Definitive Report - Report No 13, 1954

Case No 82 (Lebanon) - Complaint date: 03-AUG-53 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 107. In a communication dated 3 August 1953 the complainant alleges that, when telephone employees in Beirut went on strike in April-May 1952 in support of a demand for higher wages, the authorities suggested their replacement by army specialists, and that, the strikers refusing to accept this proposal, the police were ordered to empty the telephone company's premises by force, with the result that many telephone operators were injured by the weapons used by the police.
   • ANALYSIS OF THE REPLY
2. 108. In a reply dated 7 April 1954 the Government of Lebanon declares that the allegations made are without foundation. When the strike took place in May 1952 the authorities decided to use army technicians to maintain the telephone service in the public interest. The dispute was soon settled and all the telephone operators returned to duty, none having been dismissed.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 109. The essence of the complaint is that when telephone operators were on strike their rights were infringed because the Government decided to use army technicians to ensure the functioning of the telephone service and ordered the police to remove the strikers from the premises they were occupying, some persons being injured in the process. The Government makes no reference to the alleged forcible ejection of strikers, but states that the dispute was soon settled and that no strikers were dismissed from their employment.
2. 110. Article 342 of the Penal Code of Lebanon provides for the liability to imprisonment and fine of any persons who, in concert and to the number of not less than twenty, take action to suspend, among other services, " postal, telegraphic or telephone services", the offence being aggravated, according to the same article, if the persons concerned " occupy the working place ".
3. 111. The Committee considers that the question at issue is not that of the right to strike as such but that of a Government's rights, firstly, to ensure the maintenance of a public service by other technicians where those responsible for it have ceased to maintain the service, and, secondly, to remove strikers from workplaces which are places where the essential service is carried on when they are occupying those workplaces in contravention of the penal law.
4. 112. With regard to these two points, the Committee considers that, where an essential public service such as the telephone service is interrupted by an unlawful strike, a Government may have to assume the responsibility of ensuring its maintenance, in the interests of the community and of public order, and, to this end, may consider it expedient to call in persons from the armed forces or other sources to perform the duties which have been suspended and to take the necessary steps to enable such persons to be installed in the premises where such duties are performed.
5. 113. The Committee also notes the Government's assurance that the dispute was quickly settled and that all the telephone operators involved resumed work, none of them having been dismissed, and considers that, for this reason, the complaint has now become purposeless.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 114. In all the circumstances, therefore, the Committee considers that the complainant has not furnished evidence to show that trade union rights have been infringed in the present case and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.