Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 139, 1974

1. 36. This case was previously examined by the Committee at its 59th Session in November 1971, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 257-306 of its 127th Report.
2. 37. The Committee submitted final recommendations on some aspects of the case and on others requested the Government to supply further information.
3. 38. On the matters outstanding the Committee recommended the Governing Body:
   • (a) to request the Government to indicate whether or not it was correct, firstly, that the Teachers' Congress of September 1970 had been interrupted by the police and, secondly, that the congresses of eighteen other organisations had been postponed indefinitely on government orders;
   • (b) to request the Government, firstly, to indicate the exact grounds which in its opinion justified the prohibition and breaking-up of the meeting of 10 January 1971 and, secondly, to supply the text of the Decree of 23 October 1935 mentioned in its reply;
   • (c) to request the Government, firstly, to indicate whether all the trade unionists mentioned in the complaints as having been arrested had been brought to trial and, if so, to specify the nature of the judicial body by which their case had been heard and to supply the text of the judgement pronounced together with the grounds adduced therefor; and, secondly, to supply the text of the pamphlets mentioned by it as having been distributed at the meeting of 10 January 1971;
   • (d) to request the Government to indicate whether an inquiry had been carried out into the allegations made by the complainants concerning the torture of trade unionists.
4. 39. The above information having been requested from the Government by a letter from the Director-General dated 23 November 1971, the Government replied by a communication dated 9 December 1971.
5. 40. Mauritania has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but not the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 41. When it considered this case at its 60th Session (February 1972), the Committee considered that before it submitted final recommendations on the matter to the Governing Body, the complainants should be afforded an opportunity of submitting their comments on the Government's observations. These observations were therefore communicated to the complainant organisations (namely, the National Bureau of the National Teachers' Union and the various trade unions that referred to themselves as the "Mauritanian Workers' Union") in letters dated 15 March and 21 June 1972. The letter of 15 March was returned by the post office and the letter of 21 June does not seem to have reached the complainants (in this connection see paragraph 46).
2. 42. At its 61st Session (2-3 June 1972), the Committee, noting that the comments requested from the complainants had not yet reached it, decided once again to postpone its examination of the case.
3. 43. In a communication dated 25 July 1972, sent direct to the ILO, a group of organisations calling themselves the "Mauritanian Workers' Union" furnished further information in substantiation of the complaint.
4. 44. In a communication dated 17 August 1972, sent direct to the ILO, the World Confederation of Labour expressed its agreement with the allegations contained in the communication of 25 July 1972, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and asked that its own letter be considered a complaint against the Government of Mauritania for infringement of freedom of association.
5. 45. Another organisation calling itself the "Mauritanian Workers' Union" stated in a communication dated 6 September 1972, signed by Mr. Fall Malic, General Secretary, that the complaint had not come from the said organisation, that it did not bear the signature of any member of the national bureau that had been democratically elected at the last congress of the UTM (1-3 February 1959) and that it should therefore be considered null and void. This communication went on to state that under Article 8 of its Statutes, the UTM is independent of all international trade union organisations but is associated with the African Trade Union Confederation. In fact, according to the communication, any international affiliation is prohibited. The General Secretary explained that the Mauritanian Workers' Union is a single national organisation resulting from the merger of all central trade unions in May 1961 and that his organisation has not filed any complaint against Mauritania.
6. 46. When it examined the case at its 59th Session, the Committee noted that there had been a split within the organisation known as the Mauritanian Workers' Union (UTM) and that, following the enactment in January 1970 of Act No. 70030 to set up a single trade union system, only one central trade union organisation appeared to have been recognised while no trade union which was not affiliated with this Confederation was allowed to exist. The Committee also noted that the only Confederation recognised by the Government was known as the Mauritanian Workers' Union (UTM) and that this organisation had extremely close links with the Party of the Mauritanian People.
7. 47. The Committee recalled (paragraphs 268-273 of the 127th Report) the observations it had already made on other occasions with regard to single trade union systems established by legislation; it drew attention (paragraph 269) to the right of any group of workers (or employers) to form breakaway organisations if they thought this desirable to safeguard their material or moral interests.
8. 48. In the present case the Committee has received complaints from a group of occupational associations of Mauritania which are directly concerned with the questions raised, as well as a complaint presented by an international workers' organisation having consultative status with the ILO. The Committee considers that even if the occupational associations in question do not form the officially recognised "Mauritanian Workers' Union", this in no way detracts from the right they have, as workers' organisations, to submit complaints on matters directly concerning them.
9. 49. The Committee proposes first of all to study the information at its disposal concerning the outstanding questions mentioned in paragraph 38 above.
10. 50. With regard to the allegation that the Teachers' Congress of September 1970 was broken up by the police and that the congresses of 18 other organisations were postponed indefinitely on Government orders, the Government states the following: "It is quite untrue that the Teachers' Congress of September 1970 was broken up by the police, who were absent except for the usual two men on duty. It is true that the Trade Union Conciliation Board, which kept an eye on the activities of all the unions (following a serious disagreement between the various factions of the teachers' union, which disagreement was brought to its attention by the trade unionists themselves), in accordance with its purpose which was to unite the workers of one and the same trade union, was obliged to suspend the proceedings of this congress; this decision was accepted by everyone and there was no police intervention."
11. 51. The Government further states that it is untrue that the congresses of the other organisations were postponed indefinitely on its instructions. "Indeed" states the Government "all these congresses were held during the first quarter of 1971. The organisations themselves were responsible for delays in relation to the published schedules."
12. 52. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the explanations supplied by the Government.
13. 53. With regard to the allegation that a meeting of the general secretaries of nearly all the trade unions was brutally broken up by the police, the explanations given by the Government show that, in its opinion, two main reasons justified the prohibition of the meeting organised on 10 January 1971 by a trade union body known as the "Managing Committee": the first is that the request for permission to hold the meeting was made by this same Managing Committee, which is a clandestine body; the second is that the meeting "was to have been held in a public place near the market, not far from the Employment Service (where there are always unemployed persons ready for any desperate venture) rather than at the Trade Union Centre as would have been normal".
14. 54. With reference to the first reason for the prohibition given by the Government, the Committee feels it should recall, as it did when last considering the case, that while it has considered that the right to organise public meetings is an important element in trade union rights, it has always drawn a distinction between demonstrations in pursuit of purely trade union objectives, which it has considered to fall within the exercise of trade union rights, and those designed to achieve other ends.
15. 55. In this particular case, on the basis of the information supplied by the complainants, the Committee considers that - even though the meeting in question was convened by an organisation not recognised by the Government - the purpose was to inform the workers about the trade union situation, in which case it would come under the heading of a normal trade union activity.
16. 56. As regards the second reason given by the Government for its prohibition, which refers to the maintenance of public order, the Committee considers that it could, in principle, be valid. On several occasions in the past the Committee has considered that the prohibition of demonstrations or processions on the public highway in the busiest part of a town, when it is feared that disturbances might occur, does not constitute an infringement of trade union rights.
17. 57. The Government states in conclusion that the meeting was dispersed because it had not been authorised in accordance with the Decree of 23 October 1935, section 1 of which provides that "meetings on the public highway shall be prohibited".
18. 58. The Committee notes that, judging by the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Nouakchott (see paragraph 65 below) it is not certain that in prohibiting the meeting in question the authorities had observed the formalities required by law.
19. 59. On the other hand, since the Managing Committee was not a recognised organisation, it appears doubtful whether, had it so requested it would have been granted permission to hold a meeting at the Trade Union Centre as the Government seems to imply (see, paragraph 53 above).
20. 60. In any case the Committee considers that if, in order to avoid disturbances, the authorities decide to prohibit a meeting planned to take place on some part of the public highway, these same authorities should strive to come to an agreement with the organisers of the meeting in order to allow it to be held in some other place where there would be no fear of disturbances; the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the Government's attention to this opinion.
21. 61. With reference to the allegations that trade unionists had been arrested (paragraph 38(c) above), the Government states, that all the arrested trade unionists were tried by the Court of, First Instance of Nouakchott, and it has appended the text of the judgement to its reply. The Government adds that "it is not possible to supply the text of the pamphlets, which are kept in the archives of the court".
22. 62. Not having the pamphlets, which could have supplied it with useful information, the Committee referred to the text of the; judgement supplied by the Government.
23. 63. It appears from this judgement first of all that the persons concerned appeared on three charges: possession of pamphlets, likely to have a harmful effect on national interests, with a view to their distribution; participation in a forbidden demonstration; and administration of an unauthorised association.
24. 64. As regards the first charge, the court considered that neither files nor the proceedings in court showed sufficient proof that the accused had "drafted, possessed or distributed pamphlets, bulletins or handbills likely to be harmful to the national interests" and that they should therefore all be acquitted of this charge.
25. 65. On the second charge the court judgement is couched in the following terms: "Considering that, as far as participation in organising a forbidden demonstration is concerned, neither the file nor the proceedings in court show proof that the express provisions of the Decree of 23 October 1935 had been observed by the competent administrative authorities in making this prohibition, and that consequently the offence has not been proved, all the accused should be acquitted of this charge also."
26. 66. With reference to the third charge, namely the administration of an association operating without authorisation (i.e. the Managing Committee mentioned in paragraph 53 above), seven of the accused were found guilty of "having managed or taken part in the management of an association, organisation or group operating without authorisation", the remaining accused having been acquitted on this charge. The seven persons found guilty were given a suspended sentence of two months' imprisonment.
27. 67. It thus appears that all the accused were found not guilty on the first two charges. As regards the third charge, seven of the persons concerned were found guilty. This decision is the consequence of the single trade union system instituted by the Act of 23 January 1970 and by Act No. 64098 of 9 June 1964, whereby prior authorisation from the Ministry of the Interior is necessary before any association can be set up. The Committee and the Governing Body having already formulated their final conclusions concerning the single trade union system in force in Mauritania, the Committee can only recommend the Governing Body to reaffirm these conclusions.
28. 68. With reference to the allegations that trade unionists were tortured (paragraph 38(d) above), the Government repeats that the persons mentioned in the complaints were not subjected to any ill-treatment. It adds that neither the examining magistrate nor the president of the court found any evidence whatsoever of torture and it adds, moreover, that the lawyers had never lodged any written conclusions to this effect.
29. 69. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the Government's statements.
30. 70. Finally, with reference to an allegation which in the opinion of the Committee and the Governing Body did not call for any further examination, which concerned measures taken against officials following a strike, the Government in its observations informed the Committee that "anxious to dispel any apprehension and in the interests of the nation, the National Political Bureau of the Party decided, at its meeting in August 1970, that the 240 civil servants and state officials removed from office or dismissed as a result of the events in January 1971 should be reinstated in the Mauritanian civil service". The Government adds that these civil servants and state officials were reinstated with effect from 15 September 1971. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of this information.
31. 71. In their communication of 25 July 1972, the complainants state that since February 1969 no solution has been found to the trade union crisis because of direct government interference in trade union affairs. The complainants maintain that the Government has done everything within its power to thwart the workers' desire to unite for their interests. The complainants refer to the setting-up of trade union conciliation boards as a result of which trade union structures have been reorganised. The complainants add that the workers have been obliged to form trade unions under the strict supervision of police and government representatives.
32. 72. The complainants further state that over the last 18 months all trade unionists have been under house arrest, obliged to live in other areas or thrown out of their jobs. Workers who go on strike are dismissed and forced to write individual letters asking for "clemency".
33. 73. At its 62nd Session (6 November 1972), the Committee decided to postpone its examination of the case, in respect of which it requested the Director-General to obtain certain information from one of the complainants, the world Confederation of Labour (WCL).
34. 74. In a communication of 21 December 1972, the WCL gives the following information. At the very time when all the trade unions were insisting on the holding of the Mauritanian Workers' Congress (UTM), the Political Bureau of the single Government Party decided unilaterally to merge the trade union movement with the Party, thereby calling in question the democratic principle - adopted by the rank and file of all the unions - of maintaining their independence in respect of the employers, the Party and the Government. The decisions were coupled with police measures of all kinds. Since 1969 the Government of Mauritania is said to have been pursuing "a policy of systematic liquidation of trade union organisations".
35. 75. In July 1972 the Political Bureau of the single Party (the supreme decision-making body of the State), the WCL continues, announced that the trade unions would have to be absorbed into the Party within six months. Prior to that, hundreds of workers had been dismissed from their jobs, trade union militants and leaders had been imprisoned or placed under house arrest "in remote outback areas". On 1 November 1972, the WCL goes on to say, the "active phase" of merging the unions with the single Party began; the letter of 6 September 1972 to the Director-General of the ILO (see paragraph 45 above) is from the "merged UTM".
36. 76. The WCL continues that the Party of the Mauritanian People states that "it has been proved that no serious work can successfully be undertaken" with the trade unions; the WCL adds that there is a wide gulf between the campaigning trade union movement which the workers are determined to maintain and the state idea of the trade union movement "whose essential task is the political and vocational education of the workers" within the single Party.
37. 77. In its communication of 28 April 1973, the Government replies to the allegations contained in the communication of 25 July 1972 from the general secretaries of the trade unions and to that formulated by the WCL in its communication of 17 August 1972. The Government states that it is distressing for a responsible government to be obliged, out of courtesy, to reply to a propaganda sheet, even one supported by the World Confederation of Labour. For, it maintains, the so-called complaint by the National Teachers' Union is nothing but a propaganda sheet since it bears the signature of no responsible or identifiable trade union authority. Furthermore the Government maintains that the allegations are based on quotations taken out of context from a statement made by the National Political Bureau on 21 June 1972, in which that body defined its relations with the trade unions.
38. 78. The Government adds that the statement contains nothing to infringe freedom of association and that, on the contrary, this freedom is reaffirmed and strengthened by the fact that undertakings are obliged to set up works councils to administer the social funds for the benefit of the workers and by the obligation for the workers to participate in the administrative councils of all state companies. The Government goes on to say that the workers will appoint one of their number to the National Political Bureau of the single Constitutional Party, which is the decision-making body, and will be represented at the congress of this Party, which is the body entrusted with the political and economic guidance of the country. The Government concludes by stating that the vast majority of the workers (nearly 80 per cent) have accepted these measures which they have approved in their congresses.
39. 79. One of the documents submitted to the Committee by the complainants is the text of a communiqué (No. 004/BPN) from the National Political Bureau of the Mauritanian People's Party, issued at its session on 20 and 21 July 1972. This communiqué states in particular that, considering that a large number of the 20,000 employed persons in the country are active party members, as are all the other citizens of the agricultural and rural sectors, "in all objectivity, and quite apart from legal considerations, this must result in the establishment of a hierarchical structure between the Party, as the expression of the will of the people, and the trade union, as an instrument for the defence of particular interests, even though these interests may be considered to be legitimate and well founded by workers in the private sector. The subordination of the trade union to the Party is therefore lawful, legitimate and objective".
40. 80. The merging of trade unions with the Party, this statement goes on to say, is justified both politically and morally and is a necessity. This integration is understood in the widest sense, implying the inclusion of concrete trade union action within the sphere of influence of a strategically dominant political whole. The opportunity afforded to the unions of influencing or participating in the decision making of this whole ensemble which is the Party can only be an advantage and for them even a favour. It is a favour for the unions of civil servants and state employees (whose future depends entirely on the Government and the Party), since being represented within the Political Bureau (the supreme body of political power) will help them to be better informed about and to understand national economic interests and their own true interests which are bound up with the national interests. It is an advantage for the workers who, better educated and better informed, will receive strong support from the Party and from the State when making their fundamental demands. Social disputes, the communiqué adds, will be less frequent but of a more fundamental nature and will be better understood by the responsible bodies of the Party and of the Government. The trade union movement must therefore be completely reformed; the reorganisation of all the trade unions will take place within a probable time-limit of six months under the guidance of a commission appointed by the Standing Committee of the National Political Bureau. Workers may become trade union members by purchasing a trade union card issued by the Party. On this basis membership is open to everyone, the existing legal framework is maintained and all the activities undertaken by workers who have registered as trade union members will, after being considered by the Party, receive its support.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 81. When it examined this case at its 59th Session, the Committee pointed out, as it had already done in the past, that in the interest of the normal development of the trade union movement it would be desirable for the parties concerned to have regard to the principles enunciated in the resolution on the independence of the trade union movement, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 35th (1952) Session, to the effect that the fundamental and permanent mission of the trade union movement is the economic and social advancement of the workers and that when trade unions, in accordance with the national law and practice of their respective countries and at the decision of their members, decide to establish relations with a political party or to undertake Constitutional political action as a means towards the advancement of their economic and social objectives, such political relations or action should not be of such a nature as to compromise the continuance of the trade union movement or its social or economic functions irrespective of political changes in the country.
2. 82. The Committee has also reaffirmed the principle laid down in the same resolution to the effect that governments should not attempt to transform the trade union movement into an instrument for the pursuance of political aims' and that they should not attempt to interfere with the normal functions of a trade union movement because of its freely established relations with a political party.