Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 239, Juin 1985

1. 82. The Committee examined this case on two previous occasions, in November 1983 and May 1984, and presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body ( see 230th Report of the Committee, paras. 660 to 678 and 234th Report, paras. 485 to 499 , approved by the Governing Body respectively at its 224th (November 1983) and 226th (May-June 1984) Sessions). The Government sent its further observations on the case in a communication dated 27 January 1985.
2. 83. Iran 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 84. In its most recent examination of the case, the Committee noted that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), in a communication dated 6 April 1984, had submitted additional allegations of anti-union repression in various Iranian factories during February, March and April 1983. The Committee adjourned this aspect of the case as the Government had not yet replied to these allegations.
2. 85. At the same time the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any elections that might be held in the 15 named trade unions which exist without any legally appointed executive committee, elections which would ensure that these organisations can function effectively.

B. Further allegations presented by the complainant

1. 86. In its communication of 6 April 1984, the ICFTU alleges that, on 10 February 1983, the entire workforce in the Iran Saypa Factory, comprising 3,000 workers, came out on strike in protest against the non-payment of extra wages as required by the law, the incompetence and inexperience of the management, the regime's use of informers in the factory to identify and crack down on protesting workers and, finally, the decision to cancel the two days' official leave per week. According to the ICFTU, the authorities put an end to the strike by sending in armed guards and arresting a number of workers.
2. 87. According to the ICFTU, the 3,000-strong workforce in the Kashan Velvet Factory staged a strike on 1 February 1983 in protest against the anti-worker measures of the Government and the dismissal of several of their colleagues. The strike was terminated through intimidation, threats and further dismissals.
3. 88. The complainant further states that the entire workforce of 1,100 in the B.F. Goodrich car-tyre plant in Tehran went on strike on 5 February 1983 in protest against the non-payment of profit shares and, at the request of the plant's manager, armed guards intervened. Several workers were arrested and two were dismissed. The strike was broken when a small part of the workers' profit was paid.
4. 89. The ICFTU further alleges that more than 2,000 workers in the Iran Chintz-Making Factory began a strike on 16 February 1983 in protest against the non-payment of bonuses and special benefits and the compulsory dispatch of 100 workers to the front.
5. 90. According to the complainant, on 3 March 1983, the 600 workers of Pars Electric Factory in the city of Rasht began a strike in protest against working conditions and the suspicious death of a factory engineer. The strike was broken after the intervention of the Governor-General, the religious judge and armed guards, which led to the arrest and dismissal of two workers.
6. 91. Another alleged incident took place in mid-March 1983 when all workers in the Ghazvin glass factory - numbering 1,500 - came out on strike in protest against the anti-worker measures of the factory officials. Armed guards attacked, wounding and arresting a number of workers, and the strike was thus broken.
7. 92. According to the ICFTU, workers at Varamin Sugar Refinery stopped work on 3 March 1983 as a sign of their opposition to the repression dominating the factory and also the non-payment of 12 days' suspended wages in the previous month. When intervention by the so-called Islamic Society, the Prosecutor-General of Tehran and the Friday Prayers' Leader of Varamin made no impact on the workers' determined stance, armed guards attacked the workers on 6 March 1983. The ICFTU states that 18 workers were sent to Evin torture centre; some, including Issa Samadi, were badly wounded and had to be taken to Tehran's Hospital No. 10 for treatment but were sent to gaol before their wounds could heal.
8. 93. The ICFTU goes on to state that all 700 workers of the Igar Factory in Shiraz stopped work on 9 March 1983 in protest against a wage freeze, the denial of the right to organise and the absence of trade union freedoms. The strike was brutally broken when armed guards mounted an all-out attack on the strikers.
9. 94. According to the complainant, around 2,00O workers in the Ghoo vegetable oil factory in Tehran stopped work on 19 March 1983 in protest against the directive issued by the Minister of Industries concerning the non-payment of their legal extra wages. The strike was broken after armed guards entered the factory and began to threaten and initimidate the striking workers.
10. 95. Lastly, the ICFTU states that on 15 April 1983, 4,500 miners in the Zirab collieries went on strike in protest against the non-payment of wages on sabbaths and the withdrawal of their annual bonus schemes. The strike ended with the arrest and dismissal of several miners.

C. The Government's reply

1. 96. In its communication of 27 January 1985, the Government states that, in the Iran Saypa Automobile Factory, all the legal wages and benefits were duly paid to the workers but a few workers objected to the Board of Directors of the Factory and tried to create disturbances. After intervention by the Prosecutor, those workers, having had the legal position explained to them, resumed work. It points out that only Friday is the workers' paid weekly rest day and Thursday may also be another day off in those undertakings where such agreement has been reached by the workers and employers.
2. 97. Regarding the Kashan Velvet Factory, the Government explains that 100 weavers stopped work and applied to the management for settlement of their demands; the management told them that following the appointment of a supervisor for the section concerned their demands would be taken into consideration; a few days after the appointment of the supervisor one of the workers was subjected to disciplinary action in the form of non-payment of wages for unauthorised absence; in a later incident the workers concerned protested against the non-fulfilment of their demands and beat the Managing Director as a result of which an inquiry was carried out by the Prosecutor for Labour Affairs and one worker was dismissed.
3. 98. The Government denies that there was any strike action at the Kyan Tyre (B.F. Goodrich) Factory and, consequently, that there were any arrests or dismissals as a result of a strike. Moreover, the Government disputes the ICFTU's reference to real shares profit given that the legislation on workers' profit-sharing has been replaced by the Act for Securing Workers' Interests in Manufacturing and Productive Undertakings.
4. 99. As regards the alleged incidents at the Bafkar Factory (Iran Chintz-Making Factory), the Government explains that only 250 out of 1,000 employees objected to the management about the deduction of taxes from their annual bonus; when it was explained to these workers that the taxes had been deducted in accordance with regulations they resumed work. The Government denies that any person has been compulsorily despatched to the fronts and notes that not one objection has been made to any authority by the workers who have volunteered for the war fronts.
5. 100. According to the Government, the death of an engineer at the Rasht Electric Factory was due to a heart attack after the worker had confessed to attempted theft and had been dismissed. Other workers stopped work on the pretext that his death had been caused by the management and held two members of the Board of Directors hostage. Disciplinary forces from the Prosecutor's Office interfered and freed the hostages and the workers resumed work. The Government states that no workers were arrested or dismissed.
6. 101. As regards the Ghazvin Glass Factory, the Government states that serious quarrels arose as to whom a reward should be paid for repairing one of the kilns. In response to the request by the management, the disciplinary guards visited the factory and called on the workers to keep the peace; when their efforts failed they immediately reported the case of the Governor of Ghazvin who sent a mission - composed of representatives of the Governor's Office and the local Labour and Social Affairs Department - to the factory to hear the workers' complaints. After consideration of the complaints, two workers were dismissed and appealed to the conciliation body of the Ministry of Labour which subsequently ruled their reinstatement. The Government denies any arrest or wounding of workers during this incident.
7. 102. The Government denies any non-payment of wages in the Varamin Sugar Refinery but notes that, owing to financial difficulties, the management had been unable to pay simultaneously in the last month of the year the salaries and end-of-year bonuses. This led to quarrels and physical clashes during which the Managing Director's arm was broken and members of the management were held while the protesting workers took control of the factory. The managers were released after the Prosecutor's Office interfered. The Government explains that given the usual practice of paying the wages for the last month of the year and the annual bonus at the same time or with only a few days in between, it was arranged - with the intervention of the Prosecutor and the local authorities, including the Friday Prayers' Leader - that the management would borrow from the Government to pay the workers as they demanded. This was done before the end of the month and the workers resumed work. The Government states that only a few persons had been injured during the quarrels in the presence of the disciplinary guards from the Prosecutor's Office and Mr. Issa Samadi was not injured or imprisoned and continues working in the factory.
8. 103. As regards the Martyr Forsatyan Textile factory (Shiraz), the Government states that in 1982 the workers had received a distribution of the profits of the factory and in 1983 claimed the same distribution. The Board of Directors explained to them that the original payment had not been legal but the Managing Director announced that an amount would nevertheless be paid. The Board of Directors discharged him and, when the new Director refused to make the payment, the workers made strong protests. Due to the presence of inflammable substances in the Factory and the possibility of accidents, the Board requested the legal authorities for help. Once the situation had been explained to the workers they resumed work and no accidents occurred.
9. 104. According to the Government, in the Ghoo Vegetable Oil Factory, a number of workers had demanded, in addition to the annual bonus, some special benefits which had been paid under the past regime. The factory authorities explained to them that such payment was no longer legal and the workers received their legal annual bonus.
10. 105. As regards the Central Alborz Collieries Co. (Zirab), the Government states that all the ICFTU's allegations are absolutely baseless because there were only 1,650 employees dispersed around the area and on the date mentioned the undertaking was not active, it being the weekly rest day. There has been no protest or any incident in the undertaking.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 106. The Committee notes that all the allegations made by the complainant are specifically denied by the Government. As regards each of the incidents described in the complaint, the Government provides explanations as to the nature of the issues that gave rise to protest action by the workers and indicates that the various problems that occurred in the factories mentioned in the complaint were eventually resolved following intervention by the legal authorities. The Government admits that in certain cases the protest action was accompanied by violent incidents and that armed disciplinary guards intervened. The Government specifically denies, however, that there were any arrests or dismissals of workers except in one case where one worker was dismissed following an inquiry into acts of violence committed by him, and in another case where two workers appear to have been reinstated after appealing against their dismissal.
2. 107. The Committee also notes that the complainant and the Government describe in some detail the violence which occurred at four undertakings - in three cases in the presence of the disciplinary guards attached to the Prosecutor's Office (Ghazvin Glass Factory, Varamin Sugar Refinery and the Rasht Electric Factory). In this connection the Committee would recall that while workers and their organisations have an obligation to respect the law of the land, the intervention by security forces in strike situations should be limited strictly to the maintenance of public order (see, for example, 234th Report, Case No. 1227 (India), para. 312).
3. 108. In the present case the information at the disposal of the Committee shows that the action taken by the authorities resulted not from the strike action itself that was taken in the various factories, but from the acts of violence that accompanied this action. In other factories, where no violence is said to have occurred, the claims which gave rise to the strike action would appear to have been settled.