Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 265, Juin 1989

Cas no 1463 (Libéria) - Date de la plainte: 15-JUIN -88 - Clos

1. 138. In communications dated 15 June and 28 July 1988, the National
   • Federation of Peasant Farmers, Agriculture and Plantation Workers (NAFAPAW)
   • presented a complaint of violation of trade union rights against the
   • Government of Liberia. The Government sent its observations on the case in a
   • communication dated 13 February 1989 and received at the ILO on 20 March 1989.
2. 139. Liberia 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. 140. In the initial communication dated 15 June 1988, which the NAFAPAW
   • claims to be also filed on behalf of the National Agriculture and Allied
   • Workers' Union of Liberia (NAAWUL) and the National Seamen's Ports and General
   • Workers' Union of Liberia (NSP/GWUL), the complainant makes the following
   • allegations:
     • a) the Ministry of Labour has committed continuous, wilful and flagrant
   • violations of trade union rights and democratic freedoms, which have
   • disastrous effects on the operation and functioning of the Federation, and on
   • the living and working conditions of the workers;
     • b) for the past five years, the Ministry of Labour has maintained an "ugly
   • and dangerous" policy contrary to the fundamental rights of workers, some of
   • whom, in the agricultural field, have not received their pay for six, eight,
   • even up to 16 months, and are forced to perform their duties without union
   • protection;
     • c) the Ministry of Labour has refused to recognise the NAFAPAW since 12
   • December 1986, the date of its establishment, even though, according to the
   • NAFAPAW, it is in principle recognised by the Government;
     • d) the Ministry of Labour has refused to recognise the National Agriculture
   • and Allied Workers' Union of Liberia (NAAWUL) and its officials (the "White
   • group"), duly elected on 18 January 1986, during that union's second national
   • convention. In this connection, the NAFAPAW also blames the Ministry for
   • recognising and using other named persons (the "Stanley group") as NAAWUL's
   • officials; according to the NAFAPAW, criminal charges are currently pending
   • against these persons.
2. 141. In its further communication of 28 July 1988, the NAFAPAW alleges that
   • the Ministry of Labour is using every possible tactic to make the component
   • unions of the Federation pro-government organisations, with the aim of
   • destroying the Federation. By way of example, the NAFAPAW mentions that a
   • "convention" conducted on 16 July 1988 by individuals styling themselves as
   • members of the NAAWUL was in fact a clandestine and undemocratic procedure
   • held with the backing of the Ministry and financed indirectly by the World
   • Confederation of Labour.
   • B. The Government's reply
3. 142. In its reply of 13 February 1989, the Government denies all the
   • allegations contained in the second communication of the NAFAPAW (dated 28
   • July 1988). The Government states that it never used strategies to destroy the
   • Federation, nor backed any union or former officers of any union to hold any
   • convention. The Government further states it is only aware that the NAAWUL
   • elected its leadership, and that those elected have been carrying on the
   • union's functions. The Government adds it does not interfere in trade union
   • activities because this is prohibited by section 4100 of the Labour Practices
   • Law.
4. 143. The Government further denies all the allegations contained in the
   • initial communication of the NAFAPAW, adding that it is not even aware of the
   • formation or existence of that Federation, since it has not filed its by-laws
   • and constitution, as required by section 4100 of the Labour Practices Law. The
   • Government also denies the existence of any "ugly and dangerous" policy
   • contrary to the workers' fundamental rights, and maintains it is not aware of
   • any agricultural workers who have not received their pay for the periods
   • alleged by the complainant, or that any workers are forced to perform their
   • duties without any union protection. The Government denies the existence of
   • exploitation and forced labour in Liberia.
5. 144. The Government denies that it has refused to recognise the NAAWUL, as
   • alleged by the complainant, since indeed this organisation is recognised by
   • the Government of Liberia whose records show, as members of the NAAWUL's
   • executive, a list of persons different from those mentioned by the
   • complainant. The Government adds that the present leadership of the union is
   • in constant contact with the Ministry of Labour and that a member of the said
   • union served as adviser to the Workers' delegates to the 75th Session of the
   • ILO Conference. The Government submits it has not recognised Mr. David White
   • and his group as leaders of NAAWUL because their names were never forwarded to
   • the Ministry of Labour by NAAWUL's secretariat. Furthermore, the Government
   • denies having knowledge of any NAAWUL's officials elected on 18 January 1986
   • (the "Mooney-White group"), and is only aware of the election held on 14 July
6. 1988; those elected (the "Stanley group") are duly recognised by the Ministry
   • of Labour.
7. 145. The Government further denies having any intention to dismantle NAAWUL,
   • or to use former officers of the union to the detriment of the workers.
   • Finally, the Government stresses that the NAFAPAW does not have standing to
   • present this complaint on behalf of NAAWUL and NSP/GWUL, because it has not
   • filed its by-laws and constitution with the Ministry of Labour.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 146. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case can be
   • categorised under three headings. Firstly, the general allegation of trade
   • union rights' violations (paragraph a)above); secondly, the Government's
   • "ugly and dangerous" policy which allegedly deprived some agricultural workers
   • of their pay for periods up to 16 months (paragraph b)above); and finally, an
   • allegation that could be generally described as a problem of union recognition
   • and/or inter-union rivalry (paragraph c) and d) above). The complainant's
   • subsequent communication, in fact, is a variation on this latter theme.
2. 147. With respect to the first point raised by the complainant, the
   • Committee is bound to note that this is only an extremely general allegation,
   • to which the Government gave an equally general answer, which is totally
   • unsubstantiated in the two communications submitted by the complainant, and
   • does not call for further examination.
3. 148. Concerning the second issue raised by the complainant, i.e. that the
   • "ugly and dangerous" government policy had the effect of depriving certain
   • agricultural workers of their pay for periods up to 16 months, the Committee
   • observes that this is flatly denied by the Government. Here, too, the
   • Committee is faced with two completely contradictory statements, without any
   • specifics or evidence.
4. 149. The third issue concerns a situation which could be termed as rather
   • confused, at best. The Committee gathers from the documentation received that
   • a power struggle has emerged within the National Agricultural and Allied
   • Workers' Union of Liberia (NAAWUL) between two groups, one of which (the
   • "Stanley group") is recognised by the Government as having been duly elected
5. on 14 July 1988 as NAAWUL's executive. The other faction (the "Mooney-White
   • group") claims it is the only legitimate representative of the workers'
   • members of NAAWUL; the Government denies having knowledge of their election
   • and states that their names were never forwarded to the Ministry of Labour. To
   • complicate matters further, the Government denies the very existence of the
   • NAFAPAW (which lodged this complaint), since it has not filed its by-laws and
   • constitution; the Government challenges NAFAPAW's right to file this complaint
   • on behalf of NAAWUL and NSP/GWUL, for the same reason.
6. 150. The Committee has stated in many cases that it is not competent to make
   • recommendations on internal dissensions within a trade union organisation so
   • long as the Government does not intervene in a manner which might affect the
   • exercise of trade union rights and the normal functioning of an organisation.
   • (See, for example, 217th Report, Case No. 1086 (Greece), para. 93.) In cases
   • of internal conflict, the Committee has suggested different solutions to
   • clarify these types of legal situations with a view to settling questions
   • concerning the representativity of the union officials concerned (for example,
   • vote of the workers or judicial procedures). In the present case the Committee
   • considers that impartial procedures should be put in train to enable the
   • workers freely to choose their representatives.
7. 151. The Committee observes that some of the persons, groups and/or unions
   • concerned in the present complaint were already involved in similar problems
   • in Cases Nos. 1219 and 1410 (233rd and 259th Reports). In the latter case the
   • Committee noted it was not for it to decide which group should represent the
   • members of the union involved, but rather to examine whether there was
   • government interference with the workers' free choice of union officers. This
   • view applies here and such interference has not been established in the
   • instant case. In fact, the Committee is faced with two contradictory versions,
   • and is not in a position to comment conclusively on this aspect of the case.
8. 152. However, the Committee strongly emphasises that those who stand to lose
   • the most in such situations of inter-union rivalry are the workers, and that
   • the uncertainty stemming from these power struggles should be resolved as
   • quickly as possible in the best interests of all the parties concerned, in
   • particular the workers.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 153. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the
   • Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
     • a) The Committee considers that the general allegations raised by the
   • complainant do not call for further examination.
     • b) The Committee considers that impartial procedures should be put in train
   • to enable the workers freely to choose their representatives.