Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 360, June 2011

Case No 2772 (Cameroon) - Complaint date: 16-MAR-10 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization denounces the refusal of the CAMRAIL company to allow an affiliated organization, the Professional Trade Union of Train Drivers of Cameroon (SPCTC) to carry out its activities, as well as the dismissal of workers following a work stoppage

1. 291. The complaint was presented in communications from the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC) dated 16 March and 29 May 2010.
2. 292. The Government sent partial observations in communications dated 6 August and 16 December 2010.
3. 293. Cameroon 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 294. In a communication dated 16 March 2010 the UGTC, on behalf of its affiliate, the Professional Trade Union of Train Drivers of Cameroon (SPCTC), denounces the actions taken against the SPCTC by the management of the CAMRAIL railway company and the dismissal of workers following a work stoppage.
2. 295. According to information provided by the complainant organization, the SPCTC was established at a time when the train drivers, who then belonged to an action group, were putting forward a number of demands that they had been voicing since 2004. In the face of the company management’s silence and the alleged failure of the existing trade unions to defend their interests, the train drivers had brought the matter before the labour inspectorate for the coastal area and the responsible ministries in the hope of finding a solution. Notice of strike action had been lodged by the action group in July 2008.
3. 296. The complainant organization states that the President of the SPCTC, Alain Klaus Piper Mba, had informed the management of CAMRAIL of the creation of the trade union by letter of 12 August 2008 and had requested a meeting. By letter of 20 August 2009 the SPCTC informed the management that its President was its sole representative, since the company had not yet indicated how many representatives it was entitled to. By letters dated 13 August and 11 September 2008 the SPCTC asked the company to deduct its members’ contributions from their salaries.
4. 297. According to the complainant organization, the company management informed the SPCTC by letter of 6 October 2008 that the place for social dialogue between the management and its social partners was the joint committee which met twice a year and which, in accordance with the collective agreement, comprised five representatives of the management and 16 representatives of the workers. The management also reminded the SPCTC that the provisions of the collective agreement stipulated that, “until new workers’ elections are held in the company, the signatories are not required to offer a seat to the member party on the joint committees and other bodies provided for in the agreement”. The management therefore asked the SPCTC to approach the other railway unions. As to the request to dock the union members’ contributions from their salaries and pay it into the union’s account, the management stated that for administrative and management reasons the company was not in a position to do so.
5. 298. The complainant organization states that on 9 October 2008 the SPCTC wrote to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to denounce the infringement of its trade union rights by the company. In its letter the SPCTC referred to the attempts that had been made to destabilize the founders of the union ever since they had requested the registrar of trade union to register it in May 2008. The union also denounced the sudden relocation of the SPCTC President to the Ngaoundéré depot, whereas for family reasons he had been previously assigned to Douala. The SPCTC further denounced the letter from the company stating that for administrative and management reasons it was not in a position to deduct union contributions from workers’ salaries, while train drivers who had freely decided to resign from their union and join the SPCTC in fact continued to have their contributions deducted and paid over to the established unions. In conclusion, the SPCTC informed the Ministry that the company did not recognize any of its trade union rights despite the fact that it had submitted all the required documents, and that it had no furniture or space in which to function as required under the collective agreement (article 24b). The SPCTC, which claimed that it had subscription slips showing that 70 per cent of the train drivers were union members, had given notice that it would take strike action on 31 October 2008 if the situation was not resolved.
6. 299. The complainant organization stated that on 15 November 2008, following an abortive exchange of correspondence, the drivers went on strike as they had warned the previous July. Following the work stoppage the company dismissed seven of its workers: Koko Mbog Bebel, Chamba Ngassam Cyrille, Mbarga Alexis, Ngah Ndomba Marius, Wangmo Komgjoua William, Yonkou Yonkou and Atsafack Tsangou Paul Raoul.
7. 300. By a communication dated 29 May 2010, the UGTC transmitted a statement that it issued on 23 May 2010 through its President, Alain Klaus Piper Mba. In the statement the SPCTC noted that, in view of the company management’s refusal to seek a solution and the failure of the responsible ministry to do anything, the train drivers throughout the entire railway network (Douala, Yaoundé, Bélabo and Ngaoundéré) stopped work on 15 November 2008 at 4 p.m. The drivers remained peacefully at their depots or halted their trains at the nearest station in accordance with safety instructions. The work stoppage lasted three days, from 15 to 18 November 2008, pending resolution of the dispute.
8. 301. The SPCTC noted that the police were present alongside representatives of the management at the Yaoundé depot and that anti-riot forces had used violence against the striking drivers to prevent them from entering the Douala depot on the second day of the work stoppage.
9. 302. On 18 November, five representatives of the train drivers summoned by the Ministry of Transport met representatives of the company management. Following the meeting, the Ministry issued a press release stating that the pending issues would be discussed by the joint committee, which then met from 2 to 12 December 2008.
10. 303. The SPCTC denounces the summoning of seven drivers by the Human Resources Department to a meeting on 5 January 2009 which, according to the union, turned into a makeshift disciplinary inquiry into accusations of participation in incidents that occurred during the work stoppage and ended in their immediate dismissal. At the end of the meeting, which lasted ten minutes, the workers were each handed a letter of dismissal, a copy of the record of the disciplinary meeting and their work certificate. The dismissed workers took the matter to the labour inspectorate but, at the first meeting they held with the company representatives and the labour inspector, men dressed in police uniform broke into the labour inspectorate’s premises and presented them with summonses to the Douala police station. Attempts to resolve the issue ended five months later with an official report indicating that no reconciliation had been achieved between the dismissed workers and the company. The SPCTC states that a complaint has been lodged against CAMRAIL for unjustified dismissal and non-payment of dues.
11. 304. The SPCTC states further that, long before the November 2008 work stoppage, its President, Alain Klaus Piper Mba, had been the victim of verbal intimidation by the management. His train had derailed in Makor station on 13 October 2008 because of a mechanical failure, but he and his assistant had nevertheless been dismissed on 13 November 2008 for gross negligence.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 305. In a communication dated 6 August 2010, the Government states simply that it does not have the authority to order the reinstatement of dismissed workers or to rule on the alleged unjustified nature of their dismissal. The appropriate authority is the labour court, to which the UGTC can appeal for a ruling on the matter.
2. 306. In a communication dated 16 December 2010, the Government states that, following the CAMRAIL drivers’ notice of strike action on 21 July 2008, a mission was despatched to Douala to settle the dispute. The mission concluded that the strike organized by the SPCTC was in violation of articles 158 and 164 of the Labour Code, since the disputes settlement procedure provided for therein had not yet been completed.
3. 307. The Government states further that a letter had been sent to the company’s management requesting it to deduct the SPCTC members’ contributions from their salaries and pay them into the union’s account, to look into the SPCTC’s complaints about the train drivers’ hours of work and the replacement of the old REFIFERCAM locomotives and to consult the regional labour and social security services about the technical decisions involved.
4. 308. The Government notes, however, that the attempt by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the labour inspectorate to bring about a settlement of the dispute proved fruitless, and it is henceforward up to the workers concerned to appeal to the judicial authority to examine the case, as required by law.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 309. The Committee recalls that the case under examination refers to alleged acts of anti-union discrimination on the part of the management of the CAMRAIL company against the SPCTC, established in 2008, thereby preventing it from carrying out its union activities, and to alleged reprisals for a work stoppage by train drivers in November 2008.
2. 310. The Committee observes from the information provided that the SPCTC was established during a labour dispute between the train drivers, who were at that time members of an action group, and the company. It notes that the action group, which since 2004 had been putting forward a number of demands, had subsequently appealed to the labour inspectorate for the coastal area and the responsible ministries (Ministry of Labour and Social Security and Ministry of Transport) in an effort to resolve the dispute, and had given notice of strike action in July 2008.
3. 311. The Committee notes that the company management was informed of the establishment of the trade union by letter of 12 August 2008 signed by the SPCTC President, Alain Klaus Piper Mba. Mr Mba asked to meet the management and requested several times that, as required under the Labour Code, the company deduct its members’ contributions from their salaries.
4. 312. The Committee notes that, by way of a reply, the company informed the SPCTC by letter of 6 October 2008 that the management and its social partners met twice a year in the joint works’ committee, which under the terms of the collective agreement consisted of five representatives of the management and 16 representatives of the workers. The company went on to remind the SPCTC that, according to one of the clauses of the collective agreement, “until new workers’ elections are held in the company, the signatories are not required to offer a seat to the member party on the joint committees and other bodies provided for in the agreement” and advised the union to approach the other railway unions. Finally, with regard to the request that the company deduct union contributions from its members’ salaries and credit the union’s account accordingly, the Committee notes that the company replied that because of administrative and management constraints it was not in a position to make such additional arrangements.
5. 313. The Committee notes further the SPCTC’s allegations that attempts to destabilize the founders of the union had started from the moment the request for its registration was submitted to the registrar of trade unions in May 2008. The union also denounces the sudden relocation of the SPCTC President to the Ngaoundéré depot, whereas for family reasons he had previously been assigned to Douala. The SPCTC President had, moreover, allegedly been threatened by a representative of the management and dismissed for gross negligence in November 2008, following a technical failure that caused the derailment of a train in October 2008 of which he was in command. The Committee notes that the SPCTC denounces the fact that the company claimed not to be in a position to deduct contributions from workers’ salaries owing to administrative and management constraints; yet at the same time it continued to deduct the contributions from workers who had freely opted to resign from other trade unions in order to join the SPCTC and to credit them to the established unions. The Committee notes that the SPCTC, which contends that its members account for 70 per cent of train drivers, claims that the company has never recognized its President or granted the union any of its rights. By way of proof, it points out that it has no furniture and no space in which to function, contrary to the requirements of article 24b of the collective agreement.
6. 314. The Committee notes that the allegations of anti-union discrimination against the SPCTC and its President were all mentioned in a letter from the union to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security dated 9 October 2008. It observes that, should the allegations made in the SPCTC’s letter prove to be true, they would constitute acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that, according to the information at its disposal, the letter appears to have elicited no reaction, and it requests the Government to inform it of any action that may have been taken by the authorities in response to the SPCTC’s letter. If no such action has been taken, the Committee expects that the Government will refer the union’s allegations without delay to the labour inspection services and that the necessary inquiries will be conducted to put an end to any acts of anti-union discrimination that may come to light. It further requests the Government to provide information in this respect without delay.
7. 315. The Committee notes that, since there had been no change in the situation, the train drivers throughout the railway network began a work stoppage on 15 November 2008 that lasted for three days. Subsequently, five of their representatives met the company management following a summons by the Ministry of Transport. At the end of the meeting, the Ministry issued a press release and the drivers’ demands were referred to the joint works’ committee, which met between 2 and 12 December 2008.
8. 316. The Committee notes that, for its part, the Government states that, upon the submission of notice of strike action by the train drivers in July 2008, a mission was sent to Douala to resolve the dispute. However, the mission reached the conclusion that the November 2008 strike by the SPCTC was a violation of articles 158–164 of the Labour Code since the disputes settlement procedure provided for therein had not been completed. The Committee notes further the Government’s statement that it had written to the company management to ask it to deduct the SPCTC members’ contributions from their salaries and pay the amount into the union’s account, to look into the SPCTC’s complaints about the train drivers’ hours of work and the replacement of the old REFIFERCAM locomotives and to consult the regional labour and social security services about the technical decisions involved. According to the Government, however, the attempt by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the labour inspectorate to bring about a settlement of the dispute had proved fruitless.
9. 317. The Committee notes with regret that, although the information concerning the action taken by the Government does show a willingness on the part of the authorities to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute, it is incomplete, notably as regards the dates and chronology of the steps taken by the authorities and by the parties to the dispute, in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code regarding the settlement of collective labour disputes, and that, in the Committee’s view, it does not provide corroboration of the Government’s observation that the strike called from 15 to 18 November 2008 was a violation of articles 158–164 of the Labour Code. Moreover, the Committee notes that it is apparent from the letter from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to the company, and notably its request that it deduct the SPCTC members’ union contributions from their salaries, that the union’s fundamental right to organize its own affairs raises a genuine issue. The Committee asks the Government to indicate what the current status of the SPCTC is and, specifically, whether the union has its own premises, as called for in CAMRAIL’s collective agreement, whether the matter of the deduction of the union members’ contributions has been resolved with the company and whether the union is able to conduct its activities without interference, and, if not, to take the necessary measures vis-à-vis the company to remedy the situation without delay.
10. 318. The Committee notes the complainant organization’s indication that, following the work stoppage from 15 to 18 November 2008, seven drivers were summoned on 5 January 2009 by the Human Resources Department to a meeting which, according to the union, turned into a makeshift disciplinary inquiry into accusations of participation in incidents that occurred during the work stoppage and ended in their dismissal the very same day. The workers concerned were Koko Mbog Bebel (an active member of the SPCTC), Chamba Ngassam Cyrille (the SPCTC’s officer in charge of the working environment), Mbarga Alexis (National Secretary-General of the SPCTC), Ngah Ndomba Marius (the SPCTC’s officer in charge of labour disputes), Wangmo Komgjoua William (Assistant Secretary-General of the SPCTC), Yonkou Yonkou (an active member of the SPCTC) and Atsafack Tsangou Paul Raoul (the SPCTC’s officer in charge of communications). The details of the accusations levelled against these trade unionists, according to copies of the record of hearings provided by the complainant organization, are as follows:
    • – Koko Mbog Bebel, accused of having stolen parts from a locomotive, which he denies and claims witnesses can attest.
    • – Chamba Ngassam Cyrille, accused of having closed down a depot (no official record available).
    • – Mbarga Alexis, accused of having stolen parts from the controls of automatic, hand and reverse brakes, which he denies. He is also accused of having returned to the Douala depot without being instructed to do so by a superior, which he justifies by his need for money which he was unable to obtain through the regular channels.
    • – Ngah Ndomba Marius, accused of having stopped the surveillance of a depot when he was supposed to be on holiday, which he denies, explaining that he was only present because he wanted to consult the duty roster for the next day. He is also accused of not having been on duty on 16 November as he was supposed to be, which he explains by the fact that he could not find out when he was supposed to be on duty because the depot was closed.
    • – Wangmo Komgjoua William, accused of having gone to Douala without being instructed to do so by a superior, which he justifies by the absence of any schedule because of the work stoppage and by his need to refuel.
    • – Yonkou Yonkou (no official record available).
    • – Atsafack Tsangou Paul Raoul, accused of having abandoned his post on 15 November 2008, which he justifies by the work stoppage called by the SPCTC. He is also accused of not having driven a train on 16 November 2008, which he explains by the impossibility of consulting the duty roster because the depot was closed.
11. 319. The Committee notes that the SPCTC refers to several clauses of the collective works’ agreement in contesting the dismissals. Specifically, it notes that none of the workers concerned were asked for an explanation until the hearing, whereas article 84a stipulates that an explanation must be requested in respect of any fault liable to incur dismissal. The Committee also notes that, under the collective agreement, “any absence of ten opening days or justified by theft or misuse of equipment shall be assimilated to desertion of one’s post and shall constitute in itself a fault liable to incur the termination of a workers’ contract without payment of any compensation or notice of termination (article 82b)”. The Committee notes also that the SPCTC denounces the company’s accusation of gross negligence to justify its dismissal of the seven drivers, inasmuch as the gross negligence was invoked on 5 January 2009 in respect of incidents dating back to 15 and 16 November 2008 and that a ruling based on case law had determined that an accusation of gross negligence becomes null and void one month after the incident concerned and cannot justify dismissal without notice (circular No. 33/S of 11 November 1969).
12. 320. From the information at its disposal, the Committee concludes that the dismissal of Koko Mbog Bebel (an active member of the SPCTC), Chamba Ngassam Cyrille (the SPCTC’s officer in charge of the working environment), Mbarga Alexis (National Secretary-General of the SPCTC), Ngah Ndomba Marius (the SPCTC’s officer in charge of labour disputes), Wangmo Komgjoua William (Assistant Secretary-General of the SPCTC), Yonkou Yonkou (an active member of the SPCTC) and Atsafack Tsangou Paul Raoul (the SPCTC’s officer in charge of communications) appears to be marred by irregularities in terms of the applicable texts and suggests to the Committee that there might be a link between the dismissals and the workers’ trade union activities. The Committee notes that the dismissed workers took their case to the labour inspectorate but that the attempt to reach a settlement ended in an official record that conciliation between them and the company had proved fruitless. The Committee notes that a complaint has been lodged against the company for unjustified dismissal and non-payment of amounts due. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the complaint lodged against the company for unjustified dismissal of the seven members of the SPCTC.
13. 321. Noting that a judicial proceeding is taking place at the national level, should the antiunion nature of their dismissal prove to be true, the Committee expects the Government to take every necessary measure vis-à-vis the company to ensure that the dismissed trade unionists are reinstated in their jobs with retroactive payment of all wages due. Should it prove that for objective and compelling reasons their reinstatement should not be possible, the Committee requests that the workers concerned receive compensation of an amount that is sufficiently dissuasive sanction against anti-union dismissals. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
14. 322. With regard to the case under examination, the Committee trusts in general that the Government will take the necessary steps to obtain information from the relevant employers’ organization with a view to having at its disposal the views of the company concerned on the questions at issue.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 323. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) In general terms regarding the case under examination, the Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary steps to obtain information from the relevant employers’ organization with a view to having at its disposal the views of the company concerned on the questions at issue.
   • (b) The Committee notes with regret that, though the information concerning the action taken by the Government does show a willingness on the part of the authorities to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute, it is incomplete. The Committee observes that it is apparent from the letter from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to the company, and notably its request that it deduct the SPCTC members’ union contributions from their salaries, that the union’s fundamental right to organize its own affairs raises a genuine issue. The Committee asks the Government to indicate what is the current status of the SPCTC and, specifically, whether the union has its own premises, as called for in CAMRAIL’s collective agreement, whether the matter of the deduction of the union members’ contributions has been resolved with the company and whether the union is able to conduct its activities without interference; and, if not, to take the necessary measures vis-à-vis the company to remedy the situation without delay.
   • (c) The Committee notes that the allegations of anti-union discrimination against the SPCTC and its President were mentioned in a letter from the union to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security dated 9 October 2008 and observes that, should the allegations made in the SPCTC’s letter prove to be true, they would constitute acts of anti-union discrimination. Noting that, according to the information at its disposal, the letter appears to have elicited no response, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of any action that may have been taken by the authorities in response to the SPCTC’s letter. If no such action has been taken, the Committee expects that the Government will refer the SPCTC’s allegations to the labour inspection services without delay and that the necessary investigations will be carried out to put an end to any acts of anti-union discrimination that may come to light.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the complaint lodged against the company for unjustified dismissal of the seven members of the SPCTC. Should the anti-union nature of their dismissal prove to be true, the Committee expects the Government to take every necessary measure vis-à-vis the company to ensure that the dismissed trade unionists are reinstated in their jobs with retroactive payment of all salaries due. Should it prove that for objective and compelling reasons their reinstatement should not be possible, the Committee requests that the workers concerned receive an adequate compensation, which would represent sufficiently dissuasive sanction against anti-union dismissals. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.