Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 354, June 2009

Case No 2382 (Cameroon) - Complaint date: 10-AUG-04 - Closed

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

1. 19. In its last examination of the case at its March 2008 meeting [see 349th Report, paras 22–36], the Committee recalled the need for the Government to conduct an inquiry without delay into the conditions surrounding the detention of Mr Joseph Ze, General Secretary of the Single National Union of Teachers and Professors in the Teachers’ Training Faculty (SNUIPEN), on 16 April 2004, taking into account the serious allegations of torture and extortion of which Mr Ze is said to have been the victim when in custody. The Committee also invited the Government or the complainant organization to keep it informed of any possible appeal before a competent court concerning the legality of calling a second SNUIPEN congress on 4 August 2004, as well as of any court rulings handed down in this case.
2. 20. In a communication dated 9 May 2008, the complainant organization expresses its astonishment at the Government’s statement that it has adopted a neutral position with regard to the dispute between the two opposing factions within SNUIPEN and in particular at its hope that the two factions will seek recourse to the courts to resolve the question of the legality of the congress convened on 4 August 2004. The complainant organization indicates that it is not competent to challenge in court any decisions adopted during the congress, allegedly held on 4 August 2004 by the dissident faction, given that it was never notified of such decisions. Furthermore, it indicates that there is no need to obtain validation by the courts of the legitimate national congress which was held on 28 September 2006. The complainant organization further recalls that the various administrative authorities were notified of the change in the composition of the members of the SNUIPEN executive following the congress held in September 2006. It also recalls the numerous formal complaints which it has registered with the State authorities relating to interference in its activities and regrets that no corrective steps have been taken by the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association.
3. 21. The complainant organization recalls in particular the Committee’s previous recommendations concerning the need for an inquiry to be conducted by the Secretary of State for Defence into the events surrounding the interrogation and detention of Mr Ze from 16 April 2004 based on a decision adopted by the dissident faction of SNUIPEN. The complainant organization indicates that no inquiry has been conducted to date and adds that, based on the same accusations and documents from the dissident faction, Mr Ze was summoned by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Centre Region on 12 March 2007 and again on 17 March 2008. When summoned for the second time, Mr Ze was informed that he would be detained in custody and brought before the Public Prosecutor. He was released from custody on 24 March 2008 without being heard. For the complainant organization, these events illustrate the judicial harassment to which Mr Ze continues to be subjected.
4. 22. In its communication dated 15 October 2008, the complainant organization alleges interference in its activities and attaches great importance to a press conference organized by the Ministry of Basic Education together with the dissident faction of SNUIPEN following the notice of strike action given by the General Secretary of the organization, Mr Ze. During this press conference, the Ministry declared to the media that the strike was without grounds since Mr Ze did not have authority as General Secretary of SNUIPEN. The complainant organization alleges that action of this kind is contrary to the principles of the ILO with regard to the steps which should be taken by the public authorities in the case of a crisis within a trade union executive board and when declaring a strike illegal.
5. 23. Furthermore, the complainant organization indicates that Mr Jean-Pierre Ateba filed an appeal on behalf of the dissident faction of SNUIPEN to have the congress of
6. 28–29 September 2006 declared null and void, but the appeal was dismissed by the court on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.
7. 24. Finally, the complainant organization alleges anti-union harassment of Mr Ze, whose salary payments were suspended due to unauthorized absence from work, in violation of the relevant disciplinary procedures. The complainant organization indicates that the Ministry of Basic Education requested the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary payments – which were his only means of support – by simple letter dated 23 July 2008, in violation of the legal provisions in force and without carrying out any checks. Mr Ze’s salary payments were suspended due to unauthorized absence from work from 15 May 2007. However, according to the complainant organization, this finding is erroneous and is contradicted by a mission order sent to Mr Ze by his superior on 17 September 2007. The complainant organization recalls the provisions of the General Public Service Regulations in force concerning authorized absences for the purpose of carrying out a trade union mandate. The complainant organization sent additional information in a communication dated 2 March 2009.
8. 25. In a communication dated 8 October 2008, the Government indicates that it is not a party to the legal proceedings and is therefore not in a position to intervene in cases involving the embezzlement of funds. Furthermore, the Government, reiterating its attachment to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of trade unions, states that with regard to this specific case, it does not support any faction of SNUIPEN and is awaiting the final verdict of the competent courts in this case.
9. 26. In communications dated 14 January and 4 May 2009, the Government indicates that the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary is not the result of his trade union activities, but of his unauthorized absences from work in violation of the regulations in force. These regulations require, in particular, that public servants request a discharge from duties to carry out a trade union mandate in order to be regarded as having active status. However, according to the Government, Mr Ze failed to request such discharge and was therefore punished for abandoning his post in accordance with section 105 of the General Public Service Regulations. The Government indicates that Mr Ze had his salary payments suspended for abandoning his post as of 14 February 2006 and not 15 May 2007 as alleged. Moreover, such conduct is punishable by a sanction of dismissal from service pursuant to article 121, paragraph 2, of Decree No. 20008/287 of 12 October 2000, amending and supplementing the 1994 Decree concerning the General Public Service Regulations.
10. 27. The Committee notes the information provided by SNUIPEN and the Government’s reply. The Committee recalls that the present case, which it has been examining since 2005, concerns the arrest, detention and interrogation of the General Secretary of SNUIPEN, Mr Joseph Ze, and the interference by the authorities in an internal dispute within a trade union.
11. 28. With regard to its previous recommendations in which it invited the Government or the complainant organization to keep it informed of any appeal filed before a competent court concerning the legality of calling the SNUIPEN congress of 4 August 2004, which is challenged by the complainant organization, and any rulings handed down in this case, the Committee notes the complainant’s indication that it is not competent to challenge before the courts any decisions adopted at the congress allegedly held by the dissident faction, given that it was never notified of such decisions. Furthermore, there is no need for validation from the courts of the legitimate national congress held on 28 September 2006. The Committee notes the indication that the dissident faction of SNUIPEN filed an appeal to have the congress of September 2006 declared null and void, but this appeal was dismissed by the court on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its attachment to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of trade unions, and states that it does not support any SNUIPEN faction and is awaiting the final verdict of the competent courts in this case. However, the Committee notes that the complainant organization refers to a situation in which, after notice of strike action was given, the Ministry of Basic Education allegedly organized a press conference together with the dissident faction of SNUIPEN to declare that the call for strike action was without grounds since Mr Ze did not have the authority as General Secretary of SNUIPEN.
12. 29. The Committee expresses its concern at measures of this nature which, if proven true, would demonstrate an obvious bias on the part of the Government in favour of a faction in a dispute within a trade union which is recognized by all as being unresolved. Such intervention by the Government is a violation of Article 3 of Convention No. 87, under which it is bound by the obligation to refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of occupational organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities, and to formulate their programmes. The Committee stresses firmly the Government’s obligation to adopt a completely neutral attitude in disputes within the trade union movement.
13. 30. The Committee recalls that, in cases of internal conflict within a trade union organization, judicial intervention would permit a clarification of the situation from the legal point of view for the purpose of settling questions concerning the management and representation of the organization concerned. Another possible means of settlement would be to appoint an independent arbitrator to be agreed on by the parties concerned, to seek a joint solution to existing problems and, if necessary, to hold new elections. In either case, the government should recognize the leaders designated as the legitimate representatives of the organization [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 1124]. In view of the above, the Committee once again invites the Government and the complainant organization to keep it informed of any appeal before the competent courts which would permit a clarification of the situation concerning the legitimate representation of SNUIPEN, or of any other steps taken by the parties concerned to settle the dispute.
14. 31. With regard to its recommendations concerning the need for an inquiry to be conducted by the Secretary of State for Defence on the events surrounding the interrogation and detention of Mr Ze from 16 April 2004 based on a decision adopted by the dissident faction of SNUIPEN, the Committee notes with regret the lack of information from the Government in this regard. It further notes the complainant’s indication that no inquiry has been conducted to date. Furthermore, based on the same accusations and documents from the dissident faction, Mr Ze was allegedly summoned by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Centre Region on 12 March 2007 and again on 17 March 2008 and, on the second occasion, Mr Ze was informed that he would be detained and brought before the Public Prosecutor. He was released from custody on 24 March 2008 without being heard.
15. 32. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to give effect to its previous recommendation to conduct an inquiry into the conditions of the interrogation and detention of Mr Ze in April 2004. It recalls that the inquiry is needed in the light of the serious allegations of torture and extortion of which Mr Ze is said to have been the victim when in custody, and this inquiry would make it possible not only to determine the facts, ascertain responsibilities and punish those responsible, but above all prevent a recurrence of such acts. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide without delay its observations on the allegations concerning the interrogation of Mr Ze by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Centre Region in March 2007 and March 2008 and his detention during several days without any hearing.
16. 33. Finally, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations concerning the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary payments for unauthorized absence from work at the request of the Ministry of Basic Education, in violation of the relevant disciplinary procedures. The decision to suspend Mr Ze’s salary payments was allegedly taken without following the relevant procedures laid down in the General Public Service Regulations, in particular the need to issue a prior warning, the right of the public servant concerned to provide an explanation with regard to the allegations made against him or her, and the referral of the case to a public service disciplinary board for a completely independent and objective ruling. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the reason for the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary payments was not his trade union activities but his unauthorized absence from work in violation of the regulations in force, under which public servants are required to request a discharge from duties to carry out a trade union mandate so as to be regarded as having active status. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, Mr Ze failed to request such discharge and was therefore punished for abandoning his post in accordance with section 105 of the General Public Service Regulations. The suspension of his salary payments was imposed for abandoning his post as of 14 February 2006 and not 15 May 2007 as alleged, and such conduct is punishable by a sanction of dismissal from service pursuant to article 121, paragraph 2, of Decree No. 20008/287 of 12 October 2000, amending and supplementing the 1994 Decree concerning the General Public Service Regulations.
17. 34. Taking into account the background of the present case and the information provided by the complainant organization and the Government on the suspension of Mr Ze’s salary payments for alleged unauthorized absence from work, the Committee requests the Government to consider without delay, based on the facts presented, the possibility of granting a discharge from duties to Mr Ze for the purpose of carrying out a trade union mandate, including, if necessary, explaining to Mr Ze the procedure for obtaining such discharge. In this regard, the Committee draws attention to the relevant provisions of the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), which has been ratified by Cameroon, concerning the facilities to be afforded to workers’ representatives in order to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently. It recalls that it is expressly established in that Convention that workers’ representatives shall enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities as a workers’ representative or on union membership or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements. The Committee further recalls that the affording of facilities to representatives of public employees, including the granting of time off, has as its corollary ensuring the efficient operation of the administration or service concerned. This corollary means that there can be checks on requests for time off for absences during hours of work by the competent authorities solely responsible for the efficient operation of their services [see Digest, op. cit., para. 1111]. The Government is requested to indicate any developments in this regard.