Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 151, Novembre 1975

1. 21. This case was last examined by the Committee at its session in November 1974, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report which is contained in paragraphs 217 to 224 of the 147th report of the Committee.
2. 22. Sudan has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 23. The Committee recalls that, on 3 April 1973, the complainants supplied information to the effect that the Government had dismissed a large number of elementary and secondary school teachers without any charges being brought against them. According to the complainants, many lost their pension rights. In this connection, they supplied a list of thirty-seven national and provincial trade union officials and militants affected by these measures.
2. 24. In a communication dated 6 August 1974, the Government stated that a thorough investigation was made into the names appearing on the list supplied by the complainants. It was discovered, stated the Government, that despite some difficulty in identifying the persons named on the list, some persons were not teachers and others had been treated fairly according to the officials' Discipline Ordinance. Dismissal was one of the penalties provided for in the ordinance and some of the identified persons listed in the complaint had been dismissed. The Government added, however, that the dismissal had nothing to do with their trade union activities, but was the result of acts which were considered offences under the above-mentioned ordinance. The Government supplied a list of fifteen persons who had been dismissed but who, according to the Government, had received their full pension or gratuity rights. It also cited two workers, one of whom had not been dismissed while the other had been reinstated. Finally, the Government stated that, for reasons of clemency, it had decided to reconsider these cases of dismissal with a view to mitigating the punishment inflicted and that information in that connection would De communicated to the Committee in due course.
3. 25. During its session in November 1974, the Committee pointed out in particular that one way of ensuring the protection of trade union officials against anti-trade union discrimination is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter except for serious misconduct.
4. 26. The Committee noted that, in the present case, the seventeen names supplied by the Government corresponded to the seventeen trade unionists mentioned by the complainants and that the Government had had difficulty in identifying some of the persons named by the complainants. Regarding these seventeen teachers, the Government stated that one had not been dismissed, that another had been reinstated and that fifteen had been dismissed under the Officials' Discipline ordinance, but it provided no information on the acts which had led to the dismissals. The Committee had therefore felt unable to reach conclusions on the matter in full knowledge of the facts. It noted, however, that the Government had decided to reconsider the penalties imposed with a view to mitigating them.
5. 27. In these circumstances, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to note with interest that the Government had decided to reconsider the cases of dismissal with a view to mitigating the punishment inflicted and to communicate the results of that re-examination in due course, and to request the Government to supply information indicating the precise reasons for which the trade unionists named by the Government had been dismissed.
6. 28. In a communication of 4 January 1975, the Government stated that the trade unionists had been dismissed for conduct incompatible with the proper performance of their duties and with their official positions within the meaning of section 6 of the official Discipline ordinance, 1924. According to the Government, they had violated their contractual obligations by demonstrating during their official working hours in support of a Communist bid to seize power and by attempting, in various ways, to convince their students to follow in their footsteps. The Government explained that according to the trade union laws of the Sudan a trade unionist did not lose his status as a trade union officer as a result of dismissal from his occupation. It added that the work of the Committee appointed by the Government to review the cases of dismissal of the officials mentioned in its first communication was progressing and that it would communicate any decisions resulting in the reinstatement of those officials. The Committee expresses the hope that the officials concerned will be able to present their defence without hindrance before a special Committee in which both independence and objectivity can be guaranteed.