Definitive Report - Report No 160, March 1977

Case No 754 (Jamaica) - Complaint date: 27-APR-73 - Closed

1. 31. This case was examined by the Committee at its session in May 1974 when the Committee submitted to the Governing Body a report containing its conclusions on the matter (145th Report, paragraphs 21-321).
2. 32. Jamaica has ratified both 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 33. The case concerned Mr. Robert Figueroa and Dr. Trevor Munro, two officials of the University and Allied Workers' Union (UAWU), who are also members of the academic staff of the University of the West Indies. These persons were to be brought before the Professional Committee of the Senate of the University on charges arising out of incidents which took place during a strike organised by the UAWU on 18 October 1972. The complainant organisation had alleged that these proceedings were in violation of the non-victimisation clause contained in a resumption of work agreement and in breach of International Labour standards.
2. 34. In reply to the allegations the Government had pointed out that the Ministry of Labour and Employment, through the conciliation services of its Industrial Relations Division, had no legal right, nor was it the practice for it to compel either employers' or employees' organisations to attend at the Ministry for the purpose of conciliation unless the service affected was one of the essential services listed in the Public Utility Undertakings and Public Services Arbitration Law. The Ministry could, therefore, proceed no further in the matter which the university authorities claimed was not a dispute but a breach of contract on the part of Mr. Figueroa and Dr. Munro, and which was being dealt with in accordance with procedures laid down by the University Council for dealing with disciplinary matters.
3. 35. In view of the contradictory views expressed by the parties and the lack of information concerning the proceedings that had been instituted by the university against Mr. Figueroa and Dr. Munro, the Committee had recommended the Governing Body to draw attention to certain general considerations which it had set forth in connection with the matters raised and to request the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings against the trade unionists in question.
4. 36. By a communication dated 31 May 1976, the Government transmitted the text of the report of the Professional Committee of the University Senate in connection with the charges brought against Mr. Figueroa and Dr. Munro.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 37. From an examination of the reports of the Professional Committee the Committee notes that the charges brought against Mr. Figueroa and Dr. Munro, by virtue of University Ordinance No. 8 concerning power of appointment, promotion and dismissal (including other disciplinary control), related to such acts as disorderly conduct, or aiding and abetting to commit disorderly conduct, wilful obstruction, intimidation, and activities calculated to endanger peace and security (conspiracy to assault a member of the staff). On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Professional Committee found some of the charges proved and others not proved. In the case of Mr. Figueroa, a recommendation was made by the Professional Committee that he be censured by the University Vice-Chancellor and, as regards Dr. Munro, that the report of the Professional Committee be published to all members of the academic community as an open censure to Dr. Munro in respect of his misconduct.
2. 38. In the light of the information now at its disposal the Committee notes that charges brought against Mr. Figueroa and Dr. Munro related to acts in respect of which disciplinary procedures are provided under University Ordinance No. 8. It notes that none of the charges concerned the status of Mr. Figueroa and Dr. Munro as trade unionists or the exercise of what would generally be considered as normal trade union activities. In addition, as regards the alleged failure to respect the non-victimisation agreement, the Committee notes under this agreement "there will be no victimisation of workers who went on strike and other union personnel, provided, however, that this clause shall not be regarded as altering or amending the contractual obligations and duties which any person owes to the University".

The Committee's recommendations

1. 39. In these circumstances, and with regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.