Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 281, Mars 1992

1. 174. The World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Sierra Leone in a communication dated 29 November 1990. The International Federation of Free Teachers' Unions (IFFTU) submitted a complaint and additional information concerning the same facts in a communication of 3 December 1990. Since then, the Government has furnished no information or observations concerning this complaint, in spite of repeated requests to do so.
2. 175. At its November 1991 meeting, the Committee noted that in spite of the time elapsed since the complaint had been filed, it had received no observations from the Government; the Committee drew to the attention of the Government that, in accordance with the procedure established in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, it would examine the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the observations requested from the Government had still not been received.
3. 176. Sierra Leone 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. Allegations of the complainant organisations

1. 177. The complainant organisations allege that the Government unduly interferred in the internal affairs of the Sierra Leone Teachers' Union (SLTU). In May 1990, a group of teachers, known as the National Teachers' Resolution Committee (NTRC), had organised a strike; in addition to its demands concerning conditions of service, the NTRC also requested the dismantling of the entire Executive and the secretariat staff of the SLTU whose representativeness was challenged. Instead of responding to the demands of the teachers, particularly those relating to the late payment of salaries, improvement in the conditions of service for teachers, the allocation of rice to teachers at the same rate offered to the army and police, the Government, through the Inspector General of Police and the Ministers of Labour and Education, decided to have fresh general elections in the Union. Despite the fact that the SLTU Executive had originally planned for a quadrennial delegates conference to be held in December 1990, the Government intervened and directed that it be held in July 1990. According to the complainants, this was a deliberate effort to get rid of the SLTU Executive and bring in new and inexperienced union leaders, and an attempt to divert the attention of the teachers and the entire public from the main issues raised by the teachers.
2. 178. Furthermore, the Government violated international labour standards by:
   • - directing that the elections be held by its Electoral Commission and the Sierra Leone Labour Congress, and providing them with 1,300,000 leones for that purpose;
   • - directing that the elections be held on the basis of the 1977 SLTU constitution, and not the 1986 constitution then in force;
   • - providing a vehicle to the NTRC to allow them to campaign;
   • - having recourse to the police to intimidate members of the SLTU Executive, and to prevent the national Executive from holding meetings in some provincial headquarters; and
   • - ordering the police to break open the Union office and forcefully take an inventory of the assets.
3. 179. The Government has installed a new national union Executive and the entire former staff has been removed, in particular the SLTU Secretary-General, who was forced to resign from office under pressure. The SLTU claims it remains the only union body regularly elected and indicates it had to establish a parallel office to pursue its activities.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 180. The Committee notes with deep regret that, in spite of the time elapsed since the complaint was filed, and in spite of repeated requests addressed to the Government that it furnish its comments and observations in this matter, the Government has failed to reply to the allegations of the complainant organisations.
2. 181. In these circumstances, and in accordance with its corresponding rule of procedure (see para. 17 of the Committee's 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (November 1971)), the Committee must submit a report on the substance of the matter, even in the absence of information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 182. Firstly, the Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure set up in the ILO for the examination of alleged violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact. If the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognise the importance for their own reputation of formulating, so as to allow objective examination, detailed replies to the allegations brought against them. (See the Committee's First Report, para. 31.)
4. 183. The Committee notes that the allegations in the present case concern the following acts of undue interference by the Government:
   • - modifying unilaterally the cycle of elections and the rules to be followed, contrary to the by-laws of the legitimately elected union;
   • - intervening financially in the electoral process;
   • - giving favourable treatment to a rival group by providing a vehicle to facilitate its campaign;
   • - installing unilaterally a new executive at a teachers' union;
   • - having recourse to the police to intimidate union leaders and preventing them from holding meetings;
   • - taking control of the Union's office and assets.
5. 184. The Committee recalls that the right of workers' organisations to elect their own representatives freely is an indispensable condition for them to be able to act in full freedom and to promote effectively the interests of their members. For this right to be fully acknowledged, it is essential that the public authorities refrain from any intervention which might impair the exercise of this right, whether it be in determining conditions of eligibility of leaders or in the conduct of the elections themselves. Any control of trade union elections should rest with the judicial authorities (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, paras. 295-296).
6. 185. Furthermore, any intervention by the public authorities in trade union elections and the nomination by the authorities of members of a union executive committee constitute interference in the functioning of workers' organisations, which is incompatible with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (Digest, ibid., paras. 455-458). The Committee therefore requests the Government to reinstate in its functions the executive committee which had been regularly elected.
7. 186. The absence of government interference in the holding and proceedings of trade union meetings also constitutes an essential aspect of trade union rights, and the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof, on condition that the exercise of these rights does not disturb public order or cause a serious and imminent threat thereto. In particular, workers' and employers' organisations should have the right to hold their congresses without previous authorisation and to draw up their agendas in full freedom (Digest, ibid., paras. 141, 145).
8. 187. Finally, as regards the intervention by the police and the acts of intimidation against the SLTU leaders, the Committee recalls that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can only develop where fundamental human rights are fully respected and guaranteed. As stated in the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1970, the absence of civil liberties removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights, and the rights conferred upon workers' and employers' organisations must be based on respect for these civil liberties (Digest, ibid., paras. 68 and 72).