Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 96, 1967

1. 65. The complaint presented by the Overseas Workers' Union (Nouméa) is contained in a communication dated 23 August 1966, supplemented by a communication dated 12 October 1966. In a communication dated 21 October 1966 the complainant organisation gave further information on the matters complained of.
2. 66. The text of all these communications was transmitted to the French Government, which forwarded its observations in a communication dated 27 December 1966.
3. 67. France has ratified 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). France has declared Convention No. 87 applicable without modification to New Caledonia; no declaration has been made as regards Convention No. 98.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 68. The complainants allege that on 18 August 1966 a 24-hour warning strike took place at the plant of the Nickel Company. According to the complainants, the strike was motivated by the fact that the workers refused to take further orders from two engineers, one of whom had said before witnesses: " No trade unions for me; I don't want to hear another word about them ". As the workers' request that these two persons be replaced was ignored, they decided to take direct action. The complainants state that the strike had been considered unlawful and that the employers took punitive action by dismissing three members of the bureau of the local branch (at Thio) of the Organisation; subsequently, all the members of the bureau were dismissed and a general strike involving all 400 workers at the Thio centre was declared for an unspecified period beginning on 21 September 1966.
2. 69. On 21 October 1966 the complainant organisation informed the I.L.O that the Arbitration Board-the highest authority in labour disputes-had given an award in the case of the dispute with the Nickel Company which satisfied the workers and their union so that the latter had ordered a return to work.
3. 70. For its part, the Government states, in a communication dated 27 December 1966, that upon receiving the text of the allegation made by the complainants it ordered a thorough investigation in order to discover exactly where responsibility for the trouble lay. It confirms the statement made by the complainants in their communication of 21 October 1966, mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, to the effect that the dispute had been settled by the acceptance of both parties of the award given by the Arbitration Board on 14 October 1966. Attached to the Government's reply are the text of the recommendations made by the expert who was appointed after the failure of the conciliation procedure and a copy of the arbitration award which terminated the dispute.