Definitive Report - Report No 380, October 2016

Case No 3153 (Mauritius) - Complaint date: 14-JUL-15 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges that, by treating it unfairly, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life attempts to prevent the MHEU from functioning

1. 725. The complaint is contained in communications dated 14 July and 19 October 2015 from the Ministry of Health Employees Union (MHEU).
2. 726. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 24 June 2016.
3. 727. Mauritius has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 728. In its communications dated 14 July and 19 October 2015, the MHEU explains that it represents 500 members and alleges that, despite being duly registered and recognized, it has been systematically prevented from holding meetings. Since it obtained its recognition on 3 November 2010 it could convene only two meetings. According to the MHEU, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life “is blind and deaf” to all its representations. The MHEU has also sought the intervention of the Federation of Civil Service and Other Unions (FCSOU), the General Workers Union (GWF) and the Federation of Public Sector and Other Unions (FPSOU), which have made representations on the MHEU’s behalf, but these representations have been equally and systematically ignored.
2. 729. The MHEU alleges that there are systematic attempts by the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life to prevent the union from functioning; its officers have been prevented from using time-off facilities on various occasions. It further alleges that the management gives preferential treatment to a rival union, the Government Services Employees Association (GSEA), and that there are cases where MHEU members have been pressured to join the GSEA.
3. 730. According to the complainant, in 2011, when the union denounced certain malpractices, Mr Seetohul, its President was transferred to a place of work where hygienic conditions left much to be desired. As a result of the unhygienic conditions, the President fell ill and had to be hospitalized. The treating doctors diagnosed a chest infection and an allergic rhinitis. His doctor confirmed that the working environment to which Mr Seetohul was exposed was intensively poor. Furthermore, his workload increased despite the fact that other officials were available to share his tasks. When the union denounced malpractices, the then Minister gave instructions to open an inquiry to resolve the problems of the union. The inquiry was suspended after the general elections and the representative of the MHEU was again transferred to another hospital.
4. 731. Later on, the President of a rival union was given a green light to preside over a meeting, the objective of which was to convince members to leave the MHEU and join his union. When members refused to do so they were harassed and one of its members who refused to join the other union chose to resign from his post.
5. 732. Also in 2011, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life convened Mr Seetohul to a meeting but the management of the Moka Eye Hospital refused to release him despite the fact the request was made sufficiently in advance to allow the management of the hospital to make the necessary arrangements.
6. 733. Also in 2011, following a request made by the Ministry to consider check-off facilities, the complainant sent, by secured post, the originals of several hundred duly filled applications to the Senior Chief Executive. Months later, the union was informed that the application forms went missing and was told to send newly filled application forms. Following the refusal of the Ministry to consider photocopies of the applications, the union referred the matter to the Employment Relations Tribunal which ordered the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life to consider photocopies of the application forms.
7. 734. Furthermore, when the complainant was granted only two days off per month for trade union activities whereas other unions, even smaller, are granted time off every day, it filed a dispute procedure with the Conciliation Service of the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reforms. The tribunal responded in its favour and an agreement was reached between the union and the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life regarding time off granted to the union President and its executive members.
8. 735. The complainant also alleges that Mr Seetohul, being the second most senior officer in his department when he was posted at Victoria Hospital and thus eligible to take on the responsibility of an acting officer when the latter was on leave, was not assigned this responsibility. This matter was reported to the Ministry on 10 December 2013.
9. 736. In addition, the local leave of the MHEU President was deducted by the management of Victoria Hospital without authorization. The management of the hospital justified this deduction from the balance of Mr Seetohul’s leave for the excess of days taken to conduct union activities, which is another violation of the labour law. The matter was raised with the Permanent Secretary during an official meeting on 10 December 2013 but no remedial action was undertaken in this regard.
10. 737. On 28 March 2014, the MHEU held its annual general meeting to which all of its members were convened. However, not only its members but its executive council members as well were denied time off for this most important annual event. This refusal for release from work for trade union members, which is usually granted to most unions, has caused real and unjustified prejudice to the union and its members.
11. 738. The complainant indicates that after years of struggle to set up an inquiry into the allegations of harassment against its members, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life called a meeting on 5 September 2014 during which the Senior Chief Executive decided to set up such an inquiry and agreed that representatives of the MHEU and the federation to which it is affiliated will participate to ensure its fairness. However, according to the complainant, when the inquiry began its work neither representatives of the MHEU nor of the federation were invited. As the inquiry was against the principle of good governance, the MHEU informed the Ministry that its members and executive members who were victims of the harassment would only attend the hearing if its representative as well as the representative of the federation participated, as per the decision of the September 2014 meeting. Nevertheless, in October 2014, the Ministry pursued with its one-sided inquiry and ignored the union’s request.
12. 739. Furthermore, according to the complainant, in 2015, an official of the Ministry went to the extent of saying that he could not tolerate the presence of the official representative of the MHEU at the electrocardiography (ECG) unit. He made the statement in the presence of the Acting Regional Service Health Administrator. He insisted that the representative of the MHEU should be transferred and the MHEU representative was in fact transferred some time later. This incident has had the effect of weakening the union in the eyes of the public and has apparently caused the union to lose, to some extent, credibility among its own members.
13. 740. Following the assault of the MHEU President on 20 January 2015, which was reported to the police, the Senior Chief Executive set up an inquiry with a view to initiating a disciplinary action against the President. Despite the fact that the MHEU and the FCSOU informed the Ministry that this inquiry is in violation of section 34 of the Public Service Commission regulation, which regulates disciplinary actions against public officers, the Ministry tried to convene Mr Seetohul on three occasions.
14. 741. The complainant also alleges that the work performance for 2014 of its President was underrated and that a representative of the GSEA, who is also senior to Mr Seetohul, participated in the evaluation. The matter was referred to an appeal panel set up by the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life for further consideration. The MHEU objected to the composition of the panel on the basis of a conflict of interest. The panel ignored the union’s protest and decided to maintain the rating without giving Mr Seetohul the opportunity to contest it. The union had lodged a dispute procedure with the Conciliation Service in February 2015 but has not heard back in this respect.
15. 742. On 18 March 2015, at the initiative of the federation to which the MHEU is affiliated, a meeting was convened to examine the issue of harassment of the officials of the MHEU. At this meeting, instead of finding a solution to the issue of harassment and persecution of the union and its officials, the Chairperson announced that the President of the union was being transferred to another hospital. On the union’s insistence, the Ministry decided to disclose the outcome of the inquiry conducted in October 2014. The representative of the union was not given the opportunity to defend himself and the meeting was closed. The MHEU points out that its President, Mr Seetohul, was never invited to testify before the inquiry set up by the then Minister of Health and Quality of Life in June 2012 nor before the inquiry set up by the Senior Chief Executive in October 2014. The union denounces the conflict of interest and absence of transparency of the inquiry. The Senior Chief Executive informed the union that no further consideration will be given to the allegations of harassment of Mr Seetohul, which dates back to 2011, as according to him, the problem has been resolved following the change in posting of the President in March 2015.
16. 743. The MHEU alleges that it is widely recognized as a militant organization in the country, which denounces all irregularities and malpractices noted in the health service. Apparently, the style and denunciations of the union are not being “digested” by a group of people and especially by some high officials who work in close collaboration with another union, silent about the irregularities and weaknesses of the health service. Their aim is to silence the MHEU and to maintain status quo and they are doing so by victimizing MHEU officials and at the same time indirectly sending a message to its members to the effect that it prefers to deal with the rival union.
17. 744. The complainant alleges that the Ministry ignores the MHEU and indicates in this respect that there was no follow-up to the three meetings held in 2010–14 between the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life and the union. Following the brutal assault of its members as well as paramedical and medical staff by patients and members of the public in regional hospitals and other health centres, the MHEU appealed to the Ministry to initiate remedial actions. On 18 March 2015, the union was called to attend a meeting where the Senior Chief Executive listened to the complaints of other unions but did not allow the complainant to express its views which the latter believes to be a deliberate attempt to discredit it. Other meetings were held with other unions but the MHEU was never invited. While the Ministry’s decision on the issue of violence was transmitted to other unions, no copy thereof was forwarded to the MHEU. By a letter dated 6 June 2015, the union disapproved of the way the inquiry was conducted and on 4 August 2015 another meeting was held which was chaired by the Permanent Secretary. The Ministry decided to table the findings of the inquiry, which confirmed the union’s suspicion that there was a conflict of interest and absence of a fair trial. The findings also revealed how the Ministry was in connivance with the representative of the GSEA who persecuted the MHEU President and its members. The complainant indicates that despite the fact that the representatives of the GSEA confessed during the inquiry that they had conducted a trade union meeting without any authorization by closing down the ECG unit in the Accident and Emergency Department at Victoria Hospital for more than half an hour thus endangering the lives of patients, the inquiry committee did not initiate any disciplinary action against them. It is to be noted that the unauthorized meeting was chaired by the President of the GSEA.
18. 745. The complainant also alleges that in violation of sections 30(a) and 31(1)(b)(ii) of the Employment Relation Act, the management of the hospital, in connivance with the representative of the GSEA initiated disciplinary action against Mr Seetohul in relation to the time-off facility.
19. 746. Following the third punitive change of posting since 2005, Mr Seetohul reported to the Moka Eye Hospital on 2 March 2015. The medical superintendent of the Moka Eye Hospital refused to accept the resumption letter of Mr Seetohul arguing that the MHEU President will disrupt the smooth running of the work as he is entitled to time-off facilities. The superintendent has even challenged the abovementioned time-off agreement between the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life and the MHEU. This serious violation was reported to the Ministry on two occasions, on 18 March and 4 August 2015, as well as to the Prime Minister’s Office.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 747. In its communication dated 24 June 2016, the Government indicates that the MHEU is among 19 registered trade unions recognized by the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life. Its membership is open to any person employed at the Ministry, excluding employees in the grades of “Medical Officer” and “Nursing Officer”. Its membership strength is about 531. The Government transmits the following information received from the relevant ministries on the issues raised by the MHEU.
2. 748. With regard to the allegations of violation of trade unions rights, ignoring trade union representations and refusal of management to allow the union to hold meetings, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life indicated that it employs about 14,279 employees of different grades who are represented by different unions. As and when required, the Ministry holds regular meetings with the unions to discuss labour relation matters. Equal treatment is given to all recognized unions, irrespective of their size, in discussing their grievances. However, the MHEU has, most of the time, been reporting unfounded grievances. Its representations are mostly allegations against the officers of the Ministry. Internal inquiries carried out by the Ministry into such allegations revealed that the allegations were unfounded. Regarding the request for a meeting to discuss the issue of harassment of members of the MHEU by another union, the Ministry set up a departmental inquiry to look into the matter but the President of the MHEU and its members chose not to testify before it as they were contesting the composition of the committee. On the basis of the rules and regulations governing the public service, which safeguard and protect the rights of all officers, the Ministry did not accede to the additional request of the union for the setting up of another inquiry. The Ministry did not find it appropriate to hold meetings on issues which it has already discussed and for which corrective actions have been taken. The Ministry noted that the MHEU continues to dig up past conflicts which have already been addressed just to tarnish the image of the Ministry.
3. 749. Regarding the allegations of denial of time-off facilities, the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reforms confirmed that pursuant to a dispute reported to the Conciliation Service of the Ministry on time-off facilities, an agreement was reached in December 2012 between the MHEU and the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life on the following terms:
   • – two half days every week to the President (in his dual capacity as the MHEU President and as an executive member of the GWF);
   • – one half day every week to the secretary;
   • – one half day every two weeks to the treasurer;
   • – one half day per month to other executive members;
   • – over and above the grant of time-off facilities mentioned above, release of officers, upon request as and when required, subject to production of documentary evidence;
   • – the granting of time-off facilities as indicated above will be subject to exigencies of service.
4. The Ministry of Health and Quality of Life indicated that it is granting time-off facilities to the MHEU in line with the above collective agreement. However, it pointed out that the MHEU is not the only union requesting time-off facilities for its members. There is a need, therefore, to devise a fair allocation of time-off facilities to other recognized unions and to ensure that fair treatment is given to each of them on this issue. Nevertheless, although the health sector is an essential service which operates on a 24-hour basis, the Ministry had, most of the time, released officers to attend trade union meetings, except in cases of exigencies of the service when the Ministry had to deal with urgent situations requiring top priority.
5. 750. Regarding the allegation of unfair treatment towards the MHEU and favouritism towards a rival union, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life pointed out that the right to join an association is guaranteed by the Constitution. It is not the policy of the Ministry to give preferential treatment to any union and to interfere with any union’s business or its relationship with other unions. In fact, the conflicting relationship which the MHEU harbours against its rival union is hampering the smooth running of the Ministry. No green light whatsoever was given by the Ministry to another union to hold meetings during working hours. While ensuring a fair and equitable treatment to every union, the Ministry adopts a collaborative approach to resolve problems encountered by its employees.
6. 751. Regarding the allegation of punitive transfer, postings in improper working conditions and health deterioration of the MHEU President, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life informed that the postings of Mr Seetohul had been as follows:
   • – from 31 August 2007 to 16 June 2011 at Moka Hospital;
   • – from 17 June 2011 to 1 March 2015 at Victoria Hospital; and
   • – from 2 March 2015 until now at Moka Hospital.
7. Rotation of staff is a current and normal activity which is done to suit the requirements of the service. There has never been any punitive transfer of Mr Seetohul. As regards the issue of improper working conditions, corrective actions were taken by the Ministry. The Ministry abstained from commenting on the medical report made by the treating doctors of Mr Seetohul regarding the deterioration of his health.
8. 752. Concerning the alleged harassment of MHEU officials, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life indicated that a departmental inquiry was set up in October 2014 by the then Senior Chief Executive to look into the cases of harassment of MHEU officials. However, the President of the MHEU contested the composition of the inquiry committee. The MHEU requested that the committee should allow the union’s representatives to accompany its members for the sake of fairness. The Ministry did not accede to the request of the union as it was a matter before an inquiry committee and not before a disciplinary committee. The Ministry denied that there was any lack of fairness. Thereafter, the Acting Senior Chief Executive of the Ministry convened the MHEU for a meeting on 18 March 2015 at 1.30 p.m. to discuss the matter. However, the representatives of the MHEU turned up at 10.30 a.m. In spite of that, the then Acting Senior Chief Executive met the union representatives and listened to their grievances. However, the MHEU President called again at 1.30 p.m. on that day and was informed that since he had a meeting in the morning, there was no need for another one on the same issue. The Ministry denied any conflict of interest and lack of fairness of the inquiry committee set up to hear the matter and it proceeded, following advice of the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reforms. According to the report of the committee, none of the charges levelled by the MHEU President were proved. The report mentioned that there existed a visible open conflict between two unions at the ECG unit and a situation of inter-trade union and interpersonal conflict. The committee recommended a transfer of either Mr Suntoo, the President of the ECG Union, or Mr Seetohul to avoid conflicts in future. The findings of the committee were communicated to the MHEU and the FCSOU on 10 April 2015.
9. 753. Regarding the case of assault against the MHEU President, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life informed that, on 20 January 2015, the President of the GSEA reported a case of assault against Mr Seetohul to the police. Thereafter, Mr Seetohul also reported a case of assault against the President of the ECG Union to the police following the same incident. It was reported to the Ministry that Mr Seetohul was running after Mr Suntoo in the corridor in front of patients. This incident was viewed with serious concern by the Ministry and pending the finalization of the police case, an inquiry was conducted at ministerial-level to determine the circumstances of the incident in order to avoid recurrence of such incidents in the future. The inquiry committee met on 10 September and 11 December 2015 but Mr Seetohul did not attend its two sittings. In its report dated 13 January 2016, the committee observed that out of eight witnesses, seven turned up before the committee and confirmed that they had seen Mr Seetohul hitting Mr Suntoo on 20 January 2015 at about 3.50 p.m. The committee did not recommend any disciplinary action against Mr Seetohul but the Ministry has, however, subsequently transferred both Mr Suntoo and Mr Seetohul to different hospitals. Further in this respect, the Commissioner of the Police confirmed that, on 20 January 2015, a case of assault was reported by Mr Suntoo against Mr Seetohul at 4.21 p.m. while at 5.44 p.m. on the same day Mr Seetohul reported a case of assault regarding the same incident, against Mr Suntoo. Inquiry in both cases is under way.
10. 754. Concerning the performance appraisal of the MHEU President, the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reforms informed that the MHEU reported a dispute on behalf of its President on 18 February 2015 regarding his performance appraisal for the year 2014. The terms of the dispute were as follows:
    • – Whether my performance appraisal should be conducted by Mr Suntoo, appraiser in the present circumstances of the conflictual situation between him and me, the appraisee?
    • – Whether a reassessment of the overall score should be conducted by the Appeal Panel set up by the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life or otherwise by an independent Appeal Panel?
11. The Ministry sought the views of the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life on 27 February 2015. The latter informed that, in view of the continued conflict between the appraiser and the appraisee, it was decided that the performance agreement of Mr Seetohul for the year 2015 would be signed in the presence of the next level supervisor and the officer in charge of the Human Resources Division. With regard to his rating for the year 2014, as Mr Seetohul, was not satisfied, an Appeal Panel was set up to review it. The panel met on three occasions, on 8, 12 and 26 December 2014 but Mr Seetohul attended only once, on 12 December 2014, to contest the composition of the panel. Upon advice of the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reforms, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life proceeded further and the Appeal Panel maintained the performance score obtained by Mr Seetohul in the absence of any justification on his part. The final rating of Mr Seetohul was communicated to him on 12 January 2015. The FCSOU requested on 6 February 2015 that the recommendation of the Appeal Panel be reviewed but its request was turned down given that the appeal procedure had been carried out according to established procedures. The Ministry of Health and Quality of Life further explained that Mr Seetohul was granted an overall score of 2.41 for the year 2014 while he was of the view that he should have received the maximum score of 4. In accordance with the established Performance Management System procedures, a moderation exercise was carried out for him to sign his final performance score, which he refused to do. His original score was thus maintained. With this score, he was eligible for both an annual increment and a promotion.
12. 755. As to the allegation of non-assignment of duties as senior officer to the President of MHEU, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life explained that a duty of an officer in charge is assigned to an officer for performance of higher duties only upon the recommendation of a supervisor and if the circumstances so require. The decision, therefore, to assign higher duties to any officer rests with the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life. According to the Assistant Manager of the Human Resources Division of the Ministry, the need to assign higher duties to Mr Seetohul did not arise given that, in addition to the agreed time-off facilities granted to him, he was, most of the time, not at his site of work as a result of his union activities.
13. 756. Regarding the allegation of unauthorized deduction of local leave of the MHEU President, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life informed that Mr Seetohul is used to leaving his site of work without any notification, over and above his time-off entitlements. As such, his absences without authorization during working hours are offset against his leave entitlement. Any unauthorized absences were liable to be considered as leave without pay, which had not been the case.
14. 757. In addition to the above, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life indicated that it provides an essential 24-hour service in a sector where the management should devote its efforts towards achieving the strategic objectives of the Ministry to, inter alia, enhance the health status of the population and social equity, as well as to improve the quality of health-care delivery. The Ministry is strongly committed to ensuring that sound working conditions and employment relations prevail and that employees’ rights are respected. To that effect, it is very important that unions and the Ministry work in partnership to achieve meaningful results for the benefit of the citizens of the country. Even though the MHEU is a relatively small union as compared to other large unions recognized by the Ministry, the latter has attended to all grievances of the union. However, the MHEU constantly brings forth the resolved issues and past conflicts into the limelight just to wield sympathy and acknowledgement from its members.

The Committee’s conclusions

1. 758. The Committee notes that this cases involves the allegations of unfair treatment of the MHEU and favouritism towards a rival union (GSEA). In particular, the complainant refers to the refusal of the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life to consider copies of the application forms authorizing check-off facilities, denial of time-off facility to the MHEU’s officers, unfair leave deductions, non-assignment of the officer in charge duties to the MHEU President, the low score of the MHEU President’s performance appraisal, assault against the MHEU President, punitive transfers of the MHEU President and improper working conditions to which he was exposed and which prompted the deterioration of his health, management’s refusal to allow the MHEU to hold its meetings, and absence of reaction from the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life to the MHEU’s representations.
2. 759. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed reply thereon. It further notes that the issues of check-off and time-off facilities appear to have been addressed by the Government. In relation to the latter, the Committee notes that in December 2012 an agreement was concluded between the complainant and the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life which provides for the time off for trade union activities to be granted to the officers of the MHEU. In this connection, and in relation to the allegation of leave deductions, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that any unauthorized absence during working hours which is taken over and above Mr Seetohul’s negotiated time-off entitlement, should be considered to be leave without pay, instead, they were offset against his leave entitlement and deducted as such. The Committee will therefore not pursue the examination of these allegations.
3. 760. Regarding the allegation of non-assignment of the officer in charge duties to the MHEU President, the Committee notes the Government’s explanation that if the circumstances so require, the decision to assign higher duties to any officer rests with the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life and that the need to assign higher duties to Mr Seetohul did not arise given that, in addition to the agreed time-off facilities granted to him, he was, most of the time, not at his site of work as a result of his union activities. Considering that decisions of such nature may be considered to be a mater which appertain primarily or essentially to the management, the Committee will not pursue the examination of this allegation.
4. 761. Regarding the low score obtained by Mr Seetohul for his performance appraisal, the Committee notes that the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life acknowledges that there was a continued conflict between Mr Seetohul and Mr Suntoo, his supervisor, who is also a representative of the GSEA, which, according to the complainant, is a rival union. The Committee considers that the appraisal score received by the MHEU President could in these circumstances appear to be influenced by partiality. The Committee notes nevertheless that, according to the Government, with the obtained score Mr Seetohul was still eligible for both an annual increment and a promotion and that a performance appraisal exercise for the year 2015 should have included the next level supervisor and a Human Resources Department officer. The Committee understands that Mr Seetohul and Mr Suntoo were transferred to different hospitals and no longer work together.
5. 762. Regarding the allegation of assault against Mr Seetohul by Mr Suntoo that occurred on 20 January 2015, the Committee notes that the case was reported to the police and was still under investigation. It further notes that, in the meantime, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life has conducted an internal inquiry into the circumstances of the incident. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that seven witnesses confirmed seeing Mr Seetohul hitting Mr Suntoo. While the inquiry committee did not recommend any disciplinary action against Mr Seetohul, he and Mr Suntoo were transferred to different hospitals. The Committee notes from the Note of the meeting held on 18 March 2015 between representatives of the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life, the management of the hospital, the FCSOU and the MHEU regarding this incident (forwarded by the complainant) that Mr Seetohul had accepted the change in posting. The Committee trusts that the police investigation will soon be concluded and that appropriate measures of redress will be taken as relevant.
6. 763. As concerns the allegations of punitive transfer, postings in improper working conditions and health deterioration of the MHEU President, the Committee notes that the complainant did not provide a detailed account of events regarding the three transfers it considers to be punitive. The Committee further notes that according to the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life, between 31 August 2007 and 24 June 2016 (the date of the Government’s communication), Mr Seetohul had three postings (twice at the Moka Eye Hospital and once at Victoria Hospital), that the rotation of staff is a normal activity which is done to suit the requirements of the service and that there has never been any punitive transfer of Mr Seetohul. With reference to the abovementioned Note of the 18 March 2015 meeting, the Committee understands that Mr Seetohul had agreed to the last transfer. Regarding the allegation of improper working conditions in which Mr Seetohol had to work, while noting the Government’s indication that corrective actions had been taken by the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life, the Committee regrets that no information had been provided on the nature of these corrective measures.
7. 764. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the complaint does not contain any tangible proof as to the allegation of unfair treatment of the MHEU and favouritism of another union. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that although the health sector is an essential service which operates on a 24-hour basis, the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life had, most of the time, released officers to attend trade union meetings, except in cases of exigencies of the service when the Ministry had to deal with urgent situations requiring top priority, that the Ministry collaborates with all unions, regardless of their membership strength and that the conflict appears to be one of trade union rivalry and conflicting relationship between their representatives, which impacts negatively on the services for which the Ministry is responsible. It further notes that according to the report of the 2014 inquiry into the allegations of harassment of the MHEU President and members established by the Ministry, a copy of which was provided by the complainant, concluded that the situation was one of inter-union conflict.
8. 765. With regard to the allegation that the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life does not react to the representations of the complainant, the Committee understands that the Ministry had conducted inquiries into various allegations of harassment on at least two occasions, in 2014 and 2015. In this respect, the Committee notes that the complainant disputes the composition of the 2014 inquiry committee believing that its representatives should have been involved and that, on this basis, the complainant decided not to participate in its meetings or to testify before it. In this respect, the Committee notes from the explanation provided by the Government and the abovementioned Note of the 18 March 2015 meeting, that contrary to the disciplinary committee, an inquiry committee is an independent body established according to a specific procedure to ensure “good practice and governance [which] require that one cannot be judge and the party at the same time”.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 766. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.