Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 377, Mars 2016

1. 70. The complaint is contained in communications from the Autonomous National Union of Postal Workers (SNAP) dated 27 August and 18 September 2014, 7 March 2015 and 2 January 2016.
2. 71. Since there has been no reply from the Government, the Committee has been obliged to postpone its examination of the case several times. At its November 2015 meeting [see 376th Report, para. 7], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the requested information or observations had not been received in time. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
3. 72. Algeria has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 73. In communications dated 27 August and 18 September 2014, 7 March 2015 and 2 January 2016, SNAP affirms that it has legal trade union status, having filed its constitution with the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security on 2 July 2012. In this connection, SNAP recalls that it previously presented a complaint against the Government to the Committee on Freedom of Association for the authorities’ refusal to register it (Case No. 2944). SNAP nevertheless indicates that it has a strong local presence, a fact which is reflected by the hundreds of articles on it which have appeared in the national press.
2. 74. SNAP denounces the dismissal of two of its officials by Algérie Poste (Algerian postal service), a public enterprise of an industrial and commercial nature, and the dismissal of an employee who demonstrated solidarity with them. With regard to the dismissal of its two officials, Mr Tarek Ammar Khodja, the union’s communications officer, and Mr Mourad Nekache, its president, SNAP states the following.
3. 75. Mr Ammar Khodja had worked at the post office in Dar El-Beida (Algiers) as a customer support officer since 1998. He was also a communications officer for SNAP and, in that capacity, was responsible for media relations (press and television). According to the complainant organization, following the refusal of the director of the Wilaya (provincial) postal unit (UPW) of East Algiers to receive their delegation, a group of 28 postal workers at the Dar El-Beida post office decided to stop work for two hours (from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m.) on 7 July 2014, and asked for a meeting with the director in order to protest against the suspension of a colleague which was in violation of the internal regulations. The director of auditing on the Algérie Poste management board, plus the director of the East Algiers UPW, its head of personnel and an inspector from the East Algiers UPW travelled to the post office in question.
4. 76. According to the complainant organization, Mr Ammar Khodja was then called into his supervisor’s office. In the presence of the director of the East Algiers UPW, its head of personnel and the manager of the branch post office, the auditing director aggressively confronted and threatened Mr Ammar Khodja, claiming that he had made statements to the press. The following day, Mr Ammar Khodja was summoned to the East Algiers UPW head office. The UPW director accused him of having instigated the two-hour work stoppage the previous day, which he denied. The director also accused him of having made certain statements to the press, which he likewise denied, adding that he had never made any statements while on duty or at his place of work.
5. 77. SNAP states that on 9 July 2014 Mr Ammar Khodja was summoned to the UPW head office, where he was subjected to intimidation and called upon to answer a series of 20 questions relating essentially to his union membership and the statements allegedly made to the press. That same day, a copy of a decision to suspend him from work – on nine separate grounds – was sent to his post office by fax. Mr Ammar Khodja learned of the suspension that same evening, since it was Ramadan and the post office was open in the evening.
6. 78. On 13 July 2014, Mr Ammar Khodja received a letter summoning him to appear before the disciplinary committee of the East Algiers UPW. According to SNAP, the letter contained no mention of the reason for the summons to the meeting scheduled for 17 July 2014, in violation of article 113 of the Algérie Poste internal regulations. Following his appearance on 17 July, Mr Ammar Khodja received notification of his dismissal on 23 July 2014 (copy attached).
7. 79. Mr Ammar Khodja noted the following irregularities in the course of the disciplinary procedure: (i) the summons to appear before the disciplinary committee was dated 13 July 2014, only five days before the scheduled appearance – instead of eight working days, the time period required by the company’s internal regulations; furthermore, the letter contained no grounds for the summons; (ii) throughout the disciplinary procedure, Mr Ammar Khodja was unable to consult his personnel file in the format he wished, in view of his visual disability, and he was denied the opportunity to present evidence in his defence; (iii) there is no material evidence to substantiate the grounds on which Mr Ammar Khodja was penalized; moreover, the disciplinary committee refused to examine the nine reasons given for the decision to suspend him, arguing that it was for him to disprove the allegations; and (iv) the workers who stopped work for two hours on 7 July 2014 were merely issued with a warning.
8. 80. On 12 August 2014, Mr Ammar Khodja filed an appeal with the management board of Algérie Poste, aimed at having the dismissal decision overturned. The company took no action in response to the appeal, in violation of article 119 of its internal regulations, which stipulates that the appeals committee must respond in writing within three months. On 16 November 2014, a complaint for unfair dismissal was filed with the competent labour inspectorate in Bab Ezzouar (Algiers). The labour inspectorate merely organized a conciliation meeting for the two parties for 22 December 2014. As a result of the company’s failure to send a representative to the meeting, a second meeting was arranged for 29 December 2014. At the second conciliation meeting the company refused to reinstate Mr Ammar Khodja, and even indicated that it had filed a complaint against him with the court of El Harrach (Algiers) for his union activity. On 15 April 2015, Mr Ammar Khodja received a summons to appear before the appeals committee, more than eight months after filing his appeal of 12 August 2014. On 29 April 2015, he received a final decision upholding his dismissal.
9. 81. On 25 May 2015, Mr Ammar Khodja brought the matter before the court of El Harrach. After more than three months of proceedings, a definitive judgment was handed down in his favour. The court clearly ordered his reinstatement in his post, with all acquired benefits (copy of the ruling attached to the complaint). On 7 October 2015, the judgment was communicated to the Algérie Poste management board by a court officer. Since the company had not taken any action to implement the ruling by the statutory 15-day deadline, on 19 November 2015 the court officer issued an official report of non compliance with the ruling ordering Mr Ammar Khodja’s reinstatement.
10. 82. Mr Ammar Khodja, a family breadwinner and father of three children, has been deprived of any remuneration since 9 July 2014, despite a legal decision of August 2015 ordering his reinstatement and the payment of all acquired benefits.
11. 83. As regards the situation of SNAP president Mr Nekache, the complainant organization indicates that he had been employed at the post office in Boudouaou Benterquia (Boumerdès) as a customer support officer since his recruitment in August 2000. In his trade union capacity, he was responsible for media relations (press and television).
12. 84. On 22 July 2014, SNAP organized a press conference at the trade union centre in Algiers. The press conference was led by the SNAP president, Mr Nekache, and the communications officer, Mr Ammar Khodja. According to the complainant organization, on 23 July 2014, a team of three inspectors from the Boumerdès UPW arrived at the Boudouaou Benterquia post office. The inspectors firstly wanted to know the reason for his absence the day before. Mr Nekache indicated that he had previously provided an explanation to his supervisor, who had recorded the matter in writing. The inspectors then questioned Mr Nekache about the content of his remarks to the press, making it clear that they were acting on the orders of the auditing director on the company’s management board. Mr Nekache said that he had made statements to the press in his capacity as president of a trade union and on the basis of the freedom of expression guaranteed him by the national Constitution. On 27 July, Mr Nekache was again questioned by a team of inspectors concerning his statements to the press. He again replied that, in making statements to the press in his capacity as trade union president, he was merely exercising the freedom of expression which is a fundamental right recognized in the Constitution. He added that the questioning represented gross interference by the company in the trade union’s operation. That same day, Mr Nekache sent a fax to the director of the Boumerdès UPW denouncing the harassment to which he had been subjected.
13. 85. The complainant organization indicates that, on 31 July, Mr Nekache received a letter at work notifying him of his suspension from work, effective as of 2 August 2014. On 11 August 2014, Mr Nekache received a summons to appear before the disciplinary committee on 21 August 2014. The letter, in violation of article 113 of the company’s internal regulations, did not specify the reason for the summons. The following day, Mr Nekache went to the administrative department of the Boumerdès UPW to consult his personnel file, but was informed that he was required to submit a written request prior to such a visit. Furthermore, the complainant denounces the fact that, on 21 August 2014, Mr Nekache was denied the right to defend himself before the disciplinary committee and, as a result of his protestations, he was even excluded from the meeting by the committee chairperson. On 27 August 2014, Mr Nekache received a notification by mail of the decision to dismiss him.
14. 86. Mr Nekache lodged an appeal with the disciplinary committee of the national head office of Algérie Poste on 17 September 2014, seeking to have the decision to dismiss him overturned. Since there was no follow-up to the appeal from the company management, Mr Nekache lodged a complaint for unfair dismissal with the competent labour inspectorate on 18 December 2014. According to the complainant organization, the labour inspectorate merely arranged for an initial conciliation meeting between the two parties, to be held in January 2015, which it then postponed at the company’s request. At the rescheduled conciliation meeting, the company made clear its refusal to reinstate Mr Nekache. The labour inspectorate therefore issued an official report indicating the failure to reach an agreement.
15. 87. Mr Nekache was then summoned by the police in March 2015 because his company had lodged a complaint against him for engaging in trade union activities. Six months after he had filed his appeal, the company summoned him to appear before the appeals committee, despite the fact that its internal regulations stipulate that the committee must respond to all appeals within three months. Finally, on 31 March 2015, Mr Nekache received a notification confirming his dismissal and indicating that it would be without notice, the penalty thus being made more severe. However, the decision of the appeals committee was not communicated to him.
16. 88. On 25 May 2015, Mr Nekache brought the matter before the court of El Harrach. After more than three months of proceedings, a definitive ruling was handed down in his favour. The court clearly ordered his reinstatement in his post with all acquired benefits (copy of the ruling attached to the complaint). However, despite the fact that the company was informed of the ruling by a court officer on 7 October 2015, it did not take any steps to implement it. In November 2015, after the 15-day implementation deadline following notification of a ruling had long expired, the court officer issued an official notice of failure to execute the judgment. According to the complainant organization, Mr Nekache, a family breadwinner and father of two children, has been deprived of any remuneration since 2 August 2014, in spite of the legal ruling in his favour.
17. 89. In conclusion, SNAP states that its two leaders were dismissed as a direct consequence of their trade union activities, and that the statements made to the press served as a pretext for their dismissals, which were in fact intended to weaken the trade union in question and restrict its freedom of action.
18. 90. The complainant organization provided additional information in a communication dated 18 September 2014 describing the unfair dismissal of a third Algérie Poste employee, which SNAP claims was directly linked to the anti-union dismissal of Mr Nekache. In this connection, the complainant states the following.
19. 91. Mr Bilal Benyacoub worked at the post office in Naciria (Boumerdès) as an assistant operator. After working for two years under the auspices of a vocational integration programme, he was finally recruited in April 2014 on a subsidized employment contract. In the afternoon of Thursday 21 August 2014, a group of seven workers came to support the president of SNAP, Mr Nekache, at the end of his disciplinary committee meeting at the Boumerdès UPW head office. Mr Benyacoub, who had finished work for the day, joined the group waiting for the SNAP president outside on the road. According to the complainant organization, on Sunday 24 August, Mr Benyacoub was summoned by the director of the Boumerdès UPW, who admonished him for his presence on the road opposite the UPW office on Thursday 21 August. After answering questions under duress, Mr Benyacoub was made to fingerprint the official record, an action which was unprecedented in the company’s internal disciplinary procedures. Mr Benyacoub received notification of his suspension during the day whilst at work (the complainant specifies that Friday and Saturday are the weekly days of rest).
20. 92. On 27 August 2014, Mr Benyacoub received a summons to appear before the disciplinary committee of the Boumerdès UPW. The letter, like those sent to the two SNAP leaders, did not indicate the reason for the summons, in violation of article 113 of the company’s internal regulations. Following his appearance on 2 September 2014, Mr Benyacoub received notice of his dismissal on 7 September 2014.
21. 93. According to the complainant organization, Mr Benyacoub received the summons to appear before the disciplinary committee only five days – rather than eight working days – before the meeting. Moreover, the letter did not give the reason for the summons, in violation of the company’s internal regulations. On top of this, Mr Benyacoub did not have access to his disciplinary file, in breach of the internal regulations. Lastly, Mr Benyacoub was penalized for incidents which occurred when he was off duty, on a public road outside the workplace, and without any unlawful assembly having taken place.
22. 94. Mr Benyacoub lodged an appeal with the Algérie Poste management board on 17 September 2014, requesting that the decision to dismiss him be overturned. No follow up action was taken by the company management, in violation of article 119 of the internal regulations, which provides that the appeals committee must respond in writing within three months. In the meantime, at the end of September 2014, Mr Benyacoub was called to perform his military service. However, when his military service ended in September 2015, he relaunched the appeal process, which resulted in a summons to appear before the appeals committee on 30 November 2015. According to the complainant organization, since his appearance before the committee, the company has still not taken any follow-up action on the matter.
23. 95. The complainant organization believes that the dismissal of Mr Benyacoub was directly linked to the dismissal of the SNAP president and was intended to create a climate which is openly hostile to any trade union solidarity among post office employees. The speed with which Mr Benyacoub’s case was handled, in violation of the existing regulations, is an indication of the company management’s determination to put an end to SNAP’s activities.
24. 96. In conclusion, the complainant organization denounces the unfair and anti-union dismissals, the sole purpose of which was to hinder the exercise of freedom of association and the functioning of a trade union. SNAP requests the Committee on Freedom of Association to call for the immediate reinstatement of the three workers whose cases are described above.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 97. The Committee regrets that, despite the time which has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint in August 2014, the Government has not replied, even though it has been requested to do so several times, including through an urgent appeal. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 98. Hence, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (1972)], the Committee is obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 99. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect for trade union rights in law and in fact. The Committee is confident that, if this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, they will recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies to allegations brought against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
4. 100. The Committee observes that the present case relates to the allegation of the anti-union dismissal of two leaders of SNAP by Algérie Poste, a public enterprise, and the dismissal of a third company employee for showing support for one of the leaders in question at the time of the disciplinary proceedings that he was facing.
5. 101. First of all, the Committee notes that SNAP has been active in the postal sector since it was founded in 2012. The Committee observes that the Government, in the follow-up information provided in January 2016 in relation to Case No. 2944 (which concerns a complaint presented by numerous Algerian trade unions, including SNAP), indicated that SNAP had been registered by the authorities in December 2015.
6. 102. On the basis of the information provided by the complainant organization, the Committee observes that the situation described can be summarized as follows: the president of SNAP, Mr Mourad Nekache, an employee at the Boudouaou Benterquia post office (Boumerdès), and the communications officer of SNAP, Mr Tarek Ammar Khodja, an employee at the post office in Dar El-Beida (Algiers), were both subjected to disciplinary proceedings by Algérie Poste in July 2014 because of statements they had made to the media and for Mr Ammar Khodja’s organization of a two-hour work stoppage on 7 July 2014. Each of the union officials was individually questioned under duress about their trade union activity and the content of their remarks reported by the media.
7. 103. The Committee notes that, according to SNAP, the two union officials were then suspended and called before a disciplinary committee, without respect for the company’s internal regulations (the two officials were refused the right to defend themselves and the minimum period of notice required for a disciplinary summons was not respected in Mr Ammar Khodja’s case), after which they were notified of decisions to dismiss them.
8. 104. With regard to Mr Ammar Khodja, the Committee notes that, by decision No. 39/2014, the management of the Wilaya (provincial) postal unit (UPW) of East Algiers ordered his suspension on a number of grounds, including: “scheming and attempts to compromise, intimidate, provoke or slander individuals; impeding freedom of labour; damaging the moral and material interests of the establishment; and engaging in threatening and abusive conduct in statements and in the press”. Mr Ammar Khodja was summoned to appear before the disciplinary committee by a letter dated 10 July 2014, but the letter did not mention the grounds for the summons as required by the company’s internal regulations. Lastly, through letter No. 41/2014 of 20 July 2014, the management of the East Algiers UPW informed him of his dismissal, effective as of 9 July 2014, without indicating any grounds.
9. 105. With regard to Mr Nekache, the Committee notes that, by decision No. 592/2014 of 31 July 2014, the management of the Boumerdès UPW ordered his suspension on the grounds of “insubordination towards management; refusing, without a valid reason, to comply with instructions relating to professional obligations; and damaging the moral and material interests of the establishment”. He was summoned to appear before the disciplinary committee by a letter dated 10 August 2014, but the letter did not mention the reason for the summons as required by the company’s internal regulations. Lastly, through decision No. 600/2014 of 24 August 2014, the management of the Boumerdès UPW ordered his dismissal, effective as of 21 August 2014.
10. 106. The Committee notes that Mr Ammar Khodja and Mr Nekache both made appeals to the disciplinary committee of the national head office of Algérie Poste, in August and September 2014 respectively, requesting that the dismissal decisions be overturned, but that no follow-up was given to their appeals – according to SNAP, also in violation of the company’s internal regulations, which stipulate that the committee must provide a written reply within three months. The two union officials then lodged, in November and December 2014 respectively, complaints for unfair dismissal with the competent labour inspectorate. According to the complainant organization, the labour inspectorate merely organized conciliation meetings for the two parties. In both instances, at the second conciliation meeting, the company made it clear that it would not reinstate the dismissed workers, which led the inspectorate to issue an official report indicating the failure to reach an agreement.
11. 107. The Committee notes that, according to SNAP, the two leaders were subsequently informed of complaints made against them by the company for their trade union activities. The company also summoned them before the appeals committee at head office, after the expiry of the deadlines established by the internal regulations. Following their appearances in March 2015 (Mr Nekache) and April 2015 (Mr Ammar Khodja), they received confirmation of their dismissals by mail. In that connection, SNAP points out that Mr Nekache received a notification that his dismissal was effective without notice, the initial decision to dismiss him thus being made more severe.
12. 108. The Committee notes that, on 25 May 2015, Mr Nekache and Mr Ammar Khodja referred the matter to the court of El Harrach (Algiers) and that after three months of proceedings, definitive rulings were handed down in their favour. According to the complainant organization, the court ordered their reinstatement with all acquired benefits and the payment of an indemnity compensation. However, the complainant denounces the fact that, despite a court officer having notified the company’s management board of the court’s decisions on 7 October 2015, the company took no action, which led the court officer, in November 2015, to issue an official notice indicating that the rulings had not been executed.
13. 109. The Committee notes that the situation remains unchanged to date, and that Mr Nekache and Mr Ammar Khodja continue to be without employment or remuneration, notwithstanding the court decisions ordering their reinstatement which were duly communicated to the employer.
14. 110. The Committee would like, firstly, to recall that no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment. Next, the Committee has pointed out that one way of ensuring the protection of trade union officials is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed, either during their period of office or for a certain time thereafter except, of course, for serious misconduct [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 771 and 804]. Lastly, in relation to the allegations, the Committee recalls that the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas, and to this end, workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of other trade union activities. Nevertheless, in expressing their opinions, trade union organizations should respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language [see Digest, op. cit., para. 154].
15. 111. In this case, the Committee is bound to note the rapidity with which the disciplinary procedure led to the dismissals of Mr Nekache and Mr Ammar Khodja. It notes with concern the allegations of violations of the regulations in force, particularly the fact that the trade union officials were unable to present any proper defence throughout the procedure, and that the employer only responded to the appeal to the national head office after the prescribed three-month period had elapsed (this took six months in the case of Mr Nekache and eight months in the case of Mr Ammar Khodja). Lastly, the Committee is particularly concerned by the fact that, despite the rulings handed down by the court of El Harrach (Algiers) ordering the reinstatement of the two union officials, the company in question has refused to implement the court decisions with complete impunity since October 2015, when it was notified of them by a court officer. The Committee wonders how a public institution can refuse to implement the rulings of a judicial authority without being penalized. The Committee observes with deep concern that this violation of freedom of association has had an extremely harmful effect on two trade union officials by leaving them without any income since July and August 2014, respectively.
16. 112. In view of the above, the Committee urges the Government to immediately take all necessary steps to ensure the implementation of the rulings of the court of El Harrach (Algiers) ordering the reinstatement of the two SNAP trade union officials, Mr Nekache and Mr Ammar Khodja, with the payment of all salary arrears and any compensation due, as per the rulings of the court, and to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee trusts that the registration of SNAP by the authorities in December 2015 will contribute to the swift resolution of these matters and to the establishment of harmonious professional relations between the company and SNAP.
17. 113. With regard to the allegations concerning the dismissal of a company employee, Mr Bilal Benyacoub, for demonstrating solidarity with the SNAP president during the disciplinary procedure against him, the Committee notes that, according to the allegations, on 21 August 2014 Mr Benyacoub joined a group of six other workers on a public road opposite the head office of the UPW in Boumerdès to wait for the SNAP leader after his disciplinary committee meeting. Mr Benyacoub had finished work for the day. Yet, according to SNAP’s allegations, the company suspended (on 24 August 2014) and then dismissed (on 7 September 2014) Mr Benyacoub for the sole reason that he had been present on the road opposite the UPW head office on Thursday, 21 August. In that connection, the Committee notes that on 24 August 2014, Mr Benyacoub received decision No. 599/2014 from the management of the Boumerdès UPW, informing him of his suspension for participation in an assembly not forming part of regular trade union activity inside or in the vicinity of his own workplace or in other workplaces, and for damaging the moral and material interests of the establishment. He was called before the disciplinary committee by a letter dated 25 August 2014 without any grounds for the summons being indicated. Finally, by letter No. 606/2014 of 3 September 2014, the management of the Boumerdès UPW informed him of his dismissal, effective from 2 September 2014.
18. 114. The Committee notes that, according to the complainant organization, the disciplinary procedure against Mr Benyacoub was flawed by the following irregularities. He received the letter summoning him to appear before the disciplinary committee only five days – instead of eight working days – before the date of the meeting. Furthermore, the letter did not specify the reason for the meeting, in violation of the company’s internal regulations. In addition, Mr Benyacoub did not have access to his disciplinary file, also in violation of the internal regulations. Lastly, the accusations against Mr Benyacoub related to events that occurred when he was off duty, on a public road outside the workplace, and there was no unlawful assembly.
19. 115. The Committee notes that Mr Benyacoub lodged an appeal with the management board of the company on 17 September 2014, requesting that the decision to dismiss him be overturned, but the company management took no action. In the meantime, Mr Benyacoub was called to perform his military service at the end of September 2014. However, when his military service ended in September 2015, he relaunched the appeal procedure, which resulted in a summons to appear before the appeals committee on 30 November 2015. According to the complainant organization, since his appearance before the committee, the company has still not taken any action.
20. 116. In this case, the Committee notes that there is no evidence in the information provided by the complainant organization or in the documents at its disposal that Mr Benyacoub is a trade unionist. However, the Committee observes that Mr Benyacoub finds himself in a situation instigated by his employer which is directly connected to a disciplinary procedure against a trade union leader employed by the company. The Committee therefore considers it appropriate to examine Mr Benyacoub’s situation. In this connection, the Committee expresses its question and concern that a company would instigate disciplinary proceedings for “participation in an assembly not forming part of regular trade union activity inside or in the vicinity of his own workplace or in any other workplace” against an employee who, according to the allegations, was off duty and on a public road, without there being any unlawful assembly, violation of the law or threat to public order.
21. 117. Noting the allegation that the dismissal of Mr Benyacoub, like those of the SNAP leaders, was intended to intimidate postal workers who wished to engage in trade union activity and to restrict the exercise of freedom of association by hindering the operation of a trade union, the Committee urges the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that the competent departments conduct an investigation into Mr Benyacoub’s dismissal, and to indicate the outcome of the investigation and any follow-up action taken. Furthermore, the Committee expects the Government to send information without delay concerning Mr Benyacoub’s employment situation.