Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 321, June 2000

Case No 1978 (Gabon) - Complaint date: 27-JUL-98 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 28. At its meeting in November 1999 [see the Committee's 318th Report, paras. 208 to 219], the Committee deplored the suppression of the trade union structure of the Gabonese Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CGSL) in the SOCOFI and Leroy-Gabon enterprises and the fact that the Government had not replied to these allegations. It requested the Government to take all the necessary measures to guarantee the existence and free functioning of that trade union in the enterprises in question. It also deplored the dismissal of trade unionists for activities connected with the setting up of a trade union or for exercising their right to strike, and requested the Government to take all the necessary measures for the workers to be reinstated in their posts without loss of pay.
2. 29. The Government explains that the labour inspectorate intervened on two occasions following the establishment of a branch of the CGSL at the SOCOFI enterprise. The labour inspectorate had found on the first occasion that the union had been established without prior filing of its by-laws and the names of its officers, and on the second occasion had found that the union branch in question represented only one occupation. The Government maintains that although the CGSL in August 1997 accepted the labour inspectorate's recommendations, it maintained its old trade union structure, with all the consequences that ensued.
3. 30. With regard to the allegations of wrongful repatriation by the Gabon police of Mr. Sow Alliou, a CGSL trade union delegate to SOCOFI, on 2 August 1997, the Government maintains that Mr. Alliou, who has Guinean nationality, had a residence permit which expired on 31 July 1997; he was not expelled from Gabon because he was a trade union delegate but for reasons which the immigration police have yet to specify. The Government also indicates that Mr. Alliou returned to Gabon some months later and found another job and now has a valid residence permit which will not expire until October 2001. The Government also indicates that his previous employer has paid him the compensation owed to him under the terms of his contract and that he and the CGSL have just begun an action for damages which is exclusively a matter for the Gabonese courts.
4. 31. As regards the allegations of dismissals of all the CGSL members at the SOCOFI enterprise in September 1997 following a strike, the Government states that the strike had been declared illegal by a court of first instance and that the matter was now before the appeal court (a copy of the original ruling is supplied).
5. 32. As regards the allegations concerning the suppression of the CGSL trade union structure at the Leroy-Gabon company's "Gongue" forestry works, the Government explains that the intervention of the Koula-Mouton labour inspectorate had the same legal basis as in the CGSL/SOCOFI case and that, contrary to the CGSL's allegations, an ordinary CGSL member had assumed that he would enjoy the same protection as that enjoyed by trade union delegates in the enterprise and accordingly took time off during working hours to engage in trade union activities. In the absence of a list of CGSL delegates at the Gongue forestry works, the labour inspectorate recommended to the supposed delegate that he desist for the time being from his trade union activities, until such time as the union officers were formally appointed and their names communicated to the labour inspectorate. Lastly, the Government states that only a short time after the labour inspectorate made this recommendation, and long before the CGSL's complaint was filed, the Gongue works was abandoned and its employees were transferred following a fall-off in its activities.
6. 33. The Committee takes note of this information. Nevertheless, it greatly deplores the fact that, although the complaint was lodged on 27 July 1998, the Government took nearly two years to send any information at all on the case. The Committee hopes that the Government will be more cooperative in future.
7. 34. As regards the allegations concerning the dissolution of the CGSL trade union structure in the SOCOFI enterprise, the Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that the labour inspectorate took action at the enterprise because of a failure to comply with regulations on the registration of trade unions. In this respect, the Committee has always considered that, although the founders of a trade union should comply with the formalities prescribed by legislation, those formalities should not be of such a nature as to impair the free establishment of organizations. The Committee also emphasises that the free exercise of the right to establish and join unions implies the free determination of the structure and composition of unions. Furthermore, it should be possible to appeal to the courts against any administrative decision concerning the registration of a trade union [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 248, 264 and 275]. In the present case, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the existence and the free functioning of the trade union CGSL in the SOCOFI enterprise, once the union has complied with the registration formalities provided for by law, and to keep it informed in this regard.
8. 35. As regards the allegations concerning the wrongful repatriation to Guinea of Mr. Sow Alliou, a CGSL delegate to the SOCOFI, the Committee notes with concern that, by the Government's own admission, the immigration police are still unable to indicate the precise motives for that expulsion three years after it occurred. The Government also states that the delegate received compensation from his former employer. The Committee believes that it can often be difficult or even impossible for a worker to prove that he or she has been the victim of anti-union discrimination. In its view, it would not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as set out in Convention No. 98, is granted by legislation in cases where employees can in practice, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal, dismiss any worker, if the true reason is the worker's trade union membership or activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 707]. Noting that Mr. Alliou has just brought an action for damages, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any ruling handed down by the court. It also requests the Government to keep it informed of the decision of the court of appeal concerning the legality of the strike by the CGSL at the SOCOFI enterprise in 1997. If the strike is ruled to have been legal, the Committee trusts that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure that the workers concerned are reinstated in their posts without loss of pay.
9. 36. As regards the allegations concerning the suspension of the CGSL trade unions structure at the Leroy-Gabon company's Gongue forestry works, the Committee notes once again that the labour inspector intervened because the union's officers failed to comply with the registration formalities. In this regard, the Committee, while reiterating the principles stated above in relation to the CGSL officers in the SOCOFI enterprise, also notes that the worksite in question was closed and its workers were transferred before the complaint was filed.