Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 101, 1968

1. 80. The Committee had this case before it previously at its session in February 1967, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 72 to 99 of its 96th Report.
2. 81. With regard to the substance of the case, the complainants alleged essentially that the Head of State, by an ordinance dated 15 February 1966, had suppressed the right to strike and that this constituted a violation of trade union rights.
3. 82. Before examining the substance of the case, however, the Committee had to consider the preliminary question of the receivability of the complaint. The Government had declared in its observations that the complainant organisation was not a recognised organisation and invoked its lack of legal existence to persuade the Committee to regard it as not being empowered to present a complaint.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 83. The Committee recalled that in its First Report it had held that it would be altogether inconsistent with the purpose for which the procedure for the examination of allegations concerning the infringement of trade union rights had been established for it to admit the non-recognition of an organisation by governmental action extinguished the right of the organisation to invoke the procedure, and it accordingly recommended the Governing Body to urge the Government to indicate both the grounds on which it felt justified in refusing to recognise the complainant organisation and the procedure it had so far followed in the matter.
2. 84. This recommendation was approved by the Governing Body, and the request for information contained therein was brought to the attention of the Government by a letter dated 9 June 1967, to which the Government replied by a letter dated 1 September 1967.
3. 85. In this letter the Government provides the following information: the request of the complainant organisation for recognition has never been refused; at the time when the request was made there was no legislative provision governing the conditions for the recognition of trade unions (and there is none today); only the absence of a legal basis is thus responsible for the non-recognition of the complainant organisation. The Government states, moreover, that its reply to the request for recognition submitted by the organisation in question mentioned no refusal; it simply stated that the request would be considered when the new legislative texts, which were then still at the draft stage, had been promulgated.
4. 86. With regard to the substance of the case, namely the allegation that the right to strike had been abolished, the Government had already indicated in the observations contained in its letter of 21 March 1966 that the action taken by the Head of State to suspend momentarily the exercise of the right to strike was due solely to circumstances prevailing at the time and in no way implied the abolition of the right to strike.
5. 87. In its last letter, dated 1 September 1967, the Government states that the measure suspending the exercise of the right to strike was rescinded on 24 November 1966.