dated 30 August 1956 the Government reiterates this view, adding that, according to information received through a press report, Mr. Paschalidis had gone from the United States to Poland.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Allegations relating to the Questioning, Arrest and Deportation of Greek Seamen from the United States
  35. 35 It is alleged that Greek seamen ashore in the United States are subjected to questioning by the United States immigration authorities, acting in consultation with the Greek consular authorities, who furnish them with black lists, this questioning including interrogation as to their trade union affiliation and political beliefs and being accompanied by psychological pressure and physical abuse, and that they are arrested and deported, in violation of freedom of association. It is further alleged that similar treatment is accorded to Greek seamen in ships arriving at United States ports, the men, according to their replies, being allowed ashore, being confined to their ships or being arrested and deported to Greece. In its reply the Government of the United States declares that, while persons who are found to be unlawfully ashore in the United States may be detained and then held or released with or without bail pending proceedings for their expulsion, no seamen aboard ships are arrested by the United States authorities. If they are found to be ineligible for admission they are ordered to remain on board or to be deported and, if this necessitates the transfer of a man from one ship to another, this is done by guards acting under the orders of the shipping company concerned. The Government denies that the men are subjected to any psychological pressure or mistreatment and declares that they are treated according to the immigration laws as applied to all aliens.
  36. 36 In Cases Nos. 71 and 95 relating to the United States and Case No. 70 relating to the United States and Greece, the Committee has already considered allegations which, so far as the actual questioning of Greek seamen arriving in ships is concerned, were substantially the same as those made in the present case. In Case No. 71 the Government of the United States, as it does now, explained the application of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952, and pointed out that it is applied to Greek seamen in the same way as to all other aliens and is in no way utilised so as to interfere with the exercise of trade union rights. In Case No. 95, following its reasoning in Case No. 71, the Committee, while it expressed the reservation that if the application of the measures complained against were to result in workers being dismissed or otherwise prejudiced because of their trade union affiliations they might infringe the principle that workers should have the right to join unions of their own choosing, took the view that the questioning of alien seamen before their admission to the national territory was a matter related to the sovereign right belonging to any country to decide who shall or who shall not be admitted to its territory and, referring specifically to certain earlier decisions, considered that it was not called upon to deal with the general questions of aliens not covered by international Conventions ; in such circumstances, the question being primarily one of the admission of aliens rather than of respect for a general human right, particularly cogent evidence of an infringement of trade union rights would be necessary. In both these cases, the Committee considered that the complainants had not offered sufficient proof to show that trade union rights had been infringed and that the allegations made did not merit further examination by the Governing Body. As the present case appears to add no new elements to those already examined with respect to the questioning of alien seamen, the Committee considers that it should formulate a similar conclusion.
  37. 37 In Case No. 70, already mentioned, the Committee also examined allegations that seamen were arrested and deported by the authorities in the United States. In that case, as in the present case, the Government of the United States pointed out that its services did not arrest men on board ships (although it now states that it may, in appropriate cases, order the ship masters to deport alien seamen), but did arrest persons who, having overstayed their leave or for other reasons, were found to be illegally in the United States, and took proceedings for their deportation according to normal judicial procedure and with all judicial guarantees provided for by law in the case of foreigners in general. The Committee took the view that the complainant had not furnished proof that there was in fact any violation of trade union rights. As the allegations in the present case add no new elements to the allegations as to expulsion made in Case No. 70 with respect to persons found to be ashore illegally, and in view of the Government's precise statement that, where persons on board ships are ordered to be deported by the ship master or company concerned, they are so ordered by application of the same laws and for similar reasons, the Committee considers, in this case also, that no proof has been furnished to show that any infringement of trade union rights has occurred in connection with the arrest and deportation of persons from the United States in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations relating to aliens in general.
  38. 38 So far as the Greek Government is concerned, the complaining organisation has offered no evidence in support of the allegation that the Greek consular authorities act in consultation with the authorities of the United States to secure the deportation of Greek seamen ; although it states that it is in possession of black lists of persons compiled by the Greek authorities for this purpose, it has not seen fit to place copies thereof at the disposal of the Committee despite having been given, in accordance with the procedure, an opportunity to furnish further evidence in substantiation of the complaint. The Greek Government, on the other hand, declares that its co-operation has been limited to providing passports through its consular authorities for those of its nationals who have been found to be illegally ashore in the United States when it has been requested to provide them by the United States authorities. In this connection, therefore, the Committee considers that no evidence has been offered to show that the activities of the Greek authorities have involved a violation of trade union rights.
• Allegations relating to the Deportation of Messrs. Frangos, Margaritis, Tatakis and Zanikos
  39. 39 As instances of the alleged deportation of Greek seamen on ships arriving in ports in the United States, the complainant contends that Pangiotis Frangos, Pangiotis Margaritis, Dimitrios Tatakis and a man named Zanikos are among those who have been deported to Greece, Tatakis being alleged to have died in a Greek concentration camp as the result of ill-treatment. The Government of the United States, in its communication dated 8 May 1956, stated that in fact, after being declared not to be legally admissible to the United States, and, in the case of Mr. Frangos, after proceedings for habeas corpus had been dismissed, Frangos and Margaritis were escorted to New York, whence Frangos went to France and Margaritis to a " foreign destination ". The Government made no reference in that communication to Zanikos or Tatakis.
  40. 40 At its 15th Session (Geneva, November 1956), the Committee noted that it had no precise information before it as to the destinations to which Messrs. Margaritis, Tatakis and Zanikos departed or were sent, and recalled that it had examined allegations concerning the death of Mr. Tatakis in Case No. 18 relating to Greece and had noted in that case that, " according to medical opinion on which it was not competent to express a view, his death was due to illness " after a period of detention of some 14 months. The Committee therefore decided at that session to request further information from the Government of the United States with respect to these matters.
  41. 41 In its communication dated 15 January 1957 the Government states that no trace can be found of the name of Zanikos and that the records do not reveal the precise foreign destinations to which Messrs. Margaritis and Tatakis went. But the Government points out that Mr. Margaritis left by air after arrangements for his departure had been completed between his own attorney and the agents of the vessel in which he arrived. The Government states that its records show that Mr. Tatakis arrived in the United States by ship over 12 years ago, and was granted shore leave not exceeding 29 days, but that he stayed ashore for three months before being taken into custody ; the records indicate not that he was deported but that he left for a foreign destination voluntarily.
  42. 42 In the case of Mr. Frangos, the first person mentioned by the complainants as a specific instance of the alleged deportation of Greek seamen in ships arriving in the United States, no specific allegation is made that he held trade union office or was deported on the ground of trade union activity. It would appear from the Government's reply that Mr. Frangos was declared to be inadmissible to the United States under the legislation applicable to aliens in general, that he enjoyed the benefits of due legal process in that he was able to institute habeas corpus proceedings in accordance with the laws of the United States and that it was only after the dismissal of those proceedings that Mr. Frangos had to depart from New York, not for Greece as alleged, but for France. Apart from the fact that the name of the person is given, it would not appear that the allegations relating to Mr. Frangos add any new element to the matters already considered by the Committee when it examined, in paragraphs 35 to 38 above, allegations relating, among other things, to the deportation of Greek seamen. The Committee therefore considers, as it did with respect to the allegations examined in paragraphs 35 to 38, and for the same reasons, that no proof has been furnished to show that the measures taken with respect to Mr. Frangos constituted an infringement of trade union rights.
  43. 43 The case of Mr. Margaritis is substantially similar to that of Mr. Frangos, in that he also was declared to be inadmissible, when he arrived by ship, and was ordered to leave the country. Again no specific allegation is made that the measures taken in his case were occasioned by trade union activities. Although he did not institute habeas corpus proceedings and the Government states that it cannot say to what destination he went, it would seem that his own attorney took part in making the arrangements for his departure by air from the United States. In his case, as in that of Mr. Frangos, and for similar reasons, the Committee considers that no proof has been furnished to show that the measures taken constituted an infringement of trade union rights.
  44. 44 The case of Mr. Zanikos is alleged in less precise terms and the Government declares that it cannot trace his name in its records. The Committee considers, in any event, that the allegations relating to him again add nothing to the matters examined in paragraphs 35 to 38 above and that no proof has been furnished to show that there was any infringement of trade union rights in his case.
  45. 45 The case of Mr. Tatakis is somewhat different, in that he was alleged to have been an executive member of the Deck Officers' Union. No specific allegation is made that his trade union activities were the reason for his being made to leave the United States. The Government, in fact, declares that he was allowed to land in the United States for a period not exceeding 29 days, but that it was three months later that he was arrested in the territory of the United States and that, even then, the records make it appear that he " departed foreign voluntarily ".
  46. 46 In Case No. 18 relating to Greece, to which reference has already been made, the Committee was called upon to examine allegations relating to the death of Mr. Tatakis, which apparently occurred in 1950, and made recommendations in the matter which were approved by the Governing Body almost four years ago. The allegations made in the present case with respect to Mr. Tatakis, in a complaint dated January 1956, relate to events occurring almost 11 years before the date of the complaint and five years before the events examined by the Committee in Case No. 18. In a considerable number of countries the institution of legal proceedings very frequently becomes statute-barred after the lapse of a certain number of years. While no formal rules fixing any particular period of prescription are embodied in the procedure for the examination of complaints alleging infringements of trade union rights, the general principle of prescription cannot be disregarded and, where a complaint is presented with respect to matters which occurred as many as ten years prior to the date of the complaint, not only may it be more difficult for a government to reply in detail to the allegations but it may even be unreasonable in some cases to expect it to be able to furnish a fully satisfactory reply. In such cases it would be appropriate to expect a proper explanation by the complainant as to why the presentation of the complaint has been so long delayed-as might be afforded, for example, if a complainant had been under duress, or if officers of a complaining organisation had long been in custody, or if the evidence in substantiation of a complaint had only recently come to light. The Committee therefore considers that, in the absence of a reasonable explanation for such long delay, it should pay particular attention to this fact in deciding whether it is appropriate for it to examine the merits of the complaint, for the reason that it may be difficult to decide in some cases how much reliance is to be placed on the evidence, or even on the bona fides, of a complainant who sees fit to let several years elapse before presenting a complaint based on matters which could have been alleged at a much earlier date.
  47. 47 The force of these arguments is demonstrated by the situation in the present case. Almost 11 years elapsed between the events complained of and the presentation of the complaint, and certain discrepancies exist between the history of Mr. Tatakis as given in the present case and his history as given in Case No. 18 relating to Greece, referred to above, and in Case No. 551, also relating to Greece. In the present case the complainant implies that the deportation of Mr. Tatakis to Greece in June 1945 led at once, or at least directly, to confinement in a concentration camp for 40 days, his death ensuing after that period. But the World Federation of Trade Unions, in a complaint dated 30 May 1951, examined by the Committee in Case No. 55, declared that Mr. Tatakis had been murdered by the Greek Government since 1947 because of his trade union activities, and it will be recalled that in Case No. 18 relating to Greece the Government of Greece furnished a copy of a death certificate in which it was stated that Mr. Tatakis died on 10 January 1950, following, according to that Government, a period of 14 months' imprisonment. While the evidence in the present case is conflicting in that Mr. Tatakis is alleged to have been deported to Greece and that the Government of the United States states that its records indicate that he departed for a foreign destination voluntarily, there would also appear to be considerable doubt whether, if he did go to Greece in June 1945, his arrival there was followed at that time by imprisonment and death. In any event, in view of the specific statement by the Government of the United States that Mr. Tatakis had not been declared to be inadmissible to the United States but had been granted shore leave for a period not to exceed 29 days, and was only arrested when he had overstayed his leave by more than two months and was then subjected to the normal legal procedures applicable to all aliens guilty of this particular contravention of the law, the Committee considers that no sufficient evidence has been offered to show that the measures taken against him were occasioned by his trade union activities.
  48. 48 The Committee has been called upon in the past to examine a considerable number of allegations, apart from those made in the present case, that persons have been refused admission to or been deported from the United States in violation of trade union rights. Such allegations were made, for example, in Cases Nos. 71 and 95 relating to the United States and in Cases Nos. 45 and 70 relating to the United States and Greece. In all the cases mentioned, the Committee reached the conclusion that the various allegations as to deportation revealed no proof that any infringement of trade union rights had occurred and that the evidence showed that the different measures taken were taken pursuant to the same legislation as applied to any aliens who were declared, according to law, to be inadmissible to the national territory, or who illegally overstayed the period of shore leave granted to them, and subject to the right of the persons concerned to seek the normal legal remedies available in such cases. In view of the fact that the allegations as to deportations made in the present case add no substantially new elements to the type of evidence adduced by the complainants in the earlier cases mentioned, the Committee considers it appropriate to point out that where a country exercises its sovereign right to exclude aliens from or to oblige aliens to depart from its national territory, in accordance with legislation applicable to aliens in general and subject to the right to seek the remedies provided by due process of law, particularly cogent evidence would be required to show that measures taken in any individual case constituted an infringement of trade union rights.
• Allegations relating to Deportations from the N.A.T.O Countries
  49. 49 It is alleged in general terms that the police in N.A.T.O countries, under the direction of authorities of the United States and in co-operation with local Greek consular authorities, forcibly remove Greek seamen from their ships and deport them to Greece.
  50. 50 Although neither Government specifically replies to these allegations, the Committee considers that they are so vague, unsupported as they are by evidence of any specific cases of deportation or as to how such deportation is effected having regard to the laws of the countries in question, that they do not permit of an examination on their merits. It therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Case of Mr. Paschalidis
  51. 51 All the communications from the complainants subsequent to the original complaint of January 1956 deal with the case of Mr. Paschalidis, General Secretary of the Federation of Greek Maritime Unions in New York. It is alleged that he was arrested by the United States authorities with a view to being deported to Greece, but that, after certain legal proceedings had taken place, he voluntarily left New York for a destination in Europe other than Greece. The Government of the United States declares that he was arrested because, being an alien, he had stayed longer in the United States than was legally permissible in the case of an alien non-immigrant and that, finally, by voluntary agreement, he was deported to Poland, the last-mentioned fact being confirmed by the Greek Government according to press information in its possession.
  52. 52 In Case No. 451 relating to the United States and Greece, the Committee was called upon to examine allegations of almost identical character concerning the arrest and deportation of a predecessor of Mr. Paschalidis in the office of General Secretary of the New York Branch of the Federation of Greek Maritime Unions-Mr. Nicholas Kaloudis. Mr. Kaloudis also was alleged first of all to be about to be deported to Greece, but in fact he was eventually deported to Poland, the country of his choice. In that case the Committee, in view of the statement of the Government of the United States that the deportation had no connection with trade union rights but followed the normal procedure attended by all the guarantees provided by due process of law as in the case of aliens in general, considered that the complainants had not shown that any question of infringement of trade union rights was involved. In the present case, in which the evidence before it is substantially similar to that adduced in the previous case, the Committee considers that it should formulate the same conclusion, and for the same reasons.