Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association

Right of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing5

General principles

1. The right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing in full freedom cannot be said to exist unless such freedom is fully established and respected in law and in fact.

1. The fact that an employers organization did not have the status of a trade union organization in the eyes of the national legislation did not dispense a government from the obligations arising from its ratification of Convention No. 87, in particular to respect the freedom of employers to establish organizations of their own choosing and the right of such organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference which would restrict this right.

1. The Committee has emphasized the importance that it attaches to the fact that workers and employers should in practice be able to establish and join organizations of their own choosing in full freedom.

Organizations unity and pluralism

1. The right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing implies, in particular, the effective possibility of forming, in a climate of full security, organizations independent both of those which exist already and of any political party.

1. The free choice of workers to establish and join organizations is so fundamental to freedom of association as a whole that it cannot be compromised by delays.

1. The existence of an organization in a specific occupation should not constitute an obstacle to the establishment of another organization, if the workers so wish.

1. The provisions contained in a national constitution concerning the prohibition of creating more than one trade union for a given occupational or economic category, regardless of the level of organization, in a given territorial area which in no case may be smaller than a municipality, are not compatible with the principles of freedom of association.

1. The right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing implies, in particular, the effective possibility to create if the workers so choose more than one workers organization per enterprise.

1. It is contrary to Convention No. 87 to prevent two enterprise trade unions coexisting.

1. A provision of the law which does not authorize the establishment of a second union in an enterprise fails to comply with Article 2 of Convention No. 87, which guarantees workers the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

1. Provisions which require a single union for each enterprise, trade or occupation are not in accordance with Article 2 of Convention No. 87.

1. The principle of trade union pluralism is grounded in the right of workers to come together and form organizations of their own choosing, independently and with structures which permit their members to elect their own officers, draw up and adopt their by-laws, organize their administration and activities and formulate their programmes without interference from the public authorities and in the defence of workers interests.

1. The Committee has pointed out that the International Labour Conference, by including the words organizations of their own choosing in Convention No. 87, made allowance for the fact that, in certain countries, there are a number of different workers and employers organizations which an individual may choose to join for occupational, denominational or political reasons; it did not pronounce, however, as to whether, in the interests of workers and employers, a unified trade union movement is preferable to trade union pluralism. The Conference thereby recognized the right of any group of workers (or employers) to establish organizations in addition to the existing organization if they think this desirable to safeguard their material or moral interests.

1. While it may generally be to the advantage of workers to avoid a multiplicity of trade union organizations, unification of the trade union movement imposed through state intervention by legislative means runs counter to the principle embodied in Articles 2 and 11 of Convention No. 87. The Committee of Experts of the ILO on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has emphasized on this question that there is a fundamental difference, with respect to the guarantees of freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, between a situation in which a trade union monopoly is instituted or maintained by legislation and the factual situations which are found to exist in certain countries in which all the trade union organizations join together voluntarily in a single federation or confederation, without this being the direct or indirect result of legislative provisions applicable to trade unions and to the establishment of trade union organizations. The fact that workers and employers generally find it in their interests to avoid a multiplication of the number of competing organizations does not, in fact, appear sufficient to justify direct or indirect intervention by the State, and especially, intervention by the State by means of legislation. While fully appreciating the desire of any government to promote a strong trade union movement by avoiding the defects resulting from an undue multiplicity of small and competing trade unions, whose independence may be endangered by their weakness, the Committee has drawn attention to the fact that it is more desirable in such cases for a government to seek to encourage trade unions to join together voluntarily to form strong and united organizations than to impose upon them by legislation a compulsory unification which deprives the workers of the free exercise of their right of association and thus runs counter to the principles which are embodied in the international labour Conventions relating to freedom of association.

1. While it is generally to the advantage of workers and employers to avoid the proliferation of competing organizations, a monopoly situation imposed by law is at variance with the principle of free choice of workers and employers organizations.

1. Unity within the trade union movement should not be imposed by the State through legislation because this would be contrary to the principles of freedom of association.

1. The government should neither support nor obstruct a legal attempt by a trade union to displace an existing organization. Workers should be free to choose the union which, in their opinion, will best promote their occupational interests without interference by the authorities. It may be to the advantage of workers to avoid a multiplicity of trade unions, but this choice should be made freely and voluntarily. By including the words organizations of their own choosing in Convention No. 87, the International Labour Conference recognized that individuals may choose between several workers or employers organizations for occupational, denominational or political reasons. It did not pronounce as to whether, in the interests of workers and employers, a unified trade union movement is preferable to trade union pluralism.

1. Where one government stated that it was not prepared to tolerate a trade union movement split into several tendencies and that it was determined to impose unity on the whole movement, the Committee recalled that Article 2 of Convention No. 87 provides that workers and employers shall have the right to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing. This provision of the Convention is in no way intended as an expression of support either for the idea of trade union unity or for that of trade union diversity. It is intended to convey, on the one hand, that in many countries there are several organizations among which the workers or the employers may wish to choose freely and, on the other hand, that workers and employers may wish to establish new organizations in a country where no such diversity has hitherto been found. In other words, although the Convention is evidently not intended to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does at least require this diversity to remain possible in all cases. Accordingly, any governmental attitude involving the imposition of a single trade union organization would be contrary to Article 2 of Convention No. 87.

1. A situation in which an individual is denied any possibility of choice between different organizations, by reason of the fact that the legislation permits the existence of only one organization in the area in which that individual carries on his or her occupation, is incompatible with the principles embodied in Convention No. 87; in fact, such provisions establish, by legislation, a trade union monopoly which must be distinguished both from union security clauses and practices and from situations in which the workers voluntarily form a single organization.

1. The power to impose an obligation on all the workers in the category concerned to pay contributions to the single national trade union, which is permitted to be formed in any one occupation in a given area, is not compatible with the principle that workers should have the right to join organizations of their own choosing. In these circumstances, it would seem that a legal obligation to pay contributions to that monopoly trade union, whether workers are members or not, represents a further consecration and strengthening of that monopoly.

1. The Committee has suggested that a State should amend its legislation so as to make it clear that when a trade union already exists for the same employees as those whom a new union seeking registration is organizing or is proposing to organize, or the fact that the existing union holds a bargaining certificate in respect of such class of employees, this cannot give rise to objections of sufficient substance to justify the registrar in refusing to register the new union.

1. In respect to a legislation designed to set up and maintain a single trade union system by expressly mentioning the national trade union confederation, the Committee pointed out that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has considered that this provision might constitute an obstacle to the creation of another confederation if the workers so wished and had expressed the hope that the Government will adopt the necessary measures to delete the reference in the legislation to a specific trade union organization. In these circumstances the Committee endorsed the comments made by the Committee of Experts.

1. A provision authorizing the refusal of an application for registration if another union, already registered, is sufficiently representative of the interests which the union seeking registration proposes to defend, means that, in certain cases, workers may be denied the right to join the organization of their own choosing, contrary to the principles of freedom of association.

1. Where workers organizations have themselves requested the unification of the trade unions, and this desire has been confirmed in such a way as to make it equivalent to a legal obligation, the Committee has pointed out that, when a unified trade union movement results solely from the will of the workers, this situation does not require to be sanctioned by legal texts, the existence of which might give the impression that the unified trade union movement is merely the result of existing legislation or is maintained only through such legislation.

1. Even in a situation where, historically speaking, the trade union movement has been organized on a unitary basis, the law should not institutionalize this situation by referring, for example, to the single federation by name, even if it is referring to the will of an existing trade union organization. In fact, the right of workers who do not wish to join the federation or the existing trade unions should be protected, and such workers should have the right to form organizations of their own choosing, which is not the case in a situation where the law has imposed the system of the single trade union.

1. The requirement that a trade union is obliged to obtain the recommendation of a specific central organization in order to be duly recognized constitutes an obstacle for workers to establish freely the organization of their own choosing and is therefore contrary to freedom of association.

1. Trade union unity voluntarily achieved should not be prohibited and should be respected by the public authorities.

1. The compulsory membership of employers in Chambers of Commerce when such Chambers have the powers of employers organizations in the meaning of Article 10 of Convention No. 87 is contrary to freedom of association standards and principles.

1. The Committee recalled that the organizational monopoly required by the law was at the root of the freedom of association problems in the country and the main hurdle to the recognition of an employers organization, and requested a government to take measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure the right of workers and employers to establish more than one organization, be it at the enterprise, sectoral or national level, and in a manner that does not prejudice the rights formerly held by the employers organization.

1. The unification into a single employers organization must be the result of the free choice of the members concerned and should not be the consequence of any eventual pressure or interference by the public authorities within the framework of a monopolistic system of industrial relations.

Freedom of choice of the organizations structure

1. The free exercise of the right to establish and join unions implies the free determination of the structure and composition of unions.

1. Questions of trade union structure and organization are matters for the workers themselves.

1. Workers should be free to decide whether they prefer to establish, at the primary level, a works union or another form of basic organization, such as an industrial or craft union.

1. The right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing includes the right to form organizations at the enterprise level in addition to the higher level organization to which they already belong.

1. Under Article 2 of Convention No. 87, workers have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing, including organizations grouping together workers from different workplaces and different cities.

1. A provision which prohibits the establishment of trade unions on an occupational or workplace basis is contrary to the principles of freedom of association as laid down in the relevant Conventions, according to which workers without distinction whatsoever shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

1. Workers who provide their services to companies in a certain sector should be entitled to become members of a national trade union in that sector if they so wish. Indeed, given that they conduct their activities in the sector, they may wish to join a trade union that represents the interests of workers in that sector at the national level.

1. In a case where a government appeared to imply that, because negotiation under the local public service law was to be at the regional level, this meant that the negotiating organization must also be one existing only at the regional level, the Committee considered that such a restriction may constitute a limitation of the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing and to elect their representatives in full freedom.

1. With regard to restrictions limiting all public servants to membership of unions confined to that category of workers, it is admissible for first-level organizations of public servants to be limited to that category of workers on condition that their organizations are not also restricted to employees of any particular ministry, department or service, and that the first-level organizations may freely join the federations and confederations of their own choosing.

1. Limiting first-level trade unions to specific administrative departments- like local authorities- enables the Government to interfere with the activities of a trade union and put into question its very existence and financial viability simply by changing the administrative departments within which public employees operate, thereby leading to an automatic termination of the unions membership and check-off facility. The legislation also means that the duties of trade union officers would be terminated where changes occurred in branch classifications. Such acts constitute not only a violation of the right of public employees to join the trade union of their own choice, but also serious interference in trade union activities, in violation of Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 87.

1. It should be possible for a trade union organization in the education sector to group together workers from both public and private schools, on the understanding that each group should conduct separate negotiations, being subject to a separate budget and separate regulations.

Sanctions imposed for attempting to establish organizations

1. Measures taken against workers because they attempt to constitute organizations or to reconstitute organizations of workers outside the official trade union organization would be incompatible with the principle that workers should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

Favouritism or discrimination

in respect of particular organizations

1. The spirit of Convention No. 87 calls for impartial treatment of all trade union organizations by the authorities, even if they criticize the social or economic policies of national or regional executives, as well as avoidance of reprisals for pursuing legitimate trade union activities.

1. Any favourable or unfavourable treatment by the public authorities of a particular trade union as compared with others, if it is not based on objective pre-established criteria of representativeness and goes beyond certain preferential rights related to collective bargaining and consultation, would constitute an act of discrimination which might jeopardize the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

1. Considering the limited functions which, in one case, were by law open to certain categories of trade unions, the Committee felt that the distinction made between trade unions under the national legislation could have the indirect consequence of restricting the freedom of workers to belong to the organizations of their choosing. The reasons which led the Committee to adopt this position are as follows. As a general rule, when a government can grant an advantage to one particular organization or withdraw that advantage from one organization in favour of another, there is a risk, even if such is not the governments intention, that one trade union will be placed at an unfair advantage or disadvantage in relation to the others, which would thereby constitute an act of discrimination. More precisely, by placing one organization at an advantage or at a disadvantage in relation to the others, a government may either directly or indirectly influence the choice of workers regarding the organization to which they intend to belong, since they will undeniably want to belong to the union best able to serve them, even if their natural preference would have led them to join another organization for occupational, religious, political or other reasons. The freedom of the parties to choose is a right expressly laid down in Convention No. 87.

1. By according favourable or unfavourable treatment to a given organization as compared with others, a government may be able to influence the choice of workers or employers as to the organization which they intend to join. In addition, a government which deliberately acts in this manner violates the principle laid down in Convention No. 87 that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the rights provided for in the Convention or impede their lawful exercise; more indirectly, it would also violate the principle that the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in the Convention. It would seem desirable that, if a government wishes to make certain facilities available to trade union organizations or employers organizations, these organizations should enjoy equal treatment in this respect.

1. In a case in which there was at the very least a close working relationship between a trade union and the labour and other authorities, the Committee emphasized the importance it attaches to the resolution of 1952 concerning the independence of the trade union movement and urged the government to refrain from showing favouritism towards, or discriminating against, any given trade union, and requested it to adopt a neutral attitude in its dealings with all workers and employers organizations, so that they are all placed on an equal footing.

1. On more than one occasion, the Committee has examined cases in which allegations were made that the public authorities had, by their attitude, favoured or discriminated against one or more trade union organizations:

1. The Committee considered that a government had demonstrated de facto favouritism towards one employers organization by registering it as the replacement for another employers organization, and had called upon the government in question to remedy the effects of this favouritism.

1. Both the government authorities and employers should refrain from any discrimination between trade union organizations, especially as regards recognition of their leaders who seek to perform legitimate trade union activities.

1. In a particular case the Committee considered that a bonus of 80 a year to certain employees of the public service belonging to representative trade union organizations does not seem to constitute a real means of pressure leading to the conclusion that the public authorities intend, through the advantages granted to certain workers, to influence unduly the choice of workers with regard to the organization that they intend to join. For it to retain its present quality, it is important that the amount of the bonus in question does not exceed a symbolic level.

1. Situations in which the local authorities interfere in the activities of a freely constituted trade union by establishing alternative workers organizations and inciting workers using unfair means to change their membership violate the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

1. Generally, the fact that a government is able to offer the use of premises to a particular organization, or to evict a given organization from premises which it has been occupying in order to offer them to another organization, may, even if this is not intended, lead to the favourable or unfavourable treatment of a particular trade union as compared with others, and thereby constitute an act of discrimination.

Admissible privileges for most representative organizations

1. The Committee has pointed out on several occasions, and particularly during discussion on the draft of the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, that the International Labour Conference referred to the question of the representative character of trade unions, and, to a certain extent, it agreed to the distinction that is sometimes made between the various unions concerned according to how representative they are. Article 3, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the ILO includes the concept of most representative organizations. Accordingly, the Committee felt that the mere fact that the law of a country draws a distinction between the most representative trade union organizations and other trade union organizations is not in itself a matter for criticism. Such a distinction, however, should not result in the most representative organizations being granted privileges extending beyond that of priority in representation, on the ground of their having the largest membership, for such purposes as collective bargaining or consultation by governments, or for the purpose of nominating delegates to international bodies. In other words, this distinction should not have the effect of depriving trade union organizations that are not recognized as being among the most representative of the essential means for defending the occupational interests of their members, for organizing their administration and activities and formulating their programmes, as provided for in Convention No. 87.

1. Where it appears from legislation that the only distinction between representative and other trade unions is that the former can sign collective agreements, sit on joint committees and participate in international events, the Committee considers that such privileges granted to representative trade unions are not excessive.

1. The establishment of the notion of representativity presupposes that governments ensure an atmosphere in which trade union organizations are able to freely flourish in the country.

1. To be admissible, the criteria applied to distinguish between more or less representative organizations must be objective, must not leave any scope for abuse and must not be allowed to detract from the fundamental rights and guarantees of the less representative organizations.

1. The determination of the most representative trade union should always be based on objective and pre-established criteria so as to avoid any opportunity for partiality or abuse.

1. Pre-established, precise and objective criteria for the determination of the representativity of workers and employers organizations should exist in the legislation and such a determination should not be left to the discretion of governments.

1. Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 are compatible with systems which envisage union representation for the exercise of collective trade union rights based on the degree of actual union membership, as well as those envisaging union representation on the basis of general ballots of workers or officials, or a combination of both systems.

1. A system under which the apportioning of the number of union stewards for joint organizations is determined by a committee responsible for verifying the trade union membership of the different organizations is compatible with the principles of freedom of association, as long as it offers certain guarantees. Clearly, the protection of data regarding union membership is a fundamental aspect of human rights and, in particular, with regard to the right to privacy; however, inasmuch as the verification of union membership is subject to strict guarantees, there is no reason why it should not be compatible with the observance of such rights or guarantee confidentiality in respect of members identities. It is also important for the bodies responsible for verifying the membership levels of union organizations to enjoy the confidence of all such organizations.

1. The determination to ascertain or verify the representative character of trade unions can best be ensured when strong guarantees of secrecy and impartiality are offered. Thus, verification of the representative character of a union should a priori be carried out by an independent and impartial body.

1. It is unnecessary to draw up a list of trade union members in order to determine the number of members; this will be evident from the record of trade union membership dues, and there is no need for a list of names which could make acts of anti-union discrimination easier.

1. The Committee recalls the risk of reprisals and anti-union discrimination inherent in demands for lists of the names of members of an organization and copies of their membership cards for the determination of the representativity of the organization.

1. The requirement that the authorities make in practice of obtaining a list of the names of all the members of an organization and a copy of their membership card to determine the most representative organization poses a problem with regard to the principles of freedom of association. There is a risk of reprisals and anti-union discrimination inherent in this type of requirement

1. The Committee recalled the position of the Committee of Experts, according to which a considerably larger membership amounting to 10 per cent more members than the union holding most representative status is too high a requirement for obtaining trade union status (privileged status) and is contrary to Convention No. 87. In practice, it stands in the way of trade unions that are merely registered and that wish to claim trade union status.

1. In light of the national conditions, the Committee considered that the legal requirement to have a given national coverage in order to enjoy at a national level the status of most representative agricultural organization and participate in the Agricultural Advisory Committee specifically: (a) running in elections in at least nine of the 17 autonomous communities; or (b) being recognized as most representative in ten autonomous communities - which in practice requires 10 or 15 per cent of the votes, depending on the case was an objective and relatively frequent criterion in comparative law aimed at ensuring that the strongest and largest organizations are those which are integrated into the state advisory bodies.

1. Pursuant to case law which establishes that, where disaffiliation of a trade union of a confederation, whether chosen or imposed, occurs after occupational elections, the trade union may no longer use the results obtained as a basis for claiming to be representative, the Committee considers that, inasmuch as the Court considered that the question of affiliation to a confederation constituted a key factor in the choice made by workers at the time of elections, the resulting loss of representativeness is indeed justified.

1. Recognizing the possibility of trade union pluralism does not preclude granting certain rights and advantages to the most representative organizations. However, the determination of the most representative organization must be based on objective, pre-established and precise criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse, and the distinction should generally be limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights, for example for such purposes as collective bargaining, consultation by the authorities or the designation of delegates to international organizations.

1. The Committee has considered that certain advantages, especially with regard to representation, might be accorded to trade unions by reason of the extent of their representativeness. But it has taken the view that the intervention of the public authorities as regards such advantages should not be of such a nature as to influence unduly the choice of the workers in respect of the organization to which they wish to belong.

1. The fact of establishing in the legislation a percentage in order to determine the threshold for the representativeness of organizations and grant certain privileges to the most representative organizations (in particular for collective bargaining purposes) does not raise any difficulty provided that the criteria are objective, precise and pre-established, in order to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse.

1. The Committee has considered, with regard to legislation establishing a system for determining representivity, that granting the right to sit on the Economic and Social Council only to those trade union organizations deemed to be the most representative would not appear to influence workers unduly in the choice of organization that they wish to join, nor to prevent less representative organizations from defending the interests of their members, organizing their activities and formulating their programmes.

1. The Committee has considered that a registration system set up by law which grants exclusive negotiation rights to registered unions would not be incompatible with the principles of freedom of association provided that the registration is based on objective and predetermined criteria. However, the granting of exclusive rights to the most representative organization should not mean that the existence of other unions to which certain involved workers might wish to belong is prohibited.

1. Minority trade unions that have been denied the right to negotiate collectively should be permitted to perform their activities and at least to speak on behalf of their members and represent them in the case of an individual claim.

Right to join organizations freely

1. Workers should be able, if they so wish, to join trade unions at the branch level as well as the enterprise level at the same time.

1. Workers should be able to simultaneously join a company union and a union of groups of undertakings.

1. The impossibility, for workers, even if they have more than one employment contract, to become members of more than one trade union, in either their enterprise, industry, occupation or trade, or institution, does not comply with the principles of freedom of association, as it unduly impedes the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing.

1. In one case where any member of a trade union who wished to resign from the union could only do so in the presence of a notary who had to verify the identity of the person concerned and attest his or her signature, the Committee considered that this requirement in itself did not constitute an infringement of trade union rights provided that this was a formality which, in practice, could be carried out easily and without delay. However, if such a requirement could, in certain circumstances, present practical difficulties for workers wishing to withdraw from a union, it might restrict the free exercise of their right to join organizations of their own choosing. In order to avoid such a situation, the Committee considered that the government should examine the possibility of introducing an alternative method of resigning from a union which would involve no practical or financial difficulties for the workers concerned.

1. The Committee urged a government to withdraw the requirement by the Seamen Employment Control Division that seafarers must sign an affidavit before leaving the country restricting their right to affiliate with or contact an international trade union organization for assistance to protect their occupational interests.

Union security clauses

1. A distinction should be made between union security clauses allowed by law and those imposed by law, only the latter of which appear to result in a trade union monopoly system contrary to the principles of freedom of association.

1. The admissibility of union security clauses under collective agreements was left to the discretion of ratifying States, as evidenced by the preparatory work for Convention No. 98.

1. In addressing the issue of union security clauses, the Committee has referred to the debates that took place during the International Labour Conference, when the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) was adopted. On that occasion, the Committee on International Relations of the Conference, taking into consideration the debate which it had held on the issue of union security clauses, finally agreed to recognize that the Convention should in no way be interpreted as authorizing or prohibiting union security arrangements, such matters being matters for regulation in accordance with national practice.

1. Problems related to union security clauses should be resolved at the national level, in conformity with national practice and the industrial relations system in each country. In other words, both situations where union security clauses are authorized and those where they are prohibited can be considered to be in conformity with ILO principles and standards on freedom of association.

1. Union security clauses should be agreed freely.

1. In certain cases where the deduction of union contributions and other forms of union protection were instituted, not in virtue of the legislation in force, but as a result of collective agreements or established practice existing between both parties, the Committee has declined to examine the allegations made, basing its reasoning on the statement of the Committee on Industrial Relations appointed by the International Labour Conference in 1949, according to which Convention No. 87 can in no way be interpreted as authorizing or prohibiting union security arrangements, such questions being matters for regulation in accordance with national practice. According to this statement, those countries and more particularly those countries having trade union pluralism would in no way be bound under the provisions of the Convention to permit union security clauses either by law or as a matter of custom, while other countries which allow such clauses would not be placed in the position of being unable to ratify the Convention.

1. Basing its reasoning on the declarations contained in the 1949 Report of the Committee on Industrial Relations of the International Labour Conference, the Committee considers that legislation which provides that no one shall be compelled to join or not to join a trade union does not in itself infringe Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

1. Where union security arrangements exist requiring membership of a given organization as a condition of employment, there might be discrimination if unreasonable conditions were to be imposed upon persons seeking such membership.

1. In a case where the law authorized the trade union to set unilaterally and to receive from non-members the amount of the special contribution set for members, as a token of solidarity and in recognition of the benefits obtained from a collective agreement, the Committee concluded that to bring this in line with the principles of freedom of association, the law should establish the possibility for both parties acting together - and not the trade union unilaterally - to agree in collective agreements to the possibility of collecting such a contribution from non-members for the benefits that they may enjoy.

Undue intervention of the authorities with a view to eliminating trade unions

1. In a case where the Government stated that the steps it had taken had no anti-union objective, but the authorities seemed to have gone beyond the mere exercise of freedom of speech by explicitly urging members to resign from the union and by advocating a new trade union system, the Committee emphasized the importance that the authorities statements to the media should not seek to influence the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing.