Definitive Report - Report No 30, 1960

Case No 171 (Canada) - Complaint date: 11-JAN-58 - Closed

1. 40. The allegations are contained in a complaint submitted to the I.L.O on 11 January 1958 by the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U). The Government of Canada forwarded its observations on the complaint in a communication dated 21 February 1958. In a letter dated 6 May 1958 the I.F.C.T.U requested that, in view of subsequent developments, the Committee should not proceed further with its examination of the complaint.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 41. It is alleged in the complaint dated 11 January 1958 that employees of the Rosita Hosiery Mills Ltd., Montreal, joined a trade union affiliated to the I.F.C.T.U when the union conducted a drive to recruit members in that city in October 1957 and that four of them were dismissed and others intimidated because they joined the union. When the employer suspended some 30 of the workers a strike to secure union recognition was called. The I.F.C.T.U complains that the Quebec labour authorities did not intervene but, by a letter dated 6 May 1958, asks for no further action to be taken in the case, the employers, in the meantime, having acceded to certain of the employees' demands. The Government states that the Quebec labour authorities had no cognizance of the dispute because no application was made to them to invoke the provisions of Quebec legislation which protect the right of association. These provisions render employers liable to fine or imprisonment for dismissing employees for lawful trade union activities, and the Labour Relations Board can order the reinstatement of employees dismissed on this ground. The Government furnishes an extract from a Canadian trade union newspaper indicating the conclusion of an agreement between the employees and the employer under which the latter recognised the union, consented to reinstate the dismissed employees and made no other concessions.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 42. The complaint, therefore, is one of alleged victimisation of employees because of their trade union activity. In this connection the Committee has emphasised in a number of cases the importance which it attaches to the principle that workers should enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in their employment. It would also appear, however, that protection is afforded in Quebec under labour legislation, although the employees concerned do not appear to have had recourse to the remedies provided. The Committee has drawn attention in certain cases in the past to the fact that, where there is provision for national remedies before a court or an independent tribunal and such remedies have not been pursued with respect to the matters raised in a complaint, the Committee must have regard to this fact when examining the merits of the complaint.
2. 43. The complainant, however, requests that no further action be taken to examine the merits of the complaint. This raises a procedural point of great importance which the Committee has already been called upon to examine in the past. In Case No. 66 relating to Greece, the Committee expressed the view that the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw its complaint, while constituting a factor to which the greatest attention must be paid, is not, however, in itself, sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. The Committee considered in that case that it should be guided in this respect by the conclusions approved by the Governing Body in 1937 and 1938 with regard to two representations submitted by the Madras Labour Union for Textile Workers and by the Société de Bienfaisance des Travailleurs de l'Ile Maurice, in accordance with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Organisation (now Article 24). The Governing Body at that time established the principle that, from the moment that a representation was submitted to it, it alone was competent to decide what effect should be given to it, and that " the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not receivable or is not well founded ". The Committee considers that in implementing this principle it is free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether these appear sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the withdrawal was made in complete independence. The Committee has observed that cases might exist in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it would be a result not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose but of pressure exercised by the government against the complainants, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if they did not consent to this withdrawal.
3. 44. In the present case the reasons given by the complainant for its desire that the Committee should not examine the complaint further is that the employers have met a number of the demands of the employees concerned. This is corroborated by a printed extract from the newspaper of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour which makes it clear that, by agreement, the strike came to an end, the union of the employees was recognised and the persons who had been dismissed were reinstated; thus, the specific grievances which gave rise to the complaint appear to have been remedied.

45. The Committee considers that the reasons given by the complaining organisation for not wishing to proceed with the complaint show that it is acting of its own free will, and, in these circumstances, recommends the Governing Body to decide that there is no ground for pursuing the matter further.