Interim Report - Report No 360, June 2011

Case No 2714 (Democratic Republic of the Congo) - Complaint date: 14-APR-09 - Closed

Allegations: Harassment and intimidation of trade union leaders through disciplinary measures and suspensions in reprisal for making a petition

1. 1093. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2010 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 357th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 308th Session (2010), paras 1104–1120].
2. 1094. At its March 2011 meeting [see 359th Report, para. 5], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rule set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body (1972), it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting even if the information or observations requested had not been received in time. The Government has not sent any information to date.
3. 1095. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 1096. In its previous examination of the case, in June 2010, deploring that, despite the time that had elapsed, the Government had not provided any information on the allegations, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 357th Report, para. 1120]:
   • (a) The Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to the complainant’s allegations, despite having been invited on a number of occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on this case. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government without delay to provide detailed information on the reasons for the disciplinary measures applied against Mr Basila Baelongandi and Mr Bushabu Kwete, CCT union officials, in June 2008 and January 2009, indicating in particular whether they remain suspended and, if so, why. If it is found that the measures in question were motivated solely by their legitimate trade union activities, the Committee expects that the officials in question will be reinstated without delay and paid the wages arrears and other benefits owed to them, and that the Government will ensure that such acts of anti-union discrimination will not recur in future. If reinstatement is not possible for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the trade union leaders are paid an adequate compensation which would represent a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union discrimination.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations without delay on the summons issued by the prosecution service for Mr Bushabu Kwete to attend a hearing and, in particular, the reasons for the summons in question.
   • (d) The Committee, recalling that it is for trade unions to appoint their own representatives on consultative bodies, requests the Government to reply without delay in detail to the complainant’s allegations concerning the appointment of a trade unionist who, according to the complainant, has no union mandate, to the Bonus Allocations Committee.
   • (e) The Committee requests the Government, or the complainant, to provide information on the composition of the bodies within the General Directorate for Administrative, Judicial and State Revenues (DGRAD) and to clarify the role of the unions in that regard.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1097. The Committee deeply deplores the fact that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was presented in April 2009, the Government has still not replied to the allegations of the complainant organization, despite having been invited on several occasions, including by means of two urgent appeals, to present its observations on the allegations in reply to the recommendations made by the Committee in its previous examination of the case [see 356th and 359th Reports, para. 5].
2. 1098. In these circumstances, and in keeping with the applicable procedural rule [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (1972)], the Committee finds itself obliged to present once again a report on the substance of the case without being able to take into account the information it hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 1099. The Committee reminds the Government once again that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations made against them [see the Committee’s first Report, para. 31].
4. 1100. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government has still not provided any information whatsoever concerning three consecutive complaints presented since 2009, which have already been examined in the absence of a Government reply and which relate to serious violations of freedom of association. The Committee expects the Government to be more cooperative in future.
5. 1101. The Committee finds itself obliged to reiterate its previous recommendations and firmly expects the Government to provide information without delay.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 1102. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee deeply deplores the fact that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was presented in April 2009, the Government has still not replied to the allegations of the complainant organization, despite having been invited on several occasions, including by means of two urgent appeals, to present its observations on the allegations in reply to the recommendations made by the Committee in its previous examination of the case [see 356th and 359th Reports, para. 5]. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government has still not provided any information whatsoever concerning three consecutive complaints presented since 2009, which have already been examined in the absence of a Government reply and which relate to serious violations of freedom of association. The Committee expects the Government to be more cooperative in future.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government without delay to provide detailed information on the reasons for the disciplinary measures applied against Mr Basila Baelongandi and Mr Bushabu Kwete, CCT union officials, in June 2008 and January 2009, indicating in particular whether they remain suspended and, if so, why. If it is found that the measures in question were motivated solely by their legitimate trade union activities, the Committee expects that the officials in question will be reinstated without delay and paid the wages arrears and other benefits owed to them, and that the Government will ensure that such acts of anti-union discrimination will not recur in future. If reinstatement is not possible for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the trade union leaders are paid an adequate compensation which would represent a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union discrimination.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations without delay on the summons issued by the prosecution service for Mr Bushabu Kwete to attend a hearing and, in particular, the reasons for the summons in question.
   • (d) The Committee, recalling that it is for trade unions to appoint their own representatives on consultative bodies, requests the Government to reply without delay in detail to the complainant’s allegations concerning the appointment of a trade unionist who, according to the complainant, has no union mandate, to the Bonus Allocations Committee.
   • (e) The Committee requests the Government, or the complainant, to provide information on the composition of the bodies within the DGRAD and to clarify the role of the unions in that regard.