Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 33, 1960

1. 79. The complaint dated 29 July 1958 was addressed directly to the I.L.O by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. The complaining organisation was informed, by a letter dated 11 August 1958, of its right to furnish further information in substantiation of its complaint within a period of one month.
2. 80. The complaint was transmitted to the Government of Haiti by a letter dated 11 August 1958. The Government forwarded its observations to the Office by a communication dated 25 September 1958.
3. 81. When it examined the case at its 20th Session (Geneva, November 1958), the Committee took the view that it would be necessary to obtain further information from both the complaining organisation and the Government before it could make its recommendations to the Governing Body. The Committee decided, therefore, to adjourn its examination of the case until the information in question had been received.
4. 82. Having been informed of this decision the Government of Haiti and the I.C.F.T.U forwarded the further information requested of them by two letters dated 8 and 10 January 1959 respectively. In a letter dated 5 February 1959, the Government forwarded its comments on the supplementary information contained in the I.C.F.T.U's communication dated 10 January 1959, which had been transmitted to the Government by the Director-General.
5. 83. Haiti has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Measures Taken against Mr. Nathanael Michel, General Secretary of the National Union of Workers of Haiti (U.N.O.H)
  84. 84 The complainants allege that on 5 January 1958 Mr. Nathanael Michel, General Secretary of U.N.O.H, was arrested, without the Government having thought it necessary to justify this measure, and kept in prison without any charges having been brought against him. After being released from prison on 28 January 1958, Mr. Michel was assigned a forced residence for several weeks. Moreover, it is stated, Mr. Michel was removed from his post as a teacher at the Haiti Central School of Arts and Crafts.
  85. 85 Although they do not make a specific statement to this effect, the complainants allow it to be understood that these measures originated in the trade union activities of Mr. Michel, and they consider in particular that the removal from office of the person concerned constitutes a contravention of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), Article 1 of which provides that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts calculated to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker because of his participation in union activities.
  86. 86 In its reply dated 25 September 1958, the Government affirms that Mr. Michel was never disturbed on account of his trade union activities and that the measures taken against him originated in his political activities, while he had also been guilty of embezzlement. In support of its claim that the measures taken against Mr. Michel were not connected with his trade union activities, the Government annexes to its reply a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Michel by the President of U.N.O.H. In this letter it is stated " for reasons of a purely political character you were arrested on 5 January of this year and set free after 22 days of imprisonment but kept under police supervision. Since this last police measure was cancelled for you and for others through the intervention of the U.N.O.H and of certain national and international democratic organisations, you have stayed underground for personal reasons" and, further on "The members of the Committee of U.N.O.H are prepared to help you in any action you may take to clear yourself of the charge of communism which has recently been laid at your door."
  87. 87 In several earlier cases, the Committee has been called upon to formulate conclusions on the application of measures which, even though of a political character and not intended to restrict trade union rights as such, may nevertheless affect the exercise of such rights. When it examined the present case in November 1958, the Committee took the view that, as the person concerned had trade union responsibilities, the measure taken with regard to him was likely, even if that were not intended, to affect the exercise of trade union rights.
  88. 88 If in certain previous cases the Committee has reached the conclusion that allegations relating to measures taken against trade union militants did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently, precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
  89. 89 In the present case, the Committee noted that the Government did not give details of the activities which caused measures to be taken against the person concerned. It also noted that the only evidence adduced by the Government in support of its claim that the measures taken were not connected with any trade union activities consisted in a letter emanating from a member of the executive of U.N.O.H, which has replaced the executive of which the person concerned was a member before he was displaced. In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the measures in question were taken at a moment when trade union elections were being held in the organisation of which Mr. Michel was General Secretary, the Committee considered that, in order to be able to reach a conclusion in full knowledge of all the circumstances, it should request the Government to furnish more detailed information with respect both to the specific reasons for the measures complained of being taken and, in particular, to the particular activities which had been held against him.
  90. 90 Further, in view of the complainants' allegation that Mr. Michel was arrested and kept in custody without any specific charges having been made against him and of the fact that the Government, in its reply dated 25 September 1958, made no observations on this particular aspect of the case, the Committee, having regard to the importance which it has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences, decided, in November 1958, to request the Government to be good enough to furnish further information concerning the procedure followed when the measures against Mr. Michel were taken and concerning the guarantees attending such procedure.
  91. 91 In response to this request for information, the Government, in a communication dated 8 January 1959, begins by confirming the statements made in its previous observations, forwarded on 25 September 1958. It points out further that U.N.O.H, an affiliate of the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers (I.R.O.W.) and the organisation to which Mr. Michel belonged, took part in the recent I.R.O.W.-I.C.F.T.U. Conference in Bogota in December 1958, its delegate being Mr. Fritzner Sainvil, now General Secretary of U.N.O.H in succession to Mr. Michel. This delegate, freely chosen according to the Government by the organisation in question, was duly accredited and participated in the normal way in the work of the Conference. Yet, declares the Government, it is precisely the I.C.F.T.U which has submitted a complaint concerning Mr. Michel to the I.L.O.
  92. 92 Referring more specifically to the particular points raised by the Committee, the Government declares that the measures taken against Mr. Michel were taken pursuant to legal provisions adopted because of the abnormal political situation at present prevailing in Haiti. These legal provisions, a copy of which is annexed to the Government's communication, are the following:
      • (a) Order of the Military Council of the Government dated 26 September 1957 proclaiming a state of martial law throughout the territory of the Republic ;
      • (b) Order of the President of the Republic dated 2 May 1958 declaring a state of siege throughout the territory of the Republic and suspending the guarantees prescribed by articles 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 68 and 70 of the Constitution;
      • (c) Decree of the Legislative Body dated 31 July 1958 suspending the guarantees prescribed by articles 20, 21, 25, 90 (paragraph 7), 94, 119 and 123 of the Constitution and according full powers to the Head of the Executive for a period of six months.
  93. The Government also annexes to its reply the text of the Constitutional guarantees contained in the articles of the national Constitution mentioned in the orders and decree cited above.
  93. 93 From the actual texts cited by the Government, it would seem that the reasons which caused them to be put into application must be sought in the disturbed political situation experienced in Haiti.
  94. 94 In many previous cases in which it had to examine allegations against countries which were in a state of political crisis or had just passed through grave disturbances (civil war, revolution, etc.), the Committee considered it necessary, when examining the various measures taken by the governments, including some against trade union organisations, to have regard to such exceptional circumstances when examining the merits of the allegations. However, in cases in which it has had before it complaints of alleged infringements of freedom of association under a state of siege or emergency or by virtue of national security legislation, the Committee, while indicating that it is not called upon to comment on the necessity for or desirability of such legislation, which is a purely political consideration, has always taken the view that it must consider what repercussions the legislation might have on trade union rights.
  95. 95 While refraining, therefore, from commenting on the political aspects of the emergency measures at present in force in Haiti, the Committee reaffirms the importance which it attaches to the principle that measures of detention should be accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period and to the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial, attended by all the guarantees of due process of law, at the earliest possible moment.
  96. 96 With regard to the particular case of Mr. Michel and to the measures taken against him, the Committee observes that, while the Government refers to the legal texts and to the procedures pursuant to which the measures were taken, it nevertheless makes no mention of the reasons that caused them to be taken. But as is pointed out in paragraph 88 above, if in certain previous cases the Committee has reached the conclusion that allegations relating to measures taken against trade union militants did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
  97. 97 Accordingly, the Committee considers it necessary, in order to enable it to formulate conclusions in full knowledge of all the circumstances, to obtain more detailed information as to the precise reasons which caused measures to be taken against Mr. Michel and, in particular, as to the specific activities held against him, and to adjourn further examination of this aspect of the case until it has received the information requested of the Government in this connection.
• Allegations relating to Measures Taken against Mr. Lyderic Bonaventure, Leader of the Transport Workers' Union
  98. 98 The complainants allege that Mr. Lyderic Bonaventure, whom they state to have been a leader of the Transport Workers' Union, was arrested on 20 December 1957 and kept in prison without being brought before a court until the end of February 1958, after which he was liberated.
  99. 99 In its reply, dated 25 September 1958, the Government stated that the arrest of Mr. Bonaventure, who has since been set free, was made for political reasons and was entirely unconnected with trade union activities, which, moreover, did not exist in his case. In fact, added the Government, Mr. Bonaventure had not belonged to any occupational association since 1950 and, therefore, had not carried on any trade union activities.
  100. 100 At its 20th Session (November 1958), the Committee had two contradictory statements before it, neither of which was corroborated by evidence, so that it was placed in a position in which it was impossible for it to form any appreciation in full knowledge of the situation.
  101. 101 In these circumstances, the Committee took account of certain decisions taken by the Governing Body on matters of procedure concerning which the Committee had submitted proposals to it. Thus, at its 123rd Session (November 1953), the Governing Body decided that if a complaint is not sufficiently substantiated by the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the Director-General's acknowledgment of the receipt of the complaint, it is for the Committee to decide whether any further action in the matter is appropriate. Further, in the report which it made to the same session of the Governing Body (Ninth Report of the Committee, 123rd Session of the Governing Body), the Committee envisaged the communication of replies from governments to complainants for their observations. While admitting that it would help to elucidate the relevant facts if the complainants were asked to check the governments' replies, the Committee nevertheless considered that such a procedure would raise many practical difficulties. Hence, the Committee considered that the wisest course would be to give it discretion to decide, in each specific case and taking all the circumstances into consideration, whether a particular reply from a government should be communicated or not to the complainant for comment. Finally, at its 123rd Session (November 1953), the Governing Body, after examining the above proposals (contained in paragraphs 29-32 of the Ninth Report of the Committee), decided that the Committee should be authorised, without disclosing the replies of governments, to seek further information in writing from the complainant in regard to questions concerning the terms of the complaint requiring further elucidation.
  102. 102 In the present case, in view of the situation in which it found itself, the Committee considered at its 20th Session (November 1958) that it would be justified in availing itself of the authorisation contained in the above decision of the Governing Body and requested the Director-General to ask the complainants to be good enough to furnish more precise information in substantiation of their allegation, provided that they still wished to maintain it, and to give details, in particular, as to the period during which and the circumstance under which Mr. Bonaventure had been a leader of the Transport Workers' Union.
  103. 103 This request for information was addressed to the I.C.F.T.U by a letter dated 2 December 1958. The complainants forwarded their reply on 10 January 1959.
  104. 104 In this reply, the complainants begin by stating that they maintain their allegation. They then go on to state that, in view of the circumstances prevailing in Haiti and of the fact that their representative, Mr. Romualdi, was refused permission to enter the national territory", their opportunities for furnishing further information to the Committee are very limited.
  105. 105 The complainants then refer to the fact that, in the complaint that they submitted on 29 July 1958, they asked the Governing Body to institute an inquiry in order to ascertain how far trade union rights are respected in Haiti. In their latest communication, the complainants declare that such an inquiry would appear to be all the more essential because " there is at present no other way of ascertaining the relevant facts with exactitude ".
  106. 106 With regard to the particular case of Mr. Bonaventure, the only certain information that the I.C.F.T.U is able to give is the fact that, when the Congress of the Inter-American Confederation of Workers was held in Havana in 1949, he was the President of the Haitian Transport Workers' Union. For the rest, the only information given by the I.C.F.T.U is to the effect that "to the best of Mr. Romualdi's knowledge" - and the complainants themselves say that Mr. Romualdi was unable to enter the country-Mr. Bonaventure was still leader of the Transport Workers' Union when he was arrested in December 1957.
  107. 107 It would appear both from the general statements of the complainants and from their comments on the particular case of Mr. Bonaventure, that they have been unable to verify the information on which they base their allegations. With regard especially to the position of Mr. Bonaventure, the only positive information that the I.C.F.T.U can give dates back to 1949. As against that, the Government had already formally declared, in its first reply, that Mr. Bonaventure ceased to carry on any trade union activities at all from 1950 onwards. Moreover, with its communication dated 5 February 1959 containing its observations on the further information submitted by the complainants, the Government forwards a copy of a letter from the union concerned confirming that Mr. Bonaventure had been an officer of the union from 1947 to 1950, but had ceased to hold office after the latter date. This letter states that a Mr. Sylvestre was the leader of the union from 1950 to 1952 and contains lists of the members of the different executive committees which have controlled the union since then and up to 1959.
  108. 108 In these circumstances, having regard to the fact that neither in the original complaint nor in the further evidence in substantiation which they were afforded the opportunity of putting forward, have the complainants presented allegations which they have been able to substantiate, whereas, according to the Government's latest communication, Mr. Bonaventure appears, contrary to what is alleged, to have ceased to hold any office in the Transport Workers' Union since 1950, the Committee considers that not sufficient proof has been offered to show that the measures taken against Mr. Bonaventure constituted an infringement of freedom of association. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Interference by the Government in Trade Union Elections
  109. 109 It is alleged that, as the result of two elections held at very short intervals and in suspicious circumstances, the leaders of the free trade union movement in Haiti have been removed from the trade union sphere. " If, as may be supposed ", declare the complainants, " intervention by the Government of Haiti was behind the organisation and the results of these elections, such intervention is an infringement of Article 3 of Convention No. 87, which provides that workers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom."
  110. 110 Through these two elections, held on 16 April and 30 June 1958, a new Executive Committee of U.N.O.H was elected. According to the complainants, the elections were irregular, firstly, because of the absence of Mr. Nathanael Michel, General Secretary of the organisation, and, secondly, by reason of the fact that some only of the affiliated organisations were represented.
  111. 111 In its reply, the Government stated that it never intervened directly or indirectly in the elections which resulted in the appointment of the new Executive Committee of U.N.O.H. The Government annexed to its reply the text of the minutes of the meeting of U.N.O.H on 30 June 1958 which, although they do not prove that the Government refrained from exercising any pressure on the occasion of the elections, would make it seem that the reasons which led to the appointment of a new executive resided in the fact that members of the former executive had been guilty of embezzlement ; it would also appear from the minutes that the majority of the trade unions affiliated to the organisations were represented.
  112. 112 At its 20th Session (November 1958), therefore, the Committee had before it a formal statement by the Government to the effect that it refrained from any interference whatsoever in the trade union elections in question and, on the other hand, allegations by the I.C.F.T.U which, according to the wording of the complaint itself, appeared to be based only on suspicion.
  113. 113 In these circumstances, pursuant to the procedure described in paragraph 101 above and in view of the fact that it was impossible for it, in this instance, to form an appreciation on the small amount of evidence which was before it, the Committee asked the Director-General to obtain from the complainants, in the event of their wishing to maintain their allegation, more precise and detailed information in support thereof.
  114. 114 As stated earlier, the complainants replied by a letter dated 10 January 1959, the opening part of which contained the observations of a general character analysed in paragraphs 104 and 105 above.
  115. 115 The complainants go on to state that they maintain their allegation concerning interference in trade union elections. They declare : "We have been informed by sources which we must consider reliable that government servants made efforts to bribe certain leading trade union officers in order to induce them to bring about changes in the leadership of the National Union of Workers of Haiti. Thus, one high-ranking trade union officer was offered a trip to the United States."
  116. 116 The Committee considers that both the original complaint, which appeared to be based only on suspicion, and the supplementary information that the complainants were given an opportunity to furnish, are couched in extremely vague terms, and do not permit it to be concluded that freedom of association was infringed in this instance. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Violation of Trade Union Freedom in the International Sphere
  117. 117 The complainants allege that Mr. Romualdi, representative of the I.C.F.T.U, who was going to Haiti to inquire into the trade union situation in that country, was, on arriving at the airport on 7 July 1958, refused permission to enter the territory by the police authorities, who forced him immediately to board an aircraft leaving for the United States.
  118. 118 The Government does not deny that the events alleged may have taken place. It points out, however, that at the moment of the visit of the representative of the I.C.F.T.U, the country was going through a period of political troubles, a fact which made the adoption of strict control and security measures necessary and that these measures had been applied automatically in the case of Mr. Romualdi as they were in the case of anybody else. The Government implies, however, that if it had been aware of the object of the visit of the representative of the I.C.F.T.U and had been warned that it would take place, steps would have been taken to prevent these incidents occurring. In support of this contention, the Government points out that the representative of the I.C.F.T.U has on several occasions in the past gone to Haiti and that on every occasion he has been received officially by the government authorities and, in particular, by the Department of Labour and Social Welfare.
  119. 119 The Committee considers, having regard to the evidence which is before it, that it has not been established in this instance that the principle that national organisations of workers should have the right freely to maintain contact with the international organisations of workers to which they are affiliated has been intentionally infringed.
  120. 120 In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which it attaches to the above principle, but to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Arrest of the Trade Union Leaders Who Went to Welcome the Representative of the I.C.F.T.U.
  121. 121 The complainants allege that all the trade union leaders who went to meet Mr. Romualdi at the Port-au-Prince airport were arrested. The Government categorically affirms that none of the trade union leaders who went to the airport to receive the representative of the I.C.F.T.U were arrested.
  122. 122 Here the Committee had before it two contradictory statements, neither of which is corroborated by any evidence. It notes, however, that the complainants base their charge on second-hand information, which does not appear to be sufficiently reliable as evidence. The complainants state : " A letter sent by two Haitian ex-Ministers to the editor of the New York Times', which appeared in that newspaper on 15 July 1958, states that all the trade union leaders who had gone to the airport to meet the I.C.F.T.U representative were arrested on the spot." The complainants declare that they do not know whether or not they have been released.
  123. 123 In these circumstances, in view of the lack of detail in the allegations made by the complainants and the nature of the information on which the allegations are based, and having regard also to the formal statement by the Government, the Committee, bearing in mind the fact that the complaining organisation has not seen fit to avail itself of its right to furnish further information in substantiation of its complaint, considers that the complainants have not furnished proof to show that the measures alleged were actually taken against the trade unionists in question and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.