Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 208, Juin 1981

1. 194. The complaint of the Sri Lanka Independent Employees Union (SLIEU) is contained in two letters dated 5 August and 5 September 1980. The Government sent its reply in a letter dated 20 April 1981.
2. 195. Sri Lanka has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 196. In its letter of 5 August 1980, the SLIEU alleges that during the general strike that was going on at that time, the government-owned employer, the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment, ordered that union to vacate the premises which it had been occupying in the corporation's building since 1963. The union was only given eight hours to move out. It claims that while its working Committee was trying to make alternative arrangements, the management illegally broke into the union's office, removed files and all other documents pertaining to its members' industrial action and took away its furniture and other equipment. One of the files contained information on alleged malpractice by the employer concerning which parliamentary investigations were pending.
2. 197. To its second letter, the complainant annexes copies of two letters dated 16 May 1980 addressed to it by the management: the first letter announces the withdrawal of recognition by the management because the union had not supplied particulars of its office bearers, and the second prohibits the president of the union from entering the corporation's premises. Other annexed documents relate to the union's request to present its information to the Parliamentary Subcommittee into malpractices in certain government establishments, and to its complaints presented to the police, the Inspector General of Police and the President of Sri Lanka concerning the illegal break in. In this last letter, the union states that the management broke into its offices to remove the files relating to the alleged malpractice.

B. The Government's reply

1. 198. The Government states that the complainant's office was situated in the premises of the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment, the State's largest trading organisation. During the period when the Essential services order was in force, for reasons of security, it was decided to withdraw the facility afforded to trade unions to have their offices within government departmental or state corporation premises. Accordingly, the complainant was asked to hand back to the authorities the premises used by it to house the union office.
2. 199. According to the Government, as the union did not comply with this request, and in view of the fact that this office contained some belongings of the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment as well, the door of the union office was opened by senior officials of the Establishment in the presence of the Honorary General Secretary of the union and police officers. It states that the union's belongings were kept in safe custody in the Deputy General Manager's office until the Additional General Manager of the Establishment instructed the General Secretary of the union to take over the belongings.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 200. This case concerns allegations of illegal entry into union premises by the government-owned employer and the seizure of union documents and equipment. The complainant alleges that the purpose of the entry was to remove files containing information to be presented by the union to a Parliamentary Subcommittee into malpractices in certain government establishments, and that the entry was carried out to impede the smooth functioning of the union's activities.
2. 201. In the past, the Committee has referred to Article 2 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Sri Lanka, and the Resolution on Trade Union Rights and their relation to Civil Liberties (adopted at the 54th Session of the International Labour Conference, 1970) when stating that the right to adequate protection of trade union property is one of those civil liberties which is essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights. In the present case, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the facilities were removed for reasons of security and that the union's property was removed under the supervision of various authorities including a union official, and was kept in safe custody until returned to the union.
3. 202. The Government has not explained what were the reasons of security on which it relied for removing the facilities at such short notice. However, the Committee notes that the complainant has lodged formal complaints against the illegal entry and seizure of goods with the police, the Inspector General of Police and the President of the country; it hopes that the investigation of these complaints will take due account of the union's right to adequate protection of its property and of the fact that the property has been returned. The Committee would like to be kept informed of the outcome of the investigation.