Definitive Report - Report No 17, 1956

Case No 73 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 15-DEC-52 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 35. The complaining organisation embodies its complaint in four communications dated 15 December 1952 and 2 February, 10 July and 26 October 1953 respectively. The later communications simply supplement the earlier one on certain points, so that they may be analysed as one document.
   • Allegations concerning Events Connected with the General Strike of October 1952
2. 36. The complaint deals in the main with events arising out of and connected with a general strike called by the complaining organisation on 20 October 1952 with respect to government-employed manual workers and employees of a number of named undertakings, totalling altogether about 1,450 persons. It is contended that the strike had no political background but that it followed 14 months' delay in granting wage increases. The complaint alleges in particular that the Government threatened that if workers did not resume work within two days from the outbreak of the strike there would be " mass lay-offs " of strikers, and that while the union sent back all the strikers other than those employed by the Belize Estate and Produce Company on 30 and 31 October 1952, following a promise of no victimisation plus full re-engagement, the Belize Estate and Produce Company closed down its sawmill on 29 October and locked out 268 workers, who were still locked out at the date of the complaint (15 December 1952).
   • Allegations concerning Summonses Served on Strikers under the British Honduras Trade Unions Ordinance, 1941
3. 37. Arising out of the strike, 90 summonses were served on members and supporters of the union under section 31 of the British Honduras Trade Unions Ordinance (No. 1 of 1941), in particular with respect to the violation of the provisions therein prohibiting the besetting of workplaces and the following of persons in a disorderly manner with a view to compelling them to abstain from working. It is contended by the complainant that this law does not form part of the trade union law of the United Kingdom and that, by invoking it, the Colonial Government was attempting to intimidate the members and supporters of the union " with a possible intent to destroy the union and possibly in an attempt to assist the Belize Estate and Produce Company in strike-busting activities ". The facts of the matter were, according to the complainant, that the 90 persons in question formed part of a crowd of 300 who assembled near the sawmill for the purpose of attending a union meeting and not for the purpose of besetting the mill where " three scabs " were working, and that " the three scabs were returning home after having worked all day when these persons allegedly followed them ".
   • Allegations concerning Trade Union Legislation
4. 38. The complainant demands, finally, more liberal trade union legislation ; in particular, abolition of prohibition of strikes (affecting 60 per cent of industry), legalisation of the right to have collective agreements, general examination of existing laws to include I.L.O. Conventions. With regard to the prohibition of strikes the complainant states that the law, while prohibiting strikes, fails to make adequate provision for the settlement of disputes.
   • Allegations concerning Recommendations in a Productivity Report and the Government's Refusal to Bargain with the Complainant
5. 39. A Committee to Consider Ways and Means of Improving the Daily Output of Labour in British Honduras stated in its report, dated 30 October 1952, that " general and free recognition of trade unions as bargaining and educational agents particularly relating to the training and education of the worker should result in greater production and security for all concerned ". But, the complainants contend, the Government wrote to the complaining union refusing to recognise it as the bargaining agent for government workers because it refused to sign an agreement embodying only some points of the report without a previous discussion of all the points.
6. 40. According to the complainant the Government of British Honduras, in June 1953, put out a circular on the matter, stating that following the strike referred to earlier the Government proposed a settlement and invited the union to sign it. It was not a collective bargaining agreement. The union refusing to sign, the Government acted on its terms, including action to set up works councils in public undertakings pursuant to a recommendation of the Productivity Committee. The circular then went on to reproduce a letter from the Government to the complainant in which it recognised the desirability of collective agreements but stated that it would find it difficult to enter into an agreement with a union closely linked with a political party which was openly disloyal and subversive. In that letter the Government suggested, therefore, that the union should free itself of its political ties in accordance with the advice given to it by Mr. Romualdi, Assistant Secretary of the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers, and went on to state the Government's intention to carry on its plans to institute works councils and expressed the Government's views as regards various points connected with their operation, concluding with a reference to the fact that the Government would be willing to clarify any of these points at meetings with delegations from the complaining organisation as well as from other unions. After citing this letter the circular went on to repeat the advice to the complaining organisation to free itself from its political ties and pointed out that the Government was anxious to foster sound trade unionism and, at the same time, to improve labour relations and conditions by setting up works councils.
7. 41. The union reproduces a reply to this circular which it issued, declaring that the Government was making a false distinction between a settlement and an agreement and wished to force the union to sign a dictated agreement and discuss its terms afterwards or, alternatively, not to negotiate. The union also alleged that the Government was confusing the functions of works councils with the functions of joint negotiating machinery and expressed its own views on these different functions.
8. 42. The union then goes on to answer the charge that it was affiliated with a disloyal and subversive political party. It declares that it was acting within the law and that its relations with the People's United Party (P.U.P.) were lawful and that, if they were not, the Government should take legal action instead of boycotting the union's collective bargaining rights. The union cites reports of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions which, it states, indicate the propriety of relations between unions and democratic political parties. Finally, the union reproduces a statement by Mr. Romualdi declaring that he had expressed a view in general terms to the effect that it was preferable for trade unions to remain separate from political parties from an organisational point of view but denying that he ever advised the union to disassociate from the People's United Party or passed any judgment on the loyalty of that party.
9. 43. The latest communication from the complainant, dated 26 October 1953, refers further to the political issue involved. This communication cites a further letter from the British Honduras Government, to the union in which the Government repeats that members of the P.U.P had been openly disloyal or subversive, that the Government was not, at that time prepared to sign an agreement with the union and that it was going ahead with its plan to establish works councils. The Government was, however, ready, according to the letter quoted, to discuss suggestions concerning the Government Manual Workers Rules, a matter regarded by the Government as being independent of the existence or non-existence of collective agreements.
10. 44. The remainder of the latest communication from the complainant consists of a statement of facts intended to show that the union and the People's United Party are not organisationally united and that the union's relations with the party are similar to those subsisting between the British Trades Union Congress and the British Labour Party, and provides a statement of the declared aims of the People's United Party as evidence of its loyal and democratic character.
    • ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S REPLIES
11. 45. In its reply dated 31 August 1953 the Government presents the following observations:
    • Allegations concerning Events Connected with the General Strike of October 1952
12. 46. With regard to the events leading up to the general strike, which involved at its peak some 1,500 of the colony's labour force of 18,000, the Government states that the union's wage demands respecting government manual employees had been referred by the Government in previous months to the Labour Advisory Board, consisting of four representatives of employers, four representatives of workers (including one representative of the complaining union) and an independent chairman. On 5 August 1952 the Board recommended that an increase be granted but that this should be considered in conjunction with the Report of the Committee to Consider Ways and Means of Improving the Daily Output of Labour in British Honduras referred to by the complainant, and which had met under the chairmanship of the General Secretary of the complaining organisation. The application for an increase of wages for workers employed by the Belize Estate and Produce Company sawmill had been referred to a tribunal which made an award on 13 August 1952. On 18 October 1952 the union again pressed the Government and other employers for a wage increase and threatened a strike. Both the Government and the other employers replied that they would negotiate if the threat was withdrawn. The strike began on 20 October. On 21 October the Government stated that if work was resumed it would not guarantee full re-employment at once as it would take several days to reorganise and resume the various activities, because the Public Works Department organisation and machinery had been brought to a standstill, but no declaration was made, as alleged, as to " mass lay-offs ". On 25 October the Government stated that if the strikers resumed work negotiations would begin at once and there would be no victimisation. All the strikers were back at work by the end of October with the exception of those employed by the Belize Estate sawmill. (This company had been finding it hard to maintain its labour force owing to shortage of timber, but, although faced by threats of go-slow and walkout tactics, it did not impose a lockout. A statement published by the company on 5 November made it clear that work would resume when sufficient workers returned. The sawmill reopened before the end of November and the strike there was called off on 8 December 1952.) On 31 October the Government opened negotiations with the union and, taking account of the Committee's report referred to earlier, offered a wage increase, improved conditions and, with the co-operation of the union, the development of piecework and introduction of works councils. On 6 November the union broke off negotiations without agreement being reached; on 8 November the Governor met the union and promised to review the matter further; on 13 November he repeated the Government's previous offer. On 15 November the union stated that it had advised its members to accept the wage increase but reserved entire freedom of action and refused to discuss further the other points contained in the Government's offer. The Government therefore decided itself to put in operation the terms and conditions it had offered (as indicated above) ; this resulted in increased productivity and earnings. The Government tried throughout to reach a settlement with the complaining union as representative of government employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, and trade union rights were not infringed in any way.
    • Allegations concerning Summonses Served on Strikers under the British Honduras Trade Unions Ordinance, 1941
13. 47. The summonses referred to arose out of incidents in the vicinity of the Belize Estate sawmill yard. On 21 November 1952 a crowd which had assembled outside the yard threatened and challenged in an intimidating way three men who arrived for work. When two of these men went home in the evening they were followed and threatened by part of the crowd. Twenty-nine charges were, laid by the police for " following " under the Trade Unions Ordinance, 1941, and the court found 22 of the accused guilty, fining them or binding them over. Fifty-five charges were laid for " watching and besetting " ; of the 18 persons tried so far 17 have been convicted or bound over. Thirty-seven charges remain to be heard. The Ordinance permits peaceful picketing.
    • Allegations concerning Trade Union Legislation
14. 48. The law places no obstacle in the way of the voluntary negotiation and conclusion of collective agreements, nor is there any impediment to freedom of association for lawful purposes. The extent to which I.L.O. Conventions can be accepted and applied to British Honduras is under constant review by the Government which, in accordance with the I.L.O. Constitution, forwards annual reports to the I.L.O on the application to the colony of Conventions which it has ratified. The law referred to by the complainant as prohibiting strikes is presumably the Essential Work (Trade Disputes) Order, S.R.O. 18 of 1944, a wartime measure which had remained nominally in force pending its replacement by a new law. This Order provided a special procedure, leading up to compulsory arbitration, for dealing with disputes in undertakings essential to the defence of the colony, to the prosecution of the war or to the life of the community. It gave the Governor power to prohibit a strike or lockout in connection with any trade dispute in any undertaking engaged in essential work. At no time during the general strike under review did the Government invoke the permissive powers under this Order, nor did the union make the protest it now makes in its complaint, although it had indicated earlier its general opposition to the continuance of the Order. In July 1953 the Bill of a Public Utilities Undertakings and Public Health Service Arbitration Ordinance was introduced to the Legislative Council. This makes provision for the settlement of disputes in essential services and had been under discussion from November 1952 with all interests concerned in British Honduras.
    • Allegations concerning Recommendations in a Productivity Report and the Government's Refusal to Bargain with the Complainant
15. 49. The Government, in the reply dated 31 August 1953, fully endorsed the finding in the report quoted in the complaint. With regard to the allegation that the Government refused to recognise the complainant as a bargaining agent because it refused to sign an agreement embodying only some of the points made in the report, the Government added nothing further in this reply to the statement already made above that it endeavoured throughout to reach a settlement with the union as the representative collective bargaining agent of its employees. In a statement appended to this reply the Government made it clear that it adopted a favourable attitude on almost every recommendation in the report mentioned and was ready to implement the recommendations as far as was practicable and possible.
16. 50. At its Seventh Session (November 1953) the Committee had before it the Government's observations, contained in its communication dated 31 August 1953, on the complainant's communications dated 15 December 1952 and 2 February 1953. Observing that a further communication from the complainant, dated 10 July 1953, had been transmitted to the Government, the Committee adjourned its examination of the case in order to give the Government an opportunity to reply to this communication. Subsequently, a further communication, dated 26 October 1953, was forwarded by the complainant; it was also transmitted to the Government for its observations. At its Eighth Session (March 1954) the Committee had not yet received the Government's reply to the communications dated 10 July and 26 October 1953 but was informed of a letter from the Government stating that the reply was being prepared. The Committee therefore adjourned its examination of the case until its Ninth Session.
17. 51. At its Ninth Session (May 1954) the Committee had before it a further communication from the Government, dated 18 May 1954, which was concerned solely with the allegation that the Government of British Honduras, as an employer, refused to bargain with the complaining organisation. At the time in question, it was stated, the Government of British Honduras " could not ignore certain political implications involved in dealings with the union ". There had, however, been further recent developments. In April 1954 the People's United Party gained eight seats in the newly elected Legislative Assembly of British Honduras, since which time the leaders of the party had met the Governor and issued a communiqué to the effect that " all parties to the interview pledged themselves to work hard on behalf of the country ". The Government hoped that these developments would lead to improved relations in the industrial field. The Government, therefore, did not wish to injure the prospect of better relations by making a formal statement to the Committee at that stage with respect to this allegation and trusted that the Committee would agree that nothing should be said or done at that stage which might prejudice the possibility of improved industrial relations.
18. 52. The Committee, therefore, at its Ninth Session again adjourned its examination of the case, expressing the wish that the Government of the United Kingdom would keep it informed as to future developments in the situation in British Honduras.
19. 53. The Government forwarded a further communication on 29 October 1954. It declared that, since its previous communication, the People's United Party had participated in the Government of the territory, four members of the Party, including the President of the complaining organisation, having been elected by the Legislative Assembly, in which the Party held a majority, to the Governor's Executive Council, the main instrument of policy. It was still too early to anticipate what the permanent developments would be, but there had already been an improvement of atmosphere. In particular, the People's United Party and the complaining Organisation had been reviewing existing labour legislation and the Government Manual Workers' Rules, and the Administration had also been considering whether amendments in new legislation were required. In the circumstances the Government expressed the hope that the Committee would suspend further examination of the case so that better relations might develop undisturbed.
20. 54. At its Tenth Session (November 1954) the Committee, having noted this communication from the Government, decided again to adjourn its examination of the case and expressed the hope that it might continue to be kept informed as to developments in the situation. At its Eleventh Session the Committee, noting that no further developments had occurred, adjourned its examination of the case until its present session, once again expressing a desire to be kept informed of any developments.
21. 55. In a communication dated 19 May 1955 the Government gives the following information. Since the date of its communication in October 1954 three members of the People's United Party, including the President of the General Workers' Union, were part of a delegation of members of the Executive Council of British Honduras, which visited London for talks with the Secretary of State for the Colonies about Constitutional progress, the Development Plan and other matters. The talks ended in a general understanding and the members of the delegation declared themselves well satisfied with the results. One of these has been the recent appointment to British Honduras of an experienced labour adviser. The principal object of his appointment is to encourage and foster the development of the trade union movement in British Honduras and to promote better relations between employers and workmen. He is already engaged in preparing for the information and study of the Government a detailed review of International Labour Conventions and their application in British Honduras. He is also considering in friendly consultation with the trade unions the proposed amendments to the Employers' and Workers' Ordinance, the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance and the Government Manual Workers' Rules.
22. 56. Outside the field of labour relations, states the Government, the three members of the People's United Party who were part, of the delegation of the Executive Council in London have, since 1 January last, assumed additional responsibilities for the work of certain government departments as Members for Natural Resources, Social Services and Public Utilities respectively. The President of the General Workers' Union holds the last-named of these three posts.
23. 57. The Government is at present requiring all forest licensees on Crown lands to recognise the right of the employees to organise in trade unions and to permit the entry of bona fide trade union officials for the purpose of trade union organisation. The country's biggest company, the Belize Estate and Produce Company, and the biggest union, the General Workers' Union, between whom there had been strained relations, recently concluded a joint, agreement on the rights of the Company's employees in trade union matters.
24. 58. There have been no strikes or stoppages which have not been immediately settled by negotiation, and it is clear that, taking all these factors together, there has been a continuance of the improvement of atmosphere in industrial relationships during the last six months.
25. 59. The subject of the original complaint is no longer regarded as a live issue between the complainants and the British Honduras Government, and in the light of the information given on this and earlier occasions the United Kingdom Government considers that the matter should be regarded as closed.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Allegations concerning Events Connected with the General Strike of October 1952
  60. 60 In connection with these allegations the complainants contend that trade union rights were infringed, in particular because the Government threatened "mass lay-offs " of strikers and because the Belize Estate and Produce Company declared a lock-out. The Government, besides detailing the long history of the negotiations both before and after the strike, states that no " mass lay-off " was threatened but that it was pointed out that after a resumption of work it would take several days to reorganise so that immediate full re-employment could not be guaranteed at once. So far as the Belize Estate and Produce Company was concerned the Government contends that there was no lock-out, that an arbitration award had been made one week before the strike, that the employers published a statement on 5 November 1952 that work would be resumed as soon as enough workers returned, that work was resumed later in November and that the strike was called off on 8 December.
  61. 61 The Committee considers that, in view of the full and precise details as to the sequence of events furnished by the Government, the complainant has not offered sufficient evidence, so far as these allegations are concerned, to show that any infringement of trade union rights occurred.
• Allegations concerning Summonses Served on Strikers under the British Honduras Trade Unions Ordinance, 1941
  62. 62 The complainant contends that the " following " and " besetting " provisions of the Ordinance under which the summonses were issued do not form part of the trade union law of the United Kingdom, that the accused were not " following " or " besetting " within the meaning of the Ordinance but were attending a trade union meeting, and that the Government invoked the Ordinance in an intent to intimidate the union " with a possible intent to destroy the union and possibly in an attempt " to assist the employers " in strike-busting activities ". The Government, on the other hand, claims that peaceful picketing is allowed under the Ordinance but that the persons accused threatened the men who were still working and that, of 47 cases already tried before the courts, 39 resulted in the accused being convicted or bound over, while 37 cases remain to be tried.
  63. 63 The relevant portions of the British Honduras Trades Union Ordinance No. 1 of 1941 are as follows:
  30. " §30 It shall be lawful for one or more persons but not more than three in any one place at any one time acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working : provided always that such persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union shall when so acting wear a distinctive badge or armlet bearing the word " Picket " inscribed in legible characters.
  31. " §31 (1) It is hereby declared that it is unlawful for one or more persons whether acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or an individual employer or firm and notwithstanding that they may be acting in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information or of persuading or inducing any person to work or abstain from working, if they so attend in such manner as to be calculated to intimidate any person in that house or place or to obstruct the approach thereto or egress therefrom or to lead to a breach of the peace ; and attending at or near any house or place in such manner as is by this section declared to be unlawful shall be deemed to be a watching or besetting of that house or place within the meaning of subsection (2) of this section.
  2. (2) Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority:
     • (a) uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property; or
     • (b) persistently follows such other person about from place to place ; or
     • (c) hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or
     • (d) watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides or works, or carries on business, or happens to be or the approach to such house or place; or
     • (e) follows such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road,
  3. shall, on conviction thereof by a court of summary,jurisdiction, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months."
  64. 64 The complainant cites only section 31 (2) of the Ordinance, stating that it does not form part of the United Kingdom trade union law. In fact, section 31 (2) is reproduced word for word in section 7 of the United Kingdom Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, with the exception that, in the latter case, provision is made for the possibility of trial on indictment and penalties are, of course, expressed in a different currency. So far as peaceful picketing is concerned, United Kingdom law does not limit the number of pickets nor does it oblige them to wear any distinctive badge.
  65. 65 The Committee considers that there is nothing in this law which inherently infringes trade union rights and that it is not therefore concerned with the alleged intent or " possible intent of those who bring prosecutions under it before courts which accord to those accused, as in the present case, the full guarantees of normal legal procedure, and that, consequently, the complainant has not, with regard to these allegations, offered sufficient evidence to show that trade union rights have been infringed.
• Allegations concerning Trade Union Legislation
  66. 66 The complainant demands that collective agreements should be legalised, that existing laws should be amended to include the provisions of I.L.O. Conventions, and that the present prohibition of strikes, affecting 60 per cent of industry, should be abolished and objects that the law prohibiting strikes fails to make adequate provision for the settlement of disputes. The Government points out that the law places no obstacle in the way of the voluntary negotiation and conclusion of collective agreements and does not impede freedom of association for lawful purposes, that it is complying with the I.L.O. Constitution in respect of I.L.O. Conventions and that, both under the wartime regulations still in force and under the pending legislation intended to replace them, provision is made for the arbitration of disputes in essential undertakings and services.
• Legalisation of Collective Agreements
  67. 67 The United Kingdom Government has ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention (No. 84), 1947, and has undertaken to apply its provisions without modification to British Honduras.
  68. 68 Article 3 of the Convention provides that all practical measures shall be taken to assure to trade unions which are representative of the workers concerned the right to conclude collective agreements with employers or employers' organisations.
  69. 69 The Committee considers that Article 3 of the Convention places a government under the legal obligation to accord to trade unions, so far as the State is concerned, the right to engage in collective bargaining with a view to the conclusion of collective agreements, but that it is evident from all the evidence in this case, as well as from the specific statement to that effect in the Government's reply, that the law in British Honduras does not place any obstacle in the way of a trade union entering into voluntary negotiated collective agreements, and that, in fact, collective bargaining is the established practice. It would appear, therefore, that the complaining union is alleging that trade union rights are infringed because there is no specific legal provision for the enforcement of the right to conclude collective agreements. In an earlier case, namely that relating to British Guiana (Case No. 57), the Committee expressed the view that nothing in Article 3 of Convention No. 84 places a duty on the government concerned to enforce collective bargaining by compulsory means. In these circumstances the Committee reaffirms the view which it expressed in that case and concludes that with respect to this allegation the complainant has not offered sufficient proof to show that trade union rights have been infringed.
• Amendment of Legislation to Include Provisions of I.L.O Conventions.
  70. 70 The Committee considers that the Government has fulfilled its obligations in respect of I.L.O. Conventions where, as in the present case, it has complied with the provisions of the I.L.O. Constitution with regard to such Conventions, and that, therefore, with respect to this allegation, there is no evidence to show that any trade union right has been infringed.
• Allegations with Regard to Strike Legislation
  71. 71 It is evident from the complaint and from the Government's reply that certain restrictions or prohibitions are imposed on the right to strike in a number of essential undertakings and services, both under the still existing wartime legislation and under the law intended to replace it. The complainant states that 60 per cent of industry is regarded as " essential " and that no adequate provision is made for the settlement of disputes, but it is evident, from the enactment and draft enactment cited in the Government's reply, that under the wartime Ordinance provision was made for compulsory arbitration, while the Bill before the Legislative Council " makes provision for the settlement of disputes in essential services ".
  72. 72 The Committee, while feeling that it is not called upon to express any view on the question of the right to strike in general, considers that, where the right to strike is restricted or prohibited in certain essential undertakings or services, adequate protection should be given to the workers to compensate them for the limitation thereby placed on their freedom of action with regard to disputes affecting such undertakings and services. The Committee also considers that, whereas under the wartime legislation of any country engaged in hostilities it may be necessary for trade unions, like other collectivities or individuals, to accept the placing of greater restrictions on their freedom of action than is normally the case under peacetime legislation, it is desirable that such wartime legislation should, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of hostilities, be replaced by legislation which allows a greater measure of freedom to trade unions. In this connection the Committee notes with satisfaction that, since the date on which the complaint was presented, draft legislation intended to replace the wartime legislation relating to essential works has been introduced before the Legislative Council in British Honduras, and, in these circumstances, concludes that this allegation does not call for further examination.
• Allegations concerning Recommendations in a Productivity Report and the Government's Refusal to Bargain with the Complainant
  73. 73 The complaining union contends that the Government ceased to recognise it as a bargaining agent because it refused to sign an agreement embodying only some of the points mentioned in this report, but the union does not forward a copy of the alleged letter containing the withdrawal of recognition. The Government states in its communication dated 31 August 1953 that it was in full agreement with the particular recommendation in the report cited by the complainant and the documentation attached to the reply would appear to show that the Government was in sympathy with practically all the recommendations and ready to implement them so far as was practicable and possible. The Government, while not replying in that communication to the specific claim that it wrote to the union to withdraw recognition because it would not sign the agreement offered to it, states that it " made every effort throughout the dispute to reach a negotiated settlement with the union as the representatives of government employees for the purposes of collective bargaining " and that it was only after the union's final refusal to negotiate further on the Government's offer that the latter decided to implement its proposals for better terms and conditions of employment without the co-operation of the union.
  74. 74 The Committee notes that these allegations, with which certain political issues have been involved, are dealt with in the last three communications received from the Government in which the Government indicates that, as a result of recent political developments, there is a hope of better relations in the industrial field.
  75. 75 In particular, following the gaining of a majority in the Legislative Assembly by the People's United Party, four of its members, including the President of the complaining Organisation, have served on the Governor's Executive Council, the main instrument of policy. Three members of the Party, again including the President of the complaining organisation, have discussed Constitutional progress in British Honduras with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London, a general understanding satisfactory to the delegation having been reached. A British labour adviser has been appointed with the principal purpose of encouraging the development of the trade union movement in British Honduras and to promote better industrial relations. He is also considering in friendly consultation with the trade unions the proposed amendments to the Employers' and Workers' Ordinance and other labour legislation. Certain members of the People's United Party have assumed additional responsibilities for the work of certain government departments in the colony, the President of the complaining Organisation holding a post in connection with the department concerned with public utilities. Forest licensees on Crown lands are being required to recognise the right to organise of employees and to permit trade union officials to enter to carry on bona fide trade union activities. The Belize Estate and Produce Company, which had had strained relations with the complaining organisation, has concluded an agreement with the union concerning the trade union rights of the Company's employees. No strikes or stoppages have occurred which have not been immediately settled by negotiation. In the Government's view the atmosphere of industrial relations has improved continuously during the six months ending in May 1955.
  76. 76 The Committee considers that, since the events took place which gave rise to these allegations concerning the Government's refusal to bargain with the complainant, a profound change has taken place in the situation in British Honduras. The People's United Party, which has close ties with the complaining organisation, is in fact the majority party in the Government itself, one of its members, who is also the President of the complaining Organisation, holding responsible government office. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, this would appear to have led to new understanding and collaboration in the colony between the Government and the trade unions and to the better regulation of relationships between employers and employed. In these circumstances the Committee, while emphasising the importance which it attaches to the principle that employers, including governmental authorities in the capacity of employers of wage earners, should recognise for collective bargaining purposes the organisations representative of the wage earners employed by them, considers, having regard to the fact that the atmosphere prevailing at the time of the events which are the subject of the complaint has been so far replaced by an atmosphere of improved relationships, demonstrated among other things by the appointment of the President of the complaining organisation to a responsible government office, that it has become purposeless to examine further an allegation which relates to a period prior to the much better industrial and other relationships now subsisting and the circumstances giving rise to which would appear largely to have disappeared by virtue of the changes which have taken place. The Committee, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that there is no ground for pursuing this aspect of the matter further.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 77. In all the circumstances, therefore, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case as a whole does not call for further examination.