Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 98, 1967

1. 93. The Committee has already submitted interim reports on this case to the Governing Body in paragraphs 328 to 348 of its 93rd Report and paragraphs 291 to 302 of its 95th Report.
2. 94. Sudan has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), but has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 95. The only question in this case still outstanding before the Committee is the allegation, made in the complaint submitted by the World Federation of Trade Unions on 20 August 1966, that, in connection with a strike of employees of the posts and telegraphs called on 1 June 1966, the seven members of the workers' committee of the Post and Telegraph Workers' Union were dismissed. The complainants gave their names as Messrs. Mohamed Al Imen, Ramadan Ali Hussain, Athman Rahmat Alla, Mohamed Al-Hasan, Ahmed Al Badaro, Yosef Mohamed and Ali Mohamed Boknait.
2. 96. At its meeting in February 1967 the Committee had before it a communication dated 15 January 1967, in which the Government stated that the dismissals were effected by a departmental disciplinary board formed in accordance with the Officials Discipline Ordinance, 1927, as amended in 1962. This board had revised the service records of most of the employees of the Post and Telegraph Department and the workers concerned were dismissed in accordance with its findings. The Government declared that the board was formed because there had been so many complaints by the public against the Department's officials. Section 13 of the Ordinance empowered heads of departments to convene departmental boards for the trial of officials subordinate to them.
3. 97. The Committee recalled that, when it had considered, in paragraphs 342 to 344 of its 93rd Report, allegations that 93 women strikers were dismissed by the Post and Telegraph Administration following the strike for better pay and conditions called on 1 June 1966, the Government had made the same observation that they had not been dismissed because of trade union activity but had been dismissed by boards of discipline after an examination of their service records. The Committee pointed out that, if on that occasion it had recommended the Governing Body to decide that it would be purposeless to pursue further the examination of those allegations, it was only after it had had before it information from the Government to the effect that the Minister had ordered the reinstatement of all those concerned. The Committee expressed the view that it would find it difficult to accept as a coincidence unrelated to trade union activity that heads of department should have decided, immediately after a strike, to convene disciplinary boards which, on the basis of their service records, ordered the dismissal not only of the 93 strikers but also of the seven members of their union committee. Bearing in mind further that the Government of Sudan had assumed, under Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the obligation to ensure that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, the Committee, before making its recommendations on this aspect of the case to the Governing Body, decided to request the Government to state whether, in the interests of furthering better industrial relations, any consideration was being given to the possibility of the reinstatement of the seven persons concerned.
4. 98. In a communication dated 28 March 1967 the Government states that, the right of appeal from decisions of departmental disciplinary boards provided for in the Officials Discipline Ordinance, 1927, as amended in 1962, having been exercised, six of the seven dismissed persons referred to in paragraph 95 above were reinstated after their appeals had been examined by higher authorities in the Ministry of Communications.