Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 324, Mars 2001

1. 576. The complaint is contained in communications dated 17 December 1999 and 22 June 2000 from the National Confederation of Haitian Teachers (CNEH). This complaint was supported in a communication dated 4 February 2000 from Education International (EI).
2. 577. The Committee has had to postpone examination of this case on two occasions because the Government has not sent its observations. At its November 2000 meeting [see 323rd Report, para. 9], the Committee sent an urgent appeal to the Government, drawing its attention to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of these cases if the Government's observations or information have not been received in due time.
3. 578. Haiti 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 579. In its communications of 17 December 1999 and 22 June 2000, the complainant organization states that on 17 February 1997 the CNEH and other trade union organizations signed a draft agreement relating to the working conditions of teaching staff with the Government of Haiti. This draft agreement included, specifically, a wage adjustment of 82 per cent, and the establishment of a vocational training plan, an insurance plan for teachers and a commission for trade union matters. According to the complainant organization, the Government paid only 50 per cent of the wage adjustment and did not respect any of the other points of the agreement. Faced with a government refusal to enter into negotiations again, the CNEH threatened to carry out periodic strikes. Following a general strike in January 1999, an agreement was signed on 4 February 1999 by the Minister of National Education and the CNEH specifying full implementation of the draft agreement of February 1997.
2. 580. The complainant organization explains that as none of the elements in the agreement of 4 February 1999 were respected, it continued its efforts to convince the Government to honour its commitments with the aim of avoiding further strikes. Finally, the CNEH and the Ministry of National Education came to an agreement in May 1999. However, once again, the complainant organization states that when school started again in September 1999 the Government had still not fulfilled the terms of the agreement. Therefore, on 23 September 1999 the CNEH gave notice of strike action in a letter to the Government for 4 October 1999 onwards unless the Government fulfilled its commitments as laid down in the agreements. The strike began on the date specified.
3. 581. Following a meeting between the Minister of National Education and representatives of the CNEH on 20 October 1999, the parties agreed to call upon the Ombudsman to mediate. However, on 23 October 1999, the Prime Minister stated on the radio that disciplinary measures would be carried out against those teachers on strike. He made no mention of the mediation. Subsequently, on 28 October 1999, 11 teachers, including three regional and national trade union officials of CNEH, were suspended without pay for serious reasons. The CNEH adds that on 16 October a representative of the Ministry had invited the teachers, during a public meeting, to return to work unconditionally. Roussan Coffy, Hervé Alix and Andréanne Roy, the three members of CNEH who were disciplined, requested the representative to negotiate with the trade unions and not with the teachers. The complainant organization claims that a number of attempts were made by the Ministry of National Education to negotiate directly with the teachers in order to sideline the trade unions.
4. 582. The complainant organization explains that it made the lifting of the strike conditional to the lifting of sanctions and the resumption of negotiations conditions. Furthermore, it maintains that other types of reprisals were carried out by the Government, in particular hiring, under contract, non-teachers to fill the positions of the teaching staff on strike. Finally, the CNEH indicates that the Government encouraged the creation of a trade union for teachers on 10 November 1999.
5. 583. In a recent communication of 22 June 2000, the complainant organization states that, following the teachers' strike, 77 members of CNEH whose files were transferred to the Ministry of National Education were disciplined in a discriminatory manner as their salaries for October 1999 were reduced without warning, in violation of the laws currently in force. The complainant organization also indicates that, following negotiations with the Ministry of National Education in January 2000, Messrs. Coffy and Alix were reinstated in their respective posts. However, Ms. Roy has still not been reinstated and Mr. Alix has since been transferred without justification and in violation of the law.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 584. The Committee deplores the fact that, despite the time which has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint and bearing in mind the extreme gravity of the allegations, the Government has not provided in due time the comments and information requested by the Committee, although it was invited to send its reply on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal at its November 2000 meeting. In these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable rule of procedure [see 127th Report of the Committee, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee is obliged to submit a report on the substance of this case in the absence of the information it had hoped to receive in due time from the Government.
2. 585. The Committee once again reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization to examine allegations concerning violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect of trade union rights in law and in fact. If this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies concerning the substance of the allegations brought against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
3. 586. Finally, the Committee expresses its deep concern that this is the third complaint that has been lodged against the Government of Haiti in the last 18 months, and that the Government has provided no information whatsoever to the Committee. It hopes that the new Government will demonstrate its good faith by cooperating in the future over complaints lodged against it before the Committee.
4. 587. The Committee notes that the current complaint concerns allegations of disciplinary measures carried out following strike action and acts of anti-union discrimination. Regarding the allegations of disciplinary measures taken against teachers following the strike that took place in October 1999, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant organization, 11 teachers, three of whom were trade union officials of CNEH, were suspended without pay for serious reasons one month following the start of the strike. The Committee notes the CNEH declaration that, since January 2000, only one of the trade union officials has been reinstated in his post while a second has been unjustly transferred and the third, Ms. Roy, has still not been reinstated. No information has been received regarding the outcome of the situation for the eight other teachers. In this regard, the Committee recalls that it has always recognized the right to strike by workers and their organizations as a legitimate means of defending their economic and social interests. Furthermore, no one should be penalized for carrying out or attempting to carry out a legitimate strike [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 474 and 590]. In this particular case and according to the information available in the file, there is nothing to indicate that the strike organized by the teachers after long and fruitless negotiations with the Government was illegal, since Haitian legislation grants teachers the right to strike and prior notice of the strike had been lodged. The Committee emphasizes that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that workers should not be dismissed or refused re-employment on account of their having participated in a strike or other industrial action. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to ensure the immediate reinstatement in their respective posts of all the teachers, including the trade union officials of CNEH, who were disciplined following their participation in the October 1999 strike. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
5. 588. Regarding the allegations of anti-union discrimination against the 77 teachers who are members of CNEH and whose wages for October 1999 were reduced following their participation in the strike, the Committee notes that the strike began on 4 October and the wage deductions for the days of the strike in October seemed to correspond to the duration of the strike. In these circumstances, this measure cannot be considered as disciplinary action in response to the strike.
6. 589. Regarding the allegations of hiring non-teachers to fill the positions of the teaching staff on strike, the Committee, in the absence of detailed information from the complainant organization and the Government's reply, can only state that the hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association [see Digest, op. cit., para. 570]. As the teaching sector does not constitute an essential service in the strict sense of the term, the Committee requests the Government to refrain from hiring non-teachers to replace teachers on strike.
7. 590. Finally, regarding the allegations that the Government encouraged the creation of a trade union for teachers in November 2000, the Committee recalls that only through the development of free and independent organizations can a government confront its economic and social problems and resolve them in the best interests of the workers and the nation. The Committee once again emphasizes the importance it attaches to the respect of the Resolution concerning the Independence of the Trade Union Movement, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 35th Session (1952). Recalling that governments should not attempt to transform the trade union movement into an instrument for the pursuance of political aims, nor should they attempt to interfere with the formal functions of a trade union movement because of its freely established relationship with a political party [see Digest, op. cit., para. 451], the Committee urges the Government to refrain from interfering in the creation of a trade union, or from showing favouritism towards, or discrimination against, any given trade union.