Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 87, 1966

40. These cases comprise two series of allegations, one relating to the detention of trade unionists and the other to the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1959. Since the last session of the Committee, on 8 and 9 November 1965, the situation has been affected by the unilateral declaration of independence by the authorities in Southern Rhodesia on 11 November 1965. In the light of the factual situation existing at the present time, the Government of the United Kingdom, referring itself more especially to the allegations relating to the detention of trade unionists, addressed a communication to the Director-General on 7 February 1966, in which, after explaining the attitude it had adopted with regard to this case, vis-à-vis the authorities in Southern Rhodesia, prior to 11 November 1965, the Government indicates that it will again take up the matter with the competent authorities when full Constitutional authority has been restored in Southern Rhodesia. This communication is more fully analysed in paragraphs 64 and 65 below.

1. 40. These cases comprise two series of allegations, one relating to the detention of trade unionists and the other to the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1959. Since the last session of the Committee, on 8 and 9 November 1965, the situation has been affected by the unilateral declaration of independence by the authorities in Southern Rhodesia on 11 November 1965. In the light of the factual situation existing at the present time, the Government of the United Kingdom, referring itself more especially to the allegations relating to the detention of trade unionists, addressed a communication to the Director-General on 7 February 1966, in which, after explaining the attitude it had adopted with regard to this case, vis-à-vis the authorities in Southern Rhodesia, prior to 11 November 1965, the Government indicates that it will again take up the matter with the competent authorities when full Constitutional authority has been restored in Southern Rhodesia. This communication is more fully analysed in paragraphs 64 and 65 below.
2. 41. The Government of the United Kingdom has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), and has undertaken, with the agreement of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, to apply its provisions without modification to Southern Rhodesia. The Government of the United Kingdom, which has also ratified the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11) 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), has reserved its decision regarding the application of the provisions of these Conventions to Southern Rhodesia.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Detentions of Trade Unionists
  42. 42 Allegations relating to detentions of trade unionists were raised in the complaint by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, submitted to the I.L.O in a letter dated 4 September 1964. Additional information was supplied in letters dated 20 October and 4 November 1964. The International Federation of Industrial Organisations and General Workers' Unions lodged a complaint in a letter dated 29 September 1964, making the same allegations as I.C.F.T.U. All these communications were forwarded to the Government for its observations as they were received, and the Government replied by three letters dated 6 and 9 November 1964 and 15 February 1965.
  43. 43 The above communications were before the Committee at its meeting in February 1965, when the Committee, as indicated below, decided to request the Government to furnish fuller information. Since that time further documents of complaint from the World Federation of Trade Unions, dated 27 February 1965, and from I.C.F.T.U, dated 27 April 1965, have been received and transmitted to the Government, which replied by a communication dated 2 September 1965.
  44. 44 In its communication dated 4 September 1964 I.C.F.T.U alleged that eight trade unionists had been detained, without trial, at the Wha Wha Prison, while another, Mr. Josias Maluleke, had been restricted to the Gonakudzingwa Restriction Centre. The eight detainees were named as follows: Mr. E. G. Watunga, General Secretary, Commercial Workers' Union; Mr. I. Chigwendere, Acting General Secretary, African Trades Union Congress (A.T.U.C.); Mr. S. Mteyaunga, General Treasurer, A.T.U.C.; Mr. I. Nyarota, President, Paint Manufacturing Workers' Union; Mr. P. Veremu, General Secretary, Paint Manufacturing Workers' Union; Mr. M. Nzirimasanga, Financial Secretary, Zimbabwe African Congress of Unions (Z.A.C.U.); Mr. C. Kanda, Organising Secretary, Cold Storage Workers' Union; Mr. N. Mumba, Organising Secretary, Z.A.C.U. The case of Mr. Veremu was raised in its communication dated 29 September 1964 by the International Federation of Industrial Organisations and General Workers' Unions, to which his union is affiliated. In its communication dated 20 October 1964 I.C.F.T.U stated that, in addition, Mr. D. Mudzi, Clerk, A.T.U.C, had been detained at the Wha Wha Prison, and four more trade unionists detained at Gonakudzingwa: Messrs. M. Mpofu, Branch Chairman, African Railway Workers' Union; Mr. V. Moyo, Shop Steward, Municipal Workers' Union; Mr. S. Ndlovu, Committee Member, Municipal Workers' Union; Mr. J. Chatagwe, Branch Organiser, Commercial Workers' Union. The names of three further alleged detainees at the Marandellas Camp were given by I.C.F.T.U in its communication dated 4 November 1964 as Mr. E. B. Dengwani, Administrative Secretary, Catering and Hotel Workers' Union; Mr. T. T. Japa, Branch Chairman, Municipal Workers' Union; Mr. A. Ndlovu, General Secretary, Z.A.C.U.
  45. 45 In a communication dated 6 November 1964 the Government of the United Kingdom forwarded the following observations prepared by the Government of Southern Rhodesia. It was stated that the allegations were groundless, that there were no restrictions on freedom of association for trade union purposes and that no repressive measures had been taken against trade unions. There were 59 registered and eight unregistered trade unions, with a total of over 400 officials, none of whom, said the Government of Southern Rhodesia, were prevented from carrying out their normal trade union activities and functions. The nine persons mentioned in the complaint of I.C.F.T.U dated 4 September 1964, it was stated, were not restricted or detained because of their trade union activities but for subversive activities in no way connected with trade unionism. The Government of Southern Rhodesia considered that the Committee should " invite the complaining organisation to withdraw its misplaced assertion ".
  46. 46 In a further communication from the Government of the United Kingdom dated 9 November 1964 it was confirmed that Mr. Veremu was detained in the same circumstances.
  47. 47 In a communication dated 15 February 1965 from the Government it was stated that, according to the Government of Southern Rhodesia, the three persons mentioned in the complaint of I.C.F.T.U dated 4 November 1964 had been detained for subversive activities not in any way connected with trade unionism and that, of the other 14 persons named in the earlier complaints, only six were trade unionists or officials, namely Messrs. Watunga, Chigwendere, Mteyaunga, Nyarota, Veremu and Nzirimasanga. The Government of Southern Rhodesia repeated in substance its earlier remarks concerning the exercise of freedom of association in Southern Rhodesia.
  48. 48 When the Committee considered the case at its meeting in February 1965, it pointed out that in the past, where allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested or detained on account of trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests or detentions were made, for subversive activities for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has always followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further information as precise as possible concerning the arrests or detentions and the exact reasons therefor. If in certain cases the Committee had concluded that allegations relating to the arrest or detention of active trade unionists do not call for further examination, this had been after it had received information from the governments showing in a sufficiently clear and detailed way that the arrests or detentions 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.
  49. 49 The Committee observed that the Government had given no detailed reasons for the detentions and compulsory residence orders which it admitted to have been issued in the case of the individuals mentioned by the complainants.
  50. 50 In accordance with the practice referred to in paragraph 48 above the Committee therefore decided to request the Government to be good enough to inform it of the exact reasons for the arrest or banishment of the individuals in question.
  51. 51 Noting, moreover, that the complainants alleged that the persons mentioned were arrested without being tried, the Committee, in view of the importance it has always attached to the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment, decided to request the Government to be good enough to inform it whether legal proceedings had been instituted against the persons concerned and, if so, to furnish copies of the judgments given and of the reasons adduced therein.
  52. 52 These requests for further information were transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 9 March 1965.
  53. 53 In a communication dated 27 February 1965 W.F.T.U alleged that various trade union leaders had been placed in detention without trial. Several of the persons referred to were persons already cited by I.C.F.T.U. In addition the following eight further persons were alleged to have been detained: Mr. L. Nkala, Deputy Secretary, Bulawayo Region, Z.A.C.U.; Mr. J. Maika, President, Textile Workers' Union; Mr. E. Mpofu, Organising Secretary, Municipal Workers' Union; Mr. A. Mkwanazi, Branch Committee Member, Municipal Workers' Union; Mr. B. Mguni, Secretary, National Union of Building Workers; Mr. L. Sihwa, President, Artisan Workers' Union; Mr. X. Lubimbi, President, Bakery and Confectionery Workers' Union; Mr. L. Masahwi, General Secretary, Dairy Workers' Union.
  54. 54 W.F.T.U alleged also that on 27 January 1965 the Government of Southern Rhodesia had declared Z.A.C.U to be an unlawful organisation, as being " dangerous or prejudicial to peace, good order, or Constitutional government ".
  55. 55 On 27 April 1965 I.C.F.T.U submitted a revised list of 28 trade unionists alleged to be under detention or restriction at Wha Wha, Marandellas or Gonakudzingwa. I.C.F.T.U said that four of the trade unionists referred to in paragraph 44 above had been released -Messrs. E. G. Watunga, S. Ndlovu, E. B. Dengwani and T. T. Japa-together with a Mr. O. Chikowero, not previously mentioned. The 28 persons still said to be detained included the remaining 13 of the 17 named in paragraph 44 above and three of the persons named by W.F.T.U. (see paragraph 53)-Messrs. B. Mguni, E. Mpofu and L. Nakala. I.C.F.T.U. did not mention the other five named by W.F.T.U. The 12 new names in the I.C.F.T.U list were Messrs. M. Dengazi, Southern Rhodesia Tobacco Workers' Union; P. C. Bvunzawabaya, Organising Secretary, Motor Trade Workers' Union; C. Mudakureba, Commercial and Allied Workers' Union; C. Muza, Regional Organiser, Z.A.C.U.; A. Dunjana, Branch Chairman, Tailor and Garment Workers' Union; A. Masawi, Regional Organiser, Z.A.C.U.; J. M. Matshazi, Railway African Workers' Union; P. J. Mpofu, General Secretary, Agricultural and Plantation Workers' Union; J. R. Mzimela, Commercial and Allied Workers' Union; I. Nkomo, Municipal Workers' Union; Z. Phiri, African Railway Workers' Union; and J. B. Shura, Regional Secretary, Z.A.C.U.
  56. 56 The complaint of W.F.T.U dated 27 February 1965 was transmitted to the Government on 15 March 1965; that of I.C.F.T.U dated 27 April 1965 was sent to the Government on 6 May 1965.
  57. 57 At its meeting in May 1965 the Committee adjourned its examination of the case as it had not received either the Government's observations on the two last-mentioned complaints or the further information requested by the Committee at its preceding session.
  58. 58 In a communication dated 2 September 1965 the Government of the United Kingdom stated that the Government of Southern Rhodesia had requested that the following reply be forwarded:
• The Government notes that despite the several observations already made and considered by the Committee on 18 February 1965 the Committee was unable to invite the complaining organisations to withdraw their misplaced assertions and that the Committee now calls for further detailed information on certain points of the complaint made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the International Federation of Industrial Organisations and General Workers' Unions of alleged infringements of trade union rights. The observations already furnished were made to assist the Committee in their assessment of the merits of the complaints and were not intended as evidence in rebuttal of the allegations. The observations were unambiguous. The persons concerned were not detained or subjected to compulsory residence orders for any trade union association or trade union activities, but for subversion.
• It is the view of Government that as the Committee, despite the assurance given, wish to examine the complaints in greater detail, they should call upon the complaining organisations to submit the factual evidence, if any, on which they made their complaint, that the persons concerned were detained or made subject to compulsory residence orders because of their trade union associations or trade union activities.
• The allegations by the World Federation of Trade Unions are substantially the same as those by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the International Federation of Industrial Organisations and General Workers' Unions and our observations on those complaints apply equally to those now made by the World Federation of Trade Unions.
  59. 59 At its meeting in November 1965 the Committee adjourned its examination of the case until its present session.
  60. 60 On 2 December 1965 I.C.F.T.U submitted to the I.L.O further allegations relating to the detention of trade unionists. In addition to the persons named in its complaint dated 27 April 1965, declared I.C.F.T.U, the following trade unionists had been restricted at the Gonakudzingwa camp, without trial, some of them for over one year: Messrs. Z. Sigola, F. Chimbganda, J. Kabiya, J. S. Moyo, M. Togwe, J. Mzaca and J. M. Goromonzi, all belonging to the Rhodesia African Teachers' Association; Mr. L. Zaranyika, Chairman of the Mangwende East Branch of the Rhodesia African Teachers' Association; Mr. G. Mudavanhu, (Southern) Rhodesia Petrol and Oil Storage Distributive Workers' Union.
  61. 61 I.C.F.T.U referred also to the case of Mr. Edward Chifamba, General Secretary of the (Southern) Rhodesia Post and Telecommunications Workers' Association. The complainant alleged that he was arrested on 17 November 1965 in Salisbury, immediately after a meeting of his union convened in post office premises with the express permission of the Postmaster-General, that is to say, while he was performing his normal trade union functions. It was stated that Mr. Chifamba had been suspended from his post office employment and was being held under the emergency legislation providing for the holding of any person for up to 30 days and that there was an imminent danger of his being subject to restricted residence thereafter.
  62. 62 Support for this complaint was expressed in communications addressed to the I.L.O, on 7 December 1965 and 4 January 1966, by the International Federation of Free Teachers' Unions and the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International respectively.
  63. 63 A copy of the complaint of I.C.F.T.U dated 2 December 1965 was transmitted to the Government of the United Kingdom on 22 December 1965 for any comments that the Government might wish to make thereon.
  64. 64 In a communication dated 7 February 1966 the Government of the United Kingdom, referring especially to the complaint of I.C.F.T.U dated 2 December 1965 (see paragraph 60 above), declares that it deplores all infringements of trade union rights. It goes on to point out that the allegations relating to detentions of trade unionists raised in this case were the subject of considerable correspondence and discussions prior to 11 November 1965 with the then Southern Rhodesian authorities, in the course of which the Government of the United Kingdom urged those authorities to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the Committee in its examination of the case and, in particular, to provide the information requested by the Committee. It urged the same authorities to consider most carefully the various allegations which had been made, and if in any particular case it appeared that an individual had been arrested or detained in such circumstances as to constitute an infringement of trade union rights to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation urgently.
  65. 65 However, states the Government of the United Kingdom, " the former Government of Southern Rhodesia illegally purported to declare independence on 11 November 1965, on which date Mr. Smith and his Ministers were dismissed from office ". The Government concludes by saying that " when fully Constitutional authority has been restored in Rhodesia the complaints communicated by the I.C.F.T.U and other bodies, together with the observations already made by the Committee ... will be brought in due course to the attention of the competent authorities ".
  66. 66 In view of the serious political developments in Southern Rhodesia to which the Government of the United Kingdom refers in its communication dated 7 February 1966, no useful purpose would be served by further consideration of the observations prepared by the Government of Southern Rhodesia which were forwarded by the Government of the United Kingdom on 2 September 1965.
  67. 67 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
      • (a) to take note of the communication dated 7 February 1966 from the Government of the United Kingdom and, in particular:
      • (i) to take note with satisfaction of the Government's assurance that it deplores all infringements of trade union rights and of the representations it made to the authorities in Southern Rhodesia, prior to the unilateral declaration of independence by the authorities in Southern Rhodesia on 11 November 1965, urging those authorities to co-operate with the Committee and furnish information requested by it and to take urgent steps to remedy any infringement of trade union rights that might be found to have occurred;
      • (ii) to take note of the Government's further assurance that, when fully Constitutional authority has been restored in Southern Rhodesia, the complaints presented in this case and the observations already made by the Committee will be brought in due course to the attention of the competent authorities;
      • (b) to request the Government of the United Kingdom to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed of further developments in the matter.
  68. Allegations relating to the Provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1959
  68. 68 The Committee, having already considered these allegations at its meetings in November 1961, May 1962, October 1962, May 1963, February 1964, November 1964 and February 1965, examined them further at its meeting in May 1965, when it submitted to the Governing Body the conclusions and recommendations contained in paragraphs 90 to 111 of its 83rd Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 162nd Session (May-June 1965).
  69. 69 At its meeting in May 1965 the Committee had before it the text of the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act, 1964, which the Government had furnished, when it resumed its examination of the allegations still outstanding-those relating to the registration of trade unions under the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1959, and those relating to the organising rights of agricultural workers and domestic servants.
  70. 70 So far as the registration issue was concerned, the Committee observed that, while the new Act had made provision for the right of appeal to the Industrial Court in all cases where the registration or proposed changes in the existing registration of a trade union or employers' organisation were refused by the Industrial Registrar, section 37 (1) (b) and (c) of the 1959 Act setting forth the conditions concerning which the Registrar must be satisfied before registering a trade union or employers' organisation had not been amended. The Committee therefore pointed out once again, in paragraph 98 of its 83rd Report, that the question as to whether the particular requirements laid down are fulfilled is one upon which the Registrar has to form his own judgment, and again drew attention to the fact that the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations had observed that, in such cases, " the existence of a procedure of appeal to the courts does not appear to be a sufficient guarantee; in effect this does not alter the nature of the powers conferred on the authorities responsible for effecting registration, and the judges hearing such an appeal ... would only be able to ensure that the legislation had been correctly applied". In this connection, the Committee concluded, the amending Act appeared in no way to alter the degree of judgment entrusted to the Registrar.
  71. 71 With regard to the situation of agricultural workers and domestic servants the Committee recalled in paragraph 103 of its 83rd Report that in 1961 the I.L.O. Committee of Experts, in an observation a had regretted to note that the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1959, by virtue of section 4 (2) (a) thereof, did not apply to " persons in respect of their employment in farming operations (including forestry) or any domestic persons in private households " and had stated that it would be glad if the Government would indicate the measures which it was proposed to take to guarantee the right of these workers " to associate for all lawful purposes ", as required by the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), which applies to all employed persons. The Committee recalled also that, during the 45th (1961) Session of the International Labour Conference, a representative of the Government of Southern Rhodesia intervening on the request of the representative of the Government of the United Kingdom had stated before the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations that the question of including agricultural workers and domestic servants within the Industrial Conciliation Act would be further considered in the light of the Committee of Experts' observations.
  72. 72 The Committee observed further, in paragraph 109 of its 83rd Report, that the I.L.O. Committee of Experts, in March 1965, had noted with regret that, although the Act had been the subject of extensive amendments, no measures had been taken to extend its scope to persons engaged in farming operations or to domestic servants, and that the Government merely proposed to study this question. The Committee of Experts had stated that it trusted that measures would be taken without further delay to extend the Act to the abovementioned categories of workers and thus bring the territory's legislation into conformity with the said Convention No. 84, which guarantees the right " to associate for all lawful purposes " to all employed persons.
  73. 73 Accordingly, the Committee submitted the following recommendations to the Governing Body in paragraph 111 of its 83rd Report:
• With regard to the case as a whole the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
  • (a) to decide with regard to the allegations relating to the registration of trade unions under the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1959:
  • (i) to take note with satisfaction of the fact that the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act, 1964, now provides for the right of appeal to the Industrial Court in all cases where the registration or proposed changes in the existing registration of a trade union or employers' organisation are refused by the Industrial Registrar;
  • (ii) to draw the attention of the Government once again, having regard to the observations of the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations referred to in paragraph 98 above, to the desirability of defining clearly in the legislation the precise conditions which trade unions must fulfil in order to be entitled to registration and of prescribing specific statutory criteria for the purpose of deciding whether such conditions are fulfilled or not;
  • (iii) to suggest to the Government that consideration be given to further amending the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1959, so as to give full effect to the principle set forth in the preceding clause, and to request the Government to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed of any further developments in this connection;
  • (b) to decide with regard to the allegations relating to the organising rights of agricultural workers and domestic servants:
  • (i) to draw the attention of the Government once again to the fact that, in undertaking to apply the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), without modification to Southern Rhodesia, it has assumed the obligation under Article 2 of that Convention to guarantee the right of all employed persons " to associate for all lawful purposes ";
  • (ii) to request the Government again-having regard to the observations made in 1961 and 1965 by the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, as indicated in paragraphs 103 and 109 above, and to the statement of a Government representative to the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in 1961 that the question of the inclusion of agricultural workers and domestic servants within the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1959, would be further considered in the light of the observation of the Committee of Experts-to indicate what measures it is proposed to take to give full effect to Article 2 of the said Convention in respect to these categories of workers.
    74. 74 These conclusions, having been approved as cited above by the Governing Body at its 162nd Session (May-June 1965), were communicated to the Government of the United Kingdom by a letter dated 2 June 1965.
    75. 75 In a letter dated 13 August 1965 the Government of the United Kingdom stated that the Government of Southern Rhodesia had requested it to inform the Committee that the time was not considered opportune for amending the Industrial Conciliation Act as suggested by the Governing Body, that agricultural workers and domestic servants were not denied the right " to associate for all lawful purposes " and that at this stage the protection of the Act was considered unnecessary.
    76. 76 The Committee regrets to observe that, having regard to the statement of the representative of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, on the invitation of the representative of the Government of the United Kingdom, to the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in 1961, which is referred to in paragraph 71 above, the Government of Southern Rhodesia should have requested the Government of the United Kingdom in August 1965 to convey this intimation to the Committee. However, in view of the political events which have since taken place in Southern Rhodesia, and having regard to the contents of the communication dated 7 February 1966 from the Government of the United Kingdom, the Committee, while reaffirming the considerations set forth in paragraph 111 of its 83rd Report cited in paragraph 73 above, does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by pursuing this aspect of the matter further at the present stage. It nevertheless recommends the Governing Body to request the Government of the United Kingdom to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed of further developments in the matter.