Definitive Report - Report No 3, 1952

Case No 17 (France) - Complaint date: 01-JAN-52 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  38. 38 The complaint alleges the two following points which, in the view of the complainants, constitute infringements of trade union rights:
      • (a) The workers' demands for better conditions are met by terror and repression. Various examples are given by the complainants to demonstrate this point. In November 1950, when workers went on strike at Souk-el-Khemis, the area was placed under a state of siege and ruled out of bounds for trade union representatives. Strikers were arrested and sentenced. During the strike at Enfidaville, in November 1950, strikers gathered for a meeting were fired on by the police six were killed, 14 seriously injured and 200 arrested. It is alleged that the Minister for Social Affairs recognised in a public speech that those killed were the victims of unjustified aggression, when they were merely claiming legitimate rights by legitimate means. The Resident-General, however, officially approved the massacre. During a strike at Sainte-Marie du Zit, mass arrests were made and many sentenced. At Djenna, after strikers had resumed work, three of them were imprisoned. Events of a like nature took place at Moulares. The Deputy General Secretary of the local branch of the Tunisian Workers' Union was sentenced to imprisonment for aiding strikers.
      • (b) The Federation of Tunisian Workers' Unions, on 24 January 1951, proposed to hold a meeting organised in the trade union premises and applied for permission according to law. Permission was refused.
  39. Analysis of the Reply and Supplementary Reply
  39. 39 In its reply dated 8 January 1952 the French Government stated that all the sentences pronounced against agitators, some of whom belonged to trade union groups, were pronounced in pursuance of the provisions of the common law in respect of infringements of the freedom to work, as is demonstrated by the judgments rendered in each particular case by the competent administrative or judicial tribunals.
  40. 40 The Government did not refer to the allegation concerning the prohibition of a trade union meeting.
  41. 41 At its first session (10-12 January 1952), the Committee requested the Director-General to obtain further information from the French Government before the Committee made its recommendations to the Governing Body.
  42. 42 By a letter dated 22 January 1952, the Director-General requested further information concerning the nature of the offences with which persons sentenced following certain strikes were charged, and also concerning the judgments given against them.
  43. 43 In its reply dated 4 March 1952, the French Government not only gave details concerning the questions referred to it, but also explained its point of view with regard to the allegation of the complainant relating to the prohibition of a public meeting organised by the Federation of Tunisian Workers' Unions.
  44. 44 With regard to the circumstances under which the sentences were imposed, the Government observes that the various strikes mentioned in the complaint gave rise to disturbances to the extent that the police were obliged to intervene. With regard to the actual judgments, the Government explains that they were rendered by ordinary courts imposing punishments in respect of common law offences, especially interference with the freedom to work.
  45. 45 With regard to the alleged prohibition of the meeting organised by the Federation of Tunisian Workers' Unions, the Government points out that this meeting was convened not only by the Federation but also by a number of political organisations. As is proved by a leaflet distributed by the organisers of the meeting, the meeting was not called for strictly trade union purposes but was directed to political ends.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 46. With regard to the sentences imposed on certain striking workers, it appears from the Government's reply that they were imposed by the ordinary courts.
2. 47. It is also clear from the list of judgments set forth by the Government that those sentenced had rendered themselves guilty of common law offences, in particular the offence of interference with the freedom to work.
3. 48. According to the legislation in force in Tunisia, modelled, as the French Government point out, on the French Penal Code, the offence of interference with the freedom to work presupposes the commission of acts of violence, assaults, threats or fraudulent acts.
4. 49. It would appear, therefore, that the responsible authorities have been concerned exclusively with ensuring the observance of the law. However, the large number of sentences and the severity of the penalties imposed would appear to confirm the existence of some degree of social tension, as is indicated by the repeated outbreaks of labour disputes. While it might be thought that it would have been preferable for these disputes to have been settled by collective negotiation between the parties or by means of conciliation and arbitration machinery rather than by repressive methods, it nevertheless does not appear that the measures taken by the authorities can be regarded as infringements of freedom of association.
5. 50. With regard to the alleged prohibition of the public meeting organised by the Federation of Tunisian Workers' Unions, it appears from the Government's reply that this meeting was not organised only by the Federation but by a number of other organisations of a political character. It is also evident that the organisers of the meeting did not address themselves exclusively to wage earners but to the whole population, whom they exhorted to protest on this occasion against the existing Tunisian political régime.
6. 51. There can be no doubt that the right to organise public meetings is an important element in trade union rights. In the present case, however, the prohibition was not specifically of a trade union meeting but of a political meeting. The Government has emphasised, moreover, that public meetings of a strictly trade union character have never been prohibited in Tunisia.
7. 52. It would appear, therefore, that this allegation is so purely political in character that it is undesirable to pursue the matter further.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 53. Under these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the present case as a whole does not call for further examination.
   • Geneva, 13 March 1952.