Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 211, Novembre 1981

1. 552. By a telex dated 25 May 1981 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) submitted a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in the Central African Republic in respect of the dissolution, by administrative measures, of the General Union of Central African Workers (UGTC), an affiliate organisation. The UGTC itself supplied further information in support of the complaint of the ICFTU in communications dated 16, 22 and 24 May 1981, as well as other allegations in a communication dated 14 July 1981. The Government, for its part, sent its observations in a letter dated 29 July 1981.
2. 553. The Central African Republic 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).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 554. The complaint of the ICFTU relates to the dissolution, by means of a Presidential Decree dated 16 May 1981, of the UGTC, a trade union organisation which according to the ICFTU has 15,000 members and which, consequently, is by far the most representative organisation at the national level.
2. 555. Apart from its own dissolution by administrative measures, the allegations of the UGTC, in its first communications, deal with the occupation of its premises by the armed forces, the freezing of its assets, the recognition - 48 hours before its dissolution - of a new central trade union organisation which it describes as pro-governmental (the National Confederation of Central African Workers (CNTC)), the censoring of its broadcasts, the removal of banderols and banners which it had set up for 1 May, and threats of arrest and deportation made against trade union officers.
3. 556. The UGTC, in its first communications, states that on 15 May 1981, after due notice had been given, a general strike was declared throughout the private sector following vain attempts at collective bargaining with the Government and the employers. According to the complainants the Government had rejected the workers' grievances which had been listed on the occasion of 1 May. This list included all the workers' claims, namely: a request for the application of the check-off system in public services, a five-day working week instead of six, still on the basis of a 40-hour week, payment of the increased wages which the Government had promised in March 1981, payment of state contributions to the Central African Social Security Office on behalf of a number of former employees who had not received family benefits since 1975, the closing of the French military postal bureau within the Post Office, the ratification of ILO Conventions Nos. 135 and 140 and full respect of the Constitution adopted by the Central African people on 1 February 1981. The UGTC explains, furthermore, that it informed the Government of its reasons for rejecting the programme of economic recovery proposed by the International Monetary Fund as well as the Government's decision to request the Central African Social Security Office to pay the Central African Government's contribution to the ILO.
4. 557. On 16 May 1981, the UGTC goes on to say, the day after the strike was declared, the President of the Republic dissolved the organisation by Decree on the grounds of its supposed uncompromising attitude in the negotiations with the employers and Government, its alleged secret dealings abroad and its illegality. The General Secretary of the UGTC, in his communication of 22 May, recognises however that article 1 of the rules of his organisation had become invalid since the adoption of the Central African Constitution restoring trade union pluralism. He considers, however, that the article in question should simply have been amended on the recommendation of the Minister of the Interior rather than leading to the dissolution of his organisation.
5. 558. More recently, in a communication dated 14 July 1981, the UGTC further alleges that a number of trade unionists have been dismissed or suspended and the organisation includes with its communication a Ministerial Order of 23 May 1981 suspending four senior officials, Mr. Possiti, Mr. Gallo, Mr. Mamadou Sabo and Mr. Sakouma, for abandoning their posts, and a memorandum from the Director of Education dismissing a headmaster, Mr. Solamosso. The UGTC also encloses a note from the Ministry ordering the Director General of the Central African National Savings Bank to block the account of the organisation.

B. The Government's reply

1. 559. In its reply of 29 July 1981, prior to the change of regime, the Government communicates the observations of the Minister of the Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare on the matter.
2. 560. Going over the background, the Government explains that in 1964 the Congress of the Movement for the Social Development of Black Africa (MESAN) decided, for political and Constitutional reasons, to merge the workers' unions, namely the General Confederation of Workers, the African Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the African Confederation of Workers and the African Confederation of Believing workers, into the General Union of Central African Workers. The Government states that this merger infringes the principles of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), ratified by the Central African Republic in 1960, and the Labour Code of 1961, section 6 of which provides that any worker or employer may freely join a union of his choice within the framework of his occupation. Article 1 of the rules of the UGTC, the Government continues, proclaims in effect the Constitution of a single central trade union organisation whose tenets and tendencies are defined in the preamble to the declaration of principles of these rules, contrary to article 4 of the Central African Constitution of 1981, which proclaims a return to the multiparty system and the right freely to establish groups or associations.
3. 561. The Government continues by explaining that the general strike declared by the UGTC on 15 May 1981 in the private sector had nothing to do with the conditions of work of employees which, it maintains, was a pretext used by the UGTC to declare the strike, which actually concerned a legal dispute between two citizens.
4. 562. The Government explains that in October 1980 the employees' delegates of a Bangui company, COLALU, lodged a complaint with the Director of Labour and Social Legislation concerning the behaviour of the personnel manager of the company, Mr. Bagaragonda, who was reproached with being biased in his examination of applications made by the staff to buy sheet-metal and household goods, and with being severe towards the company's employees. Since the staff threatened to go on strike if the personnel manager did not change his attitude, the Director of Labour immediately called a meeting between the persons concerned with a view to conciliation. According to the minutes of the conciliation meeting, the functions of the personnel manager were restricted to administration and management and he was no longer to deal with loan applications. Nevertheless, in January 1981, the employees' delegates, supported by the UGTC, complained to the Director of Labour that the personnel manager was still examining the applications for loans and requested his dismissal, threatening once again to strike. The director of the company, the Government explains, refused to accede to the workers' request and the workers went on strike for a week despite conciliation attempts by the administrative authorities.
5. 563. Subsequently, in May 1981, the Government states, a worker in the company, Mr. Gohol, accused the personnel manager of stealing a jack belonging to the company but the director of the company informed the police that he himself had given the jack to the personnel manager. The latter was therefore released and sued the worker for slanderous denunciation and for threatening to kill him, whereupon the Public Prosecutor ordered the worker's arrest. On the recommendation of the UGTC, the staff of the company then went on strike once again, on 7 May 1981. The Public Prosecutor authorised the worker to be released on bail on 12 May 1981. The Government maintains that the UGTC, on 13 May 1981, took advantage of this legal dispute to serve notice on the Minister of Labour of a general strike in the private sector on 15 May, asking for a meeting of the arbitration board without giving due notice, and demanding the release of the worker alleged to have been victimised by the personnel manager and the departure of the said personnel manager from COLALU.
6. 564. The Minister of Labour summoned the General Secretary of the UGTC on 14 May but he failed to attend. The Government states that, in a press communiqué issued the same day, it had expressed its disapproval of the strike which, it maintained, had no occupational justification and it invited workers in the private sector to go freely to their work. On 15 May, still according to the Government, the strike had little support among the workers because of its political nature. The Government adds that the UGTC leaders, invoking their rules, resorted to violence and threatened to kill workers who vent to work and employers who opened their workshops. The Government concludes by pointing out that Constitutional legality was flouted in the name of trade union monopoly and that the UGTC was dissolved so that Central African workers might be able freely to join organisations of their own choosing. It. also states that the UGTC membership of 15,000, mentioned by the ICFTU, is fictitious since membership implies a voluntary act, a membership card and the payment of contributions and, according to the Government, the UGTC confused the issue by maintaining that every wage earner or peasant was a member of the single trade union organisation in the name of trade union monopoly.
7. 565. Together with its reply, the Government has furnished the notice of 13 May 1981 from the UGTC to the Minister of labour in which it requests the release of the worker, the unconditional departure of the personnel manager and the holding of a meeting of the arbitration board to give a ruling on the matter. It also furnishes the complaint addressed by the employers' federation on 15 May to the Public Prosecutor in respect of the threats made by members of the UGTC to workers who vent to work and threats to the employers who let workers into their premises.

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 566. The Committee notes with concern that the complaint contains serious allegations of the dissolution of the UGTC by administrative measures, of the occupation of its premises by the armed forces, of the censoring of its views, the freezing of its assets and the subsequent dismissal of a number of workers. The Committee notes the explanations furnished by the Government on the reasons which led to such measures.
   • Allegation concerning the dissolution of the UGTC by administrative authority
2. 567. Concerning the dissolution of the UGTC by administrative measures, the Committee can only emphasise the very great importance it attaches to respect for Article 4 of Convention No. 87, ratified by the Central African Republic, and which states that workers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. The Committee places particular emphasis on this point especially since, in the present case, even though the Government disputes the figure of 15,000 as the membership of the UGTC, the measure in question affects a trade union Confederation which is widely representative, thereby entailing serious consequences for the defence of the occupational interests of a large number of workers in the country.
3. 568. The Committee notes that the Presidential Decree in respect of the dissolution expressly refers to the new Central African Constitution, to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), and to the Central African Labour Code of 1961 proclaiming trade union pluralism. However, according to the Government, article 1 of the rules of the UGTC unfairly gives the dissolved organisation a trade union monopoly. In this respect, the Committee considers that the Government, if it wished to change the rules on this point, should either have invited the trade union leaders concerned to repeal or amend the rules themselves (even the UGTC having admitted that they had become invalid) or possibly asked a civil court to take the appropriate action. In no case, however, should it have dissolved the organisation by administrative measures. Consequently, the Committee, recalling that only serious and duly proved facts may lead to the dissolution of trade union organisations by judicial measures, invites the Government, as a matter of priority, to rescind the administrative measure by which it dissolved the UGTC and requests the Government to keep it informed of all steps taken in this connection.
   • Allegation concerning the occupation of premises, the freezing of assets and censorship imposed on the UGTC
4. 569. The Government makes no observations on these points. The Committee, not having sufficient information on these aspects of the case, is not in a position to express an opinion in full knowledge of the facts. Nevertheless, in general terms, the Committee would like at this stage to remind the Government that the occupation of trade union premises may well constitute serious interference by the authorities in trade union affairs. It also wishes to draw the Government's attention to the content of the Resolution concerning Trade Union Rights and their relation to Civil Liberties, adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1970, which laid particular emphasis on freedom of opinion and expression, on the right to receive and impart information and ideas through any media, and on the right to protection of the property of trade union organisations as civil liberties essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights.
   • Allegation concerning the dismissal of certain workers
5. 570. The Government makes no observation on this aspect of the case. Once again, therefore, the Committee cannot express an opinion in full knowledge of the facts. Nevertheless, the Committee has always considered that the dismissal of trade unionists following a labour dispute entails risks of abuse and of seriously jeopardising freedom of association. Consequently, in case it were found that the trade unionists mentioned by the complainants had been dismissed or suspended from their functions on account of trade union activities, the Committee considers that it might be desirable, in order to restore a climate propitious to the harmonious development of industrial relations, for steps to be taken with a view to re-examining their situation.