Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 291, Noviembre 1993

Caso núm. 1689 (Côte d'Ivoire) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 22-DIC-92 - Cerrado

1. 161. The complaint by the International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) is contained in a communication dated 22 December 1992. The Government replied to the allegations in a communication dated 28 April 1993.
2. 162. Côte d'Ivoire has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant organization's allegations

1. 163. In its communication of 22 December 1992, the International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) alleges that two employees of Nestlé in Côte d'Ivoire, who had been appointed by the "Dignité" trade union federation to attend a seminar for Nestlé trade unions in Africa, organized by the IUF from 30 November to 3 December 1992, were prevented, without any legitimate reason, by the customs authorities at Abidjan airport from leaving for Kenya.
2. 164. The complainant organization explains that it had invited "Dignité", a federation recognized by the Government in a decision dated 14 July 1992, to appoint delegates to attend the said seminar and that Mr. Christophe Gnahore and Mr. Mamadou Sylla had been so appointed. However, on 20 and 24 November 1992, the management of Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire informed the IUF that it did not consider "Dignité" to be representative of its workers and therefore was against the two delegates appointed by "Dignité" attending the seminar. Nestlé then suggested a change in the delegation. The same arguments were taken up by Mr. Konate Issiaka, the coordinator of the Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire trade union, which he maintains has no connections with any national federation, when he contacted the IUF on 25 November 1992. Mr. Issiaka added that the appointment of the above-mentioned persons by "Dignité" created problems vis-à-vis the other Nestlé employees' delegates.
3. 165. The IUF states Mr. Gnahore and Mr. Sylla were prevented without any legitimate reason from leaving for Nairobi and were thus unable to take part in the seminar. It considers that this is interference on the part of the authorities in its legitimate functioning and in that of trade union organizations, which are entitled to send the representatives of their choice to this type of seminar; the action also infringes Article 5 of Convention No. 87, which guarantees the right of workers' organizations to take part in international meetings without interference from employers or governments.

B. The Government's reply

1. 166. In its reply of 28 April 1993, the Government states first of all that the federation "Dignité" does not have a trade union within Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire, where there is only a single autonomous union of workers of the enterprise, which union does not belong to any federation; the federations "Dignité" and the General Union of Workers of Côte d'Ivoire (UGTCI) are not representative within Nestlé. The employees' delegates of the enterprise, including Mr. Christophe Gnahore and Mr. Mamadou Sylla, were elected as independent candidates in accordance with section 5D-78 of Decree No. 68-300 of 20 June 1968.
2. 167. The Government states that "Dignité" was fully aware of this lack of trade union representation within Nestlé when it appointed Mr. Gnahore and Mr. Sylla to represent it at the seminar organized by the IUF in Nairobi. When the Nestlé autonomous union informed the IUF, on 23 November 1992, that Mr. Gnahore was going to be replaced by Mr. Jean-Baptiste Gomont, the IUF rejected this delegate, making the participation of Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire workers in the Nairobi seminar subject to their membership of "Dignité". The Government encloses a copy of a letter from the IUF to the Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire union in which the IUF states that the invitation to the seminar is not addressed to the trade union delegates of Nestlé but to "Dignité", an independent and representative national trade union organization, and that any change in the two appointments already made by "Dignité" would be taken into consideration only if proposed by "Dignité". The Nestlé autonomous union then decided that its workers would not participate in the seminar. This is why the delegates, Mr. Sylla and Mr. Gnahore, who had tickets for the flight, did not turn up at the airport, either to register or to depart. This was confirmed by a letter from Ethiopian Airlines of which the Government encloses a copy. According to this letter the persons concerned had reservations on the flight of 29 November 1992 but did not turn up at the airport to take the flight and subsequently returned the tickets, for which they were reimbursed on 10 December 1992.
3. 168. The Government concludes by stating that the employees' delegates in question, Mr. Sylla and Mr. Gnahore, were unable to travel to Nairobi as a result of a decision by their Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire trade union, which is a single autonomous union that is not affiliated to "Dignité". The Government specifies that they did not go to the airport and consequently could not have been prevented from flying. It states that it regrets the misunderstanding between the IUF and the Nestlé autonomous union, and that it intends to take the necessary measures to prevent a recurrence of this type of incident in the future.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 169. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern the fact that the customs authorities at Abidjan airport prevented the departure of Mr. Christophe Gnahore and Mr. Mamadou Sylla, who had been appointed to participate in a seminar for unions representing Nestlé workers in Africa, organized in Nairobi by the IUF; the allegations also concern interference by the management of Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire and by the authorities in the right of organizations to participate in international trade union meetings.
2. 170. The Committee notes from the information and documents provided by the Government that the workers of Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire are represented by an autonomous single trade union which is affiliated neither to "Dignité" nor to the UGTCI federation and that the employees' delegates were elected after a second ballot as independent candidates. The Committee is also led to understand that following the appointment by "Dignité" of a delegation to represent the workers of Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire, both the management of the enterprise and the autonomous trade union informed the IUF that "Dignité" was not representative at Nestlé and that they opposed the appointment of delegates by that federation. Following the refusal of the IUF to accept a delegation proposed by the autonomous trade union, the latter decided to cancel its representatives' participation in the seminar.
3. 171. The Committee notes that the management of Nestlé protested to the IUF over the appointment of Mr. Gnahore and Mr. Sylla and proposed a change in the delegation. In this respect the Committee wishes to remind the Government that Article 2 of Convention No. 98 provides that workers' and employers' organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other's agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that employers refrain from any interference in the functioning of trade union organizations and, in particular, in their right to participate in international trade union meetings.
4. 172. As regards the allegations concerning the refusal by the customs authorities at Abidjan airport to let Mr. Gnahore and Mr. Sylla leave the country, the Committee notes from the documents supplied by the Government that the autonomous trade union of Nestlé-Côte d'Ivoire decided, following the rejection of its delegation by the IUF, to cancel its delegates' participation in the seminar. The Committee further notes that Ethiopian Airlines states that the persons in question did not turn up at Abidjan airport and that the flight tickets that had been reserved were returned and reimbursed. In general, the Committee recalls that the application of Article 5 of Convention No. 87 implies that governments must ensure that the formalities required of trade unionists to be able to leave a country to participate in international meetings are based on objective criteria free from anti-union discrimination so as not to entail a risk of undermining the right of national trade union organizations to send representatives to international meetings. In this particular case, however, the Committee considers that since the persons in question did not go to the airport it cannot pursue its examination of the allegations on the matter.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 173. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
   • The Committee requests the Government to guarantee that, in accordance with Article 2 of Convention No. 98, employers refrain from any act of interference in the functioning of trade union organizations and, in particular, in their right to participate in international trade union meetings.