Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 236, Novembre 1984

1. 87. The Committee has examined this case on four previous occasions, the most recent being at its meeting in February 1984 when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 233rd report, paras. 338-381, approved by the Governing Body at its 225th' Session (February-March 1984).]
2. 88. The Government subsequently sent its observations in a communication dated 21 October 1984.
3. 89. Romania 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. Previous examination of the case by the Committee

1. 90. The complaint related to the repressive measures that were said to have been taken by the Romanian authorities against the founders and other members of an organisation that was alleged to have been established in 1979 under the name of "The Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers (SLOMR)"; the fate of certain persons in the town of Sighisoara who were said to be militants of the SLOMR; the alleged repressive action that was taken against strikers at the Jiu Valley colliery in 1977, and the alleged arrest and imprisonment of certain persons in the town of Timisoara for trade union activities.
2. 91. The complainant organisation had alleged that, in 1979, an organisation known as the "Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers (SLOMR)" had been founded by 20 persons whose names appeared on a document that was said to be the constituent document of the new organisation. In this constituent document - which the Committee had examined - the stated objectives of the organisation were essentially to struggle for the respect of human rights and, more particularly, for workers' rights. The document stated that the organisation legally constituted under Romanian law was affiliated to the World Confederation of Labour. The complainant had alleged in general terms that this attempt to form a trade union organisation was followed immediately by a wave of repression by the authorities against the union and its members, including the arrest, internment in psychiatric hospitals, exile, beatings and summary sentencing. For its part, the Government strenuously denied the existence of any such new organisation and consequently any repressive measures that were said to have been taken against it or its members. The Government had specified that 15 out of the 20 founder members of the SLOMR could not be traced, that two (Ionel Cama and Gheorghe Brasoveanu) were retired and at present living in Bucharest (having previously been sentenced for disseminating fascist propaganda, and subsequently amnestied), and three (two of whom were retired, Nicola Gugu and Gheorghe Fratila, the other, Iona Grigore, a seamstress) were living in Bucharest and Otopeni respectively and had no knowledge of the new union referred to in the complaint.
3. 92. Considering that it did not have at its disposal adequate information upon which to base any conclusions on this aspect of the case, the Committee had requested the Government and the complainants to supply more detailed information on this matter.
4. 93. In response to this request, the complainant had transmitted a number of documents prepared for the most part as articles in French publications. This information contained greater detail concerning certain of the founder members of the organisation and gave specific information regarding persons who were said to be spokesmen or organisers of the new union in Bucharest and in other parts of the country. In particular, detailed information was given concerning the two persons (Ionel Cama and Gheorghe Brasoveanu) who were said to be founder members of the organisation, the dates on which they were arrested and the institutions in which they were interned. These persons were allegedly arrested and detained shortly following the date on which the new organisation is said to have been set up. The documents transmitted by the complainant also contained the names of many other persons who, it alleged, were spokesmen or militants of the SLOMR and who, as the organisation began to be established in various parts of the country, were harassed or arrested by the security police in Romania, or in some cases left the country. The Government had failed to transmit any specific information in reply to the latest allegations brought by the complainant and confined itself to repeating its previous denial that any such organisation existed and that, accordingly, no repressive measures could have been taken against its founders or members.
5. 94. As regards the allegations that certain persons connected with the new organisation had disappeared (namely, Vasile Paraschiv, Virgil Chender, Constantin Acrinei and Melania Mateescu) the Committee had decided in February 1983 that, on the basis of the information supplied by the complainant and the Government, this aspect of the case called for no further examination. However, the complainant later made further allegations. It mentioned that a number of individuals and international organisations had attempted unsuccessfully to contact Vasile Paraschiv and Virgil Chender, and that Constantin Acrinei was amongst the signatories of a letter describing the strike at the Jiu Valley mines in 1977 and the repression which followed that strike, and that he was subsequently transferred to another mine of Baia Borsa in the north of the country. The Committee expressed its regret that the Government had failed to respond specifically to these allegations.
6. 95. As regards the alleged strike at the Jiu Valley mines in 1977 which was said to have been followed by severe repressive measures by the authorities, the complainant had submitted a document giving a specific account of the strike. It had also communicated the names of some miners against whom measures had allegedly been taken following the strike (transfer to other, smaller mines or demotion). The complainant, in addition, had supplied information concerning the transfer to a forced labour camp of a group of miners, the names of some of whom were given. All of the allegations in connection with this strike in 1977 at the Jiu Valley had, however, met with a general denial by the Government that any strike had taken place or that any repressive measures were at any time taken.
7. 96. In February 1983, the Committee had also requested the Government to supply precise information concerning the reasons for the arrest and detention of a number of named persons in the town of Timisoara who, according to the complainant, had been involved in the establishment of the SLOMR in that town. The complainant later gave the names and addresses of additional union militants in Timisoara but no information or explanations were provided by the Government in response to the Committee's request.
8. 97. In the absence of any detailed replies by the Government to the numerous serious allegations brought by the complainant, in particular the specific and detailed information provided by the latter in its most recent communication, the Committee expressed its regret that the Government of Romania had not, in the Committee's view, responded in detail to the grave allegations that had been made against it or to the detailed information supplied by the complainant which, in the opinion of the Committee, could bring into question the application of the principles of freedom of association in Romania and, more particularly, of the freedom of association Conventions which have been ratified by Romania. Furthermore, in order to be able to reach conclusions in this case in full knowledge of the facts, and with the utmost objectivity, the Committee requested the Government to indicate, at an early date, its willingness to accept a direct contacts mission which would elucidate all the matters remaining outstanding in the present case and report to the Committee on the results of the mission.

B. The Government's reply

1. 98. In its reply, the Government first describes the economic developments in Romania over the last four decades in which a marked increase in revenues was evident. The Government considers that such occurrences in the economy and the standard of living could not have come about if human rights, and particularly freedom of association, had not been respected or if repressive measures had been taken against the workers.
2. 99. Retracing the history of the trade union movement in Romania, the Government points out that, in 1872, the General Association of Romanian Workers was established, and in 1906 the General Commission of Romanian Trade Unions, which proves, according to the Government, that the unity of Romanian workers is not a new phenomenon.
3. 100. At present, the General Union of Romanian Trade Unions has 7,500,000 members which represents 99 per cent of all wage earners. Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution and the social organisations - namely the trade unions - do not constitute "transmission corridors" but participate directly, responsibly and efficiently in the solution of social problems. Trade union organisations enjoy in particular the right to propose legislation, and all draft regulations texts which concern the rights and duties of workers are submitted, for opinion, to the General Union of Romanian Trade Unions.
4. 101. Given these facilities, the role and the position of trade unions in Romanian society, the Government recalls the terms of article 19, paragraph 8, of the ILO Constitution which provides that "in no case shall the adoption of any Convention or Recommendation by the Conference, or the ratification of any Convention by any Member, be deemed to affect any law, award, custom or agreement which ensures more favourable conditions to the workers concerned than those provided for in the Convention or Recommendation".
5. 102. As regards the allegations concerning the 20 founders of the "Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers", the Government recalls that it has already supplied information on five of them (Ionel Gheorghe Cama, Gheorghe Brasoveanu, Nicolas Gugu, Gheorghe Fratila and Iona Grigore) and that it has already indicated that the other 15 persons mentioned did not exist. Referring to each of the persons cited in the allegations, the Government states that none of them live at the addresses indicated by the complainant. More specifically, the Government gives the following information on these persons.
   • Ilie Blidaru: smelter, 7 Traian Street, Drobeta Turnu Severin - the person who lives at this address is Nicolae Blidaru who works in a food shop.
   • Costel Haritoian: metalworker, Crihala Street, Block A.2/B, apartment 4, Turnu - this supposedly means the city of Drobeta Turnu Severin and there is no person of this name at this address or in all the city. Endra Molnar: metalworker, Kiselef Street, Block A.6/3, apartment 7, Turnu Severin - this person does not live at that address although there is one Endre Molnar in Dobreta Turnu Severin who is an electrician, not a metalworker, who lives at another address and who knows nothing of any such "trade union".
   • Romulus Bondea: rivetter, 14 Lenin Street, Turnu Severin - a teacher by the name of Gheorghe Bordea lives here.
   • Nicolae Mutu. smelter, 33 Republic Bld., C, apartment 14, Turnu Severin - Zaharia Mocioiu, a turner, lives at this address.
   • Aurelian Paunescu: smelter-caster, Tudor Vladimirescu Bld., Block B.2, apartment 2, Turnu Severin - there is a person of this name in the city of Drobeta Turnu Severin but at another address and retired. Vasile Otel: polisher, 54 Cicero Street, Turnu Severin - at this address lives Ilie Popescu, a shop worker.
   • Aurel Mustachide: rivetter, 22 Proletari Street, Turnu Severin - a technician named Ion Dobre lives here.
   • Nicolae Balamat: smelter, Calea Targu-Jui, Block B.5/4, apartment 8, Turnu Severin - one Virgillu Balamat, a locksmith, lives here and he knows nothing of the "trade union".
   • Elena Pesmagiu: smelter, Crihala Street, Block C.4, apartment 5, Turnu Severin - a mechanic named Paul Danila lives here.
   • Victoria Ivanovici: electrician, 103 Dorobanti Street, Turnu Severin - a pensioner named Dumitri Pasare lives here.
   • Frosa Pesteaunu: dependent, 11 Calea Grivitei, Turnu Severin - a store's chief named Gheorghe Polea lives here.
   • Petre Papa, smelter, North CET, Block B.]/1, apartment 3, Turnu Severin - no one of this profession or address exists.
   • Nihai Gheorghiu: electrician, Marasti Street, Turnu Severin - this person does not exist at this address where Dumitri Elenescu, a pensioner, lives.
   • Romica Badiu: smelter, 109 Dorobanti Street, Turnu Severin - this person does not exist at this address because Dorobanti Street only has 103 numbers.
6. 103. The Government concludes from all this information that the complainant's allegations are consciously misleading. In addition, it points out that the 20 names listed as founding members group together persons from three different localities, one of which is over 340 kilometers away from the others, and that they are employed in different occupations and jobs and some are even retired. The Government considers that such a trade union structure - even if the union did exist - would not correspond to the provisions of any relevant convention. The Government also observes that the trade union in question is referred to in the allegations as being essentially a committee for the defence of human rights which has called, in particular, for respect of Article 12 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which covers the freedom to enter and leave one's country. The Government indicates in this respect that several persons mentioned in the complainant's communications have requested passports to travel overseas without any relationship to trade union activities. It also points out that in the documentation presented in the Romanian language, outdated spellings and titles are used, which have been changed for several decades. According to the Government, this proves that the documentation was drafted by persons who have nothing in common with the country.
7. 104. As regards the situation of other persons referred to in the complaint, the Government recalls that it has already supplied information on.
   • Vasilie Paraschiv (lives and works in Ploiesti). G. Jurca/Yurca (has not been identified).
   • Ion Dobre/Dobra (has not been identified in the town of Lupeni but a certain Constantin Dobre, ex-miner, who has become a student, was found).
   • Virgil Chender (works in an undertaking in the town of Sighisoara and has undertaken no activity linked to the so-called union; sentenced in 1968 to two years' imprisonment for fraud and bribes).
   • Melania Mateescu (former medical assistant, divorced in 1976, known for her disorganised life, died November 1980 from alcoholic poisoning, was not known to have any activity linked to the so-called trade union).
   • Constantin Acrinei (no one of this name identified).
8. 105. As regards the "Timisoara persons" (Stefan Wolf "and his family", Edgard Ludwig "and his wife", Helmut Reiter "and his wife", Horst Gangler "and his parents, sister and grandparents", Helmut Wallner "and his brother and parents", Stefy Mayer, Carl Gibson, Erwin Ludwig), the Government states that these persons had requested, and in many cases been granted, the right to live overseas. They have not been involved in any action linked to the so-called trade union. In addition, when these persons worked in Romania, most of them were members of trade unions at their workplaces.
9. 106. The contacts which certain of these persons had had with the course did not concern trade unions, but the common law. Carl Gibson's case shows this: his family had left the country and until the day when he was legally allowed to leave he was before the courts for social behavious contrary to the legal rules (attempts to fradulently cross the border).
10. 107. One annex to the complaint refers to other persons allegedly repressed on account of their trade union activities. Given that in most of these cases the names are illegible or unintelligible without the least information as to their addresses, the Government states that it is extremely difficult to identify them. Where identification was possible it was clear that the persons mentioned had not been involved in activities linked to the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Several of them had simply requested passports for various reasons. This was the case, for example, for the following persons. Alexandru Comsa, Radu Sorin Ghita, Nicolae Oblici, Sorin Marin, Lucianul Lucian, Mocanu Marian, Tiplea si Daniela. The Government adds that the Romanian legislation has clear provisions to resolve such requests and each citizen may approach the appropriate authorities. In each well-founded case adequate solutions can be found.
11. 108. According to the Government, the allegations relating to the 1977 strike in the Jiu Valley mines are completely unfounded. In fact what happened was that a letter was written by some miners to the , authorities in which it was stated that the signatories' attitude to the law on retirement pensions had to be made known as well as their attitude to other questions concerning the creation of jobs for their wives in neighbouring localities, the organisation of production and work and the reduction of non-productive personnel. The Government adds that it is also possible that ill-informed or spiteful persons had given false significance to the miners' general meetings or production meetings during which there is sometimes direct and heated discussion, in a spirit of criticism and self-criticism, of problems concerning production, work, life, supply and redistribution. According to the Government, the miners and their unions have an ample range of possibilities for discussing and resolving, with the management of the mines and the State bodies, the problems linked to the work process and daily life. Every time solutions have been found to the satisfaction of those concerned which, still according to the Government, shows the seriousness, responsibility and wisdom which the parties demonstrate in their reciprocal relations.
12. 109. The Government also notes that the Jiu Valley mines are frequently visited by overseas and trade union delegations. Specialist courses for various foreign scholarship holders, some of whom come through the ILO, are also held there. The Government adds that it is clear that such constructive international action of co-operation and exchange of experience could not have taken place in, a mining zone where strikes were taking place or where "terror and repression" reigned, as the complainant alleges. The Government also supplies statistics on mining production and working conditions in that sector.
13. 110. In conclusion, the Government states that the authors of the allegations have for the most part provided political speculation concerning doubtful information: according to it, this is confirmed by the disrespectful and unacceptable language which has been used. This is why the Government insists that an end be put to the case, which has been manufactured entirely for the benefit of political interests which are alien to the objects, the principles and the universality of the ILO.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 111. The Committee has again examined the different aspects of this case in the light of the most recent observations transmitted by the Government. As in its previous communications, the Government denies the existence of any new trade union organisation. It points out that, according to the complainant's own statements, the organisation is essentially a committee for the defence of human rights and that it groups together persons living in different localities and working in diverse jobs and occupations.
2. 112. In this regard, the Committee must point out that the complainant has supplied evidence of the creation of an organisation called "The Free Trade Union of Romanian Workers" (SLOMR), namely the constituent act of the organisation in question.
3. 113. In order to be able to reach a decision on the nature of this organisation, the Committee has again examined the contents of this constituent document. It is stated therein that the SLOMR shall struggle for the respect of basic human rights with particular emphasis on the rights arising from labour relations. The organisation does not propose to undertake political action since it makes a distinction between the defence of the political rights of the citizen and political activities. The SLOMR also states that it will act for the effective application of Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which lays down the right to a decent standard of living as regards food, clothing and housing, as well as for the respect of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which concerns the right of persons to leave and return to their country. The organisation proposes first to struggle for respect of citizens' rights in labour relations (right to work, fight against unemployment, improvement in working conditions, feeding the population).
4. 114. In the present case, the first question to be answered is whether the SLOMR can be considered as an organisation aimed at the promotion and defence of workers' interests under the definition contained in Article 10 of Convention No. 87. In this respect, the Committee notes that the constituent document of SLOMR stresses the Organisation's activities in the field of labour relations and list subjects of an economic and social nature to be fought for. The fact that the SLOMR intends to struggle for human rights as the Government points out, is not, in the Committee's opinion, sufficient evidence to prove that the organisation in question is not of a trade union character. The Committee in fact considers that to play a genuine and efficient role in the promotion and defence of workers' interests, trade unions should be able to act in a climate of freedom and security. This implies that, in a situation where they consider that they do not enjoy the basic freedoms to fulfil their mission, trade unions have grounds to request the recognition and exercise of these freedoms and such claims should be considered as falling within the framework of legitimate trade union activities.
5. 115. In the Committee's opinion, the allegations presented, therefore, raise the question of the ability of workers to set up freely organisations of their own choosing. In this context the Committee must again recall that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has addressed a number of observations to the Government which have related, in particular, to section 164 of the Labour Code, under which trade unions operate by virtue of the rules of the General Trade Union Confederation, and to section 26 of the Romanian Constitution and section 165 of the Labour Code which seem to establish a close link between the trade unions and the Romanian Communist Party. The Committee of Experts has considered that these provisions would appear to restrict the right of workers to establish organisations of their own choosing and to make it legally impossible to establish organisations that are independent of the Party.
6. 116. The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government that the unity of the Romanian trade union movement has a long history. On this point the Committee would refer to the principles laid down in this area by the Committee of Experts for the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in its 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining. [See, ILC, 69th Session, 1983, Report III (Part 4B), Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, para. 137.] That Committee considered that even in a case where a de facto monopoly exists as a consequence of all the workers having been grouped together, legislation should not institutionalise this factual situation, for example, by designating the single central organisation by name, even if the existing trade union so requests. Even in a situation where, at some point in the history of a nation, all workers have preferred to unify the trade union movement, they should, however, be able to safeguard their freedom to set up, should they so wish in the future, unions outside the established trade union structure. In addition, the rights of workers who do not wish to join existing trade unions or the existing central organisation should also be protected.
7. 117. Referring to the Government's statement concerning article 19, paragraph 8, of the ILO Constitution, the Committee must point out - as it has done in the past - that non-compliance of the national legislation with a Convention can be justified as instituting more favourable conditions of the workers within the meaning of this provision of the ILO's Constitution only in so far as these legislative provisions do not contradict it. [See, in this regard, Official Bulletin, Vol. LV, 1972, Nos. 2, 3 and 4, pp. 125 to 149, and ILC, 63rd Session, 1977, Report III (Part 4A), Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, p. 167.]
8. 118. In the absence of new information on this aspect of the case, the Committee can only emphasise that the right of workers to set up organisations of their own choosing - as guaranteed by Article 2 of Convention No. 87 - implies in particular the possibility of creating workers' organisations in a climate of full security, and independent of the already existing trade union structure and of any political party. The Committee notes, moreover, that in previous reports supplied under article 22 of the ILO Constitution on the application of Convention No. 87, the Government referred to the preparation of new trade union legislation. It therefore expresses the firm hope that this new legislation may be adopted in the near future and that it will take account of the comments made both by the Committee of Experts and by the present Committee, so as to give full effect to the guarantees provided for in Convention No. 87, ratified by Romania. The Committee therefore recommends that the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations be drawn to the legislative aspect of the case so that it can be taken into account in that Committee's regular examination of the application of Convention No. 87.
9. 119. As regards the measures of repression allegedly taken against the founders of the SLOMR, the Committee notes that the Government has supplied information on five of them, three of whom apparently know nothing of the new trade union referred to in the complaint. As regards the two founder members who were the first to sign the constituent document of the SLOMR - Ionel Cama and Gheorghe Brasouveanu - and concerning whom the complainant supplied detailed information (dates of arrest and places of detention), the Government limits itself to stating that these persons were sentenced for "fascist propaganda", then amnestied. The Committee regrets that the Government has not mentioned the precise facts which gave rise to the sentences and which would have permitted the Committee to determine whether these facts could have been considered as being linked to legitimate trade union activities.
10. 120. As for the 15 other founder members of the SLOMR, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government from which it appears that all of these persons do not live at the addresses supplied in the complainant's documentation. The Committee considers, however, that the fact that the authorities have not been able to find the persons in question at the addresses given in the complaint does not suffice in itself as proof that they did not take part in the creation of the SLOMR, all the more so since the Government itself states that several of the persons mentioned by the complainant have subsequently left the country. Furthermore, as regards the allegations relating to the arrest and imprisonment for trade union activities of a certain number of persons in the town of Timisoara, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, these persons have since left the country. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the allegations stated that these persons had been arrested and imprisoned before they left the country, which the Government does not deny since it limits itself to indicating generally that none of them were subject to arrests which could have been linked to the application of the international Conventions on freedom of association.
11. 121. In view of all this, the Committee can therefore only conclude that the information supplied by the Government does not address the detailed allegations of the complainant. It must therefore strongly emphasise that measures of detention or convictions applied against workers' representatives in the framework of activities connected with the defence of their members' interests constitute a danger for the free exercise of trade union rights. In addition, such measures can give rise to a climate of intimidation and fear impeding the normal exercise of trade union activities of the organisation to which these persons belong.
12. 122. As regards the allegations concerning the strikes organised in 1977 in the Jiu Valley coal mines and the repressive measures - such as transfers and dismissals - taken against the strikers, the Committee notes that the Government repeats its earlier statements that the complainant's allegations are groundless. However, the Government adds that these events were restricted to the sending of a letter by some miners to the authorities concerning, particularly, retirement questions, the creation of jobs and the organisation of work. It therefore rejects as a whole the information given in the complaint and makes no reference to the miners, expressly cited by the complainant, against whom these measures were allegedly taken after the strike. It is difficult in these circumstances for the Committee to arrive at concrete conclusions on this aspect of the case, all the more so since the facts referred to in the complaint now date back to over seven years ago. However, in view of the fact that the allegations contained precise information concerning the strike and the prejudicial consequences it allegedly had for certain workers, the Committee considers it useful to recall that strikes are one of the essential means that trade unions should have to further and defend their members' interests and to organise their activities and that restrictions on the right to strike impair the exercise of trade union rights. In addition, when workers are subject to prejudicial measures, for having exercised the right to strike, there is reason to believe that they have been penalised for their trade union activities and are subject to anti-union discrimination contrary to Article 1 of Convention No. 98.