Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 358, November 2010

Case No 2685 (Mauritius) - Complaint date: 31-OCT-08 - Closed

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

1. 68. The Committee last examined this case, which concerned alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and refusal to recognize the Syndicat des Travailleurs des Etablissements Privés (STEP) by the Phil Alain Didier Co. Ltd (PAD), at its November 2009 meeting. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 355th Report, paras 891–909]:
   • (a) With regard to the alleged refusal by the PAD company to recognize STEP, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the proceedings before the Employment Relations Tribunal and to provide it with a copy of the judgement.
   • (b) With respect to the dismissals of Messrs Martinet and Lagaillarde, the Committee notes that the Government will keep it informed about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against them and expects that, should they be acquitted of the charges, steps will be taken to reinstate them and to pay wages due and other legal entitlements. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
2. 69. In communications dated 19 April and 27 May 2010, the Government indicates that the Employment Relations Tribunal organized a ballot on 13 June 2009 to determine the representativeness of STEP at the company. Less than thirty per cent of the workers in the bargaining unit voted in favour of the recognition of STEP. As provided for in section 38 of the Employment Relations Act (ERA), the trade union withdrew its application.
3. 70. With regard to the dismissal of Mr Martinet, the Government states that the police case at the District Court was dismissed on 25 March 2010. On 20 April 2010, following the outcome of the proceedings, the Ministry of Labour, Industrial Relations and Employment has lodged a case for unjustified termination of employment against the company at the Industrial Court on behalf of Mr Martinet. The case will be dealt with on 3 June 2010.
4. 71. With regard to the dismissal of Mr Lagaillarde, the Government indicates that the decision of the Director of Public Prosecution is still being awaited in the case of “Interfering with motor vehicle” reported by the company to the police. The Government adds that Mr Lagaillarde has lodged a case for unjustified termination of employment against the company at the Industrial Court, and that the case is scheduled for 6 July 2010.
5. 72. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government. It requests the Government to provide further information as to the existence of any representative organization in the PAD, as well as to whether the STEP, taking into account the provisions of the ERA, may negotiate with the company, in the absence of an exclusive bargaining agent, at least on behalf of its own members.
6. 73. With respect to the dismissal of Mr Martinet, the Committee notes that Mr Martinet has been acquitted of the criminal charges filed against him by the company, and that the Ministry of Labour has initiated on his behalf legal action for unjustified termination of employment before the Industrial Court. The Committee observes that with the acquittal of Mr Martinet of all criminal charges, the grounds for his dismissal have ceased to exist. It expects that the necessary steps will be taken without delay to ensure that Mr Martinet is reinstated in his former position with compensation for lost wages and benefits. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
7. 74. As regards the dismissal of Mr Lagaillarde, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is still awaiting the outcome of the ongoing criminal proceedings. The Committee expects that a ruling will be handed down expeditiously, and that, should Mr Lagaillarde be acquitted of the charges, steps will be taken without delay to reinstate him in his post without loss of wages or benefits. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard and to provide it with a copy of the judgement.