Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 16, 1955

Cas no 107 (Myanmar) - Date de la plainte: 24-JUIN -54 - Clos

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 48. The complaint is embodied in a resolution which the Burma Trade Union Congress presented to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by a communication dated 24 June 1954 and was transmitted by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the I.L.O. It alleges that the trade union of workers employed by the Oxygen Acetylene Company in Rangoon made demands upon the Company concerning the payment of certain allowances and the reinstatement of a certain worker, the reason for the termination of his employment not being stated ; that the Company not only refused to consider the demands but also wrecked the government-organised mediation board by its unto-operativeness ; that the workers were obliged as a last resort to go on strike, and that the company threatened to dismiss them if they did not return to work by 26 June.
2. 49. The complaining organisation was informed by the Director-General, in a communication dated 17 August 1954, that any further information that it might wish to furnish in substantiation of the complaint should be communicated within a period of one month. No further communication was received from the complainant.
   • ANALYSIS OF THE REPLY
3. 50. In its reply dated 11 February 1955, the Government states that nothing in the allegations is in any way against the Government ; the allegations are made against private employers and it therefore might appear unnecessary to answer or refute the charges, which, moreover, are so lacking in clarity as to make it difficult to understand what exactly is the cause of the complaint. However, the Government states that the Company did order the workers under penalty of dismissal to return to work by a certain date ; this was not then contrary to law, but the law has since been amended to make it so. In fact, however, the Company's threat to dismiss the workers was not carried out and the parties were able to reach an agreement mainly owing to the Government's conciliation machinery. The agreement shows that the workers have not suffered as a result.
4. 51. The text of the amendment and an English translation of the agreement referred to above were forwarded with the Government's reply. The agreement is dated 25 June 1954.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 52. The Government contends that, as the allegations are made against employers and not against the Government, it might appear unnecessary for the Government to reply to them. In this connection, the Committee recalls that its practice in cases which have come before it in the past has been not to make a distinction between allegations levelled against governments as such and allegations levelled against employers, but to consider whether or not, in each particular case, a government has ensured in its territory the exercise of trade union rights whose exercise it has been the government's duty to ensure. In accordance with this principle, the Committee considers that it is competent to consider the allegations made in the present case.
2. 53. The two contentions raised by the complainant are, firstly, that the employers concerned in this case refused to consider the workers' demands and were so " unto-operative " that they wrecked the attempt to conciliate the dispute through a government-organised mediation board and, secondly, that when the workers went on strike in support of their demands, the employers threatened to dismiss them if they did not resume work by a certain date. The Government declares that, in fact, a satisfactory agreement was reached, largely through the aid of the mediation offered by the Government, that the employers' threat to dismiss the workers was never carried out and that, though not illegal at the time of the dispute in question, such action on the part of employers in future disputes would be illegal by virtue of an amendment which has since been made to the Burma Trade Disputes Act.
3. 54. With regard to the first contention as to the unto-operative attitude of the employers with respect to the conciliation of the dispute, the Committee notes that the demands made by the workers were concerned with the payment of certain allowances and the reinstatement of a worker whose employment had been terminated, the reason for such termination not being indicated by the complainant, so that no allegation is made in this case that the exercise of freedom of association or the question of union recognition was an issue in the dispute. The Committee considers that, in the case of a dispute over such issues as appear to have formed the subject of the dispute in the present case, the question as to whether one party adopts an amenable attitude or an uncompromising attitude towards the demands of the other party is a matter for negotiation between the parties within the law of the land, and that insufficient proof has been offered to show that the alleged " unto-operativeness " of the employers involved any infringement of trade union rights.
4. 55. With regard to the employers' threat to dismiss the workers who went on strike, which constituted a threat of direct action by one party in retaliation against direct action taken by the other party in support of its demands, the Committee considers that, as the threat was never carried out and the Government has indicated that a similar act would be illegal if committed in the future by a reason of changes which have since been made in the law, it is unnecessary to pursue this allegation further.

56. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.