Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 218, Novembre 1982

1. 737. By a communication dated 16 April 1982 the Capitol Employees Organising Group (CEOG) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights in the United States of America. The CEOG submitted additional information in communications dated 26 April, 11 May, 16 June and 4 and 7 October 1982. The Government sent its observations in letters dated 9 September and 28 October 1982.
2. 738. The United States of America has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 739. In its communication of 16 April 1982, the CEOG alleges that the United States Senate has failed to respect its restaurant employees rights as enshrined in the National Labour Relations Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, the Fair Labour Standards Act, the Civil Service Reform Act, as well as the US Constitution itself, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of Philadelphia. The CEOG explains that although set up in December 1979 to represent "a majority of the [Senate restaurant] employees", and despite a formal request to the Senate for recognition on 3 March 1980 (a copy of which is supplied), the Senate refuses to negotiate, confer or meet with it. According to the complainant, its requests for conferences concerning this situation addressed to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human. Resources - Committees which usually deal with internal administration - have also been ignored. It claims that the management has launched new moves to harass and intimidate the workers of the Senate restaurants.
2. 740. Attached to its letter of 26 April 1982, the CEOG supplies copies of handwritten statements made by some of its members recounting a meeting which took place three days previously, between the Acting Director of the US Senate Food Services and these employees. It appears from these statements that some form of reprimand - suspension or termination of employment - was threatened unless the organisation was disbanded and the complaint to the ILO was withdrawn.
3. 741. In its communication of 11 May 1982, the CEOG supplies copies of the refusal to accord recognition to any labour organisation (signed by the Architect of the Capitol who is legally responsible for the management of the Senate restaurants), a further formal request for recognition dated 10 November 1980, the petitions sent to 11 individual Senators requesting help in obtaining recognition, as well as its newsletters setting out its case for recognition which were distributed to every Senator's office. In its letter of 18 June 1982 the complainant states that abuses continue in the Senate restaurants, and it requests the ILO to make use of its direct contacts procedure.
4. 742. In its letter of 4 October 1982, the complainant states that the Senate adjourned for the months of October and November without having taken action on the CEOG's March and November 1980 petitions for recognition as the Senate restaurant workers bargaining agent. It points out that, in fact, the petitions are not under formal Senate consideration because they have never been officially received in accordance with Senate Rule IV (which reads "a brief statement of the contents of each petition, memorial, or paper presented to the Senate shall be entered" in the Senate Journal), nor officially referred to an appropriate Senate body in accordance with Senate Rule VII (which reads that each day the Senate is in session "the Presiding Officer shall lay before the Senate communications addressed to the Senate" and they "shall be received and disposed of" unless unanimous consent is otherwise given). According to the complainant, the Senate Majority and Minority leaders have asked the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration to study the working conditions in the Senate restaurants, but the CEOG is pessimistic as regards any outcome since its own appeals to this Committee have been unsuccessful.
5. 743. The complainant states that official recognition is critically important to its members as they are unprotected by statutes governing working conditions for other employees throughout the country, the Senate having exempted itself from the laws relating to discrimination, fair labour standards and collective bargaining. It cites examples of harassment of restaurant employees - dismissal and forced retirement - which it has been unable to redress because of the present situation. It further states that officials of the Executive Branch of the US Government have expressed their concern about the CEOG's predicament but are unable to obtain Senate action because of the constitutional separation of powers in the country.
6. 744. In its letter of 7 October 1982, the complainant states that, although the Committee on Rules and Administration has declared its intention to study the situation, it has reason to believe that the study will not result in recognition nor negotiations leading to a collective agreement, nor even the establishment of normal labour-management relations. A meeting between CEOG employees and staff representatives with the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration on 5 August was strictly limited to the employees' personal grievances, the Chairman allegedly specifying that under no circumstances would labour-management issues be discussed. This same chairman has, according to a copy of a letter dated 13 May 1982 supplied by the complainant, informed the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders that the question of employee unions in the Senate is for the entire Senate and not just for various Committees or senators since the issue of representational rights goes beyond the specific jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration over the Senate restaurants. The complainant further encloses a copy of its 6 August letter to the Chairman setting out its members most serious concerns related to the general lack of consultation with employees over conditions of employment, for example: the lack of due process in disciplinary actions, lack of bulletin board rights, lack of safety and health complaint procedures, salary questions.

B. The Government's reply

1. 745. In its communication of 9 September 1982, the Government states that, as citizens of the United States, employees of Congress are entitled to the full protection of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights which guarantees civil liberties relating to the exercise of freedom of association. It explains, however, that no specific provision exists in its domestic legislation granting to organisations of congressional employees the right to be awarded exclusive recognition status. Furthermore, due to the doctrine of separation of powers, the Executive Branch of Government has no jurisdiction with regard to the functioning of the Legislative Branch, its authority being limited in this instance to bringing the case to the attention of the Legislative Branch for appropriate action, which the Department of Labor has done.
2. 746. In response to this action, states the Government, on 5 August 1982 the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate jointly requested the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to undertake, together with the Architect of the Capitol and the Senate Legal Counsel, a study of the situation surrounding the CEOG, and to prepare, as necessary, recommendations for further action. The Government points out that this study is now in progress and that the Chairman and other Senate officials have opened a dialogue with the workers concerned and their representatives, including the Executive Director of the CEOG. The Government indicates that it will promptly inform the Committee on Freedom of Association of the results of the study and any further developments relating to this case.
3. 747. In its communication of 28 October 1982, the Government states that after further discussion with Senate staff, it has received assurances that the study will deal with all the central issues of the case, including the broad aspects of the issue of representation rights for Senate employees, and that the study will hopefully be completed before March 1983.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 748. The Committee observes that according to the complainant - a trade union formed in December 1979 and representing a majority of Senate restaurant employees - almost two and a half years have passed since its first formal request was made to the US Senate for recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees of the Senate restaurants. The Committee further notes that both the complainant and the Government have informed it of the establishment - in August 1982 - of a high-level Senate study into the situation surrounding the complainant organisation and that the Government will promptly inform the Committee of the results of this study which will hopefully be completed before March 1983. According to the Government a dialogue is underway concerning the grievances of the Senate restaurant employees but the complainant alleges that, to date, only personal grievances have been discussed, to the specific exclusion of general labour-management questions.
2. 749. While noting the Government's statements that Congress employees are entitled to the full protection and exercise of freedom of association under the US Constitution, and that the division of powers in that country precludes Executive intervention in questions affecting the Legislature, the Committee considers that it would aid its investigation of the allegation if it had a copy of the findings and recommendations of the Senate study at present underway. While awaiting the communication of these findings, the Committee expresses the hope that the study and dialogue will ensure a situation in which the workers concerned may carry out normal trade union activities in full conformity with the principles on freedom of association.