Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 291, Novembre 1993

1. 286. In its communications of 6 October and 2 November 1992, the General Confederation of Democratic Workers of Senegal (CGTDS) presented a complaint alleging violations of freedom of association by the Government of Senegal. In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee had to adjourn examination of this case on three occasions, and at its May 1993 meeting addressed an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report approved by the Governing Body, it could at its next session submit a report on the substance of the case, even if the information awaited from the Government had not been received in due time. Since that time, the Government has not forwarded any observations.
2. 287. Senegal has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant Confederation's allegations

1. 288. The General Confederation of Democratic Workers of Senegal presented a formal complaint alleging that its freedom of association had been violated and that it had been impeded in the exercise of its trade union rights since its creation on 19 December 1976.
2. 289. The Confederation explains that, since its creation in December 1976, it has been confronted by the refusal of the Ministry of the Interior to provide it with a formal acknowledgement of the deposition of its by-laws, for itself and for its constituent unions and federations. The General Secretary of the Senegal Union of Construction, Public Works and Transport Workers (SUTEBTPTS), Mr. Diakhate, who signed the complaint, states that he is the elected General Secretary of the General Confederation of Democratic Workers of Senegal and that he approached the Ministry of the Interior with court orders in support of his demands in order to obtain the said acknowledgement, without any success.
3. 290. The General Secretary appends a comprehensive file containing documents and evidence in support of his allegations, including the following: a copy of the by-laws of the complainant Confederation dated 19 December 1976; extracts of the minutes of its constituent general assembly meeting, also dated 19 December 1976; and a number of letters addressed between 1987 and 1992 by the complainant Confederation to the Minister of the Interior and to the Minister of the Public Service, Employment and Labour, also requesting a formal acknowledgement that the said by-laws had been deposited. He also appends supporting letters from the latter to the Minister of the Interior from between 1989 and 1992, in which the Minister insists that his colleague must provide the complainant Confederation with the formal acknowledgement sought. Finally, he appends a letter dated 16 June 1992 from the President of the Dakar Court of Appeal addressed to the heads of divisions of that Court and the Dakar Labour Tribunal, calling on the judicial authorities to comply with the rulings already issued in this matter. The letter draws attention to two rulings given in 1987 and 1988 respectively: the first, from the Dakar Supreme Court, overrules the implicit refusal to acknowledge the deposition of the by-laws in question, while the second, from the Dakar Appeal Court, states that the General Secretary of the General Confederation of Democratic Workers of Senegal is entitled to represent a member of his Confederation in the Dakar Tribunal in a dispute between the said member and Air France.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 291. The Committee notes that the present complaint concerns the refusal since 1976 by the Minister of the Interior to acknowledge the deposition of the by-laws of the complainant Confederation and its constituent unions and federations. The Committee regrets that, despite the time which has elapsed since the complaint was lodged and although it has been invited on several occasions, including by an urgent appeal to formulate its comments and observations on this matter, the Government has failed to formulate any such comments and observations with regard to the complainant's allegations.
2. 292. This being the case, and in accordance with the relevant rules of procedure (cf. para. 17 of the 127th Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session), the Committee is bound to submit a report on the substance of the case, even without the information which it had hoped to obtain from the Government.
3. 293. First, the Committee wishes to remind the Government that the purpose of the procedures instituted by the ILO for examining allegations concerning violations of freedom of association is to ensure that this freedom is respected in law and in fact. While these procedures protect governments against unreasonable accusations, governments must for their part recognize the importance for the protection of their own good name of formulating for objective examination detailed replies to the allegations made against them (cf. the First Report of the Committee, para. 31).
4. 294. As regards the substance of this case, the Committee recalls the importance attached to the right to establish workers' organizations without prior authorization. It emphasizes that it has always taken the view that any statutory provision by virtue of which the right of association is subject to purely discretionary authorization by a ministerial department is incompatible with the principle of freedom of association (cf. Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 264).
5. 295. In the case in question, the available documents, and in particular Supreme Court Ruling No. 74 of 1 April 1987, which invokes the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87) (ratified by Senegal), indicates that the Supreme Court quashed the implicit decision of 6 December 1985, by which the Minister of the Interior refused to forward to the complainant Confederation a formal acknowledgement of the by-laws; and that, in a letter dated 16 June 1990, the First President of the Dakar Appeal Court asked the heads of divisions of the Appeal Court and the Dakar Labour Tribunal to respect that ruling. This judge also called on the above-mentioned courts and tribunals to respect the 1988 Appeal Court ruling, which empowered the General Secretary of the complainant Confederation to represent a worker in the Confederation in the Dakar Labour Tribunal in a dispute between the said worker and Air France.
6. 296. Consequently, the Committee deplores the fact that after 17 years the Confederation concerned has not been registered, and urges the Government to take action, in accordance with the commitments it undertook in ratifying Convention No. 87, to comply with the terms of Article 2 of that Convention and with the rulings of its own Supreme Court and the Dakar Appeal Court, and not impede the acquisition by the complainant Confederation of legal personality. The Committee invites the Government to keep it informed of measures taken in this matter, and in particular to report as soon as possible whether a formal acknowledgement of the Confederation's by-laws has been forwarded to the said Confederation so that it can exercise without hindrance its full trade union rights.