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

1. 215. By a communication of 19 November 1980, the World Federation of Teachers' Unions (FISE) presented a complaint alleging infringement of trade union rights in Senegal. The Government submitted its comments in a letter dated 23 February 1981.
2. 216. Senegal has ratified both 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).

A. Allegations of the complainants

1. 217. The complaint of FISE concerns dismissals and other alleged disciplinary sanctions imposed on teachers as a result of a labour dispute.
2. 218. FISE transmits the information which it has received from the Single Democratic Union of Teachers of Senegal (SUDES) a Senegalese organisation affiliated to the Federation and which spearheaded the protest movement.
3. 219. It appears from this information that after having legally given a strike warning one month before, SUDES began a strike on 13 March 1980 which affected school examinations. SUDES adds that after a pretence at negotiation, the Government launched a campaign of systematic repression. Nine members of the Executive Committee, out of the 12 persons suspended, were allegedly dismissed from office for having called on militants to carry out the strike affecting school examinations; 19 officials of the union who were suspended for withholding examination results were also allegedly dismissed from office; it is also alleged that 38 other strikers were suspended and 500 teachers penalised by being transferred to posts in the most remote areas of the country. FISE also adds that the militants and members of the Executive Committee of SUDES were prohibited from leaving the country, thereby preventing them from fulfilling their trade union duties at the international level.
4. 220. Furthermore, on 25 October 1980, the Executive Committee of SUDES, after having given due notice in accordance with the law, convened a meeting of information to be held in Dakar. The Government allegedly prohibited the holding of this meeting. The Executive Committee decided nevertheless to hold the meeting but to transfer it to its own headquarters. However, as the meeting was about to open, it is alleged that the police intervened without any warning. Several persons were injured, some quite seriously and several persons taken away for questioning. The latter, including the Secretary-General, Mr. Mamadou Ndoye and the Secretary for Pedagogical Training, Mr. Madior Diouf, were released the same day but ordered to appear on 28 October 1980 on a charge, in the words of the police inspector, of "inciting the crowds to occupy the public thoroughfare".
5. 221. FISE concludes that the arbitrary acts of the Government violate the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and the UNESCO-ILO Recommendation of 1966.

B. The Government's reply

1. 222. The Government counters the allegations by maintaining that it is an error for FISE and SUDES to base their complaint against administrative sanctions on the above-mentioned Conventions and Recommendations in circumstances in which these sanctions were applied to state officials guilty of serious professional misconduct.
2. 223. The Government explains that SUDES is a trade union of public officials and that the exercise of its trade union rights is subject to the laws and regulations currently in force in Senegal.
3. 224. It points out that 12 members of the former National Committee of SUDES and 18 militants of the trade union who were guilty of professional misconduct were removed from office in compliance with the disciplinary procedures set forth in Act No. 61.33 of 15 January 1963 respecting the general regulations applicable to public officials. The Government explains that the suspension of an official from his work is a conservatory measure provided for by these regulations and adds that the formalities stipulated by the law in this matter were duly respected. The transfers referred to in the complaint were made for administrative reasons. Finally, no special restrictions have been placed on travel abroad by members of the Executive Committee of SUDES. However, the Government points out that, as in all countries, the officers in question must, like everyone else, obtain an exit visa prior to travel. It admits that the granting of exit visas for those members of SUDES who were subject to disciplinary measures in July, August and September 1980 was postponed on a purely exceptional and conservatory basis. Their prolonged absence from the country could have prevented the disciplinary proceedings instituted against these persons from being held normally and the conclusion of such proceedings within the time limits imposed by regulations currently in force.
4. 225. The Government adds, moreover, that SUDES had presented a series of claims in eight points, the two most important of which concern an increase from 20 to 50 per cent in the teaching allowance and the extension to all teachers (primary, secondary, vocational training and higher education teachers) of the compensatory housing allowance of CFA 25,000 francs per month previously reserved to primary teachers.
5. 226. As concerns the wage claim contained in the first point, the Government states that it has made considerable efforts on behalf of the teachers and education in general, which absorbs 33 per cent of the national current budget. Teachers are the only state officials who receive a teaching allowance equal to 20 per cent of their indicial wage and which they continue to receive even after their retirement.
6. 227. As regards the second point, the Government states that in the past only primary school teachers received the housing allowance which was inherited from the colonial regulations. This allowance is a major burden for the state budget and in the interests of equity and in the light of the economic and financial situation resulting from the world economic crisis, the Government believes that no further increase in budgetary expenditure can be considered. Any claim which would accentuate the wage difference existing between teachers and other state officials with similar qualifications is, in its view, an unreasonable one.
7. 228. The Government explains that the above-mentioned arguments were communicated to the SUDES officials who, despite the willingness expressed by the Government, continue to maintain that the latter refuses to negotiate with them. Towards the end of the 1979-80 school year they undertook a trial of strength with the authorities by launching strike appeals which in particular urged teachers to refuse to disclose to the authorities the results which had been obtained by students in their examinations and to sabotage the marking of the end-of-year examinations and competitions by awarding fanciful marks.
8. 229. The Government concludes that it was for these reasons of a professional nature that the officials were brought before disciplinary boards and penalised. The officials in question have already made use of the guarantees provided for by the legislation respecting disciplinary measures (respites, subpoena of witnesses, institution of civil actions) and the other appeal procedures provided for by the national laws remain at their disposal.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 230. The complainants in the present case state that teachers who are guilty of simply having taken part in a legal strike following a labour dispute were dismissed, suspended or transferred to other posts. On the other hand, the Government maintains that disciplinary action was taken against state officials who were guilty of serious professional misconduct by refusing to disclose to the school authorities the results obtained by the students in their examinations and by sabotaging the marking of the various end-of-term examinations and competitions by awarding fanciful marks.
2. 231. However, the Government admits that these events took place within the context of a labour dispute.
3. 232. In the view of the Committee, the action undertaken by the SUDES officials who were persuaded, as part of a labour dispute, to sabotage the marking of various examinations and competitions by awarding fanciful marks to the students, clearly exceeds the limits of what can be defined as normal trade union activity.
4. 233. However, the Committee believes that if the initial grievance concerning wage claims and conditions of work had been dealt with in constructive negotiations between the parties concerned, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, the tensions which were created in the present case might perhaps have been avoided.
5. 234. As concerns the allegations that teachers who participated in a strike were suspended or transferred to other posts and the refusal to grant exit visas to those SLIDES members who were involved in disciplinary proceedings, the Committee would like to stress that although it takes note of the statement of the Government that this refusal was quite exceptional and was simply intended to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings could be held normally, one of the basic principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment such as dismissal, transfer, demotion and other prejudicial measures - and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has also indicated that a policy of transfer of persons holding trade union office may harm the efficiency of trade union activities.
6. 235. As regards the allegation that the holding of a trade union meeting of information in October 1980 was banned, the Committee notes that the Government has not furnished any information on this aspect of the case. However, the Committee has already stressed in a previous case concerning Senegal that freedom from government interference in the holding and proceedings of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.